|
Have A Question? Send An E-mail
Home
Q. Archangel, are
you still out there? Can you give me some high lights about the Masons,
Rainbow Girls, and Jobs Daughters?
Thanks, Terri, California
A. Hi Terri,
Usually,
I don't comment on various organizations by name, but here is basic
information that is available to the public. You should research each
of these groups for yourself. There is plenty of information available
on-line or in libraries.
All
three are associated with the same group called the Free Masons.
The Free Masons are a
fraternal organization that began circa 1500 AD, possibly in Scotland.
Their purpose is to regularly gather together for spiritual
enlightenment. Famous Americans that were members included George
Washington, Ben Franklin, and Paul Revere. The city of Washington,
District of Columbia, is purported to have been laid out in strict
geometric patterns under the guidance of the Free Masons.
The Rainbow Girls, or
International Order of Rainbow Girls (IORG), is a youth service
organization which teaches leadership through experience in community
service.
Job’s Daughters International focuses on the Bible. Their
purpose is to join young girls together to build moral and spiritual
character. These include reverence of God and the Bible. The organization took its name from
the Book of Job and the daughters of Job mentioned therein.
I hope that gets you started.
Thanks, Richard
Q. I was wondering
if there is a Hebrew translation for "spoken for" or
"perseverance". I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank
you. Krystyn, Houston, Texas
A. Hi Kristyn,
The Hebrew
word for "spoken for" is
(dabar). It is keyed to Strong's Concordance Numbers 1696 and
1697 in his Hebrew Dictionary. It has many other meanings which you
should look up. Since I don't know in what context you are using
it in, I can't really point out which definition you would need. I'm
guessing that it might be an arrangement or an agreement to fulfill
some promise. For example, if a woman is betrothed to or engaged
to a man, she might be described as "spoken for", as in
"promised to". (Song of Songs 8:8)
The Hebrew
word for "perseverance" is
(koach) and has a basic meaning of "doing something with all
one's might" which includes persistence. (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
I suggest
that you find a copy of James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. You can order
one from Shepherd's Chapel, P. O. Box 416, Gravette, Arkansas 72736,
Tel: 1-800-643-4645
Thanks, Richard, www.oldangel.com
Q. I am looking for the
translations for the words Faith, Strength, Struggle, Life? If you
can find these for me or if you can tell me where I can find the
translations, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much for
your time and efforts.
Lacey, Newark DE
A. Hi Lacey,
Thank you for
your question. One place to look for definitions of words is in James
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. I should point out that the
definitions are biblical definitions and not definitions that may, or
may not, be the same as your contemporary dictionary definitions.
You'll have to refer to those for other definitions.
I'll list
Strong's definitions and his corresponding dictionary listing numbers.
Faith was
covered by the previous questioner, but I'll repeat some of it here.
(See Beth's question)
אמנה (Without vowel points)
The Hebrew word for faith is transliterated as ’emunah and pronounced in
English as emunah, with
the English letters in reverse order. It is translated
correctly as “faithfulness", as an action. Emunah occurs in Deuteronomy
32:20 and Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by faithfulness”. The
Apostle Paul quoted that verse in one of his letters, Hebrews 10:38.
And is Strong No. 530.
Strength, כוח,
kowach, Strong No.
3581, can have several meanings: strength, power, might,
substance, ability, etc. One prominent place that
"strength" is found is in the 15th verse of Psalm 22, the
psalm Jesus quoted from the cross. "My strength (kowach) is dried up like a
potsherd." (Psalm 22:15) Review " My Go, My God, why
hast thou forsaken Me?" (Psalm 1:1; Matthew 27:46)
Struggle,
רצצ, ratsats, Strong No. 7533, can have several meanings:
struggle, fight, crack, break, bruise, crush, discourage, etc. The word
"struggle" (ratsats) can be found in several places, one is
in Genesis 25:22 where the twins, Esau and Jacob, struggled in their
mother's (Rebekah's) womb before they are born.
"And
the sons struggled (ratsats) together within her .... " (Genesis
25:22)
Life, חיה > חי , chayah<chay , Strong No. 2421<2416, can have several meanings:
life, living, quick (an archaic meaning; see in the New Testament the
word "living" as in the “the quick (living) and the dead” in
Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:1; 1Peter 4:5; King James Version ), strong
(also an archaic meaning), etc. In the Hebrew Bible, our Old
Testament, chay
is found in many places. One is in Genesis 1:20, when God created
living creatures.
“Then God
said, ‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living ( chayah) creatures ...’”
(Genesis 1:20)
Thanks for
your question,
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________
Q. I
found on your website where you responded to someone who asked how to
write the word “Faith” in Hebrew. I saw the 4 Hebrew letters used
to conduct/write the word.
However, it was mentioned that the placements for vowels were
not shown. How would it be written with vowels? Also, does
it need vowel placements? Is there a preferred form of writing
the word?
My only other
question is if you could verify a version I found of the word “faith”
from the internet. The same 4 letters match the letters you
mentioned, so I'm sure that is accurate. But, this version has
the placements of the vowel symbols.
Basically, I want to
know if I were to write this word down and for someone to read it , the
translation would be “faith”.
Thanks, Beth, Brooklyn ,
NY
A. You found the right
Hebrew word for “faith”,
אמנה (Without vowel points)
אמנה
(With vowel points)
It is transliterated as ’emunah and pronounced in English as emunah, with the English
letters in reverse order. It is translated correctly
as "faithfulness", as an action.
’ represents (transliterates) the
consonant, א,
which is silent. With the vowel point ֱ it has the sound of “e” in
the English word “met”. Strong’s Dictionary offers several
possible translations (depending on context)
They are firmness, security,
fidelity, faith (faithful, faithfulness, set office, stability, steady,
truth, verily as in truly )
מ is transliterated as the
English letter “m”.
ו is transliterated as either
the English letters "v" or "w". With the vowel
point ֱ
ּ ,
called a dagesh lene, in the middle of the letter, it has the sound of
the letter “u” in the English word "rule", an “ooo”
sound.
The נ is transliterated as the
English letter "n" but with the vowel point ָ , called a qames, beneath the letter,
it has a “na” sound.
The letter ה is a consonant and transliterated at
the English letter “h” and has the sound of the
"h" in the name Hellen or the words “his” or
“hers”.
Emunah occurs in Deuteronomy
32:20 and Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by faithfulness”. The
Apostle Paul quoted that verse in one of his letters, Hebrews 10:38.
And is Strong No. 530. (See James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
The
transliterated Hebrew word emunah is correctly
translated into English as faithfulness, not faith, and is completely
consistent with Paul’s words as given in Romans 1:17, 2:6; Galatians
2:16, 3:11,12ff; James 2:22,24 and everywhere else the Greek word πιστεως is used in this context and in its
various forms having to do with actions, not beliefs. There is no textual or contextual
Biblical evidence that Paul and James meant that it was solely faith that a person should live by.
That
Biblical evidence is contrary to much, if not all, of the Christian
dogma, doctrine and subsequent denominational propaganda. It is an assumption not based on the
Biblical evidence to say that Paul meant that “one lives by faith
alone”. People must act on their faith. (See Interpreters Bible, Vol. 6, p. 989; Vol. 10, p. 506;
see also Order Books
for more information on Paul and the "The just shall live by
faithfulness" in Volume IV)
Thanks for
the question. It helps others.
Richard
__________________________________________________
Q. I have been
looking for a reliable source in the Hebrew text for the the word
"Abba" or "Abba Father". I can't seem to find
anything.
Thank you,
Terrelle Wilson Rochester,
Minnesota
A. Thank you for your question, Terrelle
The English words "Abba!
Father!" are transliterations and translations, respectively, of
the Greek words αββα and πατηρ and are found in Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6.
The Greek word αββα, itself,
is taken from the the Hebrew-Aramaic-Chaldee word, אב, and
is pronounced ab.
(Remember that Hebrew
letters are read from right to left. The ב is
the letter "b".) The Hebrew word, אב, means
"father".
The Greek word, πατηρ, also
means "father".
In the references given above, the
two words αββα and πατηρ appear
together with the Greek letter 'ο which
is translated into English as the word "the".
αββα 'ο πατηρ
“Father the father"
or "God the Father”
αββα and πατηρ mean
"Father the father" or "God the father". The
word, "the", means that the word "Father"
represents the particular or specific "father", not just any
"father". It means "God the Father", who, as Paul
said in Romans 8:15, is the one to whom we cry when we are in need. In
the garden of Gesthemane, before he was crucified, Jesus prayed to
"God the Father" when He said, "Abba, Father, (αββα 'ο πατηρ) all
things are possible to you; take this cup from Me. Yet not what I will,
but what you will." (Mark 14:36) NOTE: Some Greek texts capitalize
the first letter, "alpha", in "abba", and renders
it as Αββα. This
is carried over into English translations as Abba, rather than
abba.
In the Hebrew texts, our Old Testament, the word "father", ab,
appears in so many places that I won't bother list them all here.
Probably the most well known use of the word ab is in the name
Abram or Abraham, which has a meaning of "father (of) many".
He was called the father of many people or nations.
A couple of references will help you find other places in the bible
where ab is used: Jay P. Green's, Hebrew-Greek-English,
Interlinear Bible, Sovereign Grace Publishers, Lafayette,
Indiana 47903, ISBN: 1-978442-82-1 and James Strong's The
Exhaustive Concordance of The Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, P. O.
Box 4372, Peabody, Massachusetts, 01961-3473, ISBN: 0-917006-01-1.
Also, I have a publication, Paul: The Apostle to The Jews At Rome,
Volume IV, Adams Press, 6167 Broadway, #236, Chicago, Illinois
60660 - 2501, Copyright © 2002, ISBN: 0-9651120-5-5 which covers the
words, Abba! Patēr!, in a little more depth. I'll quote a portion
of my text taken from Page 77.
"DEFINITION: αββα (abba)
is a Greek word that is transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Chaldee
word אב and
is translated into English as "father". It was a customary
title used of God in prayer by Jews. In three instances, Mark 14:36,
Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6, the Greek word occurs in conjunction
with the Greek word, πατηρ (patēr)
One interpretation is that the Chaldee word abba
was a sacred proper name for God, to which Greek speaking Jews (not
Gentiles) added the name, πατηρ (patēr).
"DEFINITION: πατηρ (patēr)
is translated into English as "father" but also has a meaning
of the immediate male ancestor, progenitor, or biological antecedent of
a person or persons. Also, patēr can have a meaning of an
ancestor, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob-Israel, et al, who were the
"fathers" or ancestors of the twelve tribes. (See the House
of Jacob, Isaiah 10:20) Frequently patēr is presented as
"forefather" or "patriarch" in English versions, as
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-Israel are so called. For example, "our
father Isaac" (Ισαακ
του πατρος
ημων) appears in Romans 9:10 of the KJV and
"Abraham our forefather"
(Αβρααμ
τον
προπατορα) appears in Romans 4:1 of the RSV)
"Paul went to the synagogues of the Greek speaking Jews of the
Greek speaking nations, those who cried abba!, patēr! Paul's use
of abba!, patēr! signifies the presence of Greek Speaking Jews as
much as, if not more than, it signifies Greek speaking Gentiles. Paul,
in his letters and in person, traveled to the Jews of those nations
where Greek was spoken and written: Syria, Asia, Galatia, Macedonia,
Achaia, Italia and Spain. They were Hellenists, Greek speaking Jews of
the Dispersion. (See Page 18 for Definition of nation, (εθνος, ethnos)"
I hope that helps,
Richard
Q. I've been searching the
internet for hours and there are tons of information, but I'm not sure
what to make of it. I need to see the Hebrew symbol for "faith and
the word "faith" written out in Hebrew. Please send this to
me or direct me to the place I may find it.
Thanks, Ashlee Smith, Houston, Texas
A. Thank you for your question, Ashlee.
The four Hebrew letters for the word “faith” are as follows:
א
מ נ ה
It is pronounced emunah when English vowels are added.
I have not shown vowel points that indicate where they are placed in
the Hebrew word and how they are pronounced. Remember that Hebrew words
and their letters are read from right to left. For example, the
"h" sound is the Hebrew letter ה .
Thanks,
Richard
_________________________
Q. I would like to know what the seven seals in
the Bible are and where do I go in the Bible to find them.
Thanks- Leah Britton, Blenheim Ontario, Canada
A. Thanks for your question, Leah.
The seven seals are found in the book of Revelation and are shown
below. Along with the seven trumps and seven bowls (vials), they reveal
events that occur in the future. That is, they are events that occur
during the end times and are called prophecy.
Revelation 5:1-8:1, Seven seals from the seven angels
Revelation 8:2-11:15, Seven trumps from the seven angels
Revelation 16:1-21, Seven bowls (vials) from the seven angels
I would recommend that you read Mark
13:1-37 before you tackle the whole list of seals, trumps, and vials in
Revelation. Jesus covers the same time period for His disciples and
makes it a lot easier to understand. Matthew 24:1-51 also describes
those same events, but I would stick with Mark's account if you are
just beginning your studies on prophecy.
The important thing to know about the
whole list of signs is that Satan comes first and claims to be Christ.
Satan is released by Michael on earth after the sixth seal is opened,
the sixth trump (trumpet) sounds and the sixth vial is poured out.(Revelation
12:7-12) I'm sure you've heard of the number 666.(Revelation 13:18)
That's what those numbers mean and signify the time when Satan will
appear and stands where he shouldn't be standing. That place is the
"holy place" and is Jerusalem. The reference is found in Mark
13:14 and Matthew 24:15 but also foretold by Daniel the Prophet in the
Book of Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11. Satan is the desolator and is called
the "abomination of desolation" in those references.
After the seventh seal is opened, the
seventh trumpet sounds, and the seventh vial is opened, Christ returns.
(Revelation 19:11-21)
If you follow Jesus' account of the
events as they unfold in Mark 13:1-37, you will see that many of those
things have already happened or are happening right now. Jesus refers
to the "Generation of the Fig Tree" which some believe began
with the establishment of the modern day nation of Israel in 1948.(Luke
21:29-33)
You've helped others with your question.
Thanks again, Richard
_________________________
Q. Hi Richard. Can you please tell me the
Hebrew or Greek letters for the word "ruach", which I have
heard means "wind" or "breath of God" or
"spirit" ? I greatly appreciate it!!!
Thank you!
Robin Margolis, Georgia/California
A. Hi Robin,
Thank you for your question.
The Hebrew letters for the word "spirit" are as follows:
ר ו ח From Strong's Concordance No. 7307; an example is found in
Genesis 1:2, "And the Spirit (ר ו ח , ruach) of God shook the
face of the waters."
The Greek letters for the word "spirit" are as follows:
π ν ε υ μ
α From Strong's Concordance No. 4151; an example is found in
Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit (π ν ε υ μ α, pneuma)."
The
analogy between the word "spirit" and the words
"air", "wind", breath (and breathe), etc., is that
they are invisible but can be felt and can have considerable force. We
can't see the wind or a person's breath but we can surely feel them.
That is especially true for those who are experiencing hurricanes,
twisters or listening to those who have loud or persuasive voices to
mobilize others. Trees get knocked down, houses are blown away and
people make speeches to communicate their thoughts to others. The
invisibility of the force can be compared to God's Holy Spirit. We can
sense or see the results of the force of His Holy Spirit but can't see
it. We can't actually see God's breath or see actually Him breathe, but
we can surely see the results. You've already seen the results in your
own life but can't actually see His Spirit as it affects you. It's just
a biblical way of explaining something we can't see (spirit) by
comparing it with something we know about (air) but which we can't see
either. It isn't perfect but helps.
The Hebrew word, ר ו ח , is transliterated by the English
letters "ruach". Transliteration means changing or
substituting the Hebrew letters with English letters. Remember that
Hebrew words and their letters are read from right to left. English
words and their letters are read from left to right. For example, the
Hebrew letter for "r" is ר . The Hebrew letter for "w" (or
"ua") is ו . The Hebrew letter for the "ch" sound is ח , which is nearly a silent sound in the Hebrew.
I have not included vowel points or other
marks that indicate how a Hebrew word is to be pronounced. In the case
of ר
ו ח ,
there are only three letters, but, in the Hebrew text, there are marks
that are included that indicate vowels. In English, there are five
letters that are used to produce approximately the same sound,
"ruach" or "ruwach". Also, I have not included the actual forms of
the words as they appear in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which
represent the way a word is used in a sentence grammatically. For
example, the basic Greek word, πνευμα , pneuma,
becomes πνευμα τος, in
Matthew 28:19, having a meaning of "of the Spirit".
That is, πνευματος is in
the the dative case(indirect object).
The Greek word π ν ε υ μ
α, is
transliterated as pneuma. Transliteration means changing or
substituting the Greek letters with English letters but does not
necessarily mean the same thing as translation. The Greek letter π, is transliterated as the English letter "p",
and so on. Greek words and their letters are read from left to right
just as English words and letters are. Translation means expressing the
meaning of a foreign word with it's English equivalent meaning.
π ν ε υ μ
α, has given
us the English word "pneumatic", as in pneumatic tires. That
is, a pneumatic tire is one that has "air" in it. We can't
see the air that goes into a tire but there is surely "air"
pressure inside a tire or it would go flat. Maybe you've heard of a
pneumatic drill. It's just one that works on air pressure. A good
dictionary will give you more examples.
Thanks again, Robin, for your question. I hope this helps.
Richard
_________________________
Q. Dear Richard,
I would like the Hebrew letters for Jesus, or, as you said,
"Joshua". Is there any way you can make "Jesus
Christ" or, if you could, "Child of God"? I like how you
have the Greek letters for fish, and the meaning of it on your site. I
want something that represents my faith and belief in Jesus Christ.
Thanks so much for your help!
Trista Davideit, Michigan
A. Hi Trista, Thank you for your question.
I'm glad you like the Greek letters for the word fish and the
explanation for the meaning of each letter. It can be found on the
Symbols/Signs link of www.oldangel.com.
(http://www.oldangel.com/symbols_signs.htm) The Hebrew letters for
Joshua are as follows:
י ה
ו ש ע
Joshua means the "Lord
saves" and is pronounced Ye ho shu a
in English. (My Yankee accent)
Yehoshua is a combination or two
words, Yehovah (Lord), יאוא
, and yasha (saves), יהו. (See
Strong's Concordance No. 3091 and 3067 in the Hebrew Dictionary)
The name "Jesus Christ" is a combination of two Greek words,
'Ιησους and Χριστος
The Greek word
'Ιησους, as I said, is taken from the
Hebrew word Joshua and means the "Lord saves", "Jehovah
saves", "Jehovah's saviour" or "Whose help is
Jehovah, saviour", etc. The Greek word
Χριστος means "anointed".
In other words, "Jesus Christ" means The Lord saves, the
Anointed one.
(See Nos. 2424 and 5547 in the Greek
Dictionary of Strong's Concordance)
Thanks again, Trista, for your interesting
question. I hope that helps.
Richard
_________________________
Q. Hi. My name is Kelly, and I'm doing
a project about different names used for God. But, I need them in
Hebrew. If you could send me a couple of names used to describe God in
Hebrew with their English definitions, that would be great. Thanks a
lot! Kelly Soderberg, Illinois
A. Kelly, thanks for your interesting question.
Here are two names that are used for God in Hebrew.
1. The letters
that you are looking for in Hebrew are א ל ה
י ם with no vowel points (dots) to indicate
vowels.
The Hebrew word א
ל ה י ם is transliterated into English as Elohiym
and has a meaning of The Supreme God or God the Creator. The word for
God, Elohiym, is commonly used in the Hebrew bible where God
the creator is meant. This especially true in the Book of Genesis when
the creative process is described in Genesis 1:1-2:23 ff.
For example, it is found in the very first verse of the Book of
Genesis:
"In the beginning, God (Elohiym) created the heavens and
the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
The Hebrew word Elohiym is translated into the English as the
word "God", rather than just using Elohiym. So, when
you read your bible and see the word "God", it is a
translation of the word Elohiym
2. Another word used for God is י א ו
א and is transliterated into English as Yehovah and has a
meaning of Eternal God or The Existing God. An example is found
in the Book of Exodus.
"And the Lord (Yehovah) said to Moses, 'Thus you shall
say to the sons of Israel: You have seen that I talked to you from
heaven.'" (Exodus 20:22)
The Hebrew word Yehovah is translated into the English as the
word "Lord", rather than just using the word "Yehovah"
or even the word "God". So, when you read your bible and see
the word "Lord", it is a translation of the word Yehovah.
Although, some bible translations actually use the transliterated word Yehovah,
the way it is in Hebrew. Also, when you see the four letters YHVH,
it also represents the word Yehovah.
Remember that Hebrew letters are read from right to left. But, the
transliterated English word is read from left to right. Transliteration
simply means replacing the Hebrew letters with English letters without
translating it or giving its meaning.
For example, the Hebrew word א ל ה י ם would be transliterated as the English letters myiholE.
The Hebrew letter ם is the letter "m" in English when it is
transliterated. That wouldn't make sense in English. In English, the
Hebrew letters are turned around or reversed in their order and become Elohiym.
I hope that helps.
Richard
_________________________
Q. Can you please translate this
phrase to Hebrew for me? "God with Us" Thanks, Erica Jones,
Florida
A. Thanks for your question.
The letters that you are looking for in Hebrew are ע מ נ ו א
ל with no
vowel points (dots) to indicate vowels. Also, there are no
marks, symbols or dots to indicate, in this case, that the letter
"m" (מ) in "Immanuel" is doubled.
[Technically, such a mark is called a dagesh forte]
The six Hebrew letters are read in reverse order from English.
They would become 'immanuw'el when turned around and
transliterated with vowels added.
Also, when the letters are translated into English with vowels added,
they make the name "Immanuel" (or Emmanuel when translated
from the Greek) Immanuel is one of the names by which Jesus is known.
One Old Testament Biblical reference is found in Isaiah 7:14,
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the
Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name
Immanuel."
One New Testament Biblical reference is Matthew 1:23 which is a quote
of Isaiah 7:14, "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bear a
Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel," which is translated
as "God with us."
Richard
Q. Hi Mr. Willoughby, Thank you very
much for your answers; they were a great help to me. (See Greg's
first questions below) You helped me gain a deeper understanding
of basic truths I already knew. But I should have been more clear &
less vague in my questions. Okay three more questions & I will
bother you no more. So forgive if I sound rude, that is not my intent
but to be direct yet respectable.
1. When I asked about race, I meant basic modern day break-down. Asian,
Caucasian, Hispanic, African, Semitic, etc., not culture.
2. Do the Fulashi (strange) Jews of Ethiopia and the Lemba of South
Africa originate from the same place since their DNA pattern matches
that of people of Hebrew descent and follow Hebrew traditions.
3. What information can you refer me to about these two jewish cultures
either biblically or otherwise?
Thank you once again Mr. Willoughby for your wonderful patience, time,
and teaching. Greg/Chicago
A. Hi again Greg, Please don't stop
asking questions. That's what I'm here for. Your questions are very
interesting, and they help others which is very important too. Your
questions are really all related, so I'll blend them together.
I'm sure you and others will be able to connect the dots yourself.
• The Hebrew word, adam, אדם, has several meanings, all of which
connote, in some way, the color red.
Depending on its
use in context, the Hebrew word, adam, can be translated as
the English words "red in the face", "pink
skinned", "flush", "rosy", "ruddy",
"russet", or "red complexion".
For example, the
Hebrew word for blood, dam, דם,
stems from the Hebrew word adam, which means red, i. e., blood
red or the color of blood. The biblical nation of Edom (also from adam,
red) was named after Jacob's red twin brother, Esau. In Acts 1:19, the
English word Akeldama (field of blood) is indubitably a
transliteration, as well as a translation, of the Greek word alkeldama
which in itself is a transliteration of two Hebrew/Chaldean words chelqah
and dam, "field of blood".
[See Strong's Concordance Numbers 2506/2513 for chelq /
chelqah, and Number 1818 for dam, in the Hebrew
Dictionary Section. See Number 184 in the Greek Dictionary Section for
the Greek word alkeldama.]
• The Caucasian race is outwardly
characterized by it's reddish skin hue, especially in the face.
But, also, in
context, the Hebrew word, adam, can mean or imply, in English
translations, "soil", "dirt", "earth",
"ground", "country", "nation",
"land", etc. The Hebrew word, adam, all by itself,
can mean a "human being" or "human kind". It can
mean "any man" or "mankind".
BUT, (big but),
when the word אדם, adam, is preceded by the particle את, eth, and the definite
article א, ha, it means the
specific man Adam or the specific person (i.e., not someone else
or not human kind in general). Adam was the specific man created by God
after He (God) rested on the seventh day, according to Genesis 2:7.
That is, it is false to teach that the word, adam, in Genesis
2:7, simply means mankind and not a specific man or, worse, that there
are two competing or opposing biblical accounts of the origin of
mankind (male, female), the creation described in Genesis, the
"Elohist" and the "Yawhist". Elohiym and Yehovah
are the same person of the Godhead.
A particle
signifies the presence of the direct object in a sentence. It means a
person, place or thing that is acted on by the verb. In Genesis 2:7,
the direct object is Adam and is the object created (the verb) by God,
the subject of the sentence. The definite article א, ha (the word
"the" in English) signifies a definite person, i.e., Adam in
this case. (Hebrew has no indefinite article like "a" or
"an" as English has.)
Mankind, males
and females, except for the particular man Adam who was
created by God to till the ground after the seventh day of creation
because He had not created anyone to till the ground until after
the sixth and seventh day of creation, were created on the sixth day of
creation, according to Genesis 1:26.
It should be
well noted that the word adam, אדם, adam, in Genesis 1:26 is
neither preceded by the particle את, eth, nor by the definite
article א, ha. Absence of the
definite article before a noun in the Hebrew language signifies an
indefinite, unspecified noun, the sixth day creation was a creation of
humans, human kind in general.
As you have
probably figured out by now, the Hebrew word adam has been
transliterated as the English word "Adam", who was the man
created to till the ground after God rested on the seventh day,
according to the biblical chronology. The Hebrew characters for the
Hebrew word adam (lower case "a") meaning mankind
but not a specific person are אדם. The Hebrew characters for the specific "The man
Adam" (uppercase "A") are האדם and are signified as the direct object by the particle the
את, eth, when combined are
את-האדם
[Pronounced eth-ha-adam
for English ears and speakers]
• If the word "adam" (red)
does indeed describe, "The Man Adam", as having a ruddy
complexion, he would have had a light enough skin color to show a flush
of redness caused by blood vessels near the surface of the skin. You
can draw your own conclusion, but examples of this ruddy complexion or
appearance can be seen today in some Northern European and North
American people. For example, ruddy faced people include Irish, Scots,
English, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, (Saxon means son of Isaac), Russians
(the letters "rus" means red) and any number of other
Northern European and North American continents and countries where
Caucasians have migrated. They are described as Caucasians and took
that name from the Caucasus region where light skinned people are
traditionally thought to have originated, even according to modern day
understanding.
The Caucasus
region lies between the Black and Caspian seas which is divided by the
Caucasus Mountain range, a range along the borders of Russia, Georgia
and Armenia. The Euphrates River has it's source in the Armenian
Mountains (Some Armenians and others believe that Armenia is the
original site of the Garden of Eden). The Armenian Mountains are part
of the Caucasus mountain range. Noah's ark came to rest on Mount Ararat
in that Mountain Range, which is on the northeastern side of the
Turkish border across from Armenia. Armenia lies between Georgia and
Azerbaijan and lies east of the Turkish Border.
• The biblical account of the creation
of people other than the man Adam, ("mankind's" creation
described in Genesis 1:26-28), occurred on the sixth
day. "Then God said, let us make man (adam, man, mankind, etc.) in
our own image, according to our likeness; let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and
over the cattle, over all the earth and over every thing that creeps
one the earth. So God created man in his image; in the image of God He
created him, male and female he
created them. Then god blessed them,
and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the
earth, and subdue it; have dominion over the birds of the air, and over
every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:26-28)
That was the sixth day. All mankind was created, except
for the man Adam to till the ground.
• God rested. That was the seventh
day. [The seven day creation story begins in Genesis 1:2 (not Genesis
1:1) and ends at Genesis 2:4a (not Genesis 1:31).]
• God then created, the specific man
Adam, after He had rested on the seventh day and after the sixth day
creation of male and female! The creation of the man Adam was on the
"day" or the "time" after or "later than"
the sixth and seventh day creations, if the biblical chronology is
strictly followed. God formed the man Adam because "There was no
man to till the ground" (Genesis 2:5) That is, no man was created
to till the ground on the sixth day of creation because nothing had yet
grown to be farmed or to be "tilled" until after the sixth
and seventh day. To "till the ground" means to farm the land.
There was nothing to farm until God caused it to rain. (Genesis 2:5a)
• "And the Lord God formed the man
(the man Adam) out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and the man (the specific man Adam, not
just any man or mankind) became a living being." (Genesis 2:7b)
This was a specific man created to be a tiller of the ground. Another
way of saying it is that no tiller of the ground had been created on
the sixth day, according to the biblical chronology. Also, the Hebrew
text of Genesis 2:7b places the definite article "the" before
the word "adam", for the first time, meaning the man was a
specific person, not just any man. The uses of the word
"adam" in the Hebrew text before Genesis 2:7b, generally, has
a meaning "any", or "a" man, mankind but not a
specific man, woman or person.
The context
indicates more than one kind of man-"kind", plural or more
than one, was created. Because, according to Genesis 1:26-28, "God
said, let us make man in our image, after our
likeness": and let THEM have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the foul of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth and over every thing
that creeps on the earth. So He created man in His own image, in the
image of God created he THEM , male and female.
Note the use of the words, "us" and
"our". Who was with God in the beginning of creation? [See
John 1:1-3]
Be careful not
to draw conclusions from this, but it should not escape the student
that the bible does not indicate that The Man Adam, who was
created after the seventh day to till the ground, was created in God's
likeness. The man Adam was created out of the dust of the ground.
(Genesis 2:7) Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence,
but it isn't evidence of presence either.
Also note that
no woman was created at the same time that Adam was created. According
to the biblical chronology. The specific woman, Eve, was not created
until after God created the Garden in Eden and put the man Adam into
it. God also created trees, before Eve was formed, including the Tree
of Life (symbolic of Jesus) and the tree of Good and Evil (symbolic of
Satan). Not to be overlooked are two of the four rivers that flowed out
of the Garden in Eden, the Tigris and Euphrates. (Genesis 2:14) The
Euphrates had and still has its headwaters in the Caucasus Mounts
located near the modern day nation of Armenia of today.
• According to Genesis 2:22-24, the
woman Eve was taken from the "curve" (not rib) of the man
Adam. "Then the curve which the Lord had taken from the man, He
made into a woman and He brought her to the man. And Adam said, 'For
this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called
woman, because she was taken out of man.' Therefore a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to his wife, they shall become one
flesh." (Genesis 2:22-24)
The English word
"rib" is a mis-translation of the Hebrew word tsala,
which actually means "curve", not "rib". (Strong
Concordance, No. 6763 < 6760) In modern terms, two join their
genetic structures together to become one genetic structure with some
characteristics of both, some evident and some not. When this occurs,
they combine their own genetic structure and merge them into one
genetic combination, which we call a child. That is the way two
"become one flesh". Two halves make one whole, with
properties of each half merged. Hello modern science! Where have you
been? What's so new about that, evolutionists? Recombinant DNA. Already
been done.
I'll let that
stand on it's own for you to consider in light of the modern day
understanding of the structure of the double helix curve.
• According to the biblical account,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and Israel's 12 sons were direct
descendants of Adam who would be described today as a Caucasian. (Luke
3:23-38) There is no biblical evidence that the men and women who were
created on the sixth day ever perished after they were formed or that
they were white, black, yellow, light skinned or dark. They could have
been any color or any combination of colors. They could have had any
combination of physical characteristics, based on what we see today.
The sixth day
creation of mankind would have been alive and kicking when the man Adam
was created after the seventh day to till the ground according to the
biblical chronology. Also, they would have survived the so-called
Noah's flood, either because they were also taken aboard his ark (take
two of every flesh) or the flood was only in the Tigris-Euphrates
valley. "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring
two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you ; they
shall be male and female." (Genesis 6:19)
This command by
God to take two of every living thing of all flesh would have had to
include the men and women of the sixth day creation, if Noah did as he
was told. According to Genesis 7:15, Noah did do as he was told, and
two by two of all flesh went into the ark in which was the breath of
life. There is no biblical evidence that the men and women of the sixth
day creation ever perished from the earth. It would be speculation to
conclude that they are long dead today or didn't survived Noah's flood.
The point is
that they would have been present side by side with the descendants of
Adam, such as Cain, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his descendants on
the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. I'll let that
stand on its own too and not be surprised if Ethiopians have DNA that
corresponds in some way with Adam's lineage and his descendants.
• In addition to Noah's ark entourage,
there is other ample biblical evidence that the men and women who were
created on the sixth day of creation survived after the creation of the
man Adam, Noah's flood and beyond. There are not two different creation
stories in Genesis.
Here are a few examples:
1. "Then
Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the Land of
Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife and she conceived and
bore Enoch." (Genesis 4:16-18) According to Genesis 4:16-18, Cain
went into the land of Nod and took a wife. He could not have married a
sister, as some propose to explain the creation of different races or
to explain an expanding population over the earth, because Adam and Eve
had not yet had female children until after Cain was banished to Nod
and until after Seth was born. "After he (Adam) begot Seth . . .
he had sons and daughters". (Genesis 4:25; 5:4) It was after Cain
went into the land of Nod and Seth was born that Adam had daughters, if
we follow the biblical chronology carefully. "After he (Adam)
begot Seth . . . he had sons and daughters." Cain's wife would
have had to have been of the 6th day of creation.. [According to
Genesis 4:25-5:4, where else would he have gotten a wife? Cain had no
sisters until after he went to Nod and until after Seth was born and
until after he had taken a wife! Hello again!]
2. "Cain
knew his wife and she bore Enoch." Cain's descendants by his wife
survived after Noah's flood. That is, the descendants of Cain's wife,
who was of the 6th day creation, survived Noah's flood. (Genesis
4:17-24) According to Genesis 4:19, Enoch was the forefather of Lamech,
who also took wives, who would not have been daughters of Adam. Therefore,
they would have been of the sixth day of creation. He was the
forefather of Jabal , who was the father of those who dwell in tents
and have livestock, and Jubal who was the father of those who play the
harp and pipe. Who are those who dwell in tents and have livestock? Who
inhabited Canaan before the Hebrews settled here? Who inhabited Sodom
and Gomorrah? Who inhabited Egypt before the Hebrews went there?
(Genesis 4:20-21)
3. Genesis
6:18-19, In addition to Noah's family, God told Noah, "Of every
living thing of all flesh (would also had to have included those of the
6th th of creation) you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to
keep them alive, they shall be male and female."
4. Moses married
Zipporah, a Midianite and a Kenite, who was not a descendant of Jacob
biologically but a descendant of Abraham and his wife Keturah.
"Now the Children of the Kenite (descendants of Cain), Moses
father-in-law (Moses married a person who was not a descendant of
Jacob), went up from the city of Palms with the children of Judah into
the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the south near Arad; and they
went and dwelt among the people." (Judges 1:16)
5. "And the
families of the scribes who dwelt at Jabez were the Tirathites, the
Shimeathites and Suchathites. These were the Kenites who came from
Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab. (1 Chronicles 2:55) Cain's
descendants, whose linage began with Cain and his wife, who was of the
sixth day creation, survived Noah's flood.
6. Not all life
was destroyed in by Noah's so-called flood: people, trees, fish and
birds survived.
___________
• The point of all this is that the biblical text should be
followed, whether or not one believes that it is true. The bible is self-consistent
if it is followed word-by-word, word-following-word, word-upon-word.
Follow the context and the text. If the bible is silent on something,
don't speculate and envision something that isn't there. The subject
should be followed. That is, it is speculation to envision other things
not written in the biblical text - for example, Cain marrying his
sister and producing all races. Or, worse, as I said, that there are
two stories of the creation of mankind. It's interesting to speculate,
but, if the speculation can't be substantiated by the biblical evidence
or corroborated by the written words of the canonical texts, it can't
carry weight. A biblical fact is considered to be the evidence of the
actual words written . Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence,
but it isn't evidence of presence either. (Kenites are descendants of
Cain, Strong No. 7017 < 7014)
___________
• Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the descendants of Jacob and his 12
sons (the "nation" of Israel), journeyed out of Ur in
southern Mesopotamia, Chaldea, the Tigris and Euphrates valley.
(Abraham was from Ur of Chaldea; Genesis 15:7) They finally
occupied the land of Canaan, after many years and a "sojourn"
in Egypt and a time in the wilderness. You know that chronology, so I
won't repeat it here. The English word "Hebrew" that is found
in the Old Testament Hebrew text, stems from the Chaldean word, habar,
and has a meaning of "those who crossed over from beyond",
and, by implication, crossed over from either the Jordan or, further
away,the river Euphrates. From Canaan, the Hebrews, later dispersed,
scattered throughout the world and are with us today on all continents
through out the world. The word "Hebrew" first occurs in
Genesis 14:13, where Abram is called "Abram the Hebrew".
(James 1:1, "To the Twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad." You know that chronology, so I won't repeat it here
either.)
• The twelve tribes of Jacob (Israel) dispersed after they had
settled in Canaan. It was during that time that they migrated to the
surrounding countries that are referenced in Acts 2:1-11 and listed as
meeting on the day of Pentecost. James wrote an epistle to them, James
1:1. Among the list found in Acts 2:1-11 were the African nations of
Egypt, Libya and Cyrene. And, also, the 10 tribes migrated over the
Caucasus mountains. (See Galatia, Cappadocia etc. See Peter's and
Paul's journeys; 1 & 2 Peter, The Acts of the Apostles and Paul's
letter, Galatians, and modern history of migrations that aren't
speculative.)
• If, as the biblical chronology reveals, Jews came in contact
with the descendants of the sixth day creation who were spread
throughout the earth (Genesis 1:28), it would not be surprising that
their DNA curves would intermingle, combine and match in some ways
today, becoming one flesh.
Greg, I'm sure you are able to connect the dots yourself.
Here is a list of various minor
groups that claim to be Jews.
The List is from The Free Encyclopedia and used by permission
Gruzim are Georgian-speaking Jews from Georgia in the Caucasus.
Juhurim are mountain Jews mainly from Daghestan in the eastern
Caucasus.
Bene Israel are the Jews of Mumbai, India.
Cochin Jews are also Indian Jews.
Romaniotes are Greek-speaking Jews living in the Balkans from the
Hellenistic era until today.
Ethiopian Jews and various other small African Jewish populations are
also found.
Bukharan Jews are Jews from Central Asia. They get their name from the
Uzbek city of Bukhara, which once had a large community.
These smaller groups number in the thousands or tens of thousands, with
the Gruzim being most numerous at about 100,000. Many members of these
groups have now emigrated from their traditional homelands, largely to
Israel. For example, only about 10 percent of the Gruzim remain in
Georgia.
Major Jewish groups include the
following:
The List is also from The Free Encyclopedia and used by permission (I
don't agree biblically with all of these but include it for your
consideration.
Check them out.)
The most commonly used terms to describe ethnic divisions among Jews:
Ashkenazi (meaning "German" in Hebrew, denoting the Central
European base of Jewry); and Sephardi (meaning "Spanish" in
Hebrew, denoting their Spanish and North African location), actually
refer both to religious and ethnic divisions. (Some scholars hold that
Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of those who originally followed the
Palestinian Jewish religious tradition, and Sephardic Jews are
descendants of those who originally followed the Babylonian religious
tradition.)
Jews have historically been divided into four major ethnic groups:
Ashkenazim are Jews who lived in Germany or France before migrating to
Eastern Europe. Sephardim are Jews who lived in Spain or Portugal
before their expulsion in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.
Oriental or "Mizrahi" Jews (edut hamizrach in Hebrew are Jews
who lived in the Middle East and North Africa, but later spread to
Central Asia and South Asia). (Note: In common usage, most Oriental
Jews are now referred to as Sephardic, as the religious rites of Oriental
and Sephardic Jews are essentially the same.)
Yemenite Jews are Oriental Jews whose geographical and social isolation
from the rest of the Jewish community allowed them to develop a liturgy
and set of practices sufficiently distinct from other Oriental Jewish
groups so as to be recognized as a different group.
Of these communities, the largest by far are the Ashkenazim, comprising
approximately 70 percent of the Jewish total, with Oriental Jews
comprising most of the remainder. Many Sephardim live in France (the
majority of French Jews are Sephardic), Eastern Europe and Central Asia
(small numbers), and the United States (a very small number), but most
are in Israel (about 50 percent of Israelis), where they have created
their own large ethnic political party called Shas guided by rabbis
such as Ovadia Yosef.
A Jew is a follower of the Jewish faith (Judaism) or a descendent of
Jews, or both. Judaism is the Jewish religion, but Jews, religious or
not, also form a non-exclusive ethnic group. Those not born to a Jewish
mother may become religiously accepted as Jews through a formal and
usually difficult process of conversion, and they and their children
may then come to be accepted as Jewish as well. This article discusses
Jews as an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please
refer to Judaism.
In an ethnic sense, the Jews are members of the people, or
"nation," that traces its ancestry from the Biblical
patriarch Abraham through his son Isaac and in particular Jacob,
Isaac's son, as well as to those who subsequently joined them over the
course of history as converts. See also Israelites.
Ethnic Jews include both so-called "observant Jews," meaning
those who practice the Biblical and Rabbinic laws, known as the
halakha, and so-called "secular Jews," those who, while not
practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews in
a cultural or ethnic sense.
Have fun and keep the questions coming.
Richard
Q. 1. Which continent did the original Hebrew tribes originate
when GOD declared them his people, since they were nomadic? 2.
What was their original racial background prior to dispersion,
intermarriage, assimilation? Thank you for your time and
research. Greg Robinson/Chicago
A. Thank you for your question Greg.
The Hebrew people
originated in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in what is now called the
nation of Iraq which is in South West Asia. The valley is referred to
as Mesopotamia but is also referred to as the ancient nations of
Babylonia and Chaldea, in the bible. The word "Mesopotamia"
is derived from two Greek words meaning "between rivers". The
word "Babylonia" is derived from a Hebrew word babel, meaning
confusion or babble.(See a good bible map and dictionary)
God told Moses to
tell the people of Israel that they were His chosen ones. "In the
third month after the children of Israel (people or descendants of
Jacob) had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to
the wilderness of Sinai. For they had departed from Rephidim and had
come to the wilderness of Sinai and camped in the wilderness. So Israel
(the 12 tribes) camped before the mountain. And Moses went up to God,
and the Lord called him from the mountain, saying, 'Thus you shall say
to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel, You have seen
what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles wings and
brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above
all people; for the earth is mine. And you shall be to Me a holy
nation. These words you shall speak to the children of Israel."
(Exodus 19:1-6; note that "the people of Israel" is a repeat
of "the house of Jacob" and is done for emphasis. They mean
the same thing, the descendants of Jacob, the 12 tribes named after the
12 sons of Jacob.)
Note also that
there is a condition in order for the children of Israel (house of
Jacob, people of Israel, descendants of Jacob) to be God's chosen ones:
if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant.
Deuteronomy 7:6-9
reveals the reason God chose the descendants of Jacob to be his chosen
ones: They loved Him, kept His commandments and because He kept an oath
which He had made to their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) "For
you are a Holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has
chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the
peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love on you
or choose you because you were more in number than other people, for
you were the least of all peoples; but because He would keep the oath
which He swore to you your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a
mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand
of Pharaoh king of Egypt (Ramses). Therefore know that the Lord your
God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a
thousand generations with those who love him and keep His
commandments." (Deuteronomy 7:6-9, ff)
The oath which God
made with the fathers of the descendants of Jacob (children of Israel,
the twelve tribes) may be found in Deuteronomy 4:37: "And because
he loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them;
and He brought you out of Egypt with His presence, with His mighty
power."
The biblical
chronology of that event would have taken place after the twelve tribes
had been led out of Egypt by Moses but just before the law, statutes
and judgments were given from the Mountain of Sinai, a.k.a., Horeb, and
also before they entered into Canaan. (See Exodus 20:1-17 for example)
From the Sinai peninsula, the twelve tribes (the 12 tribes of Jacob
called Israel) entered into the land promised to them by God, the
region across the River Jordan in Palestine occupied by Canaanites.
(They approached from the east.) It should also be observed that the
twelve tribes were called a nation even though they had not yet
gathered together in a geographical location. Also, it should be
observed that the Hebrews did not wander aimlessly in the sense of not
having an objective. They were being led by God through Moses.
In the bible, Ur
is the place of origin of Abram (later changed to Abraham). It is in
Mesopotamia (Babylonia) and is located in the southern region of the
Tigris-Euphrates valley near where the two rivers come together and
empty into the Persian Gulf. Abraham is also known as the father of
other ancient Semitic peoples which included the Hebrews but also the
tribes that we call Arab today.
Strictly
speaking, Hebrews are a people or race that are directly descended only
through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (later named Israel) AND Israel's twelve
sons. The twelve sons gave their names to the so-called twelve tribes
of Israel. That is, the twelve tribes of Jacob. The twelve tribes
remained united (together) until they journeyed together into the
Palestine region and claimed the territory called Canaan. They did
marry outside their tribes, but did, as I said, remain together, even
as Egyptian slaves and when they finally reached the "promised
land" of Canaan. For example, Moses took the Midianite, Zipporah,
a woman of an Arab nation and the mother of his two children but also a
descendant of Abraham.
The other sons of
Abraham as well as the other son of Isaac, Esau (also called called
Edom, red) who was the red twin of Jacob, are not in the lineage of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are not Jews in the sense of being
descendants of Jacob. Abraham was the father of many nations, not all
nations, as sometimes falsely taught. Essentially, the terms
"Hebrew" and "Jew" are synonymous in modern
terminology. Jews trace their ancestry back to Abraham.
In modern day
usage, the words "Hebrew " and "Jew" are
essentially the same. The etymological study of the words reveal that
they are closely associated, if not exactly the same.
The English word
"Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word 'a b a r
which has many meanings. But, the most common meaning is that it refers
to one who comes from across or from beyond the east of the Jordan
River and by implication from Mesopotamia, the Tigris-Euphrates River
valley. (Check a bible map of the region.)
The word
"Jew" can be identified with the Hebrew (language) word
"Yehudim". There are different views as to the origin of the
English language word "Jew". The most common view is that the
word "Jew" comes from the Old French word "giu" and
from the Latin iudeus from the Greek. The Latin simply means Judaean,
the Roman province of Judea.
If Judaea
corresponds to the Hebrew word ,'hudi (or yehudi), Judah in English,
would be a member of the 12 Tribes or Children of Israel, Jacob's sons.
According to Genesis, Judah was the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob,
from whom that tribe (or nation) is dscended. It is also Jesus leneage,
through the forth son, Judah. (See Luke 3:23-38)
There is other
biblical evidence which traces the word Jew to 29:35: Judah's mother -
the matriarch Leah - named her forth son Judah because she wanted to
praise God for giving birth to so many sons: "She said, 'This time
let me praise (odeh) God,' and named the child Judah (Yehudah or
Yehuvah)." Thereafter in the Biblical narrative, Judah vouchsafes
the Jewish monarchy, and the Israelite kings David and Solomon derive
their lineage from Judah. (It is Jesus lineage, as I said, through
Judah the forth son). Jews are named for him, their ancient tribal
ancestor.
In Hebrew, the
name "Yehudah " contains the four letters of the Tetragrammation,
YHVH, the holy name of the Jewish God. The name of Judah attests to its
importance as an alternate name for Israelites (sons or descendants of
Jacob/Israel) that it ultimately replaces.
Some definitions may also help:
Definition of Israel in the Bible: Must know its use
in context.
Israel is the name given to the
man Jacob.
"Your name shall no longer be called Jacob but Israel".
(Genesis 32:28)
and
Israel is the name given to the
twelve tribes collectively as a nation.
"A nation and a company of nations shall come from you."
(Genesis 35:11)
"I will
there (Egypt) make of you a great nation"(Israel is a nation
before entering Canaan)
"All these
are the twelve tribes of Israel." (See list in Genesis 49:1-27, 28)
and
Israel is the name of the Northern
Kingdom.
It included the tribes of Joseph, Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali,
Dan, Simeon, Gad, Reuben, (Levi omitted as a "nation" of
priests). The memebers of tribes of the Northern Kingdom also scattered,
dispersed or spread throughout the world today. They are included as
members of the Jews of the Dispersion.
Judah is the
name of the Southern Kingdom. It included the two tribes of Judah and
Benjamin. The tribe of Judah was named for the 4th son of Jacob, Judah.
Who is descended from the man Judah? (Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:33).
Definition of "God's Chosen People" in the
Bible
Psalm 105:6,
"O seed of Abraham His Servant, You children of Jacob, His chosen
ones!"
Deuteronomy
14:2, "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the
Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure
above all the peoples of the Earth."
Leviticus 20:26,
"And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have
separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine."
Numbers 1:1-4,
5-16 [A census of the tribes] Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun,
Joseph, Manasseh, Benjamin, Dan, Asher, Gad, Napthali.
Definition of "Jews of the Dispersion
(Diaspora)".
While the
dispersion began as early as 772 BC with the fall of the Northern
Kingdom (Israel) to Assyria, and the fall of the Southern Kingdom
(Judah) to Babylonia in 586 BC, migrations occurred later in history to
the Greek speaking nations, the African continent (Egypt) and to Rome.
The Jews of the
Dispersion (the Diaspora) included members of the 12 tribes which
scattered from the Palestine region, the Roman Province of Judea. They
did not completley include the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, for some
remained in that Roman province. During the first century AD, the
tribes scattered to the Greek speaking nations of the Roman Empire: For
example, Athens and Corinth in Achaia (Greece) and Thessalonica and
Borea in Macedonia. Jews were already established in Rome. (See Paul's
calling of the local leaders of the Jews at Rome to himself in Acts
28:17)
The Jews of the
Dispersion are the Jews of the the Greek speaking nations to whom Paul
traveled in his ministry when he went into their synagogues. From from
the Roman province of Judea, the twelve tribes, it is reported, went
north over the Caucasus Mountains and then further dispersed westward
into northern Europe, Scotland/British Isles and then to the North
American Continent, a migration which had begun many years before out
of Babylonia, i. e., Mesopotamia, the Tigris-Euphrates valley under
Abraham.
They were and
are not necessarily completely assimilated, even though they took on
the ways of their new nations, such as the Hellenists (Greeks) You've
probably heard the word "Hellenists" or
"Hellenization". They didn't for example, follow the practice
of circumcision, but which became a great bone of contention between
the Jews of the Dispersion and the Jews who strictly followed the law
as to the requirement of circumcision. Generally, those who insisted on
circumcision were from the Roman Province Judea (Jerusalem), but they
were not the only ones. Paul had a problem with those who might be
called Hebraists, who strictly followed the law in regard to
circumcision, Jews from Asia for example. (Acts 21:27) Note that Asia
was a Roman Province that was located in what is now the western part
of Turkey today. Ephesus was located in that Roman province of Asia.
Paul, of course,
got in the middle of this controversy, which was the primary reason for
the Jews of Judea (also Jews who likewise insisted on circumcision in
the Greek speaking nations) from trying to have him killed. (Acts 21:21
and many other places) Note that in 21:21, the words "among the
Gentiles" (kata ta ethnē), should be translated as
"among the nations" because Paul, with few exception, always
went to the synagogues of the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Acts 21:21
should be transalted as "Jews who are among the nations" -
not Jews among the Gentiles.
"They (the
Jews) have been informed about you (Paul) that you teach all the Jews
of the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to
circumcise their children not to walk according to the customs(i.e.,
laws)." (Acts 21:21)
Richard
____________________
Q. I have another inquiry. J.T.,
Sullivan, MO (See JT's previous questions below)
I used a New
International Version and, looking up the text you suggested, it reads
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
the son. . . all the way back to David and Abraham, Adam and finally
God." Wouldn't it be clearer to say Mary, son of Heli, etc.?
Except for you telling me that "as supposed" meant that Jospeh
was Heli's son-in-law, I would take the wording to mean that everyone
thought Joseph was the father of the baby (since they were, you know, a
"couple"--dating, I guess).
In Leviticus
Chapter 18, verse after verse discusses unlawful sexual relations.
Based on how we interpret the Ten Commandments, why don't they just say
"It is unlawful to have sexual relations with a woman that is not
your wife?" I read and reread the passage and there's not actually
anything in there saying you have to be married to have relations with
a person. I mean for example, Verse 17 states, "Do not have sexual
relations with both a woman and her daughter." Does this mean a
man can have sex with one or the other and it be lawful? Has the
commandment "Do not commit adultery" been misinterpreted? Or
mistranslated? Did perhaps, adultery mean something else? I realize
that polygamy was more common back then, but still, that's still within
marriage. Does the Bible speak out against polygamy anywhere? It seems
several people held in high regard had sexual relations with more than
one woman (Abraham), or outside of marriage (David-- and Bathsheba was
married) etc. Again, isn't this contradictory to the Ten Commandments?
J.T., Sullivan, MO
A. Thanks again for your questions.
A couple of
things you might consider: Check out the New King James Version for
accuracy of translation and, if you can find a copy, the original
Revised Standard Version. (Not the New Revised Standard Version).
Generally speaking, the KJV, NKJV and RSV are the most faithful, word
for word, English translations of the ancient Hebrew (OT) and Greek
(NT).
My experience
with other translations is that they tend to paraphrase (water down)
the original Hebrew and Greek texts in order to make the bible easier
for a reader or to make them "politically correct." I think
that's an insult to a reader, who is probably quite capable of
understanding the straight truth. You seem to be a good, critical
reader and can handle a word for word translation with understanding
and can decide for himself what that is, without someone else telling
them what they should believe.
Secondly, if
possible, find a good bible teaching church or a teacher who knows what
they are talking about with a knowledge of biblical Hebrew and
Greek. (Acts 8:30-31 is an example) Seek out someone close
to you that you can talk to. The words (as was supposed) might hold a
better answer to your question about why they list Joseph's Genealogy,
which to our eyes seem to mean something else. Remember that the
biblical texts were written about 2000 years ago and different ways
were used to express things in writing, for example the use of
genealogies. In other words, it was "customary" back then to
list genealogies through male lines, even if they were through the
female.
Traditionally, a
person's Jewishness is determined through their mother, not father.
There are other definitions, but the traditional Jewish view is that a
person's Jewish lineage, genealogy, is through the mother's line. See
Acts 16:1 for example: Timothy was a Jew because his mother was a Jew,
but he had never been circumcised. That is, circumcision doesn't make a
person a Jew, it is only a sign of an agreement, (covenant) with God,
which Paul said was not necessary anyway. Paul had Timothy circumcised
to be in accord with those around them. Read 1 Corinthians 9:19-23,
especially Verse 19:20 for Paul's justification for having Timothy
circumcised, even though, he, Paul, knew it wasn't necessary for salvation.
I tell my
students that any passage in the bible should be taken in context with
the whole bible. In other words, focusing on one verse or verses
without considering what is being said by whom about what can lead to
confusion and speculation as to what the verse may or may not mean. For
example, Leviticus 18 should be understood in the context of what God
said about marriage from the very beginning - that a man and a woman
become one flesh and that they should not ever be separated except for
adultery. Adultery is sex outside marriage.
Here are two scriptures that may help put Leviticus in context:
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife,
and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24)
Jesus explained Genesis 2:24 this way: He told the Pharisees,
"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning,
made them male and female and said,
for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh?
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
(Matthew 19:4-6)
And, further on, he told them
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for
adultery (fornication),
and is joined to another (marries), commits adultery;
and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
(Matthew 19:9)
These two scriptures are in keeping with the 10 Commandments and
explain Leviticus 18. Actually, all of Matthew 19:1-12 should be read
for its context.
So, to answer
your question, "Why don't they just say 'It is unlawful to have
sexual relations with a woman who is not your wife'?" They do.
Leviticus goes into more detail than the general law. Jesus plumbed the
depths even further. Three levels of teaching. It's just a matter of
knowing where to look for them. That's why context is so important to
know what to look for and where to look. That comes from experience,
and, the more you study the bible word for word, you'll gain that
knowledge.
In addition to
Sarah, Abraham had children with Hagar and Keturah. Sarah gave her
handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham because Sarah could not conceive at that
time.(Genesis 16:1-15; 21:9-21) Abraham took Keturah as his wife after
the death of Sarah. (Genesis 25:1) God told Abraham that he
should be fruitful and that he would become the father of many (not
all) nations, including the Arab nations. Also, it was before the law
was given against such a marriage, and before the laws, statutes and
ordinances were given through the prophet Moses. Sarah later conceived
in old age and bore Isaac, producing Jacob, the man Israel, and Jesus
lineage.(You know what that is by now, in Luke 3:23-38) David's
adultery with Bathsheba was not acceptable to God, and he paid the
price for it. His first child by Bathsheba died. He was also guilty of
murdering Bathsheba's husband, Uriah. Taking another man's wife was
adultery, so was murder. (See 2 Samuel 11:14-12:23) Their son Solomon
was loved by God. Sins of the father are not necessarily transferred to
their children. See Satan and his child Cain for an exception, who was
a chip off the old block.
But, my point is
that the whole bible should be taken into account (context) before
trying to interpret alone what a passage means. It's OK to ask
questions, which you have. You are a good student, and good students
ask questions. You are able to decide for yourself what a passage
means, once you have been shown. Keep up the good work. Many modern day
revisionists take a passage from the bible and assign their own
interpretation to it. There is a bishop who insists that homosexuality
is not against God's written word, even for church leaders. He proposes
that God does not prohibit divorcing a spouse and having sex with a
person of the same sex, even though that spouse would be led to commit
adultery if they remarry. Has he not read that "He who made them
at the beginning, made them male and female and said, for this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh?
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has
joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6)
I'll let you sort that one out for yourself.
Start your own
bible study group, if you haven't already. Sounds like you could handle
it with God's help.
Good work and
keep things in context. Your doing well.
Richard
____________________
Q. I actually have two questions. The first
would be why do they trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph if Joseph was
not his father? Secondly, is there a proper way to dispose of a Bible
that can no longer be used? Thanks for your time. J.T., Sullivan, MO
A. Great questions, J. T.!
Luke's account traces Mary's and Jesus' genealogy (Luke 3:23-38,
lineage as a blood line).
Matthew's account traces Joseph's genealogy only - not Jesus' blood
line. (Matthew 1:1-16, lineage as a blood line)
To say it another way, Jesus' blood lineage is not
given through Joseph.
Joseph was what we might call today, a stepfather, father-in-law or
legal father of Jesus. [According to the bible, God was Jesus' father.
Or, however you want to say it, Jesus was God's son or the only
begotten Son of God (the only son directly created in human flesh by
God through woman; Adam was created directly, not through woman). See
Matthew 14:33; Luke 3:22; Mark 1:1; John 1:34 and many other places]
Jesus was not part of Joseph's blood line. In Luke 3:23, the English
words "as was supposed, the son of Joseph" are English words
that have a modern meaning of the "stepson of Joseph" or
"son-in-law of Joseph". It would mean that Joseph was a legal
or civil father of Jesus, not his biological father. Recall that Mary
was betrothed to Joseph before Jesus was born. Mary conceived Jesus
through God's Holy Spirit, after she was betrothed to Joseph. Mary's
son, Jesus, would be the stepson or son-in-law of Joseph. (Ignore the
English parentheses which are found in some English translations of the
bible. The parentheses are not in the original Greek manuscripts.)
But, the phrase "as supposed" also means that Joseph was a
son-in-law of Mary's father, who was Heli. That is, Heli was Mary's
father and Jesus' grandfather. The lineage traced by Luke is Jesus' and
Mary 's lineage, not Joseph's. (Luke 3:23-37)
Luke 3:23 might be translated as follows: "Now Jesus Himself began
His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son-in-law of
Joseph." And so on, back to Nathan. Or, in other words, Luke lists
Mary's lineage back to Nathan, David, and then Jacob, Isaac, Abraham
and to Adam. That being the case, Joseph would have been the son-in-law
of Heli, who was Mary's father.
But, Joseph was a legal descendant of the thrown of King David because
he could trace his lineage back to David. This gave Jesus a legal claim
to the kingly line, but not his blood line through Joseph. That's the
reason, or reasons, why Joseph's lineage is traced in Matthew. (See
Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:27, "Joseph, son of David" and
"Joseph, of the house of David", respectively.) It depends on
context, but the words "son of" and "house of" have
a meaning of "a descendant of".
If you trace the lineage back far enough to King David in both Matthew
and Luke, you will see that the direct line from Jacob's 4th son,
Judah, splits into two lines at King David: one line goes through
David's son, King Solomon, to Joseph (Matthew 1:6, the king line); one
line goes through David's son, Nathan, to Mary. (Luke 3:31).
Matthew was even more explicit than Luke in explaining that Joseph was
not the biological father of Jesus. That is, Mary became pregnant while
she was betrothed to Joseph but had not had children by him at that
time. In Matthew 1:18, it is written "AFTER Mary was betrothed to
Joseph, but(my word) before they came together (a biblical euphemism
for having sexual intercourse), she was found with child of the Holy
Spirit." You can read the story in Matthew 1:18-25, explaining
that Joseph, son of David, was a just man and didn't put her away.
But, nevertheless, Jesus could still claim to be of the kingly blood
line. This was King David's line through his mother, Mary, who was a
descendant, herself, of both the kingly line and the priestly line.(See
also "after the order of Melchizadek" in Hebrews 5:6)
Recall that Mary and Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist) were
related. (Luke 1:36) We might call them cousins today. Elizabeth was a
descendant of the priestly line, Aaron's line. (Luke 1:5)
The answer to your question is that Jesus blood line is only given in
Luke 3:23-37. Joseph's blood line is only given in Matthew 1:1-16 to
show that Jesus was a legal descendant of the thrown of King David. To
say it another way, Jesus' blood lineage is not traced through Joseph.
As for a bible that you no longer need, give it to someone who needs
it, burn it or bury it. Actually, it depends on what you mean by
"that can no longer be used." Pages missing? Soiled? Marked
up? Do you have original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? Do you have an
old edition of the King James Version with family records in it? Don't
get rid of that either. If you have one of the modern English,
paraphrased translations, return it to dust. If it's a good translation
of the original Hebrew or Greek and is usable, give it to someone else,
free. Please let me know what you decide to do.
NOTE: I use the New King James Version but also the King James Version
and Revised Standard Version along with Green's Interlinear Hebrew and
Greek translations which are keyed to Strong's Complete Concordance. I
stay away from translations (versions) that paraphrase, the NIV, etc.
Thanks,
Richard
Q. I am looking for Hebrew symbols of the angels, Gabriel,
Michael, Daniel etc. Can you help me find them? Thank you, Sean
A. The Hebrew
word for the English word Gabriel is גבריאל The name Gabriel means "Man of
God". Gabriel is an archangel, or one of the head angels (See
Strong Nos. 1403, 1043).
The Hebrew word
for the English word Michael is מיכאל The name Michael means "One who
is like God". Michael is also an archangel.(Strong No.4317).
The Hebrew word
for the English word Daniel is דנאל
The name Daniel means "Judgement of God". Daniel was a
prophet.(Strong No. 1841)
Note that Hebrew
letters are written in reverse order from English letters. For example,
the Hebrew letters that make up Michael's name are מיכאל and would be written as lakym in English. This process is called transliteration,
not translation. It just means that the Hebrews letters are directly
written as English letters in the same order. Here they are in
reverse order.(backwards) We read Hebrew words and sentences right to
left which is opposite of English sentences which we read from left to
right.
When we translate
the Hebrew letters, we reverse their order and add vowels. That's why
מיכאל (lakym) becomes
mykal or Michael in English translations. There is a vowel, or vowel
point, added which makes the English letter "e". The two
letters "el" together mean God. You will see that Dani-el and
Gabri-el have those last two letters.
The Hebrew
letters that make up a name do not have vowels. The letters that a make
up the Hebrew words in the Bible didn't have vowels. Modern day Hebrew
adds vowels, or vowel points. They indicate how a word should be
pronounced sound when spoken. They also give meaning to the word. The
letters that I gave for Gabriel, Michael and Daniel do not have vowels
or vowel points.
Some Bible
references about Gabriel, Michael and Daniel are as follows:
For Daniel,
Daniel 1:3,4,518,17; 2:14ff,48; 4:8-27; 6:2,10-23. Ezekiel 14:14,20.
Matthew 24:15
For Gabriel,
Daniel 8:16, 9:21. Luke 1:19,26.
For Michael,
Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1. Jude 1:9. Revelation 12:7
For Daniel,
Daniel 1:3,4,518,17; 2:14ff,48; 4:8-27; 6:2,10-23. Ezekiel 14:14,20.
Matthew 24:15
I hope this helps,
Thank you for asking,
Richard
____________________
Q. What is the
Greek definition for human? I once heard a preacher say that the
"hu", meant spirit in Greek or maybe Latin. John G. Achord,
Texas
A. John. Thank
you for your interesting question. You're also helping others when you
ask questions. As usual, with Greek and Latin words, much depends on
their use in context. So, the following are general definitions. I'll
cite a few examples of their use in the context and text of Scripture.
Please note that the numbers after the Hebrew and Greek words are
references to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
The Greek word for people is laos (2992), if
that is what you mean by human, humankind or mankind regardless of
being male or female. If by "human" you mean the physical or
flesh body, the Greek word is sarx (4561). Sarx
can be translated as the English word "flesh" or, in general
terms, a human being.
The Hebrew word for male is zakar,
2145.
The Hebrew word for female is neqebah,
5347.
The Hebrew word for man, is adam,
120.[As you will see, adam can have different meanings
depending on context]
The Hebrew word for woman is ishshah,
802
The Greek word pneuma (4151) is commonly translated into English as
"spirit". The English word "spirit" is taken from
the Latin word spiritus. Both pneuma and spiritus
have meanings of air, breath, wind, something felt but not seen, life,
etc. Again, it depends how the word is used in the context Scripture.
We take our English word pneumatic (air, tires, pressure, etc.) from
the Greek word "pneuma".
"Go
therefore amd make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (pneuma
tos, 4151, Matthew 28:19)
The English word "human" comes from the Latin word humanus
which has a meaning of "the nature of people" or a
"human being" without regard to male or female. There is
another Latin word which is related to humanus and that is humus.
Humus has a meaning of ground, dirt, earth, soil, etc. The
essence of humus and pneuma, may be found in Genesis
2:7, as well as many other places in Scripture.
And the Lord God
formed the man (The Man Adam, adam, 120, not
just any man) of the
dust (aphar,
6083, ashes, dust, earth, ground, powder, rubbish) of the ground (adamdam,
reddish ground),
and breathed in his nostrils the breath (neshamah, 5397) of
life (chay, 2497);
and the man, The
Man Adam, nor just any man or mankind in general but a
specific male
person whose name was Adam (120)
became a living soul (nephesh, 5315).
[Note that the specific man Adam, the man
Adam, was specifically created to till the ground(farmer),
Genesis 2:7, and was not part of the original 6th Day Creation of
humans, Genesis 1:27. One reason that no one had been created to till
the ground until after the 6th day was that there was nothing to till,
Genesis 2:5,6 because no rain had yet fallen on the earth to cause seeds
to sprout and the plants to grow. That's what the Bible says.]
The Hebrew word for a man, human being, mankind, human kind, as a
general term, etc., is adam, which also has a meaning of dirt,
ground, soil, red soil, reddish soil, red in the face, showing blood in
the face, ruddy complexion. The Hebrew word for the man Adam, is hah
adam. That is, it is the word man preceded by the
definite article the, in English, and has a meaning of the
specific man, the man Adam, not just mankind, human
kind, human being. Another way of looking at it is that the specific
man who is called Adam, in English translations, was made from the red
dirt of the ground and where his flesh body would eventually return
after he lost the breath of life, and with his spirit returning to God
who created him.
Jesus' Spirit returned to the Father when his physical body died.
"Father into thy hands I commit my spirit (pneuma, 4151,
Luke 23:46).
"And Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his
spirit" (pneuma, 4151, Matthew 27:50).
"He bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (pneuma, 4151,
John 19:30).
"To be absent from this body is to be present with the Lord."
(2 Corinthians 5:6-8).
"And God formed man of dust of the ground." (Genesis 2:7)
"You are dust and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19).
BUT
"Before the silver cord is loosed, or the golden bowl is broken,
or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the
well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit(ruach,
7307) will return to God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:6,7)
The specific man Adam was ruddy complected, according to the Hebrew
definition of the word adam.
Thanks again for the question.
Richard
____________________
Q. One person in
my group is taking a Bible study that I have a difficult time
accepting. They are discussing "levels of hell". This study
goes on to say just as there are levels in heaven so there will be in
hell. I know scripture gives evidence of levels in heaven correlating
to our rewards. But I had never heard of this in regards to hell. God
hates all sin. I know there are several He mentions by name (Mal. 2:16;
Pr. 6:16) but as to there being different degrees of hell I am not sure
of. The book sights Matt 11:23-24; Matt 13-14 and Romans 2:5-6. They
use words such as "greater condemnation" and "it shall
be more tolerable" I don't believe there is enough there to
suggest levels of hell but more in the line of culpability. Submitted
by D. C.
A. Thanks for
another good question. I agree with you. The short answer is that the
Bible doesn't explicitly list levels of heaven or hell. The so-called
levels of heaven or hell are man-made concepts, like rapture, trinity,
etc., probably meant to explain the nature of sin in this case. For
example, there is one study which promotes 7 levels of heaven. Each of
the levels is taken out of context and lumped into a single list. Each
should be understood within their position in the Bible but not
necessarily compared or contrasted.
Based on your question, this would be a
good opportunity to challenge one of the traditions that has arisen
regarding levels of heaven. That tradition stems from a
misunderstanding of Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 12:2: "I
know a man in Christ who 14 years ago - whether in the body I do not
know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows - such one
was caught up to the third heaven."
There are three heaven ages and three
earth ages(periods of time), not a third heaven. 2 Peter 3:4-8 mentions
the first two heaven ages and the first two earth ages. The third age
is the heaven age and earth age yet to come. It was this heaven age
that Paul was referring to in 2 Corinthians 12:2. In other words, Paul
was given a glimpse of the future heaven and future earth ages(third
ages), just as John was given a glimpse of the future heaven and earth
according to the Book of Revelation. According Genesis 1:1, God created
more that one heaven(one before this age, one during this age, and one
future age) but only one earth(with three corresponding ages; one
before the destruction of Genesis 1:2, one during the age in which we
are living now, and one age to come. The age to come is referred to in
Revelation 21:1.
To repeat, 2 Peter 3:4-8 refers to the
first two heavenly and first two earth ages. 2 Corinthians 12:2 and
John 21:1 refer to the third heaven and third earth ages. The concept
of three heaven ages and three earth ages is, of course, also a
man-made concept and used advisedly. It is meant to clarify what otherwise
might be misunderstood.
I'm not familiar with the Bible Study
that you mention, but there are many misconceptions that can arise by
attempting to organize or catalogue different Biblical levels. It
doesn't mean that they are wrong. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. It just
means that the Bible doesn't portray them in such mathematical or
categorical terms.
The Book of Proverbs lists 6(no 7)
things that God hates but doesn't give levels of penalties for each of
them. Or, that is, Proverbs doesn't list them in order of their
sinfulness in hell.
Note also the propaganda that God loves
the sinner but hates the sin.(Another man-made (mis)concept(ion).
According to Proverbs 6:19, God hates a false witness(a liar) and one
who sows discord.(trouble maker) I don't know that God codifies either
the offenses or the good deeds and puts numbers or letters on them as
man would. For example, the worst(and unforgivable) sin of all is
denying the Holy Spirit when we are called to make a choice between
God's way and Satan's way. I guess that would be given top(or bottom
level) On a scale of 0 to 100, it would rate 110(or -110). I suppose
man would like to put sins on levels of sinfulness. Some of which he
could get away with by just a slap on the wrist.
Some churches(denominations) evidently
put sin on different levels. While some sins are OK, others are not.
Sodomy and adultery are OK but murder isn't(I guess?) I don't know what
they see or don't see in the Bible, if they see anything at all.
Anyway, before we "gets our just
deserts", we've got to get into heaven to stay first. What did
Jesus say about the Law and getting into heaven?
"Think not that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your
righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven."(Matthew 5:17-21) The laws are still in effect.
The concept of hell as a place where one
should not desire to be or where we live out eternity for our sins
stems from the New Testament, not the Old. Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28;
18:9; 23:15,33, Mark 9:43,45,47, Luke 12:05 and James 3:06 all call
hell gehenna, a Hebrew word for the human garbage dump outside
Jerusalem which continually smoldered with flesh. 2 Peter 2:4 uses
Tartarus for hell.(See Paul's travels to and from Tartessos or Tarshish
in Spain and the evil city of Tyre. Also, see Paul's Tarsus in Celicia
of Acts 22:3, which in some manuscripts is called Tarshish. It may
explain why it is uncertain where Paul actually came from, including
either Spain or Cilicia.)
None of these seem to be a desirable
place to go forever and are more descriptive or symbolic than an actual
place on earth or elsewhere. Recall that we are all dust(chemicals in
my words) and go back to dust. It is our spiritual bodies(selves) that
will either be blotted out from the memory of others, separated from
Heaven where God, Jesus, Abraham, et al, are.(See gulf of Abraham) or
live in everlasting damnation. Note that Matthew 18:9 even refers to
Jerusalem's garbage dump as the hell of fire.
In addition to Proverbs, there is
another list that sometimes goes unnoticed but that may or may not be
listed under levels of sin in hell.(Exodus 20:3-17)
Thanks again for opening the doors to God's Word.
____________________
Q. I was told the
scriptures that were read in Jesus' time, contained the Apocrypha. Is
this true? If so, why the exclusion from the KJV ? Jeff Cota, Concord,
NH
A. Thank you for
another good question. The short answers are these: The Apocrypha was
written before Jesus' time, and it was included in the original King
James Version of 1611. I've included a list of the commonly accepted
books of the Apocrypha at the end.
The Apocrypha was written in the Greek
language and was part of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
which is called the Septuagint, LXX. It was written for the benefit of
Greek speaking Jews, called Hellenists, who had scattered(dispersed)
from their homeland to Greek speaking nations. The Septuagint was the
text used in the synagogues of Greek speaking nations.
But, the Apocrypha was never included as
part of the Hebrew(language) text itself, the Bible of Jesus' time and
of the Jews.(Our Old Testament) The Septuagint was written before
Jesus' time, c. 100 B.C., for and by Greek speaking Jews. This Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible was accomplished at the behest of
Ptolemy II in Alexandria, Egypt. Paul's letters reflect interpretations
based on this Greek, Septuagint, text, not always the Hebrew text.
Recall that the Jews of the Dispersion,
Hellenists, were Greek speaking Jews who had scattered to the regions
of the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt, Syria, Asia, Galatia,
Macedonia, and Achaia. The Jews of the Diaspora(Dispersion) used the
Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint(with the
Apocrypha) in their synagogues.
Also, recall that Paul was a Jew who
carried his message of Jesus to the Jews of the Dispersion in the
synagogues of those Greek speaking nations.(Acts 9:20; 13:5,14; 14:1; 17:1,10,17;
18:4,19) The Greek language was the common language, lingua franca,
of the Roman Empire until Latin replaced it completely, c. 200-250 A.D.
It is understandable that the New Testament would have been written in
Greek because it would have been written by the early Jewish-Christians
situated in Greek speaking nations, including Paul and his scribes
Timothy, Tertius, Sosthenes, Silvanus, et al. By his own admission,
Paul did not speak well.(1 Corinthians 1:17, 2:1,4; 2 Corinthians
10:10, 11:6)
NOTE: Despite popular tradition, there is no Biblical
evidence that Paul spoke in anything but the Hebrew tongue(language).
It is an assumption not based on the Biblical evidence to claim that he
spoke or wrote in many languages. This may account for his dependence
on his scribes in his travels to the Greek speaking nations and to the
Jews in their synagogues, along with the use of the Septuagint in
Paul's letters. For example, Timothy was from the Greek nation of
Lystra and was the son of a Jewish woman and a Greek father.(See Acts
16:1; Acts 21:37-22:3; Acts 26:14; Philippians 3:5).
The Apocrypha contains anywhere from 14
to 17(or more) books, depending on their inclusion and interest by
different faiths. The word Apocrypha is a transliteration of the Greek
word apokrypha and, when translated, has a meaning of
"that which is hidden". The Original King James Version of
1611 contained a translation of the Apocrypha. It fell out of use after
many, including the Puritans, objected to its use as being non-divinely
inspired because it could not be confirmed that it was originally
written in Hebrew or was included in the Hebrew canon. The Roman
Catholic Bible contains the books of the Apocrypha in different order
and in their presentation of the Old Testament, and it combines some of
them into one book. The Revised Standard Version, Oxford Edition, adds
the Apocrypha at the end of the New Testament. The King James
Version(KJV) and the New King James Version(NKJV) don't normally
include the Apocrypha today. However, most students and scholars of
today do study them without reservation.
The question of the authoritative, or
canonical, nature of the books stems from the fact that we only have
copies of them in the Greek language, not in the Hebrew. In other
words, the books are definitely of Jewish origin and probably were
originally written in Hebrew. We haven't, as yet, found copies in
Hebrew. The Septuagint(with Apocrypha) were available to be read in
Jesus' time. Whether or not he did read them in the Greek is
undetermined, at least based on the Biblical evidence.
Here is one list of the books of The
Apocrypha
1st book of Esdras
2nd Book of Esdras(not included in the Septuagint)
Tobit
Judith
Additions to The Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Young Men
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1st Book of Maccabees
2nd Book of Maccabees
3rd Book of Maccabees
4th Book of Maccabees
Psalm 151
____________________
Q. I have trouble
believing in a Triune God. How can you explain this phenomenon when
Jesus constantly refers to God as his father, like a separate being?
There are no mysteries in the Bible. So, why should I believe on the
Trinity? Submitted by E.S., Florida
A. Great
question. Many others ask the same thing.
First, the
word Trinity does not appear in either the New Testament Bible or the
Greek manuscripts from which it was translated.(Neither does the word
Rapture by the way) The word Trinity is defined as the union of three
persons in one: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
According
to Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses said, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God,
the Lord is one." Jesus quoted those words in Mark 12:29. Paul
quoted them in 1 Corinthians 8:4,6. The words mean that God is the only
God for Israel, not some other god. It doesn't reveal whether or not
God is composed of three parts.
The
word Trinity is a proper name given to the concept of a united
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The word Trinity is a word that
was created to indicate that the three are considered by many
Christians to mean that they are thought of as a single unit. Another
way of looking at it is this: it was an attempt to understand and
explain God's triune nature in light of Bible revelations.
Or,
the Trinity is a concept or idea that is meant to explain certain
things about God, God's Spirit and His Son Jesus and their relationship
to each other. The word Holy simply means separate in the sense of
being whole or complete within itself, by the way. It is a derived
quantity, supported by(witnessed by) certain Biblical verses.
The
most prominent Bible verse that puts(not necessarily unites) the three
together is Matthew 28:19, where it is revealed that Jesus told his own
Disciples(who would become Apostles when they were sent out) "Go
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
It's
called the Great Commission(another made-made concept or name).
Nevertheless, there is a sense that the three are separate entities or
separate in their function. That is, the collection of the three wasn't
given a name by Matthew. It is a man-made concept and teaching. Because
it is a man-made creation, it is subject to failure. By giving the
three a collective name, Trinity, it invites all sorts of
confusion such as the one you and many, many others experience. The
biggest problem is how to explain that the three are one and the one
is(or are) three. That's a man-made confusion for sure, Catch 22, in
light of the monotheism of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The
Lord our God, the lord is one".(Shema Yesrael, Adonai elohenu,
Adonai ehud)
The
other three evangelists, Mark, Luke and John,
do not report that Jesus told his Disciples to
go forth and teach in the name of the "Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit"(Ghost is a word that comes from the German word for
spirit, geist, so it is not necessarily wrong to use as long
as you understand what it means) In Mark 16:15, Jesus told them to
"Go into the world and preach the gospel to all creation". In
Luke 24:47, he told them that "Repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in His(Jesus') name to all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem." In John 20:21, he told them, "Peace to you! As
the Father has sent me, I also send you". Again, there is a sense
of a separate "person" of the Trinity. Sometimes
they are referred to that way but still maintain their closeness or "collective
unity".
The
Apostle Paul had something to say about the matter in 1 Corinthians
12:1-31. Paul, in his great wisdom, identified the Holy Spirit for us.
The so-called Holy Spirit is God's Spirit or the Spirit of God.(See 1
Corinthians 12:3) You should look these verses up because they are an
important chapter in Paul's letter to the Church at Corinth. See if you
recognize one of your own gifts that God's Spirit has given to you. I'm
sure he has given you many gifts or you wouldn't be asking questions.
In 2
Corinthians 13:14, Paul closes his letter with these words: "The
Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen." Those words also
connect the three but do not explicitly make them one.
John
1:1, The witness of John, the author of the Gospel According to John,
begins with these words: "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word Word
in John 1:1 means Jesus. The references are as follows:
Revelation
19:13, His name(Jesus) is called the Word of God.
Genesis
1:1, In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the
earth. Note that there was more than one heaven created but only one
earth.
Genesis
1:26, "Let us make(create) man in our image, after our
likeness."(6th Day of Creation) The "us"
means that Jesus, and all the spiritual entities were with God during
the creation. When God said "Let us make man in our image",
it should be understood that the "likeness" was a spiritual
likesness, not a physical likeness because God is in spirit form.
Therefore, our spiritual selves are in the image of, or likeness of,
God. God, who is in spirit form, appeared in physical form through His
only begotten(made physical, that is, in the flesh, in body form) son.
We are all created in spiritual form in the image or likeness of God.
That is, we are all spitiual sons and daughters of God because
we are made, created, in His spiritual image. But, there has been only
one physical(in the flesh, in the body) son created. He was
Jesus(Joshua in the Hebrew, Iesous in the Greek) That's what is meant
by "only begotten son". We were given our physical bodies
through our parents, male and female. Our spiritual bodies are from
God. Jesus physical body came through Mary, with his father being God.
That's why he could call God "Father".
John
4:24, God is Spirit.
John
1:15b, He(Jesus) that comes after me(John the Baptist; Jesus was born 6
months after John) is preferred before me: for he was before me.(in
spirit form, John 1:1) That is, Jesus was with God before and during
the time(6th Day) of Creation.(Review Genesis 1:26 above and also John
17:24)
John
1:48-51, Before Philip called you(Nathaniel), when you were under the
fig tree, I saw you. (When was Nathaniel under the fig tree?).
1
Kings 4:25, And Judah and Israel lived in safety Desire to live in
safety.
Psalm
139:1-5, 12-17, You have searched me and have known me.
John
10:30, I and the Father are one.
John
17:5,24, 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own
self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 24...for
you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Review Genesis 1:26 again, "us".
John
8:56,57,58, 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I
am.(See again Genesis 1:26).
Where
does that leave us? It isn't necessary for your salvation that you
believe the teaching of man's doctrine(teaching). What is necessary for
salvation, like the criminal on the cross who probably wouldn't have
known a trinity from a quadrinity, is belief in Jesus
Christ.(See Luke 23:43; 1 Thessalonians 5:9).
What
must I do for salvation? Paul wrote to the Church at Thessalonica,
"God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through
our Lord Jesus Christ"(1 Thessalonians 5:9).
One
way to describe the Trinity is in mathematical terms. If two things are
equal to a third thing, they are equal to each other. If you want to
give that relationship a name, like Trinity, that's OK with me. It may
help in communication. Here's the tripartite relationship,
mathematically speaking of course.
God
is Spirit(Holy Spirit); John 4:24 God = Holy Spirit.
Jesus
said that He and the Father are one; John 10:30
Jesus = God
Therefore,
God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are equal quantities, mathematically
speaking of course. Therefore, Jesus = God = Holy Spirit.
Man
has put them together as a single unit. Man could have put them
together as two and called them Duality. But, it isn't necessary for
salvation and need not be emphasized beyond anything else. Put it on the
back burner for awhile and learn some other things in God's Word, the
Bible. The word Trinity is overemphasized at the expense of other
lessons in the Bible. Some churches are called Trinity Church. Whole
courses are taught on the subject, all to the confusion of the man-made
concept. That, in the final analysis, may be the reason that it is a
confusing subject. It ain't in the Bible as a name.
If
the three are not one, they are pretty closely related. Joined at the
hip, one might say.
Don't
get hung up on it. It's more important that you understand what it may
mean in relation to the Bible, the Word of God. But, don't let your
understanding get in the way of your relationship with others. Simply
state your beliefs and plant the seeds of wisdom and let them grow over
time. Just as others can't tell you what you must believe, it would be
difficult for you to change someone else's mind and tell them what they
must believe.
Often
times, churches(or denominations) will insist that you believe
something that they teach. Worse, they insist that you must believe it,
or you won't be able to become members of that church or denomination.
E. I hope that isn't your situation. God gave us a free will so that we
could love him on our own - not what someone else insists or teaches
us. We learn from others, but we need to come to our own belief as
individual members of the body of Christ. No one else can do that for
us. God wants us to love him and be guided by His teaching and
direction, not the teaching of man(or, in this case, a church
doctrine). If you're a student, be obedient to your teachers in what
you do but know what it means and what you truly believe until you are
on your own. Take their teaching under consideration but always reserve
the right to think for yourself, even if you don't say it out loud. God
will know and hear your silent prayers and know what's in your heart.
Thanks again for the great question, Richard.
____________________
Q.
In Matthews account of the crucifixion, he quotes Jesus as saying,
"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", or "My God, My God, why
have you forsaken me?" Was this a moment of separation from God, a
moment of doubt, or as I believe, a quotation of scripture(Psalm 22)?
This psalm, as you know, describes every thing that was happening to
Jesus at that moment. Submitted by Jeff, Concord, N.H.
A.
Thank you for your question. Yes, Jesus cried out the first words of
Psalm 22. Both Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 record His words on the
cross. Matthew may have been recording Mark's Gospel Account. In any
event, each is a written record of Jesus' words. Psalm 22 is a Psalm of
David and would have been written about 1000 years before Jesus'
crucifixion. In that sense, it was a prophecy of the martyrdom of the
Messiah, the Christ. As you so rightly point out, it describes in
detail the events on the cross. Because it was written so long before
Jesus' crucifixion, it is unlikely that the witness of Mark and Matthew
would be wrong.
It is unfortunate that there has been a perpetuation of the false
testimony that Jesus had doubt or that he descended into Hell because
he had doubt. This false witness had some of its roots in an early
version of the Apostles' Creed. Part of the early Creed reads, "He
descended into Hell." Modern versions of the Creed have corrected
this because it cannot be confirmed by Scripture!
Those who study the Bible sometimes take the words out of context and
begin the process of speculating what they mean. If they would continue
reading, Matthew 27:50 reveals that after He repeated the words of
Psalm 22, "Jesus cried out with a loud voice and gave up His
spirit." According to Ecclesiastes 12:7, when man, who is
physically made out of matter(dust), dies, "Then the dust will
return to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave
it."(Review Adam's creation and Genesis 2:7 and 3:19. That is,
each of us has two entities, one physical and one spiritual. The
physical dies and returns to the "dust" or "matter"
from which it is formed, our spirit goes back to God who gave it.
There is no rapture by the way. First, the word rapture isn't
in the Bible. Secondly, God isn't going to reassemble chemicals(dust)
to recreate a person in an earthly, physical body all over again. Why
would God recreate a physical body that would also be just as imperfect
and liable to die a physical death when a person is going to be given a
spiritual body which is incorruptible and immortal? It is not Biblical.
Each will be given a spiritual body, incorruptible.(1 Thessalonians 4:14-15)
That is, those who have died have already gone back to God who gave
it.(Ecclesiastes 12:6-7) That's the reason we who are alive when Christ
returns can't precede those who have died - they've already gone
back to God.. Spiritually, those who have died have already
gone. They won't return to the grave and then pop up with a new
earthly, physical, body. They will already have spiritual bodies.
Still another way of looking at it is this: Who did Jesus give his
spirit up to? Luke 23:46 answers that question: "Father into your
hands I commit my spirit." It also means that there was no doubt
in Jesus' mind that His spirit would return to the Father who gave it
or that there was a separation from God. Jesus gave his spirit directly
back to God.
According to John 10:17 and 18, Jesus told the Pharisees,
"Therefore my father loves me, because I lay down my life that I
may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down, and I
have power to take it again. This command I have received from my father."
Did God hear Jesus' cries? According to Paul's letter to the Hebrews,
God did hear Jesus. God the Father said of Jesus, "You are a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek; who, in the last
days of his flesh, when he had offered prayers and supplications, with
vehement cries and tears to Him(God) who was able to save him from
death and was heard because of his bodily fear..."
There are many, many more Biblical references that I could give. But
the final one is the most telling in John 20:11-18: "But Mary
stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look
into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body
of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to
her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them,
"Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where
they have laid him. "Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus
standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her,
"Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him
to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him
away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.
"Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him
in Hebrew, "Rab-bo'ni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to
her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father;
but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and
your Father, to my God and your God." Mary Magdalene went and said
to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them
that he had said these things to her."
|
Q. You
mentioned Paul's poor eyesight. Would this be the "thorn in my
flesh" he speaks of in 2 Corinthians 12:7? Submitted by Jeff,
Concord, N.H.
A.Thank
you for your question, Jeff. Yes. There is ample Biblical evidence
to support Paul's weakness as failed eyesight that occurred on the
way to Damascus. His eyesight was never fully recovered because of
the bightness of the light. The following evidence is taken from Paul:
The Apostle To The Jews At Rome, Volume IV, pp. 10-15, and Paul
& Revelation, pp. 66-67, Paul's Defense at Jerusalem, Acts
23:1-5, 6-16(Copyright 2002 and 1995 by Richard J. Willoughby. Sr.)
The following evidence is explored more fully in those two volumes.
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN GALATIANS
"You know that on account of a weakness of the flesh I preached
to you before. And my body was a trial to you, you did not despise
or shame me, but you received me as a messenger of God, as Christ
Jesus. Where is then the blessedness you spoke of? For I bear you
record, that ..if possible, your eyes gouging out, you gave them to
me. See with what large letters I am
writing to you with my own hand."(Galatians 4:13,14,15; 6:11)
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN 1
CORINTHIANS
"For now we look through a glass
darkly. But then face to face."(1 Corinthians 13:12a, KJV)
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN 2
CORINTHIANS
"For we walk by faith and not by
sight."(2 Corinthians 5:7)
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN ACTS
"...3a light from heaven flashed about
him 4and he fell to the ground and
heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul! Saul!, Why do you persecute
me?' 8Saul arose from the ground; and
when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; so they led him
by the hand and brought him to Damascus.(Acts 9:3,4,8)
If Paul could see, why would they have to lead
him by the hand and led(ouden eblepen)"?
"17bAnd he(Ananias) layng his hands on
him(Saul-Paul) said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to
you on the road by which you came(to Damascus), has sent me that
you may look up(aneblepses) and be filled with the Holy
Spirit.'(Acts 9:17b, 18) 18And
immediately, as scales, fell from the eyes and he looked up(aneblepsen)."
(NOTE: The Greek words aneblepses and aneblepsen
are traditionally mistranslated in the English language as "see
again" and "regained sight" respectively. The
correct English translation of aneblepses should be
"look up" and of aneblepsen, "looked
up" - not "regain sight" and/or "regained
sight"..)
Saul-Paul's enduring blindness continued long after his encounter
with Christ on the way to Damascus. The evidence is found right in
Acts 9:26, for example: "But Barnabas, taking hold of him, led
him to the apostles(at Jerusalem)…." Why would Saul-Paul have
to be taken hold of if he could see?
Saul-Paul's appearance at Jerusalem had to be after many days(Acts
9:23) which was after his appearance in the synagogue at
Damascus(Acts 9:20) and then being let down in a basket.(Acts 9:25) After many
days, a person who had "regained his sight" would not have
to be taken hold of and led to apostles, as Barnabas did.(Acts
9:27)
Similarly, according to Acts 22:6,7; 12-14, Paul told those at
Jerusalem from the steps of the Temple, "6As
I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great
light from heaven shown around me 7And I fell to the
ground … 11And when I could not look up(ouk
eveblepon) because of the glory of the light, I was being led
by the hand by those who were with me, and came to Damascus. 12And
one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by
all the Jews who lived there, 13came to me, and standing by me said
to me, 'Brother Saul, look up(aneblepson)." And after
that very hour, I looked up for him(anablepsa eis auton)."
The Greek word aneblepson does not mean receive your
sight, i.e., looking up is not the same as perceiving light energy.
PAUL'S DEFENSE AT JERUSALEM
ACTS 22:30; 23:5, 6-15
"The tribune commanded that the chief priests(archiereis)
and council(synedrion) assemble to determine the certain
reason why Paul was being accused."(Acts 22:30).
Paul, having been brought down, was set
among the chief priest, Ananias, and the council, having brought
down Paul set him before them. He said that he was a Pharisee and
on trial with respect to the hope and to the resurrection of the
dead(Acts 22:30, 23:6) In Acts 23:1ff, "paying close
attention", not seeing; (de gnous), "and
knowing", Cf. Acts 13:9, (atenisas), means
"paying attention to" not "seeing".
"And Paul said, 'I did not know that he(Ananias) was the high
priest"(Acts 23:5a). If Paul could see clearly or at all, he
would have known who the high priest was! The salient thrust of
Paul's weakness before the council is evidenced by his inability to
see the high priest, Ananias. Paul was blind, or nearly so.
Probatively, Paul said, "I did not perceive(edein),
brothers, that he is high priest" (Acts 23:5). Indeed, Ananias
was the high priest. Further evidence in the textus is that Paul
knew(gnous, knowing but not seeing with the eyes) from
their speech that one part of the council was of Sadducees and that
the other part was of Pharisees. The Pharisees strictly held to the
law that one must be subject to the high priest and not speak evil
of the ruler of the people(Acts 23:1ff; Exodus 22:28). Thus,
Ananias commanded that Paul should be struck in the mouth(tuptein,
strike; Acts 23:2). Paul's rejoinder was that he did not perceive(edein
means perceive, not see) that Ananias was the high priest(Acts
23:5).
PAUL'S DEFENSE AT CAESAREA
Acts 26:1-32
The third account of Saul-Paul's encounter with Jesus of Nazareth,
according to Acts 26:13ff, can be followed in
parallel. According to Acts 26:13 and 14,
there is neither a report of Saul-Paul losing his sight nor of his
regaining his sight. But, there is the report of Paul that he
perceived(eidon) a light and heard a voice speaking to him
in the Hebrew tongue. Students should observe that eidon
means "perceived" and does not mean saw with the eyes, as
blepsen does. And, they should observe the difference
between blepsen, "saw" and anablepsen
"look up". When Saul heard the voice and his eyes having
been opened, he beheld nothing whatsoever, let alone see any man
speaking. Paul was blind, or nearly so. Through his voice alone, Jesus
had identified himself to Saul-Paul. Neither Saul-Paul nor the men
traveling with Saul saw Jesus with their eyes. Saul-Paul's eyes
were opened, but he beheld nothing because he was blind. Saul, by
looking, could not see.
The preceding is taken from Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At
Rome, Volume IV, pages 10-15 and Paul & Revelation,
pp. 66-67; Paul's Defense at Jerusalem, Acts 23:1-5, 6-16(Copyright
2002 and 1995 by Richard J. Willoughby. Sr.)
____________________
Q.
Hello, I'm in the 4th Grade. I need to know how to say the word
telescope in Greek. I also need to know how to say the verse John
3:16 in Hebrew.
Thank
You, C. and C. in California.
A.Thank
you for your questions.
The
word telescope is actually taken from two Greek words. The
words are tele, which means "far" or
"distant", and skopein,
which means "to view" or "to see". The two
Greek words are put together to make one word teleskopos. In Greek, it would be
pronounced
tayleh-skopos. That is, the word telescope
means to see at a distance or from far away.
John
3:16 is written in the Greek language. In Greek, it is a big
mouthful and would be said this way:
hootoes gar haygapaysen ho theos
ton kosmon hoeste ton hweeon ton
monogenay
edoeken heena pas ho piste-ehoo-oen ays ahooton may
apolaytai ahl
exay zoe-ayn ai-oen-eeon.
Translated
word for word this would be "For thus loved God the world so
as the son the only begotten he gave that every one believing in
him may not perish but have life eternal".
A
better English version would be, "For God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life."
(John 3:16, Revised Standard Version) I hope that answers your
questions.
_____________________________
Q.
I just happened to discover your website. I found it very
interesting and glad that you have a bible study. I've been saved
since 1981 and came from a Catholic background and am now a
Pentecostal. I still consider myself still learning and still not
where I should be. But, with God and the help of the Holy Spirit,
I'm moving on forward slowly but surely. My question to you is what
do you think about the gift's of the Holy Spirit and your
definition of them? And, do you think one person can have all the
gifts at one time? Maybe that was 2 questions I asked. I have read
books on the subject and heard preaching on this, I would just like
your opinion on it.
Thank you, Your servant in Christ, Mel
A.Thank
you for your questions. The gifts of the Spirit are found in Paul's
first letter to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. Strictly
speaking, there is no reason that God couldn't give a person more
than one of the spiritual gifts. Some people seem to have been
given more than one. Paul lists them as the word of wisdom,
knowledge, faith, healing, working of miracles, prophecy,
discernment of spirits, tongues(languages, not mysterious
utterances)
But, there are some very important things to remember about those
gifts: First, the gifts that are given to one person should be used
for the benefit of all of the mmembers. So, share those gifts that
God gave you with others. Secondly, as Paul said, just because you
have only one gift, you shouldn't believe that you are not part of
His whole body. That is so because the body of Christ is made up of
many members, each with their own gifts for the benefit of all of
the other members. That is, we can't say that we have no need of
the other members' gifts.
Paul then explains how and where these spiritual gifts are able to
be used in His church(which are the members of the body of Christ,
not just a building or a particular religious denomination such as
the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, etc.) Some, as Paul
said, can use their spiritual gifts as apostles(those sent out),
prophets(those who convey God's message), teachers, workers of
miracles(actually powers), healers(doctors), helpers,
administrators, those who speak and understand different
languages(tongues). You can see that some who are engaged in
different activities within Christ's church may have need of more
than one spiritual gift.
Paul, in his wisdom, also pointed out two important things to
remember: Don't look down on other peoples gifts as being
insignificant. We need other people's gifts also(1 Corinthians
12:21-25). But, the opposite should be remembered too. Don't think
less of your own gifts and covet someone else's(1 Corinthians
12:31) We shouldn't covet other peoples gifts. We each have our own
gifts for the benefit of all members.
I would say that you should read Chapter 12 slowly out loud and ask
yourself what each word and verse means. Study each chapter
word-by-word and verse-by-verse. I use the King James Version, but,
the Revised Standard Version may be a better translation of the
Greek words. I would caution use of other translations. Read them
with a discerning eye. If you are able to, find a copy of Strong's
Concordance and Dictionary. It will help in translating the
original Hebrew and Greek languages(tongues) that are the source of
the English translations of Old and New Testaments.
_____________________________
Q.
One of my friends was wondering when and where each book of the
bible was written and I unfortunately could not tell him. Can you
help me out? From Stephanie
A.
Because of their antiquity and an inability to precisely determine
the time and place of composition, there is some debate in
answering your question. The following list of New Testament
books(The canonical Greek New Testament) is given here, but you
should understand that new evidence continues to be unearthed and that
the times are only approximations. Some commentators are dogmatic,
in the pejorative sense, and insist that their dates are the
correct ones. I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject because
I believe that it is the substance of the letters and their message
which is important, not necessarily when, to whom and why they were
written or even their literary style.
First
Thessalonians is often seen as being the earliest. Although,
there may be letter fragments of Paul that are included in his
other letters which may be older. His epistles to the Corinthians,
for example, which may precede it. Galatians may be as old
as Paul's letters to Thessalonica, but it is debatable also. As for
their place of composition, that is even less clear. Paul spent,
for example, two years in prison at Caesarea but had access to his
scribes and could well have written many letters from there,
including parts of his letter to the Jews at Rome. He spent mush
time at Ephesus and could have written words from there. He also
spent two years under guard at Rome and could have written more
from there. Hebrews is indubitably a letter of Paul, in
spite of scholarly insistence that it couldn't be. It is a letter
to Hebrew speaking Jews who would know well Scripture written in
Hebrew, not necessarily Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking Jews) of
the Greek speaking nations. That is the reason for its
apparent(alleged) difference in writing style from Paul's other
letters.
What
some commentators don't seem to grasp is that Paul had very poor
eyesight after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus,
even close to being blind and required scribes to write in Greek
for him - Timothy, Sosthenes, Tertius, Silvanus, et al. Their
individual styles would have been different. Further, the Biblical
evidence is that he knew Hebrew but was not proficient in Greek,
Latin or Egyptian. See Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At Rome,
Volume IV, Pages 1-21 for more evidence of Paul's weaknesses
in speaking, writing and moving about all alone, without help.
Canonical Gospels(4)
Matthew 80 AD
Mark 75 AD
Luke 80 AD (May be as late as 150 AD when coupled with Acts)
John 35-45 AD (Generally considered to be closer to 95 AD, but see
Revelation)
Acts, 65 AD (May be as late as 150 AD when coupled with Luke's
Gospel. Paul's 4 Sea Voyages,
which
were written by Aristarchus, may be some of the earliest writing in
Acts.
Letters(21)
Romans 58-60 AD (May have some letter fragments earlier that 1
Thessalonians)
1 Corinthians 54-57 AD (May have some letter fragments earlier that
1 Thessalonians)
2 Corinthians 57-60 AD (May have some letter fragments earlier that
1 Thessalonians)
Galatians 45 AD (May be earlier than 1 Thessalonians)
Ephesians 54-57 AD (May be from prison)
Philippians 59 AD (May be from prison)
Colossians 59 AD (May be from prison)
1 Thessalonians 50 AD
2 Thessalonians 58-60 (May be from prison)
1 Timothy 61-65 AD
2 Timothy 61-65 AD
Titus 61-65 AD
Philemon 66 AD
Hebrews 60 AD
James 80-90 AD (Younger brother of Jesus and titular head of the
church at Jerusalem)
1 Peter 67 AD
2 Peter 73 AD
1 John 35-95 AD
2 John 35-95 AD
3 John 35-95 AD
Jude 64 AD
Revelation 33 AD (Traditionally considered to have been written at
least 60 years later)
_____________________________
Q.
I have been reading your website. I have been to several different
kinds of churches in my lifetime. Do you believe there is a right
or a wrong kind of religion?(Submitted by S.F. of Georgia)
A.Revelation
2:1 - 3:22 reveals that there were two types of churches that Jesus
accepted. They were the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia. The
other 5 churches, the churches at Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira,
Sardis and Laodicea were not completely accepted. Some of those who
were part of the church at Sardis, for example, were accepted.(See
Revelation 3:4) But, the church itself would not be accepted.(See
Revelation 3:1-3)
If
the church that you attend is like Smyrna or Philadelphia, it will
be accepted by Jesus Christ. You should not hesitate to attend and
support that church. If any of the churches that you attend are
like those of Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis or Laodicea
beware of what they teach and how they act. Do they teach and act
according to God's Word or do they teach and act according to human
values?
My
answer, based on Revelation 2:1 - 3:22, is that churches that teach
God's Word, the Bible, would be the right kind of church for you to
attend. Just keep your eyes, ears and mind open to what churches
teach. Follow Jesus' words and you'll do well. Share what you have
learned about Revelation 2:1-3:22 with the other members of your
church.
_____________________________
Q.
Where is it specifically documented in the Bible that the schedules
were repeated each year? And, which of the two, twenty-four
scheduled courses was reckoned to occur first in point of time? In
September-October or March-April? Why?
A.
The answers are given in the lesson entitled The Age of Jesus,
Part 2, which may be found in the Archives Section. See
also 1 Chronicles 24:1-19; Luke 1:5-2:7.
_____________________________
Q.
I do not see how as a historian you can privilege the
"biblical" evidence only. After (all) the books of the New
Testament were not fully agreed upon until the fourth century, and
even today different parts of the Church include different books in
the biblical canon. Moreover, if you are talking about
infallibility of Scripture, you must know that there are plenty of
direct contradictions there. J.T., Newton, MA
A.
I agree that most, if not all, traditional liberal scholarship
relies on its own wisdom rather than on the Biblical evidence. When
the two seem to be in conflict, it is the traditional interpretation
that is deemed correct, with the Biblical evidence automatically
rejected out of hand as being wrong.
Nevertheless,
just because the books of the New Testament were not fully agreed
upon until the fourth century or didn't become part of a
universally accepted Biblical cannon, it does not follow that the
Biblical evidence is imperfect, wrong or needs to be changed in
order to satisfy preconceived notions of what the evidence should
mean. The fourth century time frame does not change the Biblical
evidence that we have, neither do denominational differences alter
the facts. While separated by time, place and the writing of
scribes, the Biblical evidence was created before it was collected
together as a single unit. Included in that, of course, are
manuscripts which were uncovered after the fourth century.
To
repeat, it does not mean that the Biblical evidence is fallible
because it was collected together as a unit after the books were
written. Neither does it mean that the Biblical evidence is wrong
because there is not an agreement as to its meaning. Except for the
errors of the scribes during the process of translating the
Hebrew/Aramaic/Chaldee and Greek languages into other languages,
such as English, that which we have is evidence which must not be
excluded in analysis. The Biblical words must be accepted as the
primary source and must be offered into evidence. There are no
words that can be discarded simply because there appears to be a
contradiction or conflict in the eyes of the beholder. Words cannot
justifiably be eliminated solely because traditional liberal
scholars can't agree among themselves as to the message or meaning
of the Biblical evidence.
For
example, it is the traditional view that Paul's journeys, described
in the Book of Acts as being from synagogue to synagogue, couldn't
have occurred. The traditional doctrine is that Paul's letters must
be given more weight than Acts and that he was an apostle to the
Gentiles(non-Jews) and not to the Jews of the Dispersion. More than
one scholar has written that where there is a perceived difference
between Paul's letters and Acts, his letters must take precedence.
If there is a contradiction in the minds of the scholars, it is the
Biblical evidence that is deemed wrong. Therefore, according to
traditional teaching, it is the Biblical evidence of Acts that must
be wrong and that the Biblical evidence of his letters must be
right. What is inconceivable to traditional scholars is the
possibility that the Biblical evidence found in Paul's letters and
in Acts are both correct and that it is traditional scholarship's
understanding of the evidence that is wrong.
I
observe that traditional scholars focus so much on perceived
differences that they exclude the message of the text itself.
Because, according to traditional wisdom, if there is not apparent
harmony between or among the texts of the Bible, it is the Bible
that must be fallible. In other words, since there is no common
acceptance of the Biblical evidence, it is the Bible that must be
at fault, rather than the understanding of those who look at it.
Traditional scholars see discord rather than concord, disagreement
rather than agreement. Instead of seeing their own fallibility they
accuse the Biblical evidence.
It
is curious in the extreme to observe that there is little hint of
an acceptance of a Divine hand in the matter, even when Paul
explains himself as being Divinely inspired. He said, "For
I make it known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached was
not according to man. For I didn't receive it from man, neither was
I taught it. It came to me by revelation."(Galatians 1:11,12ff)
Now,
if traditional scholars hang on Paul's words, why do they not also
hang on the other Divinely inspired words of God? Timothy wrote for
Paul, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished for all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) res
ipsa loquitur"
Unless, of course, the answer is that traditional scholars do not
believe that all scripture is inspired by God. I observe that
traditional scholars pick and choose what they want to believe,
based on their own wisdom, rather than on the wisdom of the
Biblical evidence.
As
a further response, I'll also ask the following: Specifically, what
are the greatest perceived contradictions of the Bible that seem to
persuade you and others to believe that the Biblical evidence
should not be "privileged"? Or,
what contrary Biblical evidence is there that the Biblical evidence is not true?
[For further reference,
review Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At Rome, Volume IV,
Chapter 9.]
_____________________________
Q.I
was thinking about what you said about Paul and his title
"Apostle of the Gentiles." I confess I still don't know
why he was given that title (especially since all of the apostles
taught the Gentiles.) However, I was wondering if you had
considered that his title might have originated because he held out
against Peter over circumcision for non-Jews. What do you think?
A.
Good to hear from you. I'm still reading as much as I can about
General Patton and his reliance on the "Almighty". The
more I read, the more it amazes me that Eisenhower overlooked his
genius. Maybe someday this will all be sorted out. I've also been
looking into a biography of Winston Churchill to see if he had
anything to say about Patton.
Yes.
I think that the question of circumcision has something to do with
Paul being named an apostle to Gentiles. Some scholars who rely
primarily on Paul's letters to "prove" that he was an
apostle to Gentiles tend to exclude the evidence of the Book of
Acts because they believe that it is unhistorical, whatever that
means. Their stance is contrary to the overwhelming Biblical
evidence that he was sent out to the Jews of the Greek speaking
nations of Syria, Asia, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, Rome of Italia
and possibly Tartessos of Spain - synagogue to synagogue. And, not
so incidentally, he taught out of the Law of Moses and the
Prophets, that which would be known to the Jews of the Dispersion.
Some scholars point to Galatians 1:11-2:21 as evidence of Paul
being an apostle to Gentiles. In particular, they cite Galatians
2:7, 8 and 9 as proof, all the while ignoring the contrary evidence
in the Book of Acts.
Paul
said, "...when they saw that the gospel to the
uncircumcised was given to me, just as the gospel of the
circumcised had been given to Peter,(for the one working through
Peter to be an apostle to the circumcised worked also in me to(for)
the nations, εις τα
εθνη) and when James and Cephas and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived that grace was given to me, they
gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we
should go to the nations, εις τα
εθνη, and they should go to the
circumcised..."(Galatian
2:7-9; KJV/RJWSR)
The
verse numbers and translations in your Bible may be slightly
different. Nevertheless, the question comes down to the meaning of
the Greek words εις τα
εθνη in Verses 8
and 9, which scholars invariably mistranslate as Gentiles.
The Greek words εις τα
εθνη mean
"to(for) the nations".(εθνη is an inflected form of the word εθνος which means nation.)
The
uncircumcised would not exclude the uncircumcised Jews of
the Dispersion, such as Timothy, who were scattered to the Greek
speaking nations of Syria, Asia, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, Rome
of Italia, and Tartessos of Spain - synagogue to synagogue.
Because, that is where Paul went on his journeys. Those Jews who
insisted that circumcision was required were Jews who were also
numbered among the Jews of the nation Israel and, in particular,
Jerusalem. In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he includes a brief
autobiography, Galatians 1:11 - 2:21.
Interestingly(and
you can check this out for yourself), a Jew is a Jew by virtue of
his mother's Jewishness, not his father's. For example, Paul's
scribe, Timothy, had a Jewish mother, thereby making him Jewish
also. He, as a Jew, had not been circumcised, at least according to
Acts 16:3. Timothy would be considered Gentile to Jews. Obdurate
Jews are considered Gentile.(check that too)
"Then
he(Paul) came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A certain disciple was
there, named Timothy, the son of a faithful Jewish woman; but his
father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra
and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to go out with him; and he took
him and circumcised him on account of the Jews being in those
places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."(Acts
16:1-3)
Notice
that Timothy was already a disciple before Paul arrived at Derbe
and to Lystra, indicating that other apostles had preceded Paul to
the non-Jews(today called Gentiles) of that area. You'll also find
the word Gentiles in several other verses in Galatians. It
is a mis-translation of the Greek word εθνος in its various inflected forms.
_____________________________
Q.
Why does your angel have wings?
A.
The Bible does not describe angels as having wings. Cherubim have
wings. Eagles have wings. My messenger(angel) has at least six
wings. That really doesn't answer the question does it?
_____________________________
Q.
Why do you use Hebrew and Greek letters instead of transliterating?
A.
The purpose is to acquaint students with the languages of the
ancient texts of the Old and New Testaments so that students will
become more analytical in their studies. Students should
investigate and do research for themselves and determine the
meaning of the Bible text. They should not take for granted that
which has become denominational church doctrine, dogma or the
wisdom of man. There are many excellent text books which students
may use in order to study grammar. In addition to those texts,
students should use Strong's Analytical Concordance of the
Bible for precise definitions of Hebrew and Greek words.
|
|
____________________
Q. I am looking
for Hebrew symbols of the angels, Gabriel, Michael, Daniel etc. Can you
help me find them? Thank you, Sean
A. The Hebrew
word for the English word Gabriel is גבריאל
The name Gabriel means "Man of God". Gabriel is an
archangel, or one of the head angels (See Strong Nos. 1403, 1043).
The Hebrew word
for the English word Michael is מיכאל
The name Michael means "One who is like God". Michael
is also an archangel.(Strong No.4317).
The Hebrew word
for the English word Daniel is דנאל
The name Daniel means "Judgement of God". Daniel was a
prophet.(Strong No. 1841)
Note that Hebrew
letters are written in reverse order from English letters. For example,
the Hebrew letters that make up Michael's name are מיכאל
and would be written as lakym
in English. This process is called transliteration, not
translation. It just means that the Hebrews letters are directly
written as English letters in the same order. Here they are in
reverse order.(backwards) We read Hebrew words and sentences right to
left which is opposite of English sentences which we read from left to
right.
When we translate
the Hebrew letters, we reverse their order and add vowels. That's why
מיכאל
(lakym)
becomes mykal or Michael in English translations. There is a vowel, or
vowel point, added which makes the English letter "e". The
two letters "el" together mean God. You will see that Dani-el
and Gabri-el have those last two letters.
The Hebrew
letters that make up a name do not have vowels. The letters that a make
up the Hebrew words in the Bible didn't have vowels. Modern day Hebrew
adds vowels, or vowel points. They indicate how a word should be
pronounced sound when spoken. They also give meaning to the word. The
letters that I gave for Gabriel, Michael and Daniel do not have vowels
or vowel points.
Some Bible
references about Gabriel, Michael and Daniel are as follows:
For Daniel,
Daniel 1:3,4,518,17; 2:14ff,48; 4:8-27; 6:2,10-23. Ezekiel 14:14,20.
Matthew 24:15
For Gabriel,
Daniel 8:16, 9:21.
Luke 1:19,26.
For Michael,
Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1. Jude
1:9. Revelation 12:7
For Daniel,
Daniel 1:3,4,518,17; 2:14ff,48; 4:8-27; 6:2,10-23. Ezekiel 14:14,20.
Matthew 24:15
I hope this helps,
Thank you for asking,
Richard
____________________
Q. What is the
Greek definition for human? I once heard a preacher say that the
"hu", meant spirit in Greek or maybe Latin. John G. Achord, Texas
A. John. Thank
you for your interesting question. You're also helping others when you
ask questions. As usual, with Greek and Latin words, much depends on
their use in context. So, the following are general definitions. I'll
cite a few examples of their use in the context and text of Scripture.
Please note that the numbers after the Hebrew and Greek words are
references to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
The Greek word for people is laos (2992), if that is what you mean by human, humankind or mankind
regardless of being male or female. If by "human" you mean
the physical or flesh body, the Greek word is sarx (4561). Sarx can be translated
as the English word "flesh" or, in general terms, a human
being.
The Hebrew word for male is zakar,
2145.
The Hebrew word for female is neqebah,
5347.
The Hebrew word for man, is adam,
120.[As you will see, adam
can have different meanings depending on context]
The Hebrew word for woman is ishshah,
802
The Greek word pneuma (4151)
is commonly translated into English as "spirit". The English
word "spirit" is taken from the Latin word spiritus.
Both pneuma and spiritus have meanings of air,
breath, wind, something felt but not seen, life, etc. Again, it depends
how the word is used in the context Scripture. We take our English word
pneumatic (air, tires, pressure, etc.) from the Greek word
"pneuma".
"Go
therefore amd make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (pneuma
tos, 4151, Matthew 28:19)
The English word "human" comes from the Latin word humanus
which has a meaning of "the nature of people" or a
"human being" without regard to male or female. There is
another Latin word which is related to humanus and that is humus.
Humus has a meaning of ground, dirt, earth, soil, etc. The
essence of humus and pneuma, may be found in Genesis
2:7, as well as many other places in Scripture.
And the Lord God
formed the man (The Man Adam, adam, 120, not just any man) of the
dust (aphar,
6083, ashes, dust, earth, ground,
powder, rubbish) of the ground (adamdam,
reddish ground),
and breathed in his nostrils the breath (neshamah, 5397) of life (chay, 2497);
and the man, The
Man Adam, nor just any man or mankind in general but a
specific male
person whose name was Adam (120) became a living soul (nephesh, 5315).
[Note that the specific man Adam, the man
Adam, was specifically created to till the ground(farmer),
Genesis 2:7, and was not part of the original 6th Day Creation of
humans, Genesis 1:27. One reason that no one had been created to till
the ground until after the 6th day was that there was nothing to till,
Genesis 2:5,6 because no rain had yet fallen on the earth to cause seeds
to sprout and the plants to grow. That's what the Bible says.]
The Hebrew word for a man, human being, mankind, human kind, as a
general term, etc., is adam, which also has a meaning of dirt,
ground, soil, red soil, reddish soil, red in the face, showing blood in
the face, ruddy complexion. The Hebrew word for the man Adam, is hah
adam. That is, it is the word man preceded by the
definite article the, in English, and has a meaning of the
specific man, the man Adam, not just mankind, human
kind, human being. Another way of looking at it is that the specific
man who is called Adam, in English translations, was made from the red
dirt of the ground and where his flesh body would eventually return
after he lost the breath of life, and with his spirit returning to God
who created him.
Jesus' Spirit returned to the Father when his physical body died.
"Father into thy hands I commit my spirit (pneuma, 4151, Luke 23:46).
"And Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his
spirit" (pneuma, 4151,
Matthew 27:50).
"He bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (pneuma, 4151, John 19:30).
"To be absent from this body is to be present with the Lord."
(2 Corinthians 5:6-8).
"And God formed man of dust of the ground." (Genesis 2:7)
"You are dust and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19).
BUT
"Before the silver cord is loosed, or the golden bowl is broken,
or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the
well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit(ruach,
7307) will return to God who gave
it." (Ecclesiastes 12:6,7)
The specific man Adam was ruddy complected, according to the Hebrew
definition of the word adam.
Thanks again for the question.
Richard
____________________
Q. One person in
my group is taking a Bible study that I have a difficult time
accepting. They are discussing "levels of hell". This study
goes on to say just as there are levels in heaven so there will be in
hell. I know scripture gives evidence of levels in heaven correlating
to our rewards. But I had never heard of this in regards to hell. God
hates all sin. I know there are several He mentions by name (Mal. 2:16;
Pr. 6:16) but as to there being different degrees of hell I am not sure
of. The book sights Matt 11:23-24; Matt 13-14 and Romans 2:5-6. They
use words such as "greater condemnation" and "it shall
be more tolerable" I don't believe there is enough there to
suggest levels of hell but more in the line of culpability. Submitted
by D. C.
A. Thanks for
another good question. I agree with you. The short answer is that the
Bible doesn't explicitly list levels of heaven or hell. The so-called
levels of heaven or hell are man-made concepts, like rapture, trinity,
etc., probably meant to explain the nature of sin in this case. For
example, there is one study which promotes 7 levels of heaven. Each of
the levels is taken out of context and lumped into a single list. Each
should be understood within their position in the Bible but not
necessarily compared or contrasted.
Based on your question, this would be a
good opportunity to challenge one of the traditions that has arisen
regarding levels of heaven. That tradition stems from a
misunderstanding of Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 12:2: "I
know a man in Christ who 14 years ago - whether in the body I do not
know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows - such one
was caught up to the third heaven."
There are three heaven ages and three
earth ages(periods of time), not a third heaven. 2 Peter 3:4-8 mentions
the first two heaven ages and the first two earth ages. The third age
is the heaven age and earth age yet to come. It was this heaven age
that Paul was referring to in 2 Corinthians 12:2. In other words, Paul
was given a glimpse of the future heaven and future earth ages(third
ages), just as John was given a glimpse of the future heaven and earth
according to the Book of Revelation. According Genesis 1:1, God created
more that one heaven(one before this age, one during this age, and one
future age) but only one earth(with three corresponding ages; one
before the destruction of Genesis 1:2, one during the age in which we
are living now, and one age to come. The age to come is referred to in
Revelation 21:1.
To repeat, 2 Peter 3:4-8 refers to the
first two heavenly and first two earth ages. 2 Corinthians 12:2 and
John 21:1 refer to the third heaven and third earth ages. The concept
of three heaven ages and three earth ages is, of course, also a
man-made concept and used advisedly. It is meant to clarify what
otherwise might be misunderstood.
I'm not familiar with the Bible Study
that you mention, but there are many misconceptions that can arise by
attempting to organize or catalogue different Biblical levels. It
doesn't mean that they are wrong. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. It just
means that the Bible doesn't portray them in such mathematical or
categorical terms.
The Book of Proverbs lists 6(no 7)
things that God hates but doesn't give levels of penalties for each of
them. Or, that is, Proverbs doesn't list them in order of their
sinfulness in hell.
Note also the propaganda that God loves
the sinner but hates the sin.(Another man-made (mis)concept(ion).
According to Proverbs 6:19, God hates a false witness(a liar) and one
who sows discord.(trouble maker) I don't know that God codifies either
the offenses or the good deeds and puts numbers or letters on them as
man would. For example, the worst(and unforgivable) sin of all is
denying the Holy Spirit when we are called to make a choice between
God's way and Satan's way. I guess that would be given top(or bottom
level) On a scale of 0 to 100, it would rate 110(or -110). I suppose
man would like to put sins on levels of sinfulness. Some of which he
could get away with by just a slap on the wrist.
Some churches(denominations) evidently
put sin on different levels. While some sins are OK, others are not.
Sodomy and adultery are OK but murder isn't(I guess?) I don't know what
they see or don't see in the Bible, if they see anything at all.
Anyway, before we "gets our just
deserts", we've got to get into heaven to stay first. What did
Jesus say about the Law and getting into heaven?
"Think not that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you,
That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven."(Matthew 5:17-21) The laws are still in effect.
The concept of hell as a place where one
should not desire to be or where we live out eternity for our sins
stems from the New Testament, not the Old. Matthew 5:22,29,30;
10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33,
Mark 9:43,45,47, Luke 12:05
and James 3:06 all call hell gehenna,
a Hebrew word for the human garbage dump outside Jerusalem
which continually smoldered with flesh. 2 Peter 2:4 uses Tartarus for
hell.(See Paul's travels to and from Tartessos or Tarshish in Spain
and the evil city of Tyre.
Also, see Paul's Tarsus in
Celicia of Acts 22:3, which in some manuscripts is called Tarshish. It
may explain why it is uncertain where Paul actually came from,
including either Spain
or Cilicia.)
None of these seem to be a desirable
place to go forever and are more descriptive or symbolic than an actual
place on earth or elsewhere. Recall that we are all dust(chemicals in
my words) and go back to dust. It is our spiritual bodies(selves) that
will either be blotted out from the memory of others, separated from
Heaven where God, Jesus, Abraham, et al, are.(See gulf
of Abraham) or live in
everlasting damnation. Note that Matthew 18:9 even refers to Jerusalem's
garbage dump as the hell of fire.
In addition to Proverbs, there is
another list that sometimes goes unnoticed but that may or may not be
listed under levels of sin in hell.(Exodus 20:3-17)
Thanks again for opening the doors to God's Word.
____________________
Q. I was told the
scriptures that were read in Jesus' time, contained the Apocrypha. Is
this true? If so, why the exclusion from the KJV ? Jeff Cota, Concord,
NH
A. Thank you for
another good question. The short answers are these: The Apocrypha was
written before Jesus' time, and it was included in the original King
James Version of 1611. I've included a list of the commonly accepted
books of the Apocrypha at the end.
The Apocrypha was written in the Greek
language and was part of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
which is called the Septuagint, LXX. It was written for the benefit of
Greek speaking Jews, called Hellenists, who had scattered(dispersed)
from their homeland to Greek speaking nations. The Septuagint was the
text used in the synagogues of Greek speaking nations.
But, the Apocrypha was never included as
part of the Hebrew(language) text itself, the Bible of Jesus' time and
of the Jews.(Our Old Testament) The Septuagint was written before Jesus'
time, c. 100 B.C., for and by Greek speaking Jews. This Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible was accomplished at the behest of
Ptolemy II in Alexandria, Egypt.
Paul's letters reflect interpretations based on this Greek, Septuagint,
text, not always the Hebrew text.
Recall that the Jews of the Dispersion,
Hellenists, were Greek speaking Jews who had scattered to the regions
of the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt,
Syria, Asia,
Galatia,
Macedonia,
and Achaia. The Jews of the Diaspora(Dispersion) used the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint(with the Apocrypha) in
their synagogues.
Also, recall that Paul was a Jew who
carried his message of Jesus to the Jews of the Dispersion in the
synagogues of those Greek speaking nations.(Acts 9:20; 13:5,14; 14:1;
17:1,10,17; 18:4,19) The Greek language was the common language, lingua
franca, of the Roman Empire until Latin replaced it completely, c.
200-250 A.D. It is understandable that the New Testament would have
been written in Greek because it would have been written by the early
Jewish-Christians situated in Greek speaking nations, including Paul
and his scribes Timothy, Tertius, Sosthenes, Silvanus, et al. By his
own admission, Paul did not speak well.(1 Corinthians 1:17,
2:1,4; 2 Corinthians 10:10,
11:6)
NOTE: Despite popular tradition, there is no Biblical
evidence that Paul spoke in anything but the Hebrew tongue(language).
It is an assumption not based on the Biblical evidence to claim that he
spoke or wrote in many languages. This may account for his dependence
on his scribes in his travels to the Greek speaking nations and to the
Jews in their synagogues, along with the use of the Septuagint in
Paul's letters. For example, Timothy was from the Greek nation of
Lystra and was the son of a Jewish woman and a Greek father.(See Acts
16:1; Acts 21:37-22:3; Acts
26:14; Philippians 3:5).
The Apocrypha contains anywhere from 14
to 17(or more) books, depending on their inclusion and interest by
different faiths. The word Apocrypha is a transliteration of the Greek
word apokrypha and, when translated, has a meaning of
"that which is hidden". The Original King James Version of
1611 contained a translation of the Apocrypha. It fell out of use after
many, including the Puritans, objected to its use as being non-divinely
inspired because it could not be confirmed that it was originally
written in Hebrew or was included in the Hebrew canon. The Roman
Catholic Bible contains the books of the Apocrypha in different order
and in their presentation of the Old Testament, and it combines some of
them into one book. The Revised Standard Version, Oxford Edition, adds
the Apocrypha at the end of the New Testament. The King James
Version(KJV) and the New King James Version(NKJV) don't normally
include the Apocrypha today. However, most students and scholars of
today do study them without reservation.
The question of the authoritative, or
canonical, nature of the books stems from the fact that we only have
copies of them in the Greek language, not in the Hebrew. In other
words, the books are definitely of Jewish origin and probably were
originally written in Hebrew. We haven't, as yet, found copies in
Hebrew. The Septuagint(with Apocrypha) were available to be read in
Jesus' time. Whether or not he did read them in the Greek is
undetermined, at least based on the Biblical evidence.
Here is one list of the books of The
Apocrypha
1st book of Esdras
2nd Book of Esdras(not included in the Septuagint)
Tobit
Judith
Additions to The Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Young Men
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1st Book of Maccabees
2nd Book of Maccabees
3rd Book of Maccabees
4th Book of Maccabees
Psalm 151
____________________
Q. I have trouble
believing in a Triune God. How can you explain this phenomenon when
Jesus constantly refers to God as his father, like a separate being? There
are no mysteries in the Bible. So, why should I believe on the Trinity?
Submitted by E.S., Florida
A. Great
question. Many others ask the same thing.
First, the
word Trinity does not appear in either the New Testament Bible or the
Greek manuscripts from which it was translated.(Neither does the word
Rapture by the way) The word Trinity is defined as the union of three
persons in one: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
According
to Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses said, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God,
the Lord is one." Jesus quoted those words in Mark 12:29. Paul
quoted them in 1 Corinthians 8:4,6. The words mean that God is the only
God for Israel,
not some other god. It doesn't reveal whether or not God is composed of
three parts.
The
word Trinity is a proper name given to the concept of a united
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The word Trinity is a word that
was created to indicate that the three are considered by many
Christians to mean that they are thought of as a single unit. Another
way of looking at it is this: it was an attempt to understand and
explain God's triune nature in light of Bible revelations.
Or,
the Trinity is a concept or idea that is meant to explain certain
things about God, God's Spirit and His Son Jesus and their relationship
to each other. The word Holy simply means separate in the sense of
being whole or complete within itself, by the way. It is a derived
quantity, supported by(witnessed by) certain Biblical verses.
The
most prominent Bible verse that puts(not necessarily unites) the three
together is Matthew 28:19, where it is revealed that Jesus told his own
Disciples(who would become Apostles when they were sent out) "Go
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
It's
called the Great Commission(another made-made concept or name).
Nevertheless, there is a sense that the three are separate entities or
separate in their function. That is, the collection of the three wasn't
given a name by Matthew. It is a man-made concept and teaching. Because
it is a man-made creation, it is subject to failure. By giving the
three a collective name, Trinity, it invites all sorts of
confusion such as the one you and many, many others experience. The
biggest problem is how to explain that the three are one and the one
is(or are) three. That's a man-made confusion for sure, Catch 22, in
light of the monotheism of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The
Lord our God, the lord is one".(Shema Yesrael, Adonai elohenu,
Adonai ehud)
The
other three evangelists, Mark, Luke and John,
do not report that Jesus told his Disciples to
go forth and teach in the name of the "Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit"(Ghost is a word that comes from the German word for
spirit, geist, so it is not necessarily wrong to use as long
as you understand what it means) In Mark 16:15, Jesus told them to
"Go into the world and preach the gospel to all creation". In
Luke 24:47, he told them that "Repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in His(Jesus') name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
In John 20:21, he told them, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
me, I also send you". Again, there is a sense of a separate "person"
of the Trinity. Sometimes they are referred to that way but still
maintain their closeness or "collective unity".
The
Apostle Paul had something to say about the matter in 1 Corinthians
12:1-31. Paul, in his great wisdom, identified the Holy Spirit for us.
The so-called Holy Spirit is God's Spirit or the Spirit of God.(See 1
Corinthians 12:3) You should look these verses up because they are an
important chapter in Paul's letter to the Church at Corinth.
See if you recognize one of your own gifts that God's Spirit has given
to you. I'm sure he has given you many gifts or you wouldn't be asking
questions.
In 2
Corinthians 13:14, Paul closes his letter with these words: "The
Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen." Those words also
connect the three but do not explicitly make them one.
John
1:1, The witness of John, the author of the Gospel According to John,
begins with these words: "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word Word
in John 1:1 means Jesus. The references are as follows:
Revelation
19:13, His name(Jesus) is called the Word of God.
Genesis
1:1, In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the
earth. Note that there was more than one heaven created but only one
earth.
Genesis
1:26, "Let us make(create) man in our image, after our
likeness."(6th Day of Creation) The "us"
means that Jesus, and all the spiritual entities were with God during
the creation. When God said "Let us make man in our image",
it should be understood that the "likeness" was a spiritual
likesness, not a physical likeness because God is in spirit form.
Therefore, our spiritual selves are in the image of, or likeness of,
God. God, who is in spirit form, appeared in physical form through His
only begotten(made physical, that is, in the flesh, in body form) son.
We are all created in spiritual form in the image or likeness of God.
That is, we are all spitiual sons and daughters of God because
we are made, created, in His spiritual image. But, there has been only
one physical(in the flesh, in the body) son created. He was
Jesus(Joshua in the Hebrew, Iesous in the Greek) That's what is meant
by "only begotten son". We were given our physical bodies
through our parents, male and female. Our spiritual bodies are from
God. Jesus physical body came through Mary, with his father being God.
That's why he could call God "Father".
John 4:24,
God is Spirit.
John
1:15b, He(Jesus) that comes after me(John the Baptist; Jesus was born 6
months after John) is preferred before me: for he was before me.(in
spirit form, John 1:1) That is, Jesus was with God before and during
the time(6th Day) of Creation.(Review Genesis 1:26 above and also John
17:24)
John
1:48-51, Before Philip called you(Nathaniel), when you were under the
fig tree, I saw you. (When was Nathaniel under the fig tree?).
1
Kings 4:25, And Judah and Israel
lived in safety Desire to live in safety.
Psalm
139:1-5, 12-17, You have searched me and have known me.
John 10:30,
I and the Father are one.
John
17:5,24, 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own
self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 24...for
you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Review Genesis 1:26 again,
"us".
John
8:56,57,58, 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I
am.(See again Genesis 1:26).
Where
does that leave us? It isn't necessary for your salvation that you
believe the teaching of man's doctrine(teaching). What is necessary for
salvation, like the criminal on the cross who probably wouldn't have
known a trinity from a quadrinity, is belief in Jesus
Christ.(See Luke 23:43; 1
Thessalonians 5:9).
What
must I do for salvation? Paul wrote to the Church at Thessalonica,
"God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through
our Lord Jesus Christ"(1 Thessalonians 5:9).
One
way to describe the Trinity is in mathematical terms. If two things are
equal to a third thing, they are equal to each other. If you want to
give that relationship a name, like Trinity, that's OK with me. It may
help in communication. Here's the tripartite relationship,
mathematically speaking of course.
God
is Spirit(Holy Spirit); John 4:24
God = Holy Spirit.
Jesus
said that He and the Father are one; John 10:30
Jesus = God
Therefore,
God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are equal quantities, mathematically speaking
of course. Therefore, Jesus = God = Holy Spirit.
Man
has put them together as a single unit. Man could have put them
together as two and called them Duality. But, it isn't necessary for
salvation and need not be emphasized beyond anything else. Put it on
the back burner for awhile and learn some other things in God's Word,
the Bible. The word Trinity is overemphasized at the expense of other
lessons in the Bible. Some churches are called Trinity
Church. Whole courses are
taught on the subject, all to the confusion of the man-made concept.
That, in the final analysis, may be the reason that it is a confusing
subject. It ain't in the Bible as a name.
If
the three are not one, they are pretty closely related. Joined at the
hip, one might say.
Don't
get hung up on it. It's more important that you understand what it may
mean in relation to the Bible, the Word of God. But, don't let your
understanding get in the way of your relationship with others. Simply
state your beliefs and plant the seeds of wisdom and let them grow over
time. Just as others can't tell you what you must believe, it would be
difficult for you to change someone else's mind and tell them what they
must believe.
Often
times, churches(or denominations) will insist that you believe
something that they teach. Worse, they insist that you must believe it,
or you won't be able to become members of that church or denomination.
E. I hope that isn't your situation. God gave us a free will so that we
could love him on our own - not what someone else insists or teaches
us. We learn from others, but we need to come to our own belief as
individual members of the body of Christ. No one else can do that for
us. God wants us to love him and be guided by His teaching and
direction, not the teaching of man(or, in this case, a church
doctrine). If you're a student, be obedient to your teachers in what
you do but know what it means and what you truly believe until you are
on your own. Take their teaching under consideration but always reserve
the right to think for yourself, even if you don't say it out loud. God
will know and hear your silent prayers and know what's in your heart.
Thanks again for the great question, Richard.
____________________
Q.
In Matthews account of the crucifixion, he quotes Jesus as saying,
"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", or "My God, My God, why
have you forsaken me?" Was this a moment of separation from God, a
moment of doubt, or as I believe, a quotation of scripture(Psalm 22)?
This psalm, as you know, describes every thing that was happening to
Jesus at that moment. Submitted by Jeff, Concord,
N.H.
A.
Thank you for your question. Yes, Jesus cried out the first words of
Psalm 22. Both Mark 15:34 and
Matthew 27:46 record His words on the cross. Matthew may have been
recording Mark's Gospel Account. In any event, each is a written record
of Jesus' words. Psalm 22 is a Psalm of David and would have been
written about 1000 years before Jesus' crucifixion. In that sense, it
was a prophecy of the martyrdom of the Messiah, the Christ. As you so
rightly point out, it describes in detail the events on the cross.
Because it was written so long before Jesus' crucifixion, it is
unlikely that the witness of Mark and Matthew would be wrong.
It is unfortunate that there has been a perpetuation of the false
testimony that Jesus had doubt or that he descended into Hell because
he had doubt. This false witness had some of its roots in an early
version of the Apostles' Creed. Part of the early Creed reads, "He
descended into Hell." Modern versions of the Creed have corrected
this because it cannot be confirmed by Scripture!
Those who study the Bible sometimes take the words out of context and
begin the process of speculating what they mean. If they would continue
reading, Matthew 27:50 reveals that after He repeated the words of
Psalm 22, "Jesus cried out with a loud voice and gave up His
spirit." According to Ecclesiastes 12:7, when man, who is
physically made out of matter(dust), dies, "Then the dust will
return to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave
it."(Review Adam's creation and Genesis 2:7 and 3:19.
That is, each of us has two entities, one physical and one spiritual.
The physical dies and returns to the "dust" or
"matter" from which it is formed, our spirit goes back to God
who gave it.
There is no rapture by the way. First, the word rapture isn't
in the Bible. Secondly, God isn't going to reassemble chemicals(dust)
to recreate a person in an earthly, physical body all over again. Why
would God recreate a physical body that would also be just as imperfect
and liable to die a physical death when a person is going to be given a
spiritual body which is incorruptible and immortal? It is not Biblical.
Each will be given a spiritual body, incorruptible.(1 Thessalonians
4:14-15) That is, those who have died have already gone back to God who
gave it.(Ecclesiastes 12:6-7) That's the reason we who are alive when
Christ returns can't precede those who have died - they've
already gone back to God.. Spiritually, those who have
died have already gone. They won't return to the grave and then pop up
with a new earthly, physical, body. They will already have spiritual
bodies.
Still another way of looking at it is this: Who did Jesus give his
spirit up to? Luke 23:46
answers that question: "Father into your hands I commit my
spirit." It also means that there was no doubt in Jesus' mind that
His spirit would return to the Father who gave it or that there was a
separation from God. Jesus gave his spirit directly back to God.
According to John 10:17 and 18, Jesus told the Pharisees,
"Therefore my father loves me, because I lay down my life that I
may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down, and I
have power to take it again. This command I have received from my
father."
Did God hear Jesus' cries? According to Paul's letter to the Hebrews,
God did hear Jesus. God the Father said of Jesus, "You are a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek; who, in the last
days of his flesh, when he had offered prayers and supplications, with
vehement cries and tears to Him(God) who was able to save him from
death and was heard because of his bodily fear..."
There are many, many more Biblical references that I could give. But
the final one is the most telling in John 20:11-18: "But Mary
stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look
into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body
of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to
her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them,
"Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where
they have laid him. "Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus
standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her,
"Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him
to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him
away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away. "Jesus
said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Hebrew,
"Rab-bo'ni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her,
"Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go
to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your
Father, to my God and your God." Mary Magdalene went and said to
the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that
he had said these things to her."
____________________
Q.
You mentioned Paul's poor eyesight. Would this be the "thorn in my
flesh" he speaks of in 2 Corinthians 12:7? Submitted by Jeff, Concord,
N.H.
A.Thank
you for your question, Jeff. Yes. There is ample Biblical evidence to
support Paul's weakness as failed eyesight that occurred on the way to Damascus.
His eyesight was never fully recovered because of the bightness of the
light. The following evidence is taken from Paul: The Apostle To
The Jews At Rome, Volume IV, pp. 10-15, and Paul &
Revelation, pp. 66-67, Paul's Defense at Jerusalem, Acts 23:1-5,
6-16(Copyright 2002 and 1995 by Richard J. Willoughby. Sr.) The
following evidence is explored more fully in those two volumes.
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN GALATIANS
"You know that on account of a weakness of the flesh I preached to
you before. And my body was a trial to you, you did not despise or
shame me, but you received me as a messenger of God, as Christ Jesus.
Where is then the blessedness you spoke of? For I bear you record, that
..if possible, your eyes gouging out, you gave them to me.
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own
hand."(Galatians 4:13,14,15;
6:11)
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN 1 CORINTHIANS
"For
now we look through a glass darkly. But then face to face."(1
Corinthians 13:12a, KJV)
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN 2 CORINTHIANS
"For we walk by faith and not by sight."(2 Corinthians
5:7)
EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S BLINDNESS IN ACTS
"...3a light from heaven flashed about
him 4and he fell to the ground and heard a
voice saying to him, 'Saul! Saul!, Why do you persecute
me?' 8Saul arose from the ground; and when
his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; so they led him by the
hand and brought him to Damascus.(Acts 9:3,4,8) If
Paul could see, why would they have to lead him by the hand and led(ouden
eblepen)"?
"17bAnd he(Ananias) layng his hands on him(Saul-Paul)
said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by
which you came(to Damascus), has sent me that you may look up(aneblepses)
and be filled with the Holy Spirit.'(Acts 9:17b, 18)
18And immediately, as scales, fell
from the eyes and he looked up(aneblepsen)."
(NOTE: The Greek words aneblepses and aneblepsen are
traditionally mistranslated in the English language as "see
again" and "regained sight" respectively. The correct
English translation of aneblepses should be "look
up" and of aneblepsen, "looked up" - not
"regain sight" and/or "regained sight"..)
Saul-Paul's enduring blindness continued long after his encounter with
Christ on the way to Damascus.
The evidence is found right in Acts 9:26, for example: "But
Barnabas, taking hold of him, led him to the apostles(at Jerusalem)…."
Why would Saul-Paul have to be taken hold of if he could see?
Saul-Paul's appearance at Jerusalem had to be after many days(Acts
9:23) which was after his appearance in the synagogue at Damascus(Acts
9:20) and then being let down in a basket.(Acts 9:25) After many days,
a person who had "regained his sight" would not have to be
taken hold of and led to apostles, as Barnabas did.(Acts 9:27)
Similarly, according to Acts 22:6,7; 12-14, Paul told those at
Jerusalem from the steps of the Temple, "6As
I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light
from heaven shown around me 7And I fell to the ground … 11And
when I could not look up(ouk eveblepon) because of the glory
of the light, I was being led by the hand by those who were with me,
and came to Damascus. 12And one Ananias, a devout man
according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,
13came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, look up(aneblepson)."
And after that very hour, I looked up for him(anablepsa eis auton)."
The Greek word aneblepson does not mean receive your sight,
i.e., looking up is not the same as perceiving light energy.
PAUL'S DEFENSE AT JERUSALEM
ACTS 22:30; 23:5, 6-15
"The tribune commanded that the chief priests(archiereis)
and council(synedrion) assemble to determine the certain
reason why Paul was being accused."(Acts 22:30).
Paul, having been brought down, was set among
the chief priest, Ananias, and the council, having brought down Paul
set him before them. He said that he was a Pharisee and on trial with
respect to the hope and to the resurrection of the dead(Acts 22:30,
23:6) In Acts 23:1ff, "paying close attention", not seeing; (de
gnous), "and knowing", Cf. Acts 13:9, (atenisas),
means "paying attention to" not "seeing".
"And Paul said, 'I did not know that he(Ananias) was the high
priest"(Acts 23:5a). If Paul could see clearly or at all, he would
have known who the high priest was! The salient thrust of Paul's
weakness before the council is evidenced by his inability to see the
high priest, Ananias. Paul was blind, or nearly so. Probatively, Paul
said, "I did not perceive(edein), brothers, that he is
high priest" (Acts 23:5). Indeed, Ananias was the high priest.
Further evidence in the textus is that Paul knew(gnous,
knowing but not seeing with the eyes) from their speech that one part
of the council was of Sadducees and that the other part was of
Pharisees. The Pharisees strictly held to the law that one must be
subject to the high priest and not speak evil of the ruler of the
people(Acts 23:1ff; Exodus 22:28). Thus, Ananias commanded that Paul
should be struck in the mouth(tuptein, strike; Acts 23:2).
Paul's rejoinder was that he did not perceive(edein means
perceive, not see) that Ananias was the high priest(Acts 23:5).
PAUL'S DEFENSE AT CAESAREA
Acts 26:1-32
The third account of Saul-Paul's encounter with Jesus of Nazareth,
according to Acts 26:13ff, can be followed in
parallel. According to Acts 26:13 and 14, there
is neither a report of Saul-Paul losing his sight nor of his regaining
his sight. But, there is the report of Paul that he perceived(eidon)
a light and heard a voice speaking to him in the Hebrew tongue.
Students should observe that eidon means "perceived"
and does not mean saw with the eyes, as blepsen does. And, they
should observe the difference between blepsen, "saw"
and anablepsen "look up". When Saul heard the voice
and his eyes having been opened, he beheld nothing whatsoever, let
alone see any man speaking. Paul was blind, or nearly so. Through his
voice alone, Jesus had identified himself to Saul-Paul. Neither
Saul-Paul nor the men traveling with Saul saw Jesus with their eyes.
Saul-Paul's eyes were opened, but he beheld nothing because he was
blind. Saul, by looking, could not see.
The
preceding is taken from Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At Rome,
Volume IV, pages 10-15 and Paul & Revelation, pp. 66-67;
Paul's Defense at Jerusalem, Acts 23:1-5, 6-16(Copyright 2002 and 1995
by Richard J. Willoughby. Sr.)
____________________
Q.
Hello, I'm in the 4th Grade. I need to know how to say the word
telescope in Greek. I also need to know how to say the verse John 3:16
in Hebrew.
Thank
You, C. and C. in California.
A.Thank
you for your questions.
The
word telescope is actually taken from two Greek words. The
words are tele, which means
"far" or "distant", and skopein, which means "to view" or "to
see". The two Greek words are put together to make one word teleskopos. In Greek, it would be
pronounced
tayleh-skopos. That is, the word telescope
means to see at a distance or from far away.
John 3:16
is written in the Greek language. In Greek, it is a big mouthful and
would be said this way:
hootoes gar haygapaysen ho theos ton kosmon
hoeste ton hweeon ton
monogenay edoeken
heena pas ho piste-ehoo-oen ays ahooton may
apolaytai ahl
exay zoe-ayn ai-oen-eeon.
Translated
word for word this would be "For thus loved God the world so as
the son the only begotten he gave that every one believing in him may
not perish but have life eternal".
A
better English version would be, "For God so loved the world that
he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not
perish but have eternal life."
(John 3:16, Revised Standard Version) I hope that answers your
questions.
_____________________________
Q.
I just happened to discover your website. I found it very interesting
and glad that you have a bible study. I've been saved since 1981 and
came from a Catholic background and am now a Pentecostal. I still
consider myself still learning and still not where I should be. But,
with God and the help of the Holy Spirit, I'm moving on forward slowly
but surely. My question to you is what do you think about the gift's of
the Holy Spirit and your definition of them? And, do you think one
person can have all the gifts at one time? Maybe that was 2 questions I
asked. I have read books on the subject and heard preaching on this, I
would just like your opinion on it.
Thank you, Your servant in Christ, Mel
A.Thank
you for your questions. The gifts of the Spirit are found in Paul's
first letter to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. Strictly
speaking, there is no reason that God couldn't give a person more than
one of the spiritual gifts. Some people seem to have been given more
than one. Paul lists them as the word of wisdom, knowledge, faith,
healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits,
tongues(languages, not mysterious utterances)
But,
there are some very important things to remember about those gifts:
First, the gifts that are given to one person should be used for the
benefit of all of the mmembers. So, share those gifts that God gave you
with others. Secondly, as Paul said, just because you have only one
gift, you shouldn't believe that you are not part of His whole body.
That is so because the body of Christ is made up of many members, each
with their own gifts for the benefit of all of the other members. That
is, we can't say that we have no need of the other members' gifts.
Paul
then explains how and where these spiritual gifts are able to be used
in His church(which are the members of the body of Christ, not just a
building or a particular religious denomination such as the Roman
Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, etc.) Some, as Paul said, can use
their spiritual gifts as apostles(those sent out), prophets(those who
convey God's message), teachers, workers of miracles(actually powers),
healers(doctors), helpers, administrators, those who speak and
understand different languages(tongues). You can see that some who are
engaged in different activities within Christ's church may have need of
more than one spiritual gift.
Paul,
in his wisdom, also pointed out two important things to remember: Don't
look down on other peoples gifts as being insignificant. We need other
people's gifts also(1 Corinthians 12:21-25).
But, the opposite should be remembered too. Don't think less of your
own gifts and covet someone else's(1 Corinthians 12:31)
We shouldn't covet other peoples gifts. We each have our own gifts for
the benefit of all members.
I
would say that you should read Chapter 12 slowly out loud and ask
yourself what each word and verse means. Study each chapter
word-by-word and verse-by-verse. I use the King James Version, but, the
Revised Standard Version may be a better translation of the Greek
words. I would caution use of other translations. Read them with a discerning
eye. If you are able to, find a copy of Strong's Concordance and
Dictionary. It will help in translating the original Hebrew and Greek
languages(tongues) that are the source of the English translations of
Old and New Testaments.
_____________________________
Q.
One of my friends was wondering when and where each book of the bible
was written and I unfortunately could not tell him. Can you help me
out? From Stephanie
A.
Because of their antiquity and an inability to precisely determine the
time and place of composition, there is some debate in answering your
question. The following list of New Testament books(The canonical Greek
New Testament) is given here, but you should understand that new
evidence continues to be unearthed and that the times are only
approximations. Some commentators are dogmatic, in the pejorative
sense, and insist that their dates are the correct ones. I prefer to
keep an open mind on the subject because I believe that it is the
substance of the letters and their message which is important, not
necessarily when, to whom and why they were written or even their
literary style.
First
Thessalonians is often seen as being the earliest. Although, there
may be letter fragments of Paul that are included in his other letters
which may be older. His epistles to the Corinthians, for example, which
may precede it. Galatians may be as old as Paul's letters to
Thessalonica, but it is debatable also. As for their place of
composition, that is even less clear. Paul spent, for example, two
years in prison at Caesarea but had access to
his scribes and could well have written many letters from there,
including parts of his letter to the Jews at Rome.
He spent mush time at Ephesus
and could have written words from there. He also spent two years under
guard at Rome and could
have written more from there. Hebrews is indubitably a letter
of Paul, in spite of scholarly insistence that it couldn't be. It is a
letter to Hebrew speaking Jews who would know well Scripture written in
Hebrew, not necessarily Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking Jews) of the
Greek speaking nations. That is the reason for its apparent(alleged)
difference in writing style from Paul's other letters.
What
some commentators don't seem to grasp is that Paul had very poor
eyesight after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus,
even close to being blind and required scribes to write in Greek for
him - Timothy, Sosthenes, Tertius, Silvanus, et al. Their individual
styles would have been different. Further, the Biblical evidence is
that he knew Hebrew but was not proficient in Greek, Latin or Egyptian.
See Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At Rome,
Volume IV, Pages 1-21 for more evidence of Paul's weaknesses in
speaking, writing and moving about all alone, without help.
Canonical Gospels(4)
Matthew 80 AD
Mark 75 AD
Luke 80 AD (May be as late as 150 AD when coupled with Acts)
John 35-45 AD (Generally considered to be closer to 95 AD, but see
Revelation)
Acts, 65 AD (May be as late as 150 AD when coupled with Luke's Gospel.
Paul's 4 Sea Voyages,
which
were written by Aristarchus, may be some of the earliest writing in
Acts.
Letters(21)
Romans 58-60 AD (May have some letter fragments earlier that 1
Thessalonians)
1 Corinthians 54-57 AD (May have some letter fragments earlier that 1
Thessalonians)
2 Corinthians 57-60 AD (May have some letter fragments earlier that 1
Thessalonians)
Galatians 45 AD (May be earlier than 1 Thessalonians)
Ephesians 54-57 AD (May be from prison)
Philippians 59 AD (May be from prison)
Colossians 59 AD (May be from prison)
1 Thessalonians 50 AD
2 Thessalonians 58-60 (May be from prison)
1 Timothy 61-65 AD
2 Timothy 61-65 AD
Titus 61-65 AD
Philemon 66 AD
Hebrews 60 AD
James 80-90 AD (Younger brother of Jesus and titular head of the church
at Jerusalem)
1 Peter 67 AD
2 Peter 73 AD
1 John 35-95 AD
2 John 35-95 AD
3 John 35-95 AD
Jude 64 AD
Revelation 33 AD (Traditionally considered to have been written at
least 60 years later)
_____________________________
Q.
I have been reading your website. I have been to several different
kinds of churches in my lifetime. Do you believe there is a right or a
wrong kind of religion?(Submitted by S.F. of Georgia)
A.Revelation
2:1 - 3:22 reveals that there were two types of churches that Jesus
accepted. They were the churches at Smyrna
and Philadelphia. The other
5 churches, the churches at Ephesus,
Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis
and Laodicea were not
completely accepted. Some of those who were part of the church at
Sardis, for example, were accepted.(See Revelation 3:4) But, the church
itself would not be accepted.(See Revelation 3:1-3)
If
the church that you attend is like Smyrna or Philadelphia, it will be
accepted by Jesus Christ. You should not hesitate to attend and support
that church. If any of the churches that you attend are like those of Ephesus,
Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis
or Laodicea beware of what
they teach and how they act. Do they teach and act according to God's
Word or do they teach and act according to human values?
My
answer, based on Revelation 2:1 - 3:22, is that churches that teach
God's Word, the Bible, would be the right kind of church for you to
attend. Just keep your eyes, ears and mind open to what churches teach.
Follow Jesus' words and you'll do well. Share what you have learned
about Revelation 2:1-3:22 with the other members of your church.
_____________________________
Q.
Where is it specifically documented in the Bible that the schedules
were repeated each year? And, which of the two, twenty-four scheduled
courses was reckoned to occur first in point of time? In
September-October or March-April? Why?
A.
The answers are given in the lesson entitled The Age of Jesus,
Part 2, which may be found in the Archives Section. See also 1
Chronicles 24:1-19; Luke 1:5-2:7.
_____________________________
Q.
I do not see how as a historian you can privilege the
"biblical" evidence only. After (all) the books of the New
Testament were not fully agreed upon until the fourth century, and even
today different parts of the Church include different books in the
biblical canon. Moreover, if you are talking about infallibility of
Scripture, you must know that there are plenty of direct contradictions
there. J.T., Newton, MA
A.
I agree that most, if not all, traditional liberal scholarship relies
on its own wisdom rather than on the Biblical evidence. When the two
seem to be in conflict, it is the traditional interpretation that is
deemed correct, with the Biblical evidence automatically rejected out
of hand as being wrong.
Nevertheless,
just because the books of the New Testament were not fully agreed upon
until the fourth century or didn't become part of a universally
accepted Biblical cannon, it does not follow that the Biblical evidence
is imperfect, wrong or needs to be changed in order to satisfy
preconceived notions of what the evidence should mean. The fourth
century time frame does not change the Biblical evidence that we have,
neither do denominational differences alter the facts. While separated
by time, place and the writing of scribes, the Biblical evidence was
created before it was collected together as a single unit. Included in
that, of course, are manuscripts which were uncovered after the fourth
century.
To
repeat, it does not mean that the Biblical evidence is fallible because
it was collected together as a unit after the books were written.
Neither does it mean that the Biblical evidence is wrong because there
is not an agreement as to its meaning. Except for the errors of the
scribes during the process of translating the Hebrew/Aramaic/Chaldee
and Greek languages into other languages, such as English, that which
we have is evidence which must not be excluded in analysis. The
Biblical words must be accepted as the primary source and must be
offered into evidence. There are no words that can be discarded simply
because there appears to be a contradiction or conflict in the eyes of
the beholder. Words cannot justifiably be eliminated solely because
traditional liberal scholars can't agree among themselves as to the
message or meaning of the Biblical evidence.
For
example, it is the traditional view that Paul's journeys, described in
the Book of Acts as being from synagogue to synagogue, couldn't have
occurred. The traditional doctrine is that Paul's letters must be given
more weight than Acts and that he was an apostle to the
Gentiles(non-Jews) and not to the Jews of the Dispersion. More than one
scholar has written that where there is a perceived difference between
Paul's letters and Acts, his letters must take precedence. If there is
a contradiction in the minds of the scholars, it is the Biblical evidence
that is deemed wrong. Therefore, according to traditional teaching, it
is the Biblical evidence of Acts that must be wrong and that the
Biblical evidence of his letters must be right. What is inconceivable
to traditional scholars is the possibility that the Biblical evidence
found in Paul's letters and in Acts are both correct and that it is
traditional scholarship's understanding of the evidence that is wrong.
I
observe that traditional scholars focus so much on perceived
differences that they exclude the message of the text itself. Because,
according to traditional wisdom, if there is not apparent harmony
between or among the texts of the Bible, it is the Bible that must be
fallible. In other words, since there is no common acceptance of the
Biblical evidence, it is the Bible that must be at fault, rather than
the understanding of those who look at it. Traditional scholars see
discord rather than concord, disagreement rather than agreement.
Instead of seeing their own fallibility they accuse the Biblical
evidence.
It is
curious in the extreme to observe that there is little hint of an
acceptance of a Divine hand in the matter, even when Paul explains
himself as being Divinely inspired. He said, "For I make it
known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached was not according
to man. For I didn't receive it from man, neither was I taught it. It
came to me by revelation."(Galatians 1:11,12ff)
Now,
if traditional scholars hang on Paul's words, why do they not also hang
on the other Divinely inspired words of God? Timothy wrote for Paul,
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished
for all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) res ipsa loquitur"
Unless, of course, the answer is that traditional scholars do not
believe that all scripture is inspired by God. I observe that
traditional scholars pick and choose what they want to believe, based
on their own wisdom, rather than on the wisdom of the Biblical
evidence.
As a
further response, I'll also ask the following: Specifically, what are
the greatest perceived contradictions of the Bible that seem to
persuade you and others to believe that the Biblical evidence should not
be "privileged"? Or, what contrary Biblical
evidence is there that the Biblical evidence is not true?
[For further reference,
review Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At Rome, Volume IV,
Chapter 9.]
_____________________________
Q.I
was thinking about what you said about Paul and his title "Apostle
of the Gentiles." I confess I still don't know why he was given
that title (especially since all of the apostles taught the Gentiles.)
However, I was wondering if you had considered that his title might
have originated because he held out against Peter over circumcision for
non-Jews. What do you think?
A.
Good to hear from you. I'm still reading as much as I can about General
Patton and his reliance on the "Almighty". The more I read,
the more it amazes me that Eisenhower overlooked his genius. Maybe
someday this will all be sorted out. I've also been looking into a
biography of Winston Churchill to see if he had anything to say about
Patton.
Yes.
I think that the question of circumcision has something to do with Paul
being named an apostle to Gentiles. Some scholars who rely primarily on
Paul's letters to "prove" that he was an apostle to Gentiles
tend to exclude the evidence of the Book of Acts because they believe
that it is unhistorical, whatever that means. Their stance is contrary
to the overwhelming Biblical evidence that he was sent out to the Jews
of the Greek speaking nations of Syria,
Asia, Galatia,
Macedonia,
Achaia, Rome of Italia and possibly Tartessos of Spain - synagogue to
synagogue. And, not so incidentally, he taught out of the Law of Moses
and the Prophets, that which would be known to the Jews of the
Dispersion.
Some
scholars point to Galatians 1:11-2:21 as evidence of Paul being an
apostle to Gentiles. In particular, they cite Galatians 2:7, 8 and 9 as
proof, all the while ignoring the contrary evidence in the Book of
Acts.
Paul
said, "...when they saw that the gospel to the uncircumcised was
given to me, just as the gospel of the circumcised had been given to
Peter,(for the one working through Peter to be an apostle to the
circumcised worked also in me to(for) the nations,
εις τα εθνη) and when
James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived that
grace was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship, that we should go to the nations, εις
τα εθνη, and they should go to the
circumcised..."(Galatian 2:7-9; KJV/RJWSR)
The
verse numbers and translations in your Bible may be slightly different.
Nevertheless, the question comes down to the meaning of the Greek words
εις τα εθνη in Verses 8
and 9, which scholars invariably mistranslate as Gentiles.
The Greek words εις τα
εθνη mean "to(for) the
nations".(εθνη is an inflected form of the
word εθνος which means nation.)
The uncircumcised
would not exclude the uncircumcised Jews of the Dispersion, such as
Timothy, who were scattered to the Greek speaking nations of Syria,
Asia, Galatia,
Macedonia,
Achaia, Rome of Italia, and Tartessos of Spain - synagogue to
synagogue. Because, that is where Paul went on his journeys. Those Jews
who insisted that circumcision was required were Jews who were also
numbered among the Jews of the nation Israel
and, in particular, Jerusalem.
In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he includes a brief autobiography,
Galatians 1:11 - 2:21.
Interestingly(and
you can check this out for yourself), a Jew is a Jew by virtue of his
mother's Jewishness, not his father's. For example, Paul's scribe,
Timothy, had a Jewish mother, thereby making him Jewish also. He, as a
Jew, had not been circumcised, at least according to Acts 16:3. Timothy
would be considered Gentile to Jews. Obdurate Jews are considered
Gentile.(check that too)
"Then
he(Paul) came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A certain disciple was
there, named Timothy, the son of a faithful Jewish woman; but his
father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and
Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to go out with him; and he took him and
circumcised him on account of the Jews being in those places, for they
all knew that his father was a Greek."(Acts 16:1-3)
Notice
that Timothy was already a disciple before Paul arrived at Derbe and to
Lystra, indicating that other apostles had preceded Paul to the
non-Jews(today called Gentiles) of that area. You'll also find the word
Gentiles in several other verses in Galatians. It is a
mis-translation of the Greek word εθνος in its
various inflected forms.
_____________________________
Q.
Why does your angel have wings?
A.
The Bible does not describe angels as having wings. Cherubim have
wings. Eagles have wings. My messenger(angel) has at least six wings.
That really doesn't answer the question does it?
_____________________________
Q.
Why do you use Hebrew and Greek letters instead of transliterating?
A.
The purpose is to acquaint students with the languages of the ancient
texts of the Old and New Testaments so that students will become more
analytical in their studies. Students should investigate and do
research for themselves and determine the meaning of the Bible text.
They should not take for granted that which has become denominational
church doctrine, dogma or the wisdom of man. There are many excellent
text books which students may use in order to study grammar. In
addition to those texts, students should use Strong's Analytical
Concordance of the Bible for precise definitions of Hebrew and
Greek words.
|
