EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME II

The Scriptures

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume II--The Scriptures

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume II--The Scriptures

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

Part G--Truth

19 Proving The CREATOR’s Word 6

20 Understanding TRUTH I 21

21 Understanding TRUTH II 30

Part H--The Old Testament

22 The Tanakh 45

23 Other Early Old Testament Versions I 61

24 Other Early Old Testament Versions II 73

Part I--The New Testament

25 The New Testament I 79

26 The New Testament II 91

27 The Alteration Problem 104

28 An Altered Greek New Testament? 110

29 The Greek Language Problem 124

30 A Hebrew New Testament? 139

Part J--More

31 More on the Scriptures 154

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume two of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

sFor further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

Chapter 19--Proving The CREATOR’s Word

Proving The Scriptures

Proving the Scriptures is much like proving The CREATOR, as accomplished in a prior chapter. Numbers of books have been written on this, and many Christians will argue the proof of their “Bible” and the presence of A CREATOR, which many say have to be accepted by faith. But no, not so, by using a little logic and thought. The truth is that there are great proofs of each.

The Hebrew Scriptures themselves prove their legitimacy. Having said this, it is easy to cite several examples out of thousands or millions. Take the case of recorded history. The Book has a logical and forthright presentation on past history, as needed to be understood by man.

For instance, many students of the Word have become aware of the Scriptural evidence suggesting that in the beginning, The ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1, which Ferrar Fenton translates as “By periods, GOD created”). This was a perfect creation in which the angels shouted for joy (Job 38:4-7; Isa 45:18).

But then, in Genesis 1:2, something happened to this beginning perfect creation, to cause it to become without form (unformed, as the “Soncino Books of the Bible,” v. I, p. 1, has it), and void and covered by water. The English word “void” comes from the Hebrew “bohu,” meaning “emptiness” (per Young’s “Analytical Concordance,” p. 1028).

Next, the words “without form” are significant. They come from the Hebrew word “tohu,” which means “ruin or confusion” (per Young’s, p. 367)--despite the fact that in Isaiah 45:18, the earth was “not” originally created tohu (translated to vain in the KJV).

Obviously, if planet earth was created as perfect (not in tohu) and the angels shouted for joy in the initial creation (Gen 1:1; Job 38:4-7), and if the earth later became tohu in Genesis 1:2, then it follows that the rest of Genesis 1 and 2 is describing a recreation or reforming of the planet from its tohu state of confusion and ruin.

In that tohu state, the globe was covered with water (Gen 1:2). It’s very likely that when the water was separated to provide the firmament (atmospheric heaven or space, Gen 1:7), some of the water went into space orbit around the earth (to come down later as rain water in Noah’s day), much like the bands of ice now apparent around the planet Saturn (Gen 1:2-9).

When?

The point is that earth was created in the distant past. And then, starting with Genesis 1:3, it was reformed to be habitable by Adam, created in Genesis 1:26. The creation in Genesis 1:1 seems to be undated. When did it happen? Well, scientists do not know. But they have offered dates that run the course of a few thousand years ago to billions of years ago. Thus, the truth is that man doesn’t really know the answer.

Scientists make guesses, and continually alter their estimates from time to time by billions of years, without ever offering any apologies for their supposedly incorrect earlier figures. At best, they are only speculating because they have no means of dating the earth. Modern scientists do the same thing with the age of the universe.

They easily kick around numbers that range from thousands of years to 20 billion years. One day, one scientist says one thing. And another day, another scientist says something entirely different. Modern science is constantly changing its ideas on the ages of the universe, the solar system and the earth.

Regardless of man’s confusion on dating the past times, it is evident that the universe is quite old since star light reaching earth has been in transit for infinitely long ages and light years--just to get here and be seen for the last 6,000 years.

This last point might be disputed in recent years since some portion of modern science now believes that the speed of light has changed over the eons. Some think that it is now much slower than it once was (Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 44).

The world of modern man has been so mesmerized by science that it refuses to challenge any of the age estimates being ridiculously thrown about. It appears that more than one great time period was involved in the creation and construction of the earth, to be eventually inhabited by Adam man (as suggested in Ferrar Fenton’s translation of Genesis 1:1 as “By periods, GOD created,” as noted above).

Manifestly, the preceding creation of the earth (formed for Adam in Genesis 1:3-25) appears to have had a lengthy development, although the creation of Adam in Gen 1:26 can be correctly dated to about 6,000 years ago--as will be proven in subsequent comments on chronology. Thus, the time of Adam seems now to have covered about 6,000 years. This is a fascinating number, as will be proven in succeeding chapters.

A Flooded Earth

As noted above, Genesis 1:6-8 describes the separation of waters surrounding the earth into two parts--one above the earth and one below. In between, The CREATOR placed the atmospheric heaven. The water above came into orbit (perhaps as ice) around the earth, in a manner much like the bands of ice around Saturn.

Genesis 7:6 mentions the great flood of Noah. Whether it was universal or not is both questionable and irrelevant (some scholars say it was, while others say it was not). What is important here is another record of water on the earth, beyond the initial water coverage in Genesis 1:2.

Geologist Edward Suess in 1885 first postulated that the entire land surface of the earth has been under water at one time or another over earth’s history. Today, geologists well understand that all land portions of earth have been submerged under water one or more times in past history. No one can argue this irrefutable evidence from geology.

Incidentally, the flood of Noah (at least, in the Euphrates Valley, in the area of ancient Ur) has been well established by archeologists. In 1929, Sir Leonard Wolley and a team of archeologists were digging down in the Ur area of Lower Mesopotamia and discovered several civilizations and cultures laying one on top of another.

In time, they came to a thick layer of clay stratum (from mud laid down in a flood) measuring about eight feet thick, under the city of Ur. Below the mud deposit, they found another pre-flood civilization where people had lived and deposited pottery and other remains. Could this be the physical evidence of Noah’s flood? It could be!

Another interesting option was offered by Bruce B. Auster in his article on “Noah and the great flood” in the November 29, 1999, “US News & World Report” (p. 12). By dating a catastrophe in the Black Sea area at possibly 7,500 years ago, it offered another likely proof of the deluge in Noah’s day, the earlier one in Genesis 1:2 or one before Genesis 1:2.

Auster says that scientists have found evidence of a big flood in the Black Sea Basin, which totally wiped out entire cities, submerged thousands of square miles of dry land and converted the Black Sea from fresh water to salt water, as the basin became linked to the Mediterranean. Researchers have located an ancient coastline, some 550 feet beneath the current surface of the Black Sea, near the Turkish port of Sinop.

This new discovery is another great proof of a former flood over portions of Asia. While the date of 7,500 years ago may or may not be precisely correct (because man’s dating methods are subject to error), it is nevertheless a phenomenal find. A future chapter in this production will assess this discovery in the context of earth cataclysms and plate tectonics.

Other Catastrophes Which Disprove Evolution

Genesis 10:25 describes a condition which seems to suggest a once great super-continent that was divided in the days of Peleg (Genesis 1:9 also implies one land mass surrounded by one over-all or continuous body of water--on this, see Richard Elliott Friedman’s “Commentary on the Torah,” p. 8).

Geologists now understand this former, huge, single, super continent. What is interesting is the fact that the Word has had this record for thousands of years, long before there was a science called geology.

During the period of the Exodus, several extraordinary events occurred in nature which have to be classified as enormous cataclysms.

For example, YHWH entered these judgments upon Egypt (through Moshe): the rivers, ponds and bodies of water of Egypt becoming blood for seven days (Ex 4:9; 7:17-25); epidemics of frogs, lice and flies which caused the land to be corrupted and stink (Ex 8:5-31); the death of the animals of Egypt (Ex 9:3-7); boils upon the humans/humanoids of Egypt (Ex 9:9-11); a great thunder, hail and electric storm (Ex 9:19-34); a locust outbreak (Ex 10:4-19); darkness over the land of Egypt for three days which could be felt (Ex 10:21); and the death of Egypt’s firstborn (Ex 12:29).

On leaving Egypt, more fantastic events occurred, when a cloud of darkness came between the pursuing Egyptians and the Israelites, while the Israelites themselves had light (Ex 14:20). Next, the Israelites miraculously crossed the sea while the pursuing Egyptians were killed by the water (Ex 14:21-23).

The former Dr Ernest Martin, of Portland, Oregon (now deceased), had an interesting theory about the crossing of the sea. He suggested that it became ice and the Israelites walked across the ice. Obviously, the ice melted or otherwise could not hold the pursing Egyptians and their horses and chariots. So it gave way and they sank into the water.

On entering the promise land, Joshua (correctly Yehoshua in the Hebrew) and his army had several battles against the Canaanite inhabitants. In one fight against the Amorites, Yehoshua prayed for the sun to stand still so that Yisrael could have her revenge upon the Amorites (Josh 10:8-14). Astronomically, something happened. At least, this was a very long day to give Yisrael light to smite the Amorites.

In Isaiah’s (Isaiah in Hebrew is Yeshayahu) day, King Hezekiah (Hizkiyahu in the Hebrew) prayed for an extension of his days. YHWH gave him an additional 15 years, and a sign of proof when the shadow from the sun dial reversed itself by ten degrees (Isa 38:7-8). Whatever happened here, it was an enormous astronomical occurrence.

Thus

The point of this is that there have been some fantastic and far reaching events on planet earth which could be thought of or described as catastrophic. Now, this Scriptural reality has an interesting linkage to what evolutionists believe and assert.

As discussed earlier, one of the backbones of evolutionary theory is that geologic and astronomic changes affecting earth have been imperceptibly slow over millions of years. It is this situation which gives evolutionists vast periods of time to supposedly allow very slight and minute changes to life forms over vast ages in the form of evolution. This belief has come to be called uniformitarianism (as cited earlier).

It was first postulated in 1785 by geologist James Hutton. Per the prior comments broaching evolution, uniformitarianism stressed that earthly changes were slight and slow--much like man has observed in contemporary times (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 870). Of course, this theory is at odds with the intellect of truly religious people who can read the Word and find records of catastrophes in nature.

Now, in more recent years, much evidence is surfacing which proves that the earth has faced enormous cataclysms in past ages (like many reversals of the poles, several changes in the earth’s axis, mammoths quick frozen in the Arctic area while they were eating tropical plants, asteroid hits which could have wiped out the dinosaurs, etc).

The physical evidence is surfacing regularly. And it is so substantial that it is making scientists re-look at beliefs that they have held for ages. These catastrophes will be addressed in some detail in future chapters. Suffice to say, they categorically disprove uniformitarianism--the backbone of evolution theory.

Some Revelations From the Word

As early as 150 BCE, Hipparchus counted the stars, and said that there were 1,022 of them. In 100 CE, Ptolemy counted 1,026. Still later, astronomers counted 3,000 of them. Today, it is at last acknowledged that they are like the sand pebbles along the beach--manifestly infinite to man’s best abilities to count. Yet, thousands of years ago, the Word correctly stated reality (Gen 15:5; 22:17; Jer 31:37; 33:22).

The writings of II Kings 20:20 describe the work of the Judean King Hizkiyahu to cut a conduit through solid rock to bring water from the spring of Gihon into the city of Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE. In 1850, Hezekial’s tunnel of 600 yards was discovered under Jerusalem.

Along with the tunnel, archeologists found an interesting inscription inside the shaft which described the day that pickaxes of the workmen from two different directions met to cut out the last segment of the bedrock and complete the project. The inscription was hewed in the rock in Classical Hebrew.

Another great record of history is found in II Kings 17:3-6 about the Assyrian conquest of Samaria. The Assyrian King Shalmaneser started the siege on Samaria, and his son Sargon II finished it in about 690 BCE. Some years ago, the Khorsabad annals were discovered. And sure enough, Sargon left a secular record of the conquest of Samaria (“Zondervan Pictorial Bible Atlas,” p. 130-131).

In the 6th century BCE, Yechezkel wrote that Jerusalem is the center of the world (Ezek 5:5). Modern explorations in the 19th century confirmed Yechezkel’s words. Truly, Jerusalem is the center of this globe geographically.

More From Science

Historically, scientists generally persisted in believing in a flat earth or something similar. Some believed that the sun, moon and stars all rotated around this fixed, immovable earth. By 1520, the voyages of Columbus, Magellan and others had put this thinking to rest. The earth had to be a circular globe, which is what the Scriptures repeatedly suggest (Deut 23:11; Job 26:7; 37:12; 38:6; Ps 46:5; Prov 8:27; Isa 40:22).

On this reality, Job 38:12-14 is interesting because this text compares the breaking of a new day with a seal or signature ring making an impression upon clay.

This text really says that the seal (sun) which makes the impression (daybreak) is held in a fixed position and the clay (earth) which receives the impression (daybreak) is rotated completely around the seal (sun) so that the seal (sun) appears in its original position once again.

In 1675, a scientist named Roemer discovered that light was not an instantaneous transmission, but that it follows a path at a speed of which man now understands to be 186,000 miles a second. Iyov (Job in the KJV) wrote about this phenomenon some 3,800 years ago (Job 38:19).

In another case, the famous Sir Isaac Newton found, in 1666, that light can be apportioned or parted, when he discovered that a glass prism can be used to spilt a beam of light into bands of spectral colors. By 1859, a spectroscope had been invented for this work. Again, the book of Job was far ahead of its time when it described this parting of light (Job 38:24).

Many discoveries have been made in the last 75 years about the oceans. But the Scriptures described several of them thousands of years ago: recesses and trenches in the ocean floor (II Sam 22:16; Job 38:16); ocean currents (Ps 8:8); and springs in the water (Job 38:16; Prov 8:28). These springs remind one of Noah’s flood, when the fountains of the deep were broken up (Gen 7:11; 8:2).

Supposedly Intelligent Humans

In 1853, personnel from the French Academy of Science gathered at the Louvre in Paris. They cataloged some 101 things from the Scriptures which they declared as being wrong, per the then view of “modern” science. In other words, they were claiming that they found 101 errors in the Scriptures based upon science.

Since this bold stand on what scientists thought was true, archeology and more modern science have discovered all 101 conclusions to be wrong. It’s amazing what can happen over the years, when one can look back at former pronouncements of so-called science.

For example, the scientists of old declared that there were no horses in ancient Egypt, despite Moshe’s record of them (Gen 47:17; Ex 14:9, 23). Guess what? Digging at Buhen in the Sudan, archeologist Walter B. Emery was later to find a skeleton of a horse under a layer of ash and in a stratum dating from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, long before the Israelite Exodus.

Importantly, on this line, there is a certain Christian prejudice or hatred of anything Hebrew or Jewish (as will be broached in some detail in subsequent chapters). Tragically, if affects particularly the Hebrew Old Testament (the Tanakh), which so many Christians still vigorously oppose, even today (to be later proven and discussed).

This attitude and mental disposition have persisted ever since the beginning of Christianity. Manifestly, it has seriously affected Christian scholars through the ages.

A 2001 promotional letter from Hershel Shanks, editor of the “Biblical Archeology Review,” commented upon the modern “Biblical minimalists” and “Biblical nihilists,” who have worked so hard at attacking the Scriptural truths by calling them fiction.

Many of these so-called scholars (mainly Christians, but some Jews, atheists, agnostics and others as well) have come along in the 19th and 20th centuries to claim that the Hebrew Tanakh was written about one thousand years later than when the Scriptures themselves suggest (as will be broached in more detail shortly below).

These “Biblical minimalists” and “Biblical nihilists” go on to posit that the patriarchal narratives are nothing but bedtime stories, and that the Israelite Exodus from Egypt never happened (nor were the Israelites ever in Egypt). The people who were later to be identified as Israelites were nothing but Canaanites. Per Shanks, one main claim for years was that both David and Shlomo were fictional characters.

Shanks quoted the famous archaeologist Frank Cross of Harvard University. Cross defined the problem with these opponents of the Book as being disposed toward “anti-Semitism.” Obviously, Shanks shared this view on the existing anti-Semitism with Cross.

Thus, the evidence is massive that indeed there is much Christian hatred of Jews and/or Judaism that has spilled over into the scholarly field, to adversely affect so-called intellectuals. Again, as noted above, this reality will be addressed in some detail in succeeding presentations.

Early Writings?

On the issue of writing, the scientific position historically has been that people couldn’t write in the days of Moshe and the Exodus. Then, in the 1970s, some archeologists were digging in Syria at a place called Ebla. They found a host of ancient clay tablets with writings from the time of Abraham (correctly Avraham in the Hebrew) and earlier, c2300-2000 BCE. This find proved how wrong science had been.

Incidentally, there are some interesting sidelights to this Ebla find because this writer was in Jerusalem, visiting at the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) in May 1975, when the find was announced.

Because of my acceptance of the reality that Moshe indeed was the writer and/or compiler of the Torah, some of the archeologists or scientists at ASOR tried to patronize me with their great intellect and scholarly achievements.

Actually, one of these “scientists” said to me that it was ridiculous to believe that Moshe wrote the Torah during the Exodus, as allowed in the Scriptures. This person, working on a doctorate, told me that the explanation of why Moshe was not the writer of the Pentateuch was that Israelites could not write at the early time of the Exodus.

The reason why scientists dogmatically asserted that people could not write by the 15th century BCE was because no digs had been accomplished, from that time frame or earlier, where physical evidence was found of writing. With no evidence to date (in early May 1975), the position of scientists was that Moshe could not write.

Well, imagine the impact when a few days later there was a media report of the find in Ebla. The ASOR people in Jerusalem knew about the dig in progress in Syria. But they had no pre-knowledge of what was being unearthed there.

The announced results in May were a complete surprise to many people in the so-called scholarly world. Obviously, it elated me in view of my discussions with the ASOR archeologists.

More From Ebla

There is another fascinating fallout of the find at Ebla. Just as scientists were totally unable to accept that Israelites could write in the days of Moshe and earlier, they had another warped belief in contradiction of the Scriptures. During the time of Avraham, the Word mentioned several cities or towns near the Dead Sea and Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the plain of Mamre (Gen 14:1-24).

Scholars consistently argued that there were no such places and that they were myths. But the Ebla find did more than establish the early writings of man because many of those early place names in Genesis were found to be present in the Ebla tablets. Even the name Abram/Avram was discovered to be a given name 4,000 years ago.

This whole event demonstrates one of the fallacies of scientists and so-called people of letters. They dogmatically held to a bad conclusion with no proof whatsoever, beyond the reality that they had not yet found actual proof of Israelite writings or mention of the Genesis towns (as if they had, in fact, known all relevant information of history based upon their finds to date).

How embarrassed were these “great scientists and scholars” when it was revealed that their scholarly conclusions and scientific determinations were all wrong? They should have been operating on the premise that they did not know, for sure, because all of the evidence was not in (in early May 1975). In fact, all the evidence is not in--even in 2003.

From Egypt

This background next takes one to another, more dramatic find on early writings. An Associated Press report on Dec 15, 1998, noted that a German archaeological team, headed by Gunter Dreyer, found some clay tablets in a cemetery in the Suhag province, 300 miles South of Cairo, Egypt.

The tablets were dated, using carbon dating, at 3300-3200 BCE, which is in the range of the earliest Sumerian tablets, also found in recent years in ancient Mesopotamia. The reported dates are significant because they preceded the later-day Pharaohic dynasties, the building of the Great Pyramid and possibly even Noah’s flood. But the dates might not be completely valid (as carbon dating may not be that accurate).

This Egyptian find could go a long way in helping to establish when the Adamic civilization started in ancient Mesopotamia (whether before the flood or afterwards). Certainly, it wasn’t too long (in years following the flood) before Adamic settlers had moved West to Northeast Africa along the Nile River.

More Thinking From Science

This discussion of so-called scientists to disbelieve and reject the plain words of Scripture brings up another fascinating point. Over the centuries, various writers and critics of the Scriptures have come forward to postulate that the Torah was written by more than one author. As early as the second century CE, a man named Celsus offered this idea.

Through the years, several others tried to put over similar thinking--like the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra who died in 1167 CE, the Jewish-Dutch philosopher Spinoza in the 17th century, the early Dutch Christian Le Clerc and the Protestant Reformer Carlstadt who lived from 1480 to 1541.

In time, a French doctor named Jean Astruc and a Scottish Catholic priest named Alexander Geddes theorized that the Torah was actually written in the time of Solomon, using earlier material from two different sources--one called “J” and the other called “E” because of the usage of the name YHWH, as opposed to the title ELOHIM.

In 1868, a man named K. H. Graf suggested that the laws of the Pentateuch moved from the simple to the complex, which supposedly suggested two more writers beyond the J and E authors. Graf allowed that one was of the priestly class (“P”) while the other was of a Deuteronomy class (“D”).

A man named Julius Wellhausen came along in 1870 and stipulated that these four writers (J, E, D and P, as just cited) did their work during four different time frames--850 BCE, 750 BCE, 621 BCE and 500 to 450 BCE. Per Merril C. Tenney, in the “Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,” Wellhausen “denied all the supernaturalism of the Pentateuch and regarded most of its history as unreliable.”

The Dec 1981 “Bible Advocate” had a report from Jerusalem that a team of Israeli scientists at Israel’s Technion Institute had just finished a “Genesis Project.” The team fed the entire book of Genesis (some 20,000 words) into a computer programmed to conduct an exhaustive linguistic analysis of words and phrases in the original Hebrew.

Their findings pointed in a totally different direction than that chartered by the various critics over the centuries. They found that the language of Genesis was virtually indistinguishable linguistically. The project director, Yehuda Radday, concluded: “It is most probable that the book of Genesis was written by one person,” as the Word suggests that it was written by one person (Moshe, likely in the 15th century BCE).

Some More Recent Finds

Moreover, modern archeologists continue to find things. For example, the May 2000 “End Time News” (supplement on Sodom, p. 1) had a story on archeological work suggesting that the actual site of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah has been found.

Per the report, Michael Sanders and a international team of researchers, using a mini-submarine (which was used in the discovery of the sunken WWI ocean liner, the Lusitania), have discovered what appear to be salt-encrusted remains of ancient settlements (brick structures) on the seabed of the Dead Sea. Sanders says the remains seem to be an ancient city.

Dr John Whitaker, a geologist from Leicester University, says that the find could be one of the lost cities on the plains and possibly Sodom and Gomorrah. Hopefully, further research and exploration can reveal the true identity of the find by Sanders and his team. Sodom and Gomorrah setting on the floor of the Dead Sea makes perfect sense.

The May-Jun 2000 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 16) had a follow-up report on Sodom and Gomorrah which quoted “The Washington Times” of Apr 9, 2000. The Times said that since the 1960s archaeologists have discovered mass graves on a peninsula jutting into the Dead Sea. The graves contain human bones dating from the OT period. Sulfur/brimstone has been found in nearby cliffs (this sure sounds like Genesis 19:24).

The 2001 promotional letter from archaeologist Hershel Shanks (just quoted above) mentions these recent finds: the remains of an Israelite house in Egypt at the time of the Exodus; a hieroglyphic inscription at Egyptian Thebes that speaks of a people called Israel, then living in the highlands of Canaan, some 3,200 years ago; a receipt for a three shekel donation to Solomon’s Temple of almost 3,000 years ago; and an impression in clay of the seal of Baruch (Burukh in the Hebrew), Jeremiah’s scribe (Jer 36:4).

As Shanks indicates, many of these recent finds completely repudiate some of the current thinking of modern scholars on the history of the Tanakh.

Dan, in the Upper Galilee

“US News & World Report,” of Oct 25, 1999, had a story by Jeffery L. Sheler titled “Is the Bible True?” (p. 50-56), which outlined one of the greatest finds in modern times. In 1993, Avraham Biran, of Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, was leading an archaeological dig at the site of Dan in the upper Galilee.

The team’s surveyor, Gila Cook, was about to take a break when she saw a basalt stone protruding from the ground. She called Biran over to check it. He at once exclaimed “Oh, my God! We have an inscription.” It was part of a shattered monument from the 9th century BCE which reported a military victory by the king of Damascus over two foes: the king of Israel and the house of David.

Before this find, the consensus of scholars was that David was a myth (as commented upon above by Hershel Shanks), invented by priestly propagandists during the Babylonian exile to dignify Yisrael’s past.

But as Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein noted with the 1993 find--“Biblical nihilism collapsed overnight.”

Jeffrey Sheler’s article added that the reference to David was an historical bombshell since no record had ever existed about him before, outside the Scriptures.

The Hatzor Find

The 11th chapter of Joshua describes the Israelite counter-attack upon the Canaanite confederation, headed up by Jabin, king of Hatzor. In preparation for the fight, Jabin send word to his allies to gather and attack the Israelites. Yehoshua correctly did as he was commanded by YHWH. He slaughtered all of the Canaanites in this attack.

Next, Yehoshua turned his attention to Hatzor, where he slew all of the people (yes, men, women and children) and burned the city (Josh 11:11). So 3,400 years passed, and an Israeli archeological dig took place at the site of the ancient Hatzor. First, the famous archeologist Yigael Yadim excavated there. He was followed, in 1990 and later, by archeologist Ammon Ben-Tor of Hebrew University.

Per an article by Clarence H. Wagner on “Did Joshua Destroy Canaanite Hatzor?” (in a special issue of 2000 of “Dispatch From Jerusalem,” p. 1, 3), Ben-Tor found the city walls and palaces destroyed in the 14th or 13th century BCE. One wall was over 80 meters long. The basalt stones in it showed distortions caused by a terrible fire. Some were fractured by this intense fire.

Geologists have studied these stones and have suggested that the destroying fire would have had to have been over 1,200 degrees (F) to cause this kind of damage to the basalt. Per Wagner, it was easy to see the burn layer and some charcoal remaining from wood supports within some brick walls which were baked to a crisp. A huge timber, baked into charcoal, was found under some mud bricks.

A number of small stone statutes of Canaanite gods (measuring 8-10 inches each) were found with their heads and hands deliberately broken off and shattered--evidently by the conquerors of the city. Wagner quoted Deuteronomy 12:3 and asked if this was evidence of the decreed destruction of the pagan gods.

Ben-Tor is not prepared to state for certain that Yehoshua and his Israelite army were responsible for this destruction of Hatzor. But that option must be placed on the table. The destruction of the Canaanite gods would seem to rule out a Canaanite or Egyptian destruction, so that leaves only a proto-Israelite action.

The Pride of Man Proof

As described at length elsewhere herein, men have an enormous amount of pride and vanity. They will go the extra mile to try to insure that nothing bad is said about themselves--even after they are dead and gone. Presidents and leaders, without exception, are obsessed with their legacies and their records in history.

In this context, one of the greatest of proofs of the validity and authority of the Scriptures is the incredible honesty and forthrightness of its writers. Yes, the sins and shortcomings of all of its leaders and authors are laid out for eternity to see and behold.

There was no effort to cover up what Adam did or what Noah did, or what Avraham did, or what Yitzhak did, or what Yakov Yisrael did, or even what the great scribe Moshe did. All of these men committed sins and their sins are presented in the Book. They are there for all of us to see, study and learn from.

One can add to this the frankness of the Word in describing the kings of Yisrael and Yehudah and how they all were wicked in various degrees (saving David, Hizkiyahu and Josiah [Yoshiyahu in the Hebrew], to a lesser extent). Not only were some of the Scriptures attributable to these men (like David and Shlomo), but these men were the kings in charge of the historians and what they were to write.

People in charge don’t normally allow subordinates to write bad things about their bosses. Kings, in particular, with the power of life and death over their subjects, are typically in no mood to allow historians to write critical comments about themselves and their reigns.

Dying kings are traditionally followed by their sons and/or other descendants who likewise never allow bad things to be said by historians about their ancestors. Pride, being what it is, would never have allowed the honesty found in the Scriptures about its leading actors and events.

In all cases, a spade was called a spade in the Book. Even the terrible sins of David were laid out for all to behold. Nothing was held back and no punches were pulled. All of the great heroes of the Scriptures became sinners (saving YESHUA The MESSIAH, Alone). And their sins have been laid out for eternity.

Fulfilled Prophecy

Next, there is a need to mention fulfilled prophecy. It is only YHWH The ELOHIM, Who can and does proclaim the end from the beginning (Isa 41:21-23; 46:10). On this topic, there are a host of prophecies which can be examined and commented upon. In this presentation, only a few will be highlighted.

One of the most profound fulfillments of prophecy, in a completely physical sense, is the prophetic future of the island kingdom of Tyrus or Tyre. In the days of the Judges and Israelite and Judean kings, Tyre was a famous coastal city in Canaan, much like modern New York. It was extremely important commercially and clearly was to be the ante-type of the age-ending Babylonian commercial system.

In the days of Tyre’s power and glory, the Hebrew prophets predicted that it was to be utterly destroyed and never inhabited again, as the island portion was to be covered by the sea (Ezek 26-28). These words came true for Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar came against her first, over a 13 year period following the fall of Jerusalem. Over 200 years later, Alexander the Great also came against Tyre to finish her off.

Today, Yechezkel’s prediction has been absolutely fulfilled. Incidentally, in mentioning these words, it must be realized that they apply in the ante-typical, physical sense. Again, Tyre was symbolic of the Babylonian commercial system which now envelopes the earth. In the ultimate fulfillment of Yechezkel’s words, this system will end--just as the ancient city was terminated.

Another great example happened in about 730 BCE, when the prophet Micah (Mikhah in the Hebrew) wrote about the then thriving capital of Yisrael, Samaria (Mic 1:6). He said it would become a heap of a field for agriculture. Sure enough, the Assyrians came down 30 years later and destroyed Samaria. Since the time of the Crusaders, Arab farmers have moved into the area and turned it into open farmland.

The prophet Mikhah also wrote about Zion, the city of David (Mic 3:12). He predicted that it would be plowed as a field. Yirmeyahu came along years later and said that Jerusalem would expand to the North and West, from the tower of Hananeel to the gate of the corner, the Jaffa Gate (Jer 31:38-40).

Again, YHWH’s Words have come true. During Second Temple days, the Southern part of Jerusalem (Mount Ophel or old Zion) was physically leveled to the valley below. It was destroyed for all kinds of reasons. Today, Arab farmers and gardeners live there. The new Jerusalem grew over the centuries to the North and West.

More

Beyond these classic fulfillments, there are a host of others. Some of these prophecies have been or will be commented upon in other remarks herein, and deserve no mention at this time. Suffice to say, most of the remaining unfulfilled prophecies will begin to see fulfillment in the next few years (in the context of the age end).

Students of the Word should compare YHWH’s record on fulfillments with various human prophets--like Emanuel Swedenborg, (18th century), Ann Lee (18th century), Mrs Joanna Southcott (19th century), Joseph Smith (19th century), Mary Baker Eddy (19th century) and Mrs Ellen White (19th century). These human prophets all have failed many times over.

The age end Scriptural fulfillments, as they unfold (see Appendices D and E for a list of them), should convince even the most doubting critics that the Scriptures are indeed fantastic and extraordinary.

Interestingly, on this theme, an old Arab adage says “All is written down that has to come.”

A Perfect Legal Code

One more fantastic proof of the Scriptures has to be the incredible morality, righteousness and truthfulness of the Mosaic law code; which, by the way, reveals the righteous and “kodesh” (the Hebrew meaning “set apart”) character and personality of The CREATOR, discussed earlier. Truly, YHWH’s laws are perfect in all respects (as will be proven in succeeding chapters).

There is no record of any human civilization or culture whose laws, on the books, can ever began to approach the righteousness of YHWH’s laws. This same indictment applies to every US state and the national United States itself (as will later be established).

Finally on the Question of Inspiration

Without going into very lengthy and complicated details, there is a need to mention one more great scientist who spent time and effort on the question of the inspiration and authority of the written Scriptures. The man’s name was Ivan Panin. He was a former Russian nihilist, born in 1855. Panin immigrated to the US in 1872 and studied mathematics at Harvard.

It is a truism that in both the Hebrew and Greek languages, letters have numeric values. And they also have a numerical value in the context of place.

By doing a mathematical analysis of these two values (the numeric and place), it is possible to compile a mathematical profile of the entire Scriptures; and with a little statistical analysis, arrive at some probable conclusions on the inspiration of those writings.

Panin did mountains of work (figuratively speaking), in the days before there were computers. He found that repeatedly the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures contained some incredible presentations of numerical and place value computations which cannot be explained on the simple basis of chance or accident (there is also the issue of so-called “Bible Codes,” which will be addressed in a later chapter).

The Bottom Line

The essence of this presentation is that “all” the evidence is not in--in 2003.

In fact, it can be conclusively stated that all the evidence won’t be in until YHWH YESHUA returns to establish His millennial government at Jerusalem. Who knows what all He will reveal to ignorant, little, limited, insignificant, proud, vain men and women who have believed that they know everything.

Whole books can be, and have been, written on the fantastic proofs of the Scriptures. There seems to be no end to it here in the early 21st century, with the huge number of archeological digs which have occurred and are occurring with regularity. Perhaps soon, Noah’s great ark will become official knowledge. What a proof it will be.

Chapter 20--Understanding TRUTH I

What is Truth?

Some two thousand years ago, the Roman Governor Pilate asked YESHUA a profound question-- “What is truth?” (Jo 18:38). With the enormous prevailing deceit, evil and hypocrisy in today’s world, this has to be a very good question (especially so since moral relativism starts with a belief that there is no truth). However, the answer is not as complicated as modern man is attempting to make it.

Per the Scriptures, YHWH’s Word is Truth (Jo 17:17). Also, per the Book, The WORD is The ELOHIM (Jo 1:1), and The WORD became flesh in the person of YHWH YESHUA The MESSIAH (Jo 1:14-15). Consequently, YHWH YESHUA is TRUTH (Jo 5:33; 14:6). Manifestly, to understand, worship, praise and serve YHWH YESHUA, one must understand TRUTH.

Although the Old Testament carries substantially more authority than the New Testament, as will be established in subsequent chapters, the NT writings do bring out some wonderful and indeed crucial information which is not present in the Tanakh. For this reason, one is obligated to study the NT, as well as the OT, in order to approach reality.

Intellectual Gifts

Future chapters hereafter will address the question of the correct form and organization of a group of believers in the Scriptural sense. There is no intent to begin to assess those questions at this time. As will be established later, the apparent correct name for this group is Qahal Ha ELOHIM, in the Hebrew.

But now, long before assessing this type of an organization, it will be beneficial to address some aspects of it in terms of outlining some useful ideas on how to understand the Word.

To accomplish the needed functions in a correct Scriptural organization involving true believers, The MOST HIGH outlined a series of spiritual gifts which aided, helped and assisted the organizational members and leaders in carrying out their tasks to benefit the collective congregation.

Three of the gifts, as will be hereafter outlined, are especially pertinent to a discussion on intellectual attributes of persons which can serve and benefit others. These three are: knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Thus, the NT apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and/or teachers need these three important gifts to perform their services or operations correctly.

There is every reason to believe that The ELOHIM did grant one, two or all three of these gifts to some or all of His ministerial servants in both the OT and NT. In that sense, these persons were able to appropriately share their knowledge, understanding and wisdom with others, as the situation would allow or call for; and especially, in the context of teaching and instruction.

Because some people wish to believe that their local Christian preachers have these gifts, there is a supposed demand or issue for them to have Scriptural or spiritual knowledge, understanding or wisdom. In this vein, many modern Christians, in particular, follow the path established centuries ago in the Roman Catholic Church (the mother of all Protestant Churches).

The traditional position of Christendom, starting with Rome, is that the dumb sheep members (as they are called or looked upon by many church leaders) are not supposed to know anything, and indeed, need not know anything (on their own) since their pastors/priests will tell them what they need to know and as they need to know it.

This prevailing presumption in Christendom invalidates or negates the need for study, as outlined in the Prologue of this production. Hence, the Christian position crystallizes as--why study, since the priest, pastor or preacher will tell church members all that they need to know. However, per the Word, that’s not the way it is!

Per the Book, the believer himself is commanded to study to be approved, and to grow in grace and knowledge of truth and righteousness, in order to live an acceptable life of service to The MOST HIGH and others. Manifestly, there are many other reasons why one urgently needs knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

Yohanan

One of the great Scriptural teachings was penned by Yohanan, when he wrote about the requirement to test or try the mental messages which are placed into limited, human minds by very powerful spiritual agents (I Jo 4:1). Going on, Yohanan indicated that one can recognize a true representative of YHWH on the basis of truth and that the real called out ones are known by their reception of truth (I Jo 4:1-6).

The teaching in I John 4 is quite profound and far reaching, as subsequent remarks herein will demonstrate. However, for now, it is imperative to address it in the context of how demonic forces seem to use mental telepathy to place temptations and adversarial thoughts into the minds of limited human beings. This whole theme was broached earlier and will be further assessed below and in later chapters.

Although one might make the case that he or she can address, evaluate, contemplate and consider the merits of external information from the standpoint of truth by the simple basis of thought and logical analysis, such is not always possible. Very often, all of our minds and thoughts are heavily influenced by the mental telepathic messages of fallen spiritual powers (demons).

Yohanan seems to make it plain that one must be prepared to test ideas, thoughts and mental messages placed into his or her brain by external spiritual powers against the written Word of YHWH--the Scriptures. As the Book says--prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (that which is conclusively proven as truth from the Word).

It appears that fallen spiritual powers (and good ones as well) use mental telepathy to funnel ideas, thoughts and beliefs into human minds to consider, contemplate and think about. In this sense, these ideas become temptations which can lead one into sin and rebellion. It’s very easy for these thoughts to be mulled over and jelled in the human mind to make one justify and support ensuing subsequent words and actions.

Avoid Truth

Later chapters will discuss the propensity of certain classifications of people to avoid facts, truth, verity and reality in conversations with others when in disagreement. A friend of this writer once pointed out that this behavioral pattern is prompted by demonic sources.

This practice surfaces when people in these categories become hostile to information that they are already opposed to for some reason (either on the basis of false beliefs already held or thoughts and ideas being placed into their minds by demonic powers).

Take the case of many dedicated Christians. If someone tries to broach new truth with them, they become mad. And rather than deal with the facts, truth, Scriptures and information being presented, they respond by focusing on something different, or more often, by criticizing, condemning and indeed hating the person trying to convey the Scriptural information to them.

In other words, such weak individuals, operating under demonic powers, are unable to have dialogue and discussion on the basis of facts, truth and information. Instead, they shift the argument and discussion--usually to an attack on the personality of the individual trying to cite facts and verity in the argument.

Obviously, demons are funneling this attack on personalities into the minds of hooked and/or susceptible persons. Such weak people can think only along the lines of the demonic mental messages. They are unable to handle facts and reality. This response seems to be very prevalent for many classes of Christians (as well as persons involved in politics, commerce, economics, government, etc).

While the above comments have been directed at those situations arising in conversations with others, the practice of demons feeding ideas and thoughts into human minds can occur at any time with anyone and in any situation--like when someone is reading and trying to absorb truth from some writing, watching television or receiving any type of information from any external stimulus.

More will be said about this demonic, mental telepathic course of action in later chapters.

Another Text From Yohanan

The Apostle Yohanan also had a most important point on the issue of truth when he quoted The MESSIAH as saying that every one of truth hears YESHUA’s voice or Word (Jo 18:37). Although there is an element of calling in this text, the fact remains that a person has to be in truth, or dedicated to truth, to hear and understand YAH’s Words.

The world has a lot of false prophets and deceivers in it. It is very easy for a Scripturally shallow person to get caught up by one of these workers of deceit. This is particularly common with Christians. There are literally thousands of denominations and preachers communicating diverse doctrines; which, for the most part, are absolutely Satanic and utterly opposed to the righteousness of the Word.

Without some knowledge, understanding, wisdom, mental awareness, discernment, etc, it is easy to get gobbled up from one of these false notions, based simply on the charisma and persuasion of the false preacher or teacher spreading his lies and deceptions around for human ingestion.

The potential believer must have some mental qualities to avoid being entrapped in one of these snares by false teachers. In other words, the person seeking verity must try these supposed preachers and teachers by the Book to see if they are true or false.

However, it is essential for a person to have some knowledge; and hopefully, some understanding and wisdom, in order to try false preachers, and to be able to detect and ascertain if they are indeed frauds or people of truth.

False Christian Preachers Fool Many

Preachers like Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Garner Ted Armstrong, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, “Reverend” Ike, Henry J. Lyons, Jesse Jackson, Pope John Paul II and on and on have fooled billions of people.

Some--like Swaggart, Armstrong and Jackson--are notorious for their unusual and/or regular sexual encounters outside of marriage. Others--like Jim Bakker and Henry Lyons--have records of stealing and embezzling church money. “The reverend” Henry J. Lyons, in particular, is no piker on stealing church funds.

Lyons was head of the large Black National Baptist Convention in 1998. He discovered that every time a Black Church burned down, (White?) people loved to send him money to rebuild the church. Too, White businesses also enjoyed sending “the reverend” money for Black advertising. Lyons decided to steal millions of this White money flowing into his church coffers.

Ultimately, “the reverend” was caught and convicted for the theft of church funds (Feb 28, 1999, “Spokesman-Review”).

The news reports on this recent story did not seem to raise any question or concern over the possibility that Lyons or some of his colleagues may have been the very people busy burning Black church buildings down--obviously, so that they would get more and more money from the credulous Whites.

It is very easy to get entrapped into the false teachings of charismatic and persuasive Christian preachers who say things which the gullible public loves to hear--unless one has some mental awareness and understanding of exactly what the Book does say and can check their words out by truth. That’s the essence of Yohanan’s comments (I Jo 4:1-6).

Knowledge is the First Plateau

The attainment of understanding of a level of truth and/or reality is the ultimate goal of the three intellectual or mental qualities under discussion (knowledge, understanding and wisdom). Since YHWH YESHUA is TRUTH, the objective for the student of the Scriptures is to grow in the knowledge, understanding and wisdom of TRUTH. In other words, we each need to think (and act) like Him.

Knowledge is the easiest of the three qualities to acquire. It is probable that no particular gift is needed for the typical person to have some, or a desired level of knowledge (otherwise, Yohanan could not have written his remarks, mentioned above). Apparently, most so-called humans are born with some capacity to acquire knowledge (unless they are retarded or physically disabled in the mind in some way).

But knowledge of truth does not come automatically. It comes by study. Hence, YAH tells us to study to be approved. As will be described in subsequent chapters, the surfacing problem is that people are apathetic and indifferent, from pride and vanity. Thus, they typically do not study.

Most persons are intellectually a little lazy. Of course, they would prefer to have some preacher (even if he is false and a liar) tell them what they supposedly need to know. This weakness and tendency of lethargic laziness fits well into the mode of operations of most Christian Church denominations which depend upon the ignorance and lack of study of truth on the part of their church members.

If church members, in most denominations, began to study the Word, in lieu of merely listening to and absorbing information from their pastors and church leaders, it would be like a major bomb going off. Like The MESSIAH said, men cannot put new wine in an old container--lest it start fermenting and expanding to blow up the container (Matt 9:17; Mk 2:22).

Most Christian Church denominations cannot afford to have new teachings introduced to their dumb sheep. Revelations of truth to a flock locked in ignorance would create a major crisis.

For this reason, churches in the generic sense don’t want their members studying and learning things on their own from the Word. They want the dumb sheep to come to church and pay money to the church, in order to be fed what they are supposed to know by the church pastor or preacher.

More Steps Up

Knowledge is essentially the acquisition of facts, data and information. While apparently anyone can get knowledge from study, it is also possible for The ELOHIM to dispense a gift of knowledge to selected persons, as described above. Once an individual has knowledge, the next step up is understanding.

Understanding is far more complicated than knowledge. It is predicated upon taking and using the knowledge, obtained from study, in a fashion to allow perception and comprehension of what that knowledge means, and/or its relevance, importance and role in one’s life.

Wisdom is the next step up. Once a person has knowledge, obtained from study, and understands and comprehends the meaning of that knowledge, then he or she must properly use that understanding.

And that’s what wisdom is--the proper use of knowledge and understanding. In other words, it is the ability to make the correct and proper decisions based upon the presence of knowledge and the understanding of truth and reality.

The Scriptures repeatedly link these three attributes to precious metals and priceless gems--like a treasure hidden in the field or a pearl of great value (Prov 2:2-4; Matt 13:44-46). Specifically, wisdom is worth more than fine gold, and understanding is far more valuable than refined silver (Prov 16:16). In short, wisdom and understanding represent truth (Prov 23:23).

A previous presentation on study (in the Prologue) outlined the requirement for study to obtain knowledge. This present discussion will say no more about this need. Obviously, it is paramount and profound. In terms of understanding, some few ideas will now be shared from the Word on possibly how one can understand (in the context of studying and gaining knowledge).

The Tanakh (the Old Testament)

As will be described in later chapters, the Tanakh (also known in Hebrew as Ha-Sefarim, the Books) is clearly the first basis of faith and belief. Many Christians never even read the Tanakh, much less study it. And certainly, few have even the foggiest notion of what it says. Yet, it is fundamental and mandatory to have knowledge and understanding of the Tanakh first before even attempting to broach the NT.

The Tanakh is divided into three parts--the Torah (law or Pentateuch), Nevi’im (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). The Torah is the so-called books of Moshe, Genesis to Deuteronomy, and the prophets consist of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and essentially those named from Isaiah to Malachi.

The writings are everything else--to include Ruth (Rut in the Hebrew), Lamentations, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah (Nechemyah in the Hebrew), Esther (Ester in the Hebrew) and Chronicles. The books of Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther are called the five Megilloth. The Haphtoroth or Haftorah is a special compilation of particular sections or portions of the prophets, which are to be read following the Torah on Sabbaths and festivals.

The modern Jewish Tanakh has 24 books, which involve the same writings as found in Christian “Bibles” --except that the 12 so-called minor prophets are in one combined book identified as the Twelve Prophets; the two books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are each in single books; and Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah are in one book.

The order of the books in the Jewish Tanakh presentation is: first the Torah, next the prophets and finally the writings, ending with Chronicles.

Generally, Christian ”Bibles” break the just mentioned several combined books apart to make a total of 39 OT books. By adding the 39 OT books to the 27 NT books, one arrives at a total of 66 books or writings (which may or may not be significant).

Evidently, in historic times, the Jewish Tanakh had only 22 books. In this context, the books of Joshua and Judges were in one volume and the books of Samuel and Kings were also in one volume. If 22 books are valid for the Tanakh, one can add the 27 books of the NT and arrive at a figure of 49, which is most intriguing.

The Types of Information Present

There is another interesting tripartite division of the whole Scriptures, as well as the Tanakh and NT individually. Essentially, the Word reflects three types of information: history, laws or standards of conduct, and prophecy of future events. Some say that at least a full one-third of the Book is devoted to prophecy--including not only the Torah, but also the writings.

For example, the Psalms were made to be sung. And they are very prophetic in addition to offering features dealing with history and standards/laws. The same is true with the five Megilloth. The former Dr Ernest Martin, of Portland, Oregon, said that the five Megilloth were sung by the women during the festivals (in the court of women).

Both the Psalms and the five Megilloth also tie to the five-fold division of the Torah and the related texts from the prophets (in the context of the Haphtoroth), which were to be read at different times during the year at Sabbaths and festivals.

The first festival of importance was Passover-Unleavened Bread in the spring. Psalms 1-41 were designed to be sung during the Passover season. This section relates to Genesis and the book of the Song of Songs, or Solomon, as it is sometimes identified. The Hallel, read, chanted or sung by believers at Passover, is specifically Psalms 113-118. The Great Hallel, which YESHUA sang at His last Passover, is Psalms 136.

Shavuot or Pentecost was the next festival when all of the males of Yisrael were commanded to be in attendance at Jerusalem. Psalms 42-72 were designed for Shavuot, along with the related books of Exodus and Ruth.

Another religious day of enormous importance was the fast of the ninth day of the fifth month. It seems to relate to Psalms 73-89 and the books of Leviticus and Lamentations.

Sukkot, Booths or Tabernacles was the third important event requiring all Israelite males to come to Jerusalem. It links to Psalms 90-106 and the books of Ecclesiastes and Numbers.

The last festival is Purim, which relates to Psalms 107-150 and the books of Deuteronomy and Esther.

The above comments on the festivals have been very brief. Other chapters later herein discuss them at some length.

Obviously, certain Tanakh writings were designed to be read or sung during each of those five festivals (in addition to the regular Sabbaths during a Scriptural year). By studying these references, in conjunction with the stipulated feasts, it is evident that a person can take a giant step up in terms of understanding.

Duality

Importantly, there is a certain sense of duality associated with Scriptural prophecy, in particular. In other words, certain events take place in an ante-typical fulfillment and then later in the real type. This production discusses this condition in some detail in later chapters and demonstrates this duality factor in a number of cases. Sometimes, the events are simple and sometimes they are quite complex.

For example, Adam and Eve sinned. So The MOST HIGH made them coats of skins as a covering (Gen 3:21). Assuredly, this was a very simple, physical event. But it was also profoundly important prophetically in the sense of a blood sacrifice being made for an atonement or covering for sin.

Actually, the Scriptures are pregnant with a host of teachings which fall into this category. Many, many things which happened are supposed to be learning vehicles for certain modern peoples today--just as they were for persons thousands of years ago. In short, all of the Scriptures have been prepared and preserved for our learning, edification and growth in knowledge, understanding and grace.

The city of Jerusalem has fallen to outside conquerors any number of times in history. A prophecy long ago could have already had a whole series of fulfillments. Moreover, Ezekiel 4:3 offers a powerful, little text which indicates that the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, in c554 BCE, was an ante-type of the later type coming upon the House of Yisrael nations (to be described in later chapters herein).

In the context of Scriptural prophecy, future chapters herein will focus upon many of the age ending prophecies which offer duel features of fulfillment in the age end. Sometimes, a prophecy will have a fulfillment, covering many years, over time. And then later, it will have another fulfillment, taking days (per the principle of a day for a year).

Tying the Books Together

Along with the duality feature, there is also much correlation between certain books and especially in the vein of prophecy. For example, take the situation with the books of Ezra, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew (chapter 24), Revelation and I and II Maccabees.

Though the focus of these books individually are different, they all correlate together in addressing the age end, as will be described in detail in later chapters on prophecy. Therefore, in conjunction with the duality feature present in all of these books, there is also a correlation aspect which can be tied to the duality reality.

Thus, Ezra, Haggai and Zechariah all correlate and address the Second Temple. To study the coming Third Temple, one must study all of these writings in their focus upon the Second Temple and in a realization that the Second Temple was the ante-type for the coming Third Temple.

Other books also have a primary focus or direction (but which all correlate together in the overall plan of the age end). Thus, the book of Ezekiel focuses upon the age end House of Yisrael. Jeremiah addresses both the House of Yisrael and the House of Yehudah. Revelation is directed at great events in the age end. Matthew 24 is concerned with YHWH’s election.

Malachi and parts of Zechariah and Revelation address the work of the two witnesses and possibly two earlier prophets (who will be described in later chapters). Daniel and parts of Revelation lay out the great world ruling empires, governments and beast rulers over the ages (including those present in the age end).

And though I and II Maccabees are not in the Jewish or Protestant Christian canons, they are bursting out with fantastic material on the age ending beast man, the beast government and the works of The MESSIAH when YESHUA returns to establish His government over the entire earth for the eventual millennium.

One of the fantastic features of all of these books just cited (with the exception of Matthew 24) is that they offer a whole series of dates which tie all of the relevant information together to describe the entire age end in excruciating detail.

What a gold mine of truths these several writings reflect when they are dated, correlated and meshed together in one overall outline (as is done in later Appendices D and E herein).

Chapter 21--Understanding TRUTH II

Some Basic Knowledge or Familiarity Is Needed

The discussion in the previous chapter on the Book, knowledge and the Tanakh helps lead the student of truth to a level of understanding (which must be the real goal of all students of truth). To begin to understand the Scriptural reality, one should have some basic knowledge and familiarity with the Word, its overall contents and where different information can be found.

Please recognize that the issue is the need to focus upon the acquisition of knowledge--knowledge which can be obtained through study. It takes no miracle for a person to learn the different books of the Scriptures, their sequence and where they are located. It just takes some work, in the vein of study, familiarity and memorization.

When this writer first became interested in the Word, over 30 years ago, a friend suggested that one of the early tasks for a new believer is the memorization of the individual books of the Scriptures and where they are located. This point impressed me and it was quickly pursued.

Since then, it has always proven sad when mentioning a Scripture to be checked, read and commented upon to friends (so-called students of the Word), who cannot even find the specific book in question. And there are any number of Christians out in the world of Christendom who, pathetically, fit into this category.

For example, the focus could be on the book of Ezekiel, Hosea or Amos or any other book. Many alleged believers can’t even find (in the context of a reasonable search) any of these writings in their Christian “Bibles.” Maybe, they can eventually find the books; left to themselves with a sufficient amount of time, and especially if they have brains enough to locate an index and check it.

While most Christians are grossly inadequate and lacking in terms of using the Tanakh, it must be acknowledged that some few of them do a little better with the NT. Admittedly, some Christians can at least find the section in their “Bibles” called the New Testament.

Though most Christians are not typically noted for spending any appreciable time in Scriptural study, some few do make a little effort. But tragically, even the few who do undertake some study devote their whole task to reading some words out of the NT, never realizing that a basic knowledge and understanding of the Tanakh is mandatory to ever appreciate anything of importance out of the NT.

It Is Possible to Know Some Things by Study

Again, as just noted above and earlier, it is feasible to acquire some knowledge and familiarity of the Scriptures without a supernatural gift of knowledge or a bolt of lightening out of the sky. All it takes is some patience, time, work and study. It requires no magic or anything unusual on the part of the average person. It would seem that all of us (except for the mentally retarded) are born with this capability.

Some years ago, during the Eisenhower and Kennedy confrontational years with the Soviets, a favorite joke and heap of ridicule used to be thrust upon Soviet Premier Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (1894-1971). He gained some fame by taking off his shoe and pounding on a desk or speaker’s lectern at the UN one year.

Anyway, many Christians in those days liked to ridicule and demean the alleged atheist Khrushchev because it was said that as a boy he memorized, in Russian, many of the first chapters in the book of Matthew. American Christians, in particular, thought that he was an evil atheist and Communist who was totally opposed to their concept of righteousness and good.

Much criticism, complaint and judgment are also typically leveled at historic Jewish figures (particularly “rabbis”) who spend vast amounts of time memorizing and learning the Oral Law (which eventually became codified and published in the form of the Talmud).

Yes, the so-called Oral Law (which will be assessed in some detail in subsequent chapters herein) was passed from generation to generation by memorization and recitation. It did require vast sums of time, effort, work and study to learn it. Since YESHUA The MESSIAH was a first century Jewish RABBI, it is a certainty that He also devoted a major effort to the learning of both the Scriptures and the Oral Law.

This writer now takes an entirely different stance on Khrushchev and early Jewish scholars. Anyone who memorizes anything out of the Scriptures should be especially applauded. Whether such persons move on to a higher plane of obedience and righteousness is another matter. But at least, such people have made a start by becoming familiar with the Book. This is a crucial first step.

Many Basic Pieces of Knowledge and Facts Are Needed

Consequently, to facilitate understanding, the Scriptures are chucked full of data and information; much of which must first be studied and learned, in the context of acquired knowledge, before the student of truth can even begin to put the acquired facts, data and information (human knowledge) together into the form of a meaningful whole of comprehension.

For example, the Word contains a whole reservoir of historical information. The real student of truth must have some knowledge and familiarity with this history to subsequently begin doing any useful and constructive study for understanding. This is not to say that it is essential to know every fragment, nook and cranny of Scriptural history to understand the big picture of truth.

However, it is important to know much about the Book--its general outline and which books reflect which facts and records of history. The same general perspective is needed on prophecy, on the Scriptural laws, feast days, etc. All it takes to get this general familiarity is time, study and effort.

While on Saipan Island, some years ago, this writer was acquainted with a couple who were former members of the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG), which historically used to obverse the seven annual feast days outlined in the Torah. While the Worldwide had many things wrong in her theology and administration, the members must be applauded to the extent that they kept the commanded festivals correctly.

In any case, the Saipan couple chose one year to have a Passover observance at their house. So they invited the local Seventh day Adventist preacher and me over to attend it with them. As a preliminary, the former WWCG man asked me, before the event, which Scriptures he should read and comment upon during the occasion.

Several Scriptures were mentioned to him. It was quite a shock for me to see his incredible gross unfamiliarity with the Book. He seemed to know almost nothing about the subject at hand. And whenever certain Scriptures were mentioned, he would struggle on and on trying to find them in his “Bible.”

Apparently, his years as a member of the WWCG were spent in the vein of merely attending the meetings and listening to the sermons, but never doing any constructive study on his own to gain even some basic familiarly and knowledge of the Word on some of the subjects of importance (which certainly were covered, from time to time, in the WWCG meetings).

So the day came. While it was a surprise that the Adventist preacher would attend, he did show up, along with me. The meal went well, and it came time for the liquid and unleavened bread symbols. The host, despite his years of being a member of the WWCG and the “research” conducted on the Passover a few days earlier, still had trouble finding and reading a few relevant texts.

More Needed Basic Knowledge

Moreover, beyond the importance of the big issues of history, law and prophecy, it is manifestly clear that the real student of truth must gain some familiarity with the many signs and symbols used in the Word and any number of other basic teachings and instructions.

The Book contains enormous symbolism and makes use of it extensively. A few comments will be presented in the succeeding sections on how to understand this symbolism. But for now, it must be noted that these symbols are present in the Scriptures. They can never be understood if the student of truth lacks familiarly with them, where they are found in the Word and how they are used in the Word.

It is not an impossible task to learn some basic information from the Scriptures. Everyone, including atheists and agnostics, can learn some basic, fundamental information and facts from the Book.

There is no excuse or justification for a so-called believer to be so incredibly shallow, ignorant and uninformed that he cannot find the different writings and/or have any real knowledge about the information contained in those writings.

All it takes is a little study, work and effort, to begin obtaining this basic, working knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet, this step is one of the most important ones that a student of the Word can ever undertake, if he or she has any hopes or aspirations of ever understanding TRUTH.

Matthew 5:18

The next important feature is found in the book of Matthew--which recorded one of the most far reaching and profound verses found in the entire Book (Matt 5:18). It is profound and extraordinary for many purposes, but one reason in particular communicates something which few people have ever really understood.

In the KJV, the text says something along the line that one “jot” and one “tittle” cannot pass from the law (the Torah--Genesis to Deuteronomy), as long as heaven and earth endure, and until all (prophecy) is fulfilled. This small remark is most fantastic and far reaching.

In the first place, it authenticates the Hebrew language and Hebrew Scriptures. It places particular significance and relevance upon the Torah--above all other Scriptures. But it goes beyond these basic, fundamental facts into a whole new appreciation of the Torah.

In the Hebrew language, as used in the Hebrew Torah writings, one finds that the smallest Hebrew consonant letter of all is a very small mark called a yod--correctly pronounced with a y sound (the jot in the KJV).

Also, there occasionally are other very small strokes or hyphenations above abbreviated words. One of these marks is called a tittle (from the Latin titulus, “Word Pictures in the New Testament,” v. I, p. 43, by A. T. Robertson). In time, the word came to include any small mark or point in a text.

The point of this is that not only is the Torah inspired, carrying moral authority (in its original Hebrew rendition), but this inspiration and authority extends all the way to the smallest and most insignificant mark a person can find in a Hebrew Torah scroll.

Not only did The MOST HIGH give Adam man collectively, and Yisrael particularly, His Word, but He gave it with the utmost precision to the very smallest of details and peculiarities. Every small letter and mark is inspired, and carries authority. Not a one of them can be ignored in critical and productive study.

Historic Judaism

It is important to note that YESHUA’s teaching on the relevance of the yod and small strokes may not have been completely original with Him. In “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (p. 375-376, v. I, division 2), Dr Emil Schurer indicates that the exegetic method of the “rabbis” involved “the art of deducing Halachoth (law--ed) from every jot” of the Torah.

Schurer says to attain this deduction, “the principle was acted on, that no word of the text was superfluous, that even the slightest, the most apparently superfluous elements of the text contain important truths.” Actually, this principle of understanding has prevailed in Judaism to this day.

The modern Jewish religious teachers and leaders (especially Orthodox) still spend an enormous amount of time and effort analyzing, dissecting, studying and comprehending the slightest words, letters, marks and even nuances in the Tanakh (just as was the practice in Second Temple days). This is the backbone of Jewish study and interpretation.

The student of truth should compare this historic Jewish position with the contemporary Christian position (which would rarely ever devote any particular time and effort to the smallest words, letters, marks and nuances--certainly in the Hebrew OT and typically not even in the Greek NT).

More From Matthew 5:18

There is one more most fantastic aspect of this discussion on Matthew 5:18. It is very obvious that The ELOHIM chose each and every letter and mark (in the original inspired scroll) to present His will and revelation to man--not only of past history, but also of future history in the context of prophecy.

In other words, each and all of the letters and marks reveal everything the student of truth must know and understand to fulfill YHWH’s will and purpose for life on this planet. Each of these marks was given as a revelation--to Yehoshua, to David, to Ezra, to Shaul, to you and to me.

These marks were made to serve all of past, present and future history, as long as heaven and earth endure, and until all prophecy is fulfilled (which is manifestly in the far distant future). Since each mark is precisely correct and relevant, no other marks are needed. All of the Torah is complete and it’s message is complete for man.

All Apply

Tragically, there is a sad tendency among Christians to look upon some of these letters, marks and words of the Torah as being historical records of completely fulfilled history, and of no importance to modern man. This is a terrible misunderstanding and a miscarriage of the justice of YHWH.

In truth, all of those little letters and marks in a Hebrew scroll of the Word pertain to you and to me today in the beginnings of the 21st century. They have not been abolished or done away with, as Christianity has incorrectly taught and advocated for most of the last 2,000 years. For sure, they apply today just as much as they have applied to every generation since the days of the Exodus, some 3,500 years ago.

The MOST HIGH is not stupid and incompetent, as many people try to make Him out to be with their false beliefs and theories about what is truth. If He found it necessary to tell or instruct someone in Moshe’s day with some information of limited value only back then, with no relevance to any other people since then, that information would never have found its way into the modern Tanakh.

The same was true in the days of the prophets and kings. If YHWH had some instructions for Moshe, alone, or for David, alone, with no intention that those instructions would ever apply to or have value for anyone else since their day, He would never have inspired those messages to be placed in His preserved Word.

Manifestly, the fact that one finds information, data, instructions, etc being given to Moshe, to Yehoshua, to David, to Josiah (Yoshiyahu in the Hebrew), to Jeremiah (Yirmeyahu in the Hebrew), to Nehemiah (Nechemyah in the Hebrew), to Malachi (Malakhi in the Hebrew) and to the Apostle Yohanan (in the written and preserved Scriptures to modern times) means that YHWH intended for those instructions, words and facts to be of value not only to the people to whom given in past ages, but also to be of value and relevance for all men thereafter.

In other words, whatever YHWH told Avraham, David, Yoshiyahu or Malakhi is just as important and germane to you and to me as it was to those people in historic times. The ELOHIM wasn’t just filling up space in His inspired writings. Every mark has importance and significance for each and every human, following its rendition into a writing to be preserved, copied and retained to modern times.

Since each small letter and each little mark have relevance and importance to all of us, the task we face is trying to understand, appreciate and comprehend what each of those little marks mean. To achieve and attain this understanding, it is imperative to commence the work of learning some basic facts and information from the Word (starting with Genesis one). This is the crucial next step!

As Daniel Botkin noted in his booklet on “The Ghost of Marcion” (p. 1), Shaul’s use of “all,” when declaring that he taught “all the counsel” of The ELOHIM (Acts 20:27) and that “all” Scripture is inspired and useful (II Tim 3:16), meant “all.” If the apostle had left something out (like a yod or a tittle), he could not have spoken of “all.” Yes, doctrine and truth must be established by all, 100%, of the Scriptural witnesses.

Isaiah 28:9-13

To facilitate comprehension, the prophet Yeshayahu outlined one of the greatest messages in the Word. He wrote that truth can be found--precept upon precept; line upon line; and here a little, and there a little; so that “they” might fall backward and be broken, snared and taken (Isa 28:9-13).

The point Yeshayahu was making is that Scriptural truth and verity is scattered throughout the Scriptures--here a little and there a little. The reason for this is so that the haters and people utterly locked in rebellion and opposition to the Book can never begin to understand it.

Since the wicked (including false Christian preachers) are prone to grab one or two texts to build a case for a particular point of theology, they will inevitably fall and be snared into the domain of Satanic lies and deceptions.

Actually, this is what the bulk of Christianity and Christian leaders have done for the past 2,000 years. They have had a tendency to build a doctrine or belief upon one or two verses, while totally ignoring many, many others which are just as relevant and important.

This Christian tendency was discussed in a preceding chapter (which focused upon the person of YHWH YESHUA), where it was shown that Christian preachers like to use three or four texts supporting their theology while ignoring 1,000 others which disprove their position. This is a very common reality of Christian practice.

The gist of this is that the student of truth must be prepared to go to “all” relevant texts to research a question of theology. If one, two or more texts are left out and not addressed, truth may never be found. Not only must all of the texts be examined and studied, but they must be reconciled, correlated and pulled together into harmony and consistency.

As the prophet stated, truth is found a little here and a little there. The wonderful tool of a good concordance (especially a Hebrew concordance of the Tanakh, as discussed in the earlier Prologue) is essential to pursue this course. By checking a good concordance or other index source, one may find hundreds of texts scattered throughout the Tanakh on many themes.

All of these texts must be checked and researched. Any person, unwilling to undertake this time consuming and lengthy quest for truth, will end up just as the prophet predicted. He will slip and fall backward and be snared by the evil power. This happens to Christians regularly when they refuse to study adequately and/or reject Scriptures; which, when found, do not support their position.

The just mentioned Isaiah 28:9 also says something about being weaned from milk in order to understand doctrine. This issue of being weaned from milk opens the door to the question of overcoming carnality and pride (to be described in some detail in later chapters). In other words, once the flesh is conquered and a person is ready for strong meat, as opposed to milk, understanding is more likely.

It is indeed extremely tragic that many people, even today, cry and whine for strong meat when they haven’t even begun to comprehend the simplest teachings of milk. The student of truth must start with milk before jumping in and hoping to grasp strong meat.

Prove All Things

As alluded to earlier, the Word plainly enjoins the believer to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good (Rom 12:2; I Thes 5:21). By all means, one must be willing to check, study, contemplate and reconcile all texts on a given subject. Once absolute truth is found, one must hold fast to that truth and not vacillate back and forth with different theories.

This thinking brings up a good point told this writer by a friend many years ago. It is “Don’t put your stakes so deep in the ground that you can’t pick them up and move them if later required.” The problem is that many people want to superficially determine something based on presumption without proper Scriptural truth.

The situation described above, with Christian preachers and leaders, connects to the idea of forming beliefs and theology on the basis of presumptuous and unwarranted conclusions. Many Christian leaders will use a verse or two (which typically they misunderstand and misuse) to presumptuously establish a belief or doctrine, while ignoring one thousand others that carry equal authority or weight.

Too often, such persons want to hold fast to that limited and incomplete information (by staking out their unchangeable positions into permanent beliefs which may be extremely faulty and wrong). The Book does say to hold fast to established truth--not to presumptuous thinking based upon an incorrect interpretation of the Scriptures.

For example, YHWH’s Word clearly mandates that one must keep the Sabbaths and festivals. Yet, the methodologies of how to keep and observe those occasions are not always made as clear in the Word as the matter of keeping them. Sometimes, even the dating of the annual festivals is a little complicated without sufficient study.

The point is that this writer has proved the applicability of keeping the Sabbaths and festivals. That information is truth and will be held fast. Yet, there are questions about how to keep the Sabbaths or festivals which may not necessarily be settled as thoroughly with me as the need to keep those times. For issues which are not totally settled, one needs to maintain some openness for further study.

Incidentally, keeping the Sabbaths are of profound importance to the seeker of truth. The reason for this is that YHWH has given us His Sabbaths to be a sign or mark to know and understand Him (Ex 31:13, 17; Ezek 20:12, 20).

Stick to the Book

Of extreme importance, The ELOHIM declares that no Scriptural prophecy is of private interpretation (II Pet 1:20). In other words, one must let the Scriptures interpret themselves. For example, there are a whole host of symbols and signs in the Word (as briefly noted above). This study at hand covers a number of them (like understanding the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, thorns, etc).

The student of truth must be willing to go to the Word to find the interpretations of these expressions and symbols. This is not an easy proposition; because, inevitably, some readers choose to offer their own interpretations, rather than studying and accepting the Scriptural definitions. Many of the meanings of these symbols are quite clear and understandable if the student of truth will study the Word and use it to establish reality.

There is some related information along this line. It must be pointed out that limited humans/humanoids have not been granted a commission or authority to add to The ELOHIM’s Word (Deut 4:1-2; 12:32; Prov 30:5-6; Rev 22:18-19). The fact that Moshe wrote this condemnation in Deuteronomy, and as some similar instructions are found in Proverbs and Revelation, prompts some clarification.

In Deuteronomy 4:1-2, the limitation is on the Word (dabar) which Moshe gave in the form of statutes and judgments (in order to keep the commandments), while Deuteronomy 12:32 might be more general with an overall application to the Torah.

Thus, this restriction specifically addresses the Torah (which is usually translated to English as the law; it will be addressed in chapters to follow). In other words, none of the later prophets and writers of the OT and NT could add anything to the Torah (Gen-Deut).

The importance of this distinction is that sin is the transgression of the Torah (I Jo 3:4, as will be explained in subsequent remarks on sin and the law). The point is that absolutely no one can ever come along after Moshe and add anything to the Torah (the instructions/teachings/law and the definition of sin). This means that none of the OT or NT prophets or writers could add any instructions/laws beyond Moshe.

These later prophets and writers could render judgments on the sins of the people and how they were transgressing the Torah, on interpretations/clarifications of material found in the Torah, and on prophetic statements of the future. But per Moshe, they absolutely could not add any further laws/instructions defining sin and righteousness, beyond the Words found in the Torah.

Proverbs 30:5-6 would seem to be a broad restriction, as applying to all inspired Scripture (certainly, as a minimum, to all of the OT prophets and writings); and Revelation 22:18-19 would manifestly cover all of the book of Revelation, if not all of the prophetic writings in both the OT and NT.

In terms of prophecy, Proverbs and Revelation are plain enough that no more prophetic writings can be added to the inspired Scriptures. In other words, everything is complete from Genesis to Revelation. Nothing further can be added in the vein of inspired Scripture.

False Prophets

Many persons reading the Book are never happy and content, simply accepting what the Word says. Inevitably, people want to add their own two cents worth to it. The Jews have tried to do this in the form of the Talmud, and Christians have tried to do it in the form of literature and writings emanating from Christian leaders (both of these courses will be further addressed in later chapters).

As a minimum, some Christian leaders have arrived on stage to pose as “prophets,” without authority from The MOST HIGH. Of course, these persons become “false prophets.”

Tragically, many of the false prophets through time have chosen to follow the pursuit of adding to the Word. Here, mention can be made to Ellen G. White of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the con-man Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, and on and on. These false prophets have been able to deceive and mislead millions into following a path which ultimately leads to death and destruction.

Not only have these false prophets cooked up their own additions to the Scriptures, but they and their successors have taught and advocated the false teachings to multitudes over the ages.

Uninformed and weak people become entrapped by these false teachings. Too often, people so entrapped believe more, love more and know and understand more about the false prophets and their false teachings than they do about the truth of the Scriptures.

Broad Principles and Exceptions

The next issue to comprehend is perhaps one of the most profound. Unbeknown to a lot of people (particularly Christians) is the fact that frequently, in the Book, The HIGHEST establishes broad principles of life and living in the vein of general rules, instructions or commandments (singular mitzwah and plural mitzwot in Hebrew). In other Scriptures, The ELOHIM then legislates an exception or exceptions.

Often, this condition occurs when a general, overall, negative mitzwah (the general rule or standard) is followed later by a positive mitzwah--as an exception to the general rule. This type of presentation surfaces in the context of Scriptural laws (mitzwot) where the positive law takes precedence over or nullifies the application of the overall negative law. Some cases of this reality will be noted hereafter in this work.

Perhaps one of the best examples comes up in the mitzwot dealing with incest where YHWH prohibits specific classes of incest as His general rule or standard (Lev 18:6-18; 20:17-21). Later, the Word offers an exception in the form of a mitzwah which says that when a brother dies without a son, a surviving brother must marry his widow, raise up a son, and name the boy after the deceased brother (Deut 25:5-10).

The issue of observing and resting on the Seventh day Sabbath is specifically important in this discussion. The Torah commands that no work be done and that a Sabbatical rest takes place that day (Ex 20:8-11). Yet, the priests working in the Temple were commanded to do certain things that day--which manifestly constituted work (Num 28:9).

YESHUA clarified this question very properly when He declared that the priests working in the Temple and profaning the Sabbath do not become guilty of sin for their Sabbath breaking work (Matt 12:5). Why--because they are working at the Temple in accordance with a positive mitzwah from The ELOHIM.

The MESSIAH likewise noted the situation with the act of circumcising a male child on the eight day--which can fall on a Seventh day Sabbath. As The ANOINTED ONE declared, the Sabbath is not transgressed when the parents of the child and the priests circumcise the child on the Sabbath in accordance with the circumcision mitzwah (Jo 7:22-23). Again, a positive command overrides a negative command.

There are a host of other cases (to be discussed later) where YHWH states an overall principle or law (usually, in the vein of a negative mitzwah) and follows up with one or more exceptions to the overall standard (often, in the form of positive mitzwot). Thus, men are told to cut/poll their hair (with exceptions for men in shame--lepers/Nazarites), and Adamites are told to not cut their flesh (yet, circumcision is commanded).

Christian Problems

Christendom typically has a problem grasping this type of a presentation. Many Christians tend to get bogged down with the exception(s) and then lose sight of the overall rule. Thereupon, these Christians then begin making man-made exceptions to the overall rule (even exceeding the specifically allowed exceptions).

Thus, one must obey the cited exceptions. However, man must not make up his own exceptions in an effort to add to the Scriptures or deter from the commandments as stated. In other words, specific obedience of the Word is required and not human reasoning that adds man-made alterations and additions to the Book in an effort to beat the basic rules and standards laid out by The ELOHIM.

YHWH YESHUA is Close

Per the Book, The ELOHIM is very close to persons who call upon Him in truth (Ps 145:18). To call upon Him in truth, it is crucial that the person worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jo 4:24). This requirement is commented upon at length throughout this production.

One Must Show Respect and Reverence

To even begin to grasp any understanding of the Scriptures, the reader must approach them with some measure of respect and reverence. The Word has a sense of dignity and the reader must grant that reality and show it respect and reverence. Too many people, especially Christians, are utterly disrespectful and indifferent toward the Book.

The following remarks demonstrate how utterly ridiculous some people can be in approaching the Word.

Christian Identity leader Peter J. Peters, of the Church of Christ of LaPorte, CO, put out a “special alert” that covered some “new” information (most of which was not really new, as it dates back to some dissident Jews of Second Temple days [i.e., the Essenes] and the book of Jubilees), which Peters was sharing with his (or “my” as he wrote) flock, his people and his men, as he proudly characterized his followers.

Peters’ adoption of this different thinking will be addressed in later chapters and needs not be considered here. However, he did mention Galatians 4:9-10, in the vein of some “weak and beggarly elements” --as being certain commandments in the Old Testament, which Peters also characterized as “Jewish feasts.”

What this amounts to is that there are some commandments (mitzwot) in the OT which Peters attempted to make fun of, ridicule and demean. He arbitrarily and without justification charged that these commands from The CREATOR were referred to as “weak and beggarly elements” in the NT and are also known as “Jewish feasts.”

Obviously, any person making fun of, attempting ridicule of or showing contempt for “any” word in the OT is an utter idiot and rebellious fool. Hence, is that what Galatians 4:9-10 says? Was the writer of Galatians a fool and idiot? Of course not! Galatians 4:9-10 involves the Greek “stoicheion,” which will be described in chapters hereafter. Suffice to say, stoicheion, in Galatians 4, offers no criticism of YHWH’s mitzwot.

The point of this is that the person wanting some understanding from reading and studying of the Book must approach it with some reverence, respect and dignity. It is impossible to achieve understanding from the Word when one uses it or other data to heap disrespect and contempt upon any part of it (and that includes the OT). YHWH’s commands are not weak and beggarly elements and they are not “Jewish.”

One Must Believe

Next, there is another most important concept on this discussion of how to understand. It is the need to “believe” (Gen 15:6; Lu 16:31; Jo 5:47; Acts 24:14; II Thes 2:13; Heb 11:6; I Jo 5:10). When a person broaches the Scriptures with an attitude of disbelief, it is clear that he or she can never understand. One must believe what the Word says in order to understand it. To disbelieve the Word means to call its AUTHOR a liar.

The Scriptures very clearly outline a need for male Israelite babies to be circumcised on the eighth day following their birth (as noted above). This little procedure is of enormous importance to Israelite followers of YHWH YESHUA. Its value and significance hangs upon the simple fact of belief because the true believer needs no other explanation beyond just the commandment.

A March 2, 1999, “Associated Press” story in the Spokane, WA “Spokesman-Review” had a headline which said that “Circumcision unnecessary, pediatricians say.” The essence of this report was that the American Academy of Pediatrics in Chicago had offered a position statement saying they would not recommend circumcision for every newborn boy and that when done, a pain killer should be used.

The Swedish Example

Sure enough, given time, various nations and peoples have and will implement this new medical thinking. Already, Sweden has imposed legal restrictions on circumcision (the first since the Nazi era).

The new Swedish law, passed on June 1, 2001, says that circumcision can be performed only by an approved doctor, nurse or person with a special permit and only after administering an analgesic (Jun 22, 2001, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 6). Of course, this new law has upset religious Jews (both in Sweden and worldwide); because, historically, “rabbis” have performed this act/ritual without an analgesic.

The point of these remarks is that there could be any number of people out in the world who would much prefer to believe and follow the advice of some human doctor, in preference to believing YHWH and obeying a commandment in the Scriptures. For many persons, they are looking for an excuse to disobey. Sweden has now set the pace--which will likely become law elsewhere in the coming days.

Can a student of truth understand the far reaching implications of this trend toward limiting circumcisions by legal means? At a minimum, anyone choosing to circumcise a child will have his name placed in a government computer file which monitors people with certain peculiar religious beliefs. Who knows, maybe eventually the whole practice could become illegal (all because man is not prepared to believe YAH).

To believe means merely to accept The ELOHIM’s Word, appreciate it and respect it because it is His Word. The real believer needs no proof or explanation of why belief is important. Belief involves simplicity and humility, which are assets the follower of YHWH YESHUA needs, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters herein.

More Scriptural Tips for Understanding

Furthermore, there are a whole host of other Scriptures which offer pieces of advice on how a person involved in the study of TRUTH can enhance or increase the resulting understanding. Manifestly, space is too limited to even begin to give this host of Scriptures justification, but a few more will be highlighted herein.

The essence of this reality is that obedience is closely tied to the understanding of truth. In other words, a person must be willing to step out in obedience in order to understand truth (Deut 29:29; Ps 119:99-104; Prov 1:22-33; 3:1-4; Jo 7:17; 14:21; Acts 5:32; Rom 2:13-15; Heb 5:9; Jas 1:22; II Pet 1:19; I Jo 2:3; Rev 22:7).

The final, essential requirement for approaching understanding is that one must love TRUTH (Prov 12:1; Ps 119:97-104; II Thes 2:10-13). This is more than just a simple affirmation of a devotion to truth. This love must be passionate, hot, committed and totally devoted.

Something Very Important

There is still one more piece of extremely important knowledge which the student of truth must always keep in mind in any Scriptural study.

As mentioned in the Prologue, the Scriptures were not originally inspired, written and canonized in English. This may be quite a shock to many English speaking Christians, particularly since some of them wish to attach some special authority to the “King James Version” (correctly the “Authorized Version”) or one of the other translated versions of the Book now in existence.

For sure, The MOST HIGH did not commit His Word to the King James translators in 1604-1611 or to any other people using the English language. Therefore, to ever begin to come to grips with truth and reality, one must go back to the initially inspired Scriptures in their original languages. There is no alternative on this, despite the speculation of many ignorant and uninformed Christians.

As will repeatedly be stressed in this production, the “King James Version” (KJV) was one of the great translations of the Scriptures into English. It has served the English speaking peoples for 390 years. And still today, it is quite good because it is extremely literal, and it often is to be preferred to more readable paraphrased editions.

Moreover, some of the more recent New Age and feminist-promoted translations are pathetically sick and wrong. Most or all of them are so bad that they tend to lead their readers astray, rather than helping them as should be the case. A good example of this promotion of evil surfaces with the newest edition of the popular “New International Version” (NIV) of the Scriptures.

This new translation offers “gender-neutral language” to the Christian public (Feb 15, 2002, “The Week,” p. 10). Though The SUPREME remains Himself, the new version replaces brothers with brothers and sisters, and “sons of God” with “God’s children.” Since the NIV is now the best selling edition of the Book, it spells out a certainty that most American Christians will buy and use the new gender-neutral work.

The point of the just mentioned remarks is that the student of truth must be ever careful and cautious about automatically accepting the views of a particular translator or translation in critical study of the Word. It is manifestly true that the persons seeking truth must always be prepared to spend some time in research and study to properly approach reality.

While the King James Version is quite good (although not prefect), even its use must always be subjected to further study and analysis of the actual Hebrew and Greek words involved in a particular text. As mentioned previously, critical study often must dictate a detailed examination of all of the contextual usages of Hebrew and Greek words of interest.

The Scriptures themselves become the final authority on the meaning of various Hebrew and Greek words.

The Bottom Line

Last, the Psalmist wrote one of the most beautiful and far reaching texts of all on this theme, saying that “The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom: A good understanding have all they that do His commandments: His praise endureth for ever” (Ps 111:10).

Consequently, a student of truth, wanting knowledge, must learn to study and study long and hard. Carrying this task forward, the student of truth, wanting understanding, must learn to start obeying YHWH’s commandments. Finally, the student of truth, wanting wisdom, must learn the proper and right fear (or correctly reverence) of The MOST HIGH.

Can a person acquire knowledge, understanding and wisdom? Assuredly, the answer is yes. Does it take a miracle and bolt of lightening out of the blue? Evidently, not at all. All that it seems to take is study, devotion, obedience and the right attitude of worship and reverence.

Chapter 22--The Tanakh

The Hebrew Old Testament (Tanakh)

Here, at the outset in this presentation, it is necessary that a Scriptural basis be laid to establish that the Hebrew Old Testament (the Tanakh) and the Hebrew language carry an extraordinary level of prestige in the context of study and understanding. Perchance, this fact probably means little or nothing to the average Christian. But it has to be one of the great issues of all time.

Of note, the Old Testament (OT) was the Scriptures (or the “Bible” as Christians prefer) of not only the New Testament age; but also, it was the written authority for the Apostolic Assembly. Consequently, whenever the called out ones of the first century CE read or referred to Scripture, they routinely quoted the OT.

There was no New Testament (NT) in Apostolic Assembly days. Instead, there was only the “inspired” Old Testament. In other words, the Scriptures which early believers and followers of YESHUA carried, used and referred to was the OT. Of most importance, they regularly quoted it as being inspired and authoritative (695 OT quotes in the NT).

Notably, on this theme, the Apostle Shaul observed that the Scriptures written in the past (the OT) were “written to teach us” (Rom 15:4) and that "every Scripture is inspired" by The EVERLIVING ONE (II Tim 3:16). Certainly, he was referring to "every" Scripture of the Old Testament as being inspired and carrying dominion in order to teach us (righteousness). No informed person would be likely to deny this conclusion.

The New Testament repeatedly mentions references to OT books and writings (like those of David, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, Yechezkel, etc) and all routinely in the context of being the very Word of The MOST HIGH.

Additionally, The SON OF ADAM and His disciples recognized the first five books of Moshe as the Torah (law in the OT) of The SUPREME and always cited it as the final word on any question or dispute facing them.

The Old Testament Language

In addressing the issue of the language involved in the inspired "Old Testament," there is no doubt about it. For sure, it is the "Hebrew" language which is inspired and which carries authority from The MOST HIGH, as the Tanakh itself repeatedly proves (II Kg 18:26, 28; II Chron 32:18; Neh 13:24; Isa 19:18; 36:11, 13).

Old Testament personal names, places, things and words have meaning only in the context of the Hebrew language. Early on, in the book of Genesis, The HIGHEST authorized Adam to name every living creature in the creation--even including Eve (Hawwah or possibly Chawwah in the Hebrew, meaning “life giving”) and the first use of the word “ishshah,” meaning woman (Gen 2:19-23; 3:20).

Manifestly, the evidence in Genesis is that Adam named everything--except possibly himself. This is important to consider because it must logically follow that he used the Hebrew language to name everything (everything that was first named in the Hebrew Scriptures). Adam must have known and used Hebrew from his very beginning!

Parts of the Tanakh are nothing but Hebrew poetry, pure and simple. The style, rhythm and meaning make sense only in the Hebrew language. No other language can match the Hebrew in properly communicating the Tanakh. Assuredly, the Old Testament is a book composed originally in Hebrew. There is no other option on this!

Proof from the Psalms

Orlando Smith (of Milan, TN), a friend of this writer, once remarked that Psalms 119 proved to him the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew language and Hebrew OT. Of course, Smith is correct because of the peculiar way that the 119th Psalm was composed. In order to begin to appreciate Psalms 119, one must understand that the Hebrew alphabet has 22 characters or alphabetic letters in it.

These 22 are all consonants (however, some few of them could also serve as vowels). In ancient times, Hebrew writings were made using only these 22 letters (although from 500 to 950 CE, vowel points were added by Hebrew scholars, called Masoretes, to preserve the pronunciations, as will be described in later comments herein).

The “Soncino Books of the Bible” (Psalms, p. 394) explains the fantastic organization and presentation of Psalms 119. This Psalm was composed with 22 stanzas to correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each of the 22 stanzas comprises eight verses which all begin with the same Hebrew letter--starting with the first letter (aleph) and concluding, in sequence, with the final letter (tau).

“Soncino” outlines another most fascinating aspect of Psalms 119 which links it to Psalms 19:8-10 (verses 8-9 in Christian translations). The AUTHOR of Psalms 119 adopted the (Hebrew) key-words of Psalms 19:8-10 and others as his motif to weave into a verbal figure in Psalms 119.

Per “Soncino,” The AUTHOR “draws so lavishly upon his resources of language to convey his love of the Torah, and what a force it is in his life.” Suffice to say, the Hebrew language is inherently built into both Psalms 19 and 119.

Since the Psalms were songs to be sung by worshippers, it is manifest that their presentation in the Hebrew language would always carry the most intellectual (mental) meaning, significance and appreciation--at least to the worshipper, who should be striving to understand and esteem all aspects of the songs he sings in worship of The MOST HIGH.

Beyond the Hebrew language and presentation, no other language can ever begin to make the singer/worshipper relate to and grasp the full potential of Psalms 19 and 119. The use of all other languages (besides Hebrew) will always fall short and leave something to be desired.

More Proof

Incidentally, there is another feature here worth pointing out. Beyond the correlation of Psalm 119 to the Hebrew alphabet, it is fascinating that the historic Tanakh had 22 books, as cited in a prior chapter. The March 2002 “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher” (p. 1-3) links the 22 books in the Tanakh and the 22 (ball shaped) knops on the Menorah (that stood in the Temple) to the 22 Hebrew alphabetic letters.

Interestingly, each of the 22 knops on the Menorah was engraved in sequence with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

In inquiring of the Urim and Tummin breastplate (Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8), the High Priest stood before the Menorah (with the breastplate on) and touched the applicable letters of the Menorah knobs and articulated the Hebrew sounds in an incantation to spell out the particular words in a question to the Urim and Tummin.

In giving the answer to the question posed, the 49 lights on the seven oiled lamps of the Menorah (each of the seven lamps contained seven flaming wicks) shined light (the Urim) on the breastplate containing the 12 jewels (the Tummin).

The jewels would reflect back the light beams to light up the applicable knobs on the Menorah to spell out the appropriate Hebrew consonant letters in the answer from The HIGHEST to the question posed.

This methodology was apparently the way ancient Yisrael communicated questions to YHWH in the Temple. Jones adds that each of the Hebrew consonants (with its applicable vowel sounds) produces a distinctive and unique audible articulated sound.

In the world tomorrow, when all of Yisrael is regathered to Palestine, The ELOHIM will use the Urim and Tummin to determine exactly which persons belong to the 12 tribes of Yisrael and which persons are not true Israelites (per Jones, p. 3). This idea could be the thinking in the NT parables of the wheat and tares and separating the sheep from the goats (as will be discussed in later chapters herein).

The essence here is that The MOST HIGH communicated with ancient Yisrael in Hebrew. And per Jones, He will also communicate with Yisrael in Hebrew in the coming world tomorrow.

The Original Language

There was one original language (Gen 11:1-7) before Babel (Gen 11:7, 9), and it must have been the Hebrew associated with Adam, Noah, Shem (Gen 11:10), Eber (Gen 11:17) and Avraham (Gen 14:13). While Hebrew must have commenced in the Garden of Eden, the word Hebrew was perhaps not attached to it for identification purposes until Eber’s time since he was the first man identified as a Hebrew.

One of the Dead Sea Scrolls referred to the original “holy language” of Genesis 11:1-7, which also is mentioned and identified in the Jewish Midrash Tanhuma as Hebrew (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 402).

Old Testament words are always Hebrew words (except for a few Aramaic words, to be shortly identified below) with Hebrew meanings. As just outlined, personal names are always Hebrew names with Hebrew meanings (starting with Adam). The OT thought and idiom are always Hebrew. It is manifestly clear that the original language, starting with Adam, had to be Hebrew. No other option makes sense.

The oldest writings found in archeological digs have been Semitic writings from ancient Mesopotamia and especially from lower Mesopotamia, which was historically known as Sumer or correctly Shumer (“The Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 420, 513, 719). Perhaps the oldest in this group of writings are the Sumerian, Elamite, Ugarit and Akkadian.

Hamitic languages, like the Egyptian (with some affinities to Semitic languages, “Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 180), are also quite old--but evidently, not as old as the Mesopotamian Semitic writings. For some strange reason, Canaanites (though racial Hamites) used a Semite language and writing (as will be later discussed).

The Ebla find in Syria was mentioned in a prior chapter. The writings there were also quite old--dating to c2300 BCE. These Ebla tablets were in a Mesopotamian cuneiform script, but the language was Eblaite, a Semitic dialect (“The Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 176).

Clearly, there was a Proto Semitic language, alphabet and script that preceded the immediate post-flood writings in Shumer/Sumer (which likely are the oldest of the ancient Mesopotamian writings now discovered by archeologists). As noted in a prior chapter, some question remains about some of the early writings found in both Egypt and Sumer/Shumer and whether the oldest are pre flood or post flood.

This earliest language and writing must have been something on the order of a Proto Hebrew, as supported by the Scriptural record (for sure, in terms of the actual language), although most authorities on the ancient world try to make the case that the Hebrew language/writing systems used by the Israelites came from the ancient Canaanites/Phoenicians (but this is unproven and remains doubtful).

Pictographs

These oldest known Semitic and Hamitic writings were in the form of pictographs--which Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary” (p. 496) define as “a picture representing an idea, as an hieroglyph.” This is the reality of all the early writings from both Mesopotamia and Egypt.

For example, the letter A is “Aleph” in the Hebrew and early Semite writings. It is represented in the hieroglyphics as an ox head with two horns. The next letter is a B or “Bet/Beit.” It is symbolic of a house (beit in Hebrew). Many scholars and language authorities agree that these early Semitic pictographs became the basis of the Indo-European alphabet. Thus, the early Aleph became, in time, the English “A” and so on.

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 23) suggests that the early Phoenician, Hebrew, Arabic and Devanagari alphabet systems all came from the Egyptian hieroglyphic writings, but that the exact steps in the process are “unknown.” “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 2, p. 674) acknowledges this Egyptian theory about early writings, but also notes a scholarly belief in other sources, like Akkadian cuneiform.

The writer of this study at hand agrees with this second alternative--that the earliest Semite writing and alphabet systems came from a Proto Hebrew or Proto Semite alphabet, simply because of the Torah (which probably was compiled, in part, based upon writings which may have existed and been handed down from the days of Adam and Noah to Avraham’s family).

Because of the fact that the early Semite writings were in pictographs, John Smith, of Colville, Washington, says that the meanings of alphabetic characters can be put together phonetically to convey an idea or message.

Smith suggests that while the Aleph idea of a bull can represent head, leadership, authority, etc, it can also be combined with a Beit (house) to form the Hebrew “ab,” meaning father (correctly av with the veit variation), who is the head of the house. The “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 223) has one more slightly different slant on this idea, by combining “beit ab” (house of the father) to mean a family.

In any case, the fact that the earliest writings are in Semitic pictographs and that these alphabetic characters mean things and can be put together to mean things, carries a lot of weight in assessing the language of Adam and how it has been transmitted in writing.

Consequently, the evidence of early writings goes to support the idea of an original Semite language and alphabet at (re)creation (which this writer suggests must have been Proto Hebrew, because of the Scriptural record). From it, other Adamic languages and writings have materialized.

If there are any exceptions to this direction being charted, they might exist with the ancient Chinese and Cyrillic languages and alphabetic characters.

The Current Script

Unquestionably, from the historical perspective, the Old Testament was largely written in Hebrew and preserved in that language--except for a few minor texts in Aramaic, as mentioned above (two words in Gen 31:47; a verse at Jer 10:11; and a few sections at Dan 2:4b-7, 28; and Ezra 4:8--6:18; 7:12-26).

Even in these few non-Hebrew instances, the Aramaic words have been preserved in the Jewish alphabetic script in the Hebrew Tanakh (as derived from an earlier Aramaic script).

It should be noted that the actual ancient Aramaic script was very similar to Hebrew because both are Semitic and both supposedly came out of a common Proto Canaanite script and its later development into a Phoenician script, per “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 2, p. 674-700).

However, this allegation by “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” linking both the Aramaic and Hebrew scripts to older Canaanite and Phoenician scripts, may or may not be true--since it is manifest that Moshe wrote the Torah long before the Phoenician script and Yisrael’s entrance into Canaan land. Moshe probably used earlier writings which likely came down from Noah and Avraham to his family (as outlined above).

The better option on this script question is that a Proto Hebrew or Proto Semite script probably was the one which came down from Adam to Noah and subsequently. Seemingly, the tower of Babel incident didn’t interfere much in that basic script, perhaps used by the Canaanites and the descendants of Eber (the first Hebrews).

The Phoenicians appear to be descended from Esau, the grandson of Avraham (to be discussed later). So it is natural that they would use this script. In any case, it might be that the Israelites already had this basic Hebrew/Semite script from the days of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yakov, and that they didn’t get it in later years from any third party.

Although the early Tanakh scrolls were in an old Paleo Hebrew script of First Temple days, they gradually gave way to a Proto Jewish script--which, in turn, developed into the current, square, Jewish, Hebrew script. The Proto Jewish script (c third century BCE) evolved from a prior Official Aramaic script, after the Babylonian exile (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 2, p. 688-689, 705-706).

Incidentally, there is an ancient Jewish legend that even though the Torah was not given through Ezra (though he was worthy of it), its script was changed by or through him (”The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah,” p. 152, item 9).

Importance of the Hebrew OT in the NT

Beyond the written evidence of the Hebrew language in the Hebrew Old Testament itself, there is likewise much powerful New Testament (NT) evidence which also proves quite conclusively that the Tanakh is authoritative in Hebrew and not in Greek or some other language. This can readily be proven from the NT itself.

Shaul saw the importance of the Hebrew Old Testament when he pointed out that “much is owed to the Jews” because the oracles (words) of The HIGHEST were committed to them for preservation and transmission (Rom 3:1-2).

Categorically, and however good or bad they were and have been, the Jews have fulfilled this commission over the centuries. As Shaul outlined the work and commission of the Jews (in the preservation and transmission of the Scriptures), his remarks addressed the Hebrew Old Testament and not the Greek, since it has been the Hebrew text which has been safeguarded by them.

Furthermore, mention must be made, at this juncture, of The ANOINTED ONE's comments about the everlasting nature of the (OT) law (Matt 5:18). Of course, when He referred to the "yod" as not passing away from the law (while heaven and earth endure), He was making reference to a letter in the Hebrew alphabet and the supremacy of the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Old Testament (as noted earlier).

Hebrew Never Died

Numbers of people have labored for centuries under the mistaken belief that the Hebrew language was a relic of the past, used only in the Scriptural writings in Second Temple days, having been replaced in the vernacular in Palestine with the common Aramaic and Greek. Such appears not to be the case at all.

Many modern Hebrew scholars and particularly those of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research (to be later addressed) charge that Mishnaic Hebrew (as found in the Talmud) shared great use among the people--possibly, along with the Aramaic.

In fact, some persons, like former Hebrew University Professor David Flusser, (now deceased) contended that Mishnaic Hebrew was the language of the common people (“Prophecy Flash,” Nov-Dec 1994, p. 14). Flusser’s views will be extensively quoted hereafter because he became, in modern times, one of the most important scholars in early Judaism and Christianity at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Flusser had an Orthodox Jewish background. But per the Dominican priest and philosopher Marcel Dubois, Flusser came to admire and love the NT YESHUA Who he saw as the legitimate heir to the OT Hebrew prophets (Feb 8, 2002, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 32). Flusser referred to YESHUA as “RABBI” (meaning “my teacher”) and “ELI” (meaning ”my EL”). Thus, the Orthodox Jew Flusser was a believer in YESHUA.

A Mix

At the 5th National Foundations of Our Faith Conference, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Oct 9-12, 1991 (as cited earlier), Dr Roy B. Blizzard Jr also offered some very enlightened insight on the situation in Palestine when YESHUA was born there (c5 BCE).

Blizzard, a former professor of Hebrew at the University of Texas, said that during YESHUA’s life, Hebrew was the language of the common people. He added that Aramaic was on the descendancy while Hebrew was on the ascendancy in usage (apparently, during the time of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, late first century BCE and very early first century CE, as will be described in detail later herein).

In his Introduction to “The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee” (p. 4), translator J. W. Etheridge wrote that in Second Temple Palestine, the language in current use was a dialect composed of an Aramaic basis with a “slight intermixture of Hebrew and exotic elements.”

There is probably some merit in the direction charted by Etheridge and particularly in the context of the relevant Aramaic remarks in the New Testament. Probably, the Second Temple Jews in Palestine did speak largely a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew--perhaps understanding both languages to some extent.

Based on comments by Flusser and Blizzard, it might be that this mixture was predominately Hebrew, with just numbers of loan words from the Chaldee. Or as Etheridge allows, it might be that the basic vernacular language was Aramaic with some mixture of Hebrew. In any case, the language certainly included words from both languages.

This writer would lean in the direction that the people spoke both languages to some extent and likely the Hebrew predominated, since both Shaul and Josephus addressed the general public in Hebrew (to be described in later remarks).

In fact, Shaul not only spoke Hebrew to the people and with YESHUA (Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), but the “Complete Jewish Bible” (p. 1467) translates Philippians 3:5 with Shaul having said that he was a Hebrew speaker with Hebrew speaking parents. There is absolutely no question about it whatsoever. Shaul spoke Hebrew as his primary language.

Maybe, Dr Blizzard’s perception is on target when suggesting that the Aramaic was in a declining mode while the Hebrew was ascending. But surely, words from both languages found acceptance and understanding in the general population. Even today, in Israel, the restored Hebrew language has a number of loan words from other languages--principally English.

But regardless, the actual script used today is the Square Jewish script, irrespective of the source of the words. The same seems true for Second Temple days. The language was perhaps a mixture of Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic, which was written in the Proto Jewish script.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

If there is any conclusive evidence establishing the use of Hebrew first and Aramaic second among the Jewish population, in first century CE Palestine, it has been the discovery of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, starting in the late 1940s.

This find consisted of a number of scrolls and documents and thousands of fragments. So far, over 900 separate manuscripts/scrolls have been identified in the writings, but some 888 of them are fragmentary (May/Jun 2002, “Biblical Archaeology Review,” p. 34). Virtually all of these writings were of a religious nature and some 25% of them were of OT texts.

The discovery included several texts and fragments of various Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and other writings in Hebrew or Aramaic which were previously available in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac or some other language (like Psalms 151, 154 and 155 and the books of I Enoch, Tobit, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Jubilees--to be discussed in later comments).

Some early Tanakh texts, dating from 200 BCE, were in Paleo Hebrew (in use in First Temple days). As noted in previous comments, this Paleo Hebrew and the Official Aramaic script gave way to a Proto Jewish script in Palestine in about the third century BCE. Thus, the Qumran scrolls were important in helping to establish this transition.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in nearby caves, brought to light the fantastic existence of some people at Khirbet (Arabic meaning ruin) Qumran, which are now acknowledged by most scholars as being Essenes (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. xv-xxxv).

There is some minority opinion which disputes this popular belief. For example, Professor Lawrence Schiffman, of New York University, suggests that these people were Sadducees, while Professor Norman Golb, of Chicago University, believes that Qumran was a military outpost or stronghold (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. xxiii, xxxv).

As Norman Golb and all of the scholars acknowledge, the ancient works of Josephus, Philo and Pliny the Elder all discuss the Essenes in first century CE Palestine (“Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 3-6).

Josephus mentions them some 2,000 years ago as one of the important sects of Judaism and allows that they had members in various towns in Palestine. Golb refers to the work of Pliny and his reference to an Essene settlement North of En-gedi on the Western shore of the Dead Sea.

Since the location of Khirbet Qumran is situated on the Dead Sea between En-gedi and Jericho, most scholars accept the belief that the inhabitants of Qumran were Essenes.

This seems to be the most logical conclusion, even though it might be true that the original Qumran site was prepared by the Hasmoneans as a military fort. It’s possible that the site was abandoned long before the Essenes began to use it as their settlement. It’s not unusual for a military fort to be built and abandoned, then later used by other parties.

Masada

In a 1963-65 archeological dig at the site of the Jewish Zealot holdout at Masada, also near the Dead Sea and just South of En-gedi (and Qumran), some similar early Hebrew manuscripts and fragments were found. Masada fell to the conquering Romans in 73 CE.

This discovery of what appears to be Essene writings at Masada has raised some question about whether the Essenes could have had a link with the Zealots. But this seems very doubtful and particularly so when one examines the philosophy and thinking of the two groups as currently known and understood today.

Regardless, early scrolls scholars concluded that the Essenes did occupy this Dead Sea area and wrote, or at least used, the many wonderful Dead Sea Scrolls, written during the years 250 BCE to perhaps 68 CE. But as more and more scrolls were discovered in nearby caves, and as scholarly research continued, other ideas began to surface on the origin of the scrolls.

Source of the Scrolls

Professor K. H. Rengstorf, of the University of Munster, first suggested that the scrolls were prepared in Jerusalem and constituted the Temple library at the Jerusalem Temple, and were brought to the caves for safekeeping during the Roman War of 66-70 CE (“Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 157).

Years later, the just cited Professor Norman Golb suggested that the scrolls were written elsewhere in Palestine and were used both in the Temple library and also in several private libraries in the Jerusalem area (“Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 145-151, 260, 329-332).

Seeing the approaching Roman army, or perhaps acting during the siege, the librarians involved wisely took their valuable holdings to the caves to safeguard them during the war.

Golb pointed out that the Copper Scroll (which described buried treasures, possibly from Jerusalem and/or the Jerusalem Temple), cited herein in previous comments, makes sense in the context of having come from Jerusalem, since the poor Essenes likely would never have owned riches needing to be hidden away.

These references are in some type of code and none of the treasures have been found in modern times. The theory among most scholars is that if these riches of gold and silver actually existed at the fall of Jerusalem, the Roman conquerors would have forced survivors to disclose their locations and the treasures would have been found by the Romans in c70 CE.

Actually, the Copper Scroll was unique, not only from the standpoint of its copper transmission and contents; but also, because it used a Hebrew text decidedly different from most of the other scrolls (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 188).

Moreover, it is true that the scrolls were extremely diversified in terms of the actual scribes. At least, some 500 or more different scribes were involved, with only several instances where a single scribe prepared two or more documents.

Norman Golb quoted Qumranologist Hartmut Stegemann--who suggested in 1989 that only some 20% of the scrolls could have come from Qumran (“Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 208). Thus, the traditional belief that all of the scrolls were written at Qumran had some real problems with it.

This evidence was sufficient to make many scholars adopt a belief that, rather than writing the scrolls at Qumran, the Essenes collected most of them elsewhere in Palestine over the years and brought them to Qumran to stock a local library. Since many unique and peculiar Essene writings seem to be involved in the scrolls, this option has merit--except for possibly not fully explaining the Copper Scroll.

Of course, it is possible that the scrolls in some caves did come from a library in Qumran, while the contents of other caves came from the Jerusalem Temple or other private libraries in the Jerusalem area, as suggested by Norman Golb.

The Value of the Scrolls

Irrespective of the question of who stored the scrolls in the caves of Eastern Judea, there are some clear, fantastic benefits of their preservation and discovery in modern times. Certainly, some of the scrolls have helped enormously in the establishment of an authoritative Hebrew OT text.

For example, a fragment of the book of Samuel contains a passage which seems to have been lost and inadvertently omitted in the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh at I Samuel 11. It gives the background for Nahash’s attack on Jabesh-gilead (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 158).

Previous comments herein focused on the role that the scrolls have played in establishing the proper wording for Deuteronomy 32:8. It is also true that the Dead Sea Scrolls have been of immense benefit in establishing the Hebrew equivalents for a number of Greek words used in the Greek NT.

For the benefit of many of us today, these scrolls were stored away in nearby caves to await their eventual discovery. Thus, for our benefit and blessing, it is important to note that these scrolls were used by people who were contemporaries of YESHUA and the work of salvation He commenced in c26 CE.

Regardless of who prepared these documents, it is assuredly clear that these people believed and acted on the premise that these religious documents (together with some stored phylacteries, also found in the caves) were their most valuable possessions. If part or all of them did come from Jerusalem, it has to be significant that people there would value these scrolls so highly to bring them so far from that city.

Finally, it is quite manifest that the primary written language was Hebrew in the first century CE Palestine since most of the scrolls are in Hebrew. There is also a significant presence of Aramaic presentations with only a very limited few Greek writings, to be later addressed (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 10).

Hebrew Used In Speech

But in going on, beyond just the aspects of Jewish writings, Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, authors of “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation” (p. 9), make the case that a few of the texts point to the use of Hebrew in speech as well as writing. Obviously, Hebrew was a primary language of the people.

This is most profound because linguistic authorities, before 1948, always assumed that Hebrew was a dead language in Palestine in Second Temple days, although this belief should never have persisted because the Word clearly shows that Hebrew was used in the vernacular after the Babylonian exile, where the Jews’ language is mentioned (Neh 13:24).

The Jews’ language, Scripturally, is categorically Hebrew (II Kg 18:26-28). These unbelieving scholars have now been proven wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls!

Finally, of great importance, Hebrew scholar Dr Ken Hanson was on the Coast to Coast AM radio program on August 14, 2000, talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls. He suggested that any modern Israeli, able to read contemporary Hebrew, can read the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This condition is sufficient to prove that the written language (alphabet characters) has changed little in the last 2,000 years.

Yes, the Greek Language Was Unpopular

If there was an unpopular language among the general population, it was Greek. There were several good reasons why Greek was not popular or used much by religious Jews in Palestine during Second Temple days.

The most important reason forcing Greek to a back-burner in the Hebrew culture of those days was the fact that the Jews had underwent many years of enormous persecution from the Greeks during their rule over the area. The books of I and II Maccabees spell out this persecution in great detail. So there can be no doubt as to the unpopularity of the Greek influence upon the local Jewish population.

From the time of Alexander the Great, there was a conscious and deliberate effort by Greek rulers to try to impose the Greek system of things upon the whole civilized world, as then conquered by Alexander. This Hellenization campaign ran the entire gauntlet of definitions.

The Greek plan was that the conquered peoples would adopt Greek names; use the Greek language and literature; adopt the basic Greek polytheistic and humanistic religions (with homage to Zeus, the father god of the Greek pantheon); adhere to Greek customs; promote Greek nudity, sports and the theater; subscribe to Greek capitalism, trade and commercialism (with the use of corporations); participate in Greek sexual debauchery; and so forth (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 8, p. 296; “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary,” p. ix; “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. I, division 1, p. 195-197 and v. I, division 2, p. 30).

With this push, most of the civilized world of Southern Europe, Northern Africa, and Southwestern Asia quickly succumbed to the Hellenization efforts (this whole effort will be detailed in later chapters on Christian history). The only real holdout was the religious Jews of Palestine (though some Jews did adopt the Greek system to become Hellenistic Jews, as will be discussed in later chapters).

In some ways, the Jews (following their chastisement during the Babylonian exile) were in no mood to abandon their Scriptural Hebrew faith. During Alexander’s life, he did not actively push the Jews on the Hellenization campaign. But with his death, his successors moved forward on the motion with a vengeance.

Religious Jews Were in Trouble

As the books of the Maccabees indicate, religious Jews who refused to cooperate with the Greeks were faced with the death penalty for almost any Scriptural act which clashed with the Greek sun worship ideas.

Of course, anything in the vein of supporting Greek, sun worship humanism (like prohibiting murder, stealing, lying, cheating, etc) found ready acceptance in the Greek attitude.

Even as immoral and licentious as the Greeks were (with their open homosexuality, perversion and prostitution), the commandment against adultery was not really opposed (after all, many Greek men did not approve of their wives committing adultery, and homosexual Greeks were likewise jealous of their queer partners, just as today).

This same conclusion applies to most religions all over the world (both in ancient times in the various sun worship cults) and even in modern times. Religious people of all faiths generally disapprove of murder, lying, stealing, cheating and even adultery in most cases. Of course, no sane person wants to be murdered, lied to, cheated, stolen from or have his/her wives and husbands commit adultery.

The Greek problem was over those Tanakh commandments (mitzwot) which were directed at the worship of The ELOHIM (like keeping the Seventh day Sabbath, the Hebrew festivals and calendar, the Temple ritual, circumcision, diet, etc). The Greeks hated these forms of worship stipulated in the Tanakh and went all out to completely obliterate them from the Palestinian Jews.

Actually, it was not just a case of trying to destroy the Scripturally ordained practices (as followed by the Jews). It was also a case of introducing Hellenistic sun worship practices to the Jews (as was occurring in other areas under Greek control). So--guess which day of the week the Greeks set aside for worship? Guess what their holidays were? Guess what kind of foods the Greeks ate?

The Persecution

The Greek efforts, particularly under Antiochus Epiphanies, became the ante-type of the great tribulation (in other words, it might be expected that the Greek persecution of the Jews became the example of what will happen to everyone in the age end during the so-called Great Tribulation).

As the books of the Maccabees report, the persecution was intense, and the death penalty was imposed on anyone who refused to comply with the Greek demands.

Jews were impaled on poles, burned alive, tortured and ultimately murdered for their faith. Women who chose to circumcise their children were thrown alive off of the high walls and high places (to their deaths below). Some people were chosen to be examples of compromising their faiths by torturing them to make them eat pork. If they still refused to eat pork, after torture, they were murdered.

This whole theme will be addressed in detail in later chapters herein. Suffice to say, Antiochus Epiphanies was an ante-type of the coming age end Beast ruler (and importantly, the work of Judas Maccabees was an ante-type of the coming restoration work of YESHUA). It was serious business to try to oppose the Greeks during their rule of Palestine.

Surely, the Jews grew to hate the Greeks (and generally everything about the Greeks) with a passion. In this environment, no informed religious Jew would have ever dared to waste any time on the Greek language, literature, culture or so forth--unless there was some bonafide compelling reason otherwise.

Dr Lamsa

Though some of the educated business and government leaders likely understood Greek and may have used Greek in some official documents (because of its use in the Roman Empire), the common Jewish people did not use or approve of the Greek language, as Dr George M. Lamsa outlines in his Introduction to the translation of the “Holy Bible From Eastern Manuscripts” (p. ix-x).

Dr Lamsa (ibid, p. x) makes mention of the position of early Jewish “rabbis” which precluded the teaching of Greek to Jewish children. He says that they held that it was better for a man to give his child meat of swine than teach him the language of the Greeks.

Deborah Weissman

An article on “Finishing school,” by Eeta Prince-Gibson, in the Mar 24, 2000, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 17-18), quoted Deborah Weissman, Director of the Karem Teachers College in the state of Israel.

Weissman says that in ancient Israel (Second Temple days), the learning of Greek was expressly forbidden for boys. This was considered a waste of time since a boy’s education was focused upon learning the Torah. She notes that it was permissible for girls to learn Greek (just not boys). Girls were not completely immersed in Torah, as was true for boys.

Since the Hebrew culture in Second Temple days was totally male dominated, it shows the attitude of the collective Jewish people toward Greek. Greek was assuredly of no importance to the Jews in Palestine.

The Number 3, 1999, issue of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 8) quoted the Talmud as saying-- “A Rabbi asked, ‘Since I have learnt the whole Torah, may I study Greek philosophy?’ In reply the verse was quoted, ‘This book of Torah shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt mediate therein day and night’ (Joshua 1:8), and the remark was added, ‘Go and search at which hour it is neither day or night and devote it to Greek philosophy’” (Mem. 99b, from “Everyman’s Talmud,” p. 136).

As the Talmud correctly perceived and allowed, there is a basic conflict and contrast between the teachings, ideas and thinking of the Hebrew Scriptures (from YHWH) and Greek philosophy (from man). This conflict and contrast have continued for the past 2,500 years and they are very manifest today, as will be addressed in some detail in later chapters herein. They underlie the complete Western Christian civilization.

Josephus, Revisited

The previously mentioned Josephus best illustrates the Jewish mentality, opinion and thinking on the Greek language, as prevailing in first century CE Palestine. Josephus was a well known Jewish priest and historian of the first century CE--who matured, lived, worked and resided in Palestine until after the fall of Jerusalem (in 70 CE), when he moved to Rome.

Manifestly, he was an educated man and obviously quite articulate and informed. Yet, his writings reveal that he was not very skilled in the Greek language. For him, it was a strange tongue, as he himself charged in later Rome when he was writing his histories of the Jews (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 10, p. 258).

The works of Josephus prove several things. Of particular importance, he, and perhaps other educated Jews of his day in Palestine, did not learn Greek or certainly not much Greek, as he later explained. In fact, it’s highly probable that Josephus learned more Greek and used it more extensively for communication purposes, after he left Palestine, rather than while he lived in Palestine.

His first language was apparently Hebrew, as outlined in former comments herein. Greek, and anything and everything else, came later. It would seem that whatever Greek he picked up, it came much later and possibly even as late as when he left Palestine for Rome (where he would have needed it for communication purposes, in contrast to Hebrew).

Again, all that a student of truth has to do is spend a little time with I and II Maccabees (of the Apocrypha) and it’s quite manifest that the Greek language, culture and religion were extremely unpopular among most Jews and true Israelites in first century Palestine.

With this disdain for Greek, it is also quite true that any Greek Scriptures in existence in the Roman Empire (to be discussed in the following chapters) would have had no use or respect in Palestine, where the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures (Tanakh in Hebrew) was the domain of the resident Jews and the Jewish religion.

Chapter 23--Other Early Old Testament Versions I

The Samaritan Pentateuch

William Dankenbring had an article on “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint,” which reflected some very useful findings on the question of the Old Testament, now under discussion (Nov-Dec 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 15-23).

The Dankenbring report noted the Samaritan Pentateuch, which was written in Hebrew about 400 BCE (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” p. 267, v. 13). Since the Samaritan Pentateuch was composed and maintained in Hebrew, it would not be correct to call it a translation. Perhaps the better definition would be a variation. Later chapters will describe the origin of the Samaritans, who must be given credit for this version.

This article by Mr Dankenbring reported that the Samaritan Pentateuch has around 6,000 variations from the Jewish maintained Torah. Some 1,900 of these variations agree with the Septuagint (which will be discussed next, in comments to follow). The Samaritan Pentateuch and its tie to the Septuagint will be further addressed in some detail in the following remarks (indicating a most interesting tie between them).

The Septuagint

Beyond the Hebrew Tanakh and the Samaritan Pentateuch, clearly in acceptance and use in Palestine, Christians historically have believed that the Hebrew OT (along with the Apocrypha) was translated into Greek in the second and third centuries BCE in Alexandria, Egypt--in a work called the Septuagint because it allegedly involved 70 or 72 scholars (who started with the law and later completed the other books).

As will be shown shortly, some Christians, over the years, have held that the Septuagint is the inspired Old Testament. Of course, the Greek Orthodox Church has held this position and now the modern Christian Identity motion has latched onto the same idea.

The previously quoted Christian Identity leader, Peter Peters, dogmatically alleges that the “Septuagint is the oldest version of the Old Testament in existence” (Vol 3, 2001, “Scriptures for America,” p. 4).

As will be proven conclusively herein, Peters could not be more wrong. He simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. His ignorance on this issue is too ridiculous to be believed by people who do have some brains above the moron level. Maybe, Peters can successfully sell this nonsense to his followers, but surely people with some understanding won’t accept it.

There are several features that stand out in any discussion of this Greek translation. First, it offers thousands and thousands of variations from the Hebrew OT text of today, known as the Masoretic text (due to the work of the Jewish Masoretes to edit and preserve this text in the period 500-950 CE, as cited in the prior chapters).

While some of these variations are minor and insignificant (spellings of words, grammar construction, etc), others are quite profound. Moreover, some Greek translations of certain books appear to be fairly literal while others are almost interpretations and paraphrases in very loose, liberal translations.

More on the Septuagint

An “Introduction” to the Septuagint (p. iii), published by Samuel Bagster & Sons in London in 1851 (translated by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton and reprinted by Hendrickson Publishers), suggests that some of the Septuagint translators were “by no means competent to the task while others, on the contrary, exhibit a careful translation.”

This same “Introduction” (p. iii) goes on to indicate that some of the translators must have infused some of their own ideas and thinking into their translations, although this is not to say that they translated with a dishonest intention. Thus, any inaccuracies might be traced to incompetence and the tone of mental and spiritual feeling common to the translators (ibid, p. iii).

In a paper on “Myths About the Septuagint and Modern Translations,” Dr Larry Spargimino writes that the Septuagint is a poor translation. He says that it often departs from the Hebrew, distorts significant doctrines and reads like a rendition from the “Bibles” put out by the cults (Sep 1999 “Prophetic Observer,” p. 3).

Going on, Spargimino quotes the well known Christian scholar E. M. Blaiklock, who has suggested that the Septuagint shows inconsistent accuracy and questionable fidelity to the Hebrew original.

Another feature of the Septuagint is that there are a number of variations between texts in the several, different, extant, old, Greek, OT manuscripts (versions) discovered over the years (ibid, p. 3). The just quoted Dr Spargimino suggests that these variations are such to make it hard to believe that the Septuagint is the preserved Word of “God.”

Yes, there are several, different, early Septuagint manuscripts (none dated before the fourth century CE) which actually show major variations and differences among themselves. Apparently, some of these variations suggest that certain manuscripts were deliberately changed (i.e. attempts were made to improve upon earlier manuscripts or something else).

As will shortly be shown, the problem of variations, in the old documents, copied by hand, is common also with the Greek NT which has a host of inconsistencies in the old documents.

Even some of the extant, older, Masoretic Hebrew texts have some minor textual variations--despite the great accuracy displayed by Jewish scribes in making copies. Usually, these variations are of no importance since they deal with the spelling of a name or some other insignificant point. But it is useful to note that, historically, errors could creep into any work, and regardless of enormous efforts to insure accuracy.

The Work of Origen

Moreover, a 1994 doctrinal research paper by the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG) on the Septuagint was circulated among its ministry. The essence of it was a claim that the Septuagint was a forgery and fraud, produced by early Catholic scholar Origen in the third century CE.

It seems that Origen edited and/or published a Greek OT (reportedly a revised Septuagint, along with a Hebrew text) that has survived in fragments only (evidently, as found in quotations in the “Ante-Nicene Fathers”), in contrast to alleged earlier Greek productions which are no longer extant. The Worldwide argument against the Septuagint will be discussed later herein, in a focus on the Greek New Testament.

There are reasons (to be discussed in later chapters) suggesting that Origen was caught up in Gnosticism and neo-Platonism. With his theological background, his work must be subjected to careful scrutiny and cannot be immediately accepted as genuine and honest.

A Christian Argument

However, scholar William F. Dankenbring disputes the WWCG work in an article on “The Septuagint -- Is It a Fraud or Forgery,” in the Nov-Dec 1994 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 1-14). He quotes a number of ancient and modern authorities--all of whom suggest, or allude to, part or all of the ancient, Greek, Septuagint translation.

The “Introduction” to the Septuagint, published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, mentioned above, notes the traditional belief (per a writer named Aristeas) that King Ptolemy Philadelphus arranged for the Jewish high priest to send a copy of the Jewish law (which would have been just the Pentateuch) and 72 interpreters or translators from Palestine to Alexandria, to accomplish a Greek translation in 285 BCE.

However, this Bagster edition also reports that this tradition has to be wrong--since the version itself proves that it was not executed by Jews of Palestine; but rather, by translators of Egypt because of the presence of words and expressions denoting an Alexandrian origin (“Introduction” to the Septuagint, p. ii).

This introduction (ibid, p. ii) likewise discounts the tradition because the Jews in Palestine in 285 BCE lacked sufficient social intercourse with the Greeks to have allowed such a translation. The Samuel Bagster & Sons conclusion is that the version was prepared by Alexandrian Jews for the Egyptian king. Later, they used it themselves as they became less and less familiar with the Hebrew.

Spargimino also quotes Jack Moorman, who cited scholars Paul Kahle and Peter Ruckman. Kahle and Ruckman completely discounted the authenticity of the alleged letter of Aristeas (cited above). Ruckman called it a “mere fabrication.” Spargimino, himself, concluded that it is undoubtedly fictitious. Perhaps it was written to try to establish and authenticate an ancient source for the Septuagint.

The “Prophetic Observer’s” article, by Dr. Spargimino, quotes scholar Paul Inns with another view that the Septuagint was translated piecemeal in Alexandria over the years 250 to 150 BCE. Thus, it was supposedly available to be quoted from by Christian writers in the first century CE.

F. F. Bruce

In support of the piece-meal approach, on the development of the Septuagint, modern Christian scholar F. F. Bruce has offered some possibly very significant evidence and conclusions. In “The Canon of Scripture” (p. 44), Bruce suggests that the Torah was translated in the second century BCE. He quotes both Josephus and Philo in support of this conclusion.

In going on, Bruce claims that later Christian writers extended the Greek translations to the OT prophets and writings and went even further with the Apocrypha (ibid, p. 44). In his research, Bruce may not have dated these further Christian translations to Greek, but they would have had to be accomplished sometime after the life of the Apostolic Assembly, which started phasing out in about 66 CE with the then tribulation.

Possibly, the WWCG linkage of the Septuagint to Origen and/or the Alexandrian Christians of the 3rd century CE could have some real merit, and especially in the context of the scholarship of F. F. Bruce. Thus, maybe some Jews (possibly Hellenist Jews) did translate the Pentateuch during the days of Greek rule, long before the 1st century CE.

Perhaps in an effort to put some distance between the Hebrew OT and Hebrew setting (after the great tribulation commenced on the Jews in 66 CE), maybe Alexandrian Christians did proceed with translating the rest of the OT and the Apocrypha.

If this is true, one might build the case that indeed the early Alexandrian Christians were intimately involved in creating the complete Greek form of the OT, the Apocrypha and the Greek NT (as will broached further in later comments).

This presentation by Bruce seems profoundly important and could be a real revelation. The reason is that it would prove conclusively that YESHUA and the early Apostolic Assembly certainly never used the overall Septuagint.

If Bruce is correct, as indeed he well may be right, then much of the problem over the Septuagint becomes clear. Maybe, this historic reality accounts for the gross confusion and inconsistency in the Septuagint translation.

Qumran, Revisited

The just cited article by William Dankenbring (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint”) furthermore reported that the Dead Sea Scrolls generally support and authenticate the Masoretic Hebrew OT in use today (as maintained for years now by students of the Scrolls). However, in a few minor instances, it is true that some Septuagint readings (in a Hebrew text) have support in the Scrolls.

For example, both the Septuagint and the Scrolls have a Psalms 151, which is absent from the Masoretic Hebrew text (along with a few other previously unknown Hebrew OT Psalms; formerly available as, and thought to be, Greek or Syriac Christian writings, before the Qumran find).

Among six copies of the book of Jeremiah found at Qumran, five offered the Masoretic presentation found in a longer rendition of several chapters and verses. Significantly, one Jeremiah scroll (in Hebrew) offered a shorter version, as found in the Septuagint.

This shorter version of the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint brings up an interesting observation on the book of Tobit, mentioned earlier. Tobit existed for much of the last 2,000 years in a Greek form in the Apocrypha. Actually, there were two different texts of Tobit circulating in Greek. One was a short form and the other a long form (perhaps similar in some ways to the situation with Jeremiah).

Tobit was a very ancient book, having been written at least as early as the third century BCE. It was probably based upon a much earlier tradition (“Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period,” p. 636). The Qumran find disclosed four Aramaic versions and one Hebrew version of Tobit, all of which support the longer rendition (“The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English,” p. 558).

These two sources (just cited) suggest that the Aramaic version was probably the original and that the Hebrew text was a translation. Reportedly, there were a number of differences between the Aramaic/Hebrew texts and the Greek. In any case, this find suggests that the original Aramaic version of Tobit was abridged and cut down into a short version by someone for the Greek rendition.

A Few Greek Fragments

Though the Dead Sea Scrolls were essentially in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, there were a scarce, few, Greek writings (mostly fragments), as indicated by Geza Vermes (“The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English,” p. 440). These Greek presentations appear to be dated to the second and first centuries BCE. So they are quite old.

Vermes does suggest that some of these Greek texts and/or fragments seem to correspond to the Masoretic text, while others seem to suggest a tie to the Septuagint text (apparently, in the Septuagint Pentateuch, but sometimes with some minor variations).

If some of them do tie to the Septuagint (as is still open to question), this could be the best illustration of all to prove that some part of the Septuagint (maybe the Pentateuch) did exist in a Greek form before the NT era.

More on the Qumran Texts

“The Oxford Companion to the Bible” (p. 739) has a most fascinating observation on the Qumran documents which must be highlighted and given some credence. Oxford correctly notes that the Qumran finds are incomplete (in terms of the Tanakh) and that some of the documents were negligently copied. Thus, they do demonstrate some mistakes in copying, just as is common with the Septuagint and the Greek NT.

In mentioning these copyist errors, it must be realized that the Qumran scrolls likely were not the official Jewish scrolls allegedly maintained at the Temple by Temple authorities. So while there was probably a great effort by the Sanhedrin and Temple authorities to maintain and perpetuate an approved text, this does not seem to be the case at Qumran.

Nevertheless, Dr Ken Hanson, quoted earlier, points out that many Hebrew scripts from Qumran essentially read word for word like today’s modern Masoretic OT texts. One almost complete Isaiah scroll was found that reads virtually the same in all cases as the present Masoretic Isaiah text. This condition makes the student of truth have enormous respect for the current Masoretic OT text. It is highly accurate!

Hershel Shanks, editor of the “Biblical Archaeology Review,” points out that while the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text predominated at Qumran, there were some instances of readings in support of Septuagint and/or Samaritan texts, as well as some blends or mixtures in which a single document might reflect readings from two or three of these sources (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 48).

Though most students of the Word have believed that Ezra edited the Tanakh after the Babylonian exile and played a major role in the canonization of the OT books (Ezra 7:1-28), “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls” has articles from different scholars which question this traditional belief.

Hence, this source suggests that there were three main Hebrew texts in use in Palestine after the exile--which supported either the subsequent Masoretic text, the Septuagint text or the Samaritan text.

Reportedly, it was the great Pharisee sage Hillel (who will be discussed at some length in later chapters) who initiated action in the late first century BCE and early first century CE to standardize what eventually became the Masoretic text (ibid, p. 140, 150-154).

Three Main Texts

This advanced theory suggests that the Rabbinic Recension (which later became the Masoretic text) possibly came from a Babylonian textual source, although this point cannot be conclusively established. A Palestinian source produced the Samaritan text and the Septuagint text probably came from an Egyptian source which might have branched off from the Samaritan Palestinian text (ibid, p. 148-154).

The Babylonian source (the Rabbinic Recension text) has been attributed to Ezra the priest after the Babylonian exile. Ezra actually brought this text back from Babylon to Palestine. There is much Scriptural support for this belief and particularly as it relates to the evidence that it was Ezra who established the Old Testament Hebrew canon--Ezra 7:6-28; Nehemiah 8:1-18 (Feb 2002 “Bible Review,” p. 8).

The belief linking the Septuagint to the Samaritan Pentateuch would seem to have some merit (in the sense of the Septuagint Pentateuch being a descendant of the Samaritan Pentateuch) because it is plainly suggested in the reality that there is much agreement between these two versions, in contrast to the Rabbinic Recension.

As pointed out above, of the thousands of variations that these two texts have from the Rabbinic Recension, they are in agreement among themselves on 1,900 of the differences. Thus, they have much in common!

Allegedly, the Hillel position on the Rabbinic Recension (which would be the Babylonian source that produced the eventual Masoretic text) did not immediately supplant the other texts. Thus, all three of them circulated together in Hebrew until the fall of Jerusalem, when the Hillel people prevailed to establish the canon and text to be used eventually by the Masoretes (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 155).

One key remark mentioned in this presentation (edited by Shanks) notes that when Yisrael forgot the Torah, Ezra came up from Babylon and reestablished it; and when Yisrael once again forgot the Torah, Hillel the Babylonian came up and reestablished it (ibid, p. 151).

In the book under discussion, Hartmut Stegemann argues that the Qumran Temple Scroll actually constituted a sixth book of the Torah which seems to have gone back at least to the time of Ezra (ibid, p. 127-132). He says that it was not just of Essene origin, although they surely used it. Per other conclusions in Shanks’ book, the sage Hillel or his followers would have later removed the Temple Scroll from the canon.

Problems with the Unapproved Texts

The point of all of this is that, besides the Masoretic text (the official text which has great authority from the Jews and the Dead Sea Scrolls), there were other early (unofficial) Hebrew texts in existence--some readings of which, today, have limited support from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In a later presentation on the history of Yisrael, the adversarial role of the Samaritans will be pointed out, to demonstrate that there is no reason to try to attach any inspiration to their Pentateuch. In fact, YESHUA correctly questioned the religion (and effectively the Pentateuch scroll) of the Samaritans when He said that the Samaritans worshipped, but not with knowledge and understanding (Jo 4:22).

Interestingly enough, there is almost a like remark in the book of Acts which manifestly casts great doubt on not only the validity of Greek sun worship, but any attempts by the Greeks to use the Septuagint in any form. This fantastic revelation occurs in Acts 17:16-33. These remarks by Luke/Shaul will be assessed in some detail in subsequent chapters.

Suffice to say, the Greeks worshipped in ignorance. Therefore, any attempt to attach any inspiration or authority to the Septuagint has to be cast into the same ship of doubt as exists with the Samaritan Pentateuch.

But there are other profound reasons on why the Septuagint is so doubtful. Some of these will be addressed in a later chapter. Otherwise, there is the whole mental make-up and attitude of the Jews, vis-à-vis the Greeks.

In view of the history of the Greek oppression in the times of the Maccabees, as clearly manifested in the Apocrypha and as briefly cited earlier, one can surmise about the same thing with any Greek translations or writings. They would have to be held in suspect--at a minimum.

More From Dr Lamsa

Regarding the OT in first century Palestine, Dr Lamsa, quoted in the prior chapter, argues that the Septuagint was unpopular and had no use among the Jews at all (Introduction to the “Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts”). After all, they had and understood the original Hebrew texts. So, why would they have displayed any acceptance for a hated Greek translation?

Lamsa’s remarks have support from the prevailing Jewish position on the Septuagint, which is-- “Five elders wrote the Law in Greek for the King Ptolemy, and that day was a hard day for Israel, like the day on which Israel made the golden calf” (“Toward a Science of Translating,” by Eugene A. Nida, as quoted in the No 3, 1999, issue of “Discovering the Bible,” p. 2).

Contrary to modern scholarship about an unpopular Greek language and writings in Second Temple Palestine (as suggested by Dr. Lamsa, Eugene Nida, other Jewish scholars, the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), Dr. Burton L. Mack, former professor of New Testament at Claremont, CA, offers a theory (but no proof) that the Second Temple Jews had an immense body of Hellenistic and/or Hellenistic period literature (“Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth,” p. 14).

He suggests (but with no proof) that after the fall of Jerusalem, Jewish “rabbis” turned their backs on this Greek literature and translations of the Scriptures and attached authority only to the Hebrew writings (“Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth,” p. 282).

While Mack has done some excellent and useful research on the origin of the New Testament (to be later assessed), the truth is that he seems to have missed the point, particularly of the Qumran writings and indeed Jewish history in Second Temple days. There is no way that Greek religious writings or translations would have had any status or authority among Palestinian Jews.

The Importance of Chronology

If there was ever any one single textual difference which, alone, would suggest great inaccuracies in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek Septuagint, it would be OT chronology. The Septuagint adds a generation (a man named Kenan) between Arphaxad and Salah (Gen 10:24; 11:12), which is picked up and repeated in the Greek NT as Cainan (Lu 3:35-36).

Not only does this added generation knock most efforts of chronologists out of the window (which place an end of 6,000 years for Adam in the late 20th century), but the ages between the patriarchal generations are glaringly different from the Masoretic Hebrew text. Actually, the Septuagint gives 2,262 years for these patriarchs before Noah’s flood, as opposed to the 1,656 years in the Masoretic text.

It appears that the Greek text has incorrectly added hundreds of years for many of those early people--which utterly disrupts any effort to understand and give meaning to chronology, in the context of 6,000 years being allocated to Adam before the believed millennial rule of YESHUA commences (see later chapters and Appendices D and E for several chronological presentations which authenticate the Masoretic Hebrew text).

Beyond these enormous alterations in the Septuagint (which have “some” support from the Greek text of Josephus which has 2,256 years, as a matter of information), the Samaritan Pentateuch seems to travel in the other direction with a drop of many years from the chronology of the early patriarchs (to total 1,307 years to the flood).

J. B. Phillips on the Septuagint

In the post WWII era, an Englishman named J. B. Phillips prepared his translation of the Greek NT (published by the Macmillan Company as “The New Testament in Modern English”). While Phillips (per his words in the Foreword on p. 8) tried to avoid offering an interpretation or paraphrase, he recognized that a literal translation often would be meaningless. Hence, he apparently chose a middle ground, so to speak.

In any case, Phillips’ translation was a huge success. It proved to be one of the best NT translations of all. It is easy to read, understandable, and enjoyable. And it sticks to the essence of the Greek. The writer of this production is a fan of the work of J. B. Phillips. It is manifest that Phillips must have had some knack and expertise at linguistics and particularly of the Greek of 2,000 years ago.

In any case, Phillips’ NT work was so well received and acclaimed that many people began asking him to do the same thing with the Hebrew OT. While he never chose to undertake the entire Tanakh, he did do the books of Amos, Hosea and Micah, and chapters 1-35 of Isaiah. This work was also published by Macmillan as the “Four Prophets, A Translation into Modern English.”

In the Preface to the “Four Prophets” (p. viii-xv), Phillips candidly laid out his problem. Though he was very familiar with the Greek, he was not an expert on Scriptural Hebrew. As he asked--what person could feel at home in the presence of the “monolithic grandeur” of Old Testament Hebrew?

Phillips then quoted Martin Luther, who wrote-- “The words of the Hebrew tongue have a peculiar energy. It is impossible to convey so much so briefly in any other language. To render them intelligently we must not attempt to give word for word, but only aim at the sense and the idea.” Phillips would only add that every Hebrew letter is a “tensed muscle,” and the most menacing diatribe may reflect an “untranslatable pun.”

So the problem Phillips faced was how to proceed. Being familiar with the Greek, Phillips first thought that he would use the Septuagint, with which he was familiar, to help guide him in the right direction.

But this option quickly proved of little value. So Phillips ended up by discarding the Septuagint completely. The reason for his rejection of the Septuagint was that the Hebrew text actually conveyed a meaning which was at variance from the Greek.

He added that while he understood the Greek easily and intelligently, the same Hebrew texts were then baffling. He concluded that the Septuagint was saying something largely different from the Hebrew. In fact, he labeled the Greek words as a “slick pious phrase.”

The bottom line on this is that J. B. Phillips, an expert on Greek and a very competent and able translator of Greek to English, was compelled to reject the Greek Septuagint completely in attempting to understand the Hebrew text of the four prophets he was addressing.

He had to focus his mind directly on the Hebrew with no thought of the Greek. In any case, Phillips completed his work and his English translation of the four prophets has proven to be one of the best, most readable and enjoyable in existence.

Dr Emil Schurer, Revisited

One of the great Christian scholars (who was evidently of Jewish descent), able to competently handle both the Hebrew and Greek languages, lived over a hundred years ago. He was Dr Emil Schurer, previously quoted herein. Perhaps his greatest work was an exhaustive five volume work titled “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.”

A whole volume of Schurer’s production was devoted to Jewish literature of 2,000 years ago. In the course of assessing the various writings, the reality of their translations from Hebrew to other languages was acknowledged (some specific examples will be highlighted and commented upon in succeeding remarks herein).

The book of Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Sirach, is one of these early Jewish writings which has proven to be of great value over the years (it will be quoted herein in later chapters). This book was first written in Hebrew, in about 190 BCE, probably in Jerusalem, by Yehoshua (also called Yeshua) Ben Sira or Sirach.

In any case, Yehoshua’s grandson Sirach translated his grandfather’s book from Hebrew to Greek in about the year 132 BCE.

Schurer (ibid, v. iii, p. 162) quoted from Sirach, noting that he perceptively wrote that in his time “what is said in Hebrew does not retain the same meaning when translated into another language, which is, he (Sirach) says, the case not only in his work, but also in the Law and the Prophets and the other Scriptures.”

Certainly, Sirach was addressing any translations of the Tanakh in his time (to include the Septuagint or whatever).

In his assessment of the works of other translators (from the Hebrew to Greek), Schurer wrote: “In one point however all these works are alike, viz. in the barbarous Greek produced under the influence of the Hebrew originals. Quite a new language, swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could not understand it, is here created” (in the translation).

Going on, Schurer said: “Not to mention the imitation of Hebrew constructions, many Greek words, which correspond to one meaning of a Hebrew word, are without further ceremony made equivalent to the whole extent of the meanings comprised in the Hebrew word, and thus significations are forced upon words, which they do not at all possess in Greek” (ibid, v. iii, p. 163).

Everett Fox

In the late 20th century, Hebrew scholar Everett Fox, of Clark University in Worchester, Massachusetts, made a translation of the Torah (“The Five Books of Moses,” published as volume I of the “Schocken Bible”).

This Fox production has proven to be one of the best English translations of the Pentateuch which this writer has ever seen or used. Not only was the work good, but Fox added numerous footnotes and commentary to his work, to try to help the reader grasp an understanding of the reality of a given text.

In any case, Fox offered his analysis of the Hebrew language in his “Translator’s Preface” (p. ix). While this writer can never begin to do justice to the insight and perception of Fox, it would be well to reflect upon his assessment of the Scriptural Hebrew.

Everett Fox spoke of the “power” of the language behind the Hebrew Tanakh. He recognized that the OT was not written in modern times, but was produced in very ancient times (which can seem obscure to the modern mind). Therefore, the Scriptures speak in a manner which is quite different from the way modern people think and communicate.

Importantly, Fox pointed out that the Tanakh was produced in a way to be read and listened to (again, much of it is pure and simple poetry). Of course, this was the reality in the ancient world where the Torah was read and discussed in religious assemblies. In making his translation, Fox therefore says that he tries to encourage readers to become active listeners rather than passive receivers.

Chapter 24--Other Early Old Testament Versions II

The Transmission Problem

In the context of OT authority, there is, of course, the big problem of textual transmission over thousands of years because of the need to prepare copies by hand which would quickly wear out or fade out over time. Certainly, copying a long document by hand inevitably invites the possibility of accidental errors due to human frailties. It is no easy proposition.

The Jews, in the generic mode, were so dedicated, meticulous and precise that they counted every letter and every word in a hand-copied Tanakh scroll, while noting and verifying the exact mid point letter and various other check point letters and words, to be sure that they had done their work correctly.

Even then, there remained the possibility of unintended errors and mistakes. Probably, the Jews (being commissioned to preserve YHWH’s Word) would have been more precise and exact in carrying out those duties, in contrast to non-Israelites who may have lacked the dedication and resolve.

There was something in the genetic makeup of the Jews that prompted YHWH to commission them to safeguard, protect and transmit His Word. Collectively, they have done and will do, their level best.

This fact was well illustrated by the previously mentioned Dr George M. Lamsa, who notes that neither Jews or Moslems would dare alter a word of the Torah or Koran for fear that they would invoke a curse if they were to change the Word of The MOST HIGH (“Holy Bible From Eastern Manuscripts,” p. v).

Similar observations were reported by J. W. Etheridge, in “The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee” (p. 10), when he said that a “Jew would sooner die than alter a word of the text of Holy Scripture.”

The Interesting Tanakh Textual Codes

Another “possible” great proof of the Book has surfaced in the last several years. This one seems to offer a most fascinating piece of support for the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew text, as preserved and transmitted by the Jews in the form of the Rabbinic Recension (that became the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh).

The ideas of the Russian scientist Ivan Panin were discussed in a former chapter, in the vein that his efforts offered some insight on the Masoretic Hebrew text in the context of a mathematical analysis of the numerical value of words in the text (based on both the value of the letters and place in the text). Panin built a case that his work proved the inspiration of the Masoretic Hebrew OT text.

Beyond Panin’s work, another fascinating effort has been underway in recent years, primarily at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, to completely analyze the Rabbinic Recension text, in the vein of a so-called code involving the sequencing of the Hebrew letters to form key words or messages.

The “Coast to Coast AM” program on June 12, 2001, had authors Grant Jeffrey and Mike Heiser on to discuss these alleged codes. Jeffrey is a supporter of this work and Heiser is an opponent of the idea.

Apparently, some “rabbis,” for centuries, have believed that there is an inherent code ascertainable by numerical sequencing (done by taking every letter in a given Hebrew text in accordance with a certain numerical sequencing--like every tenth letter or some other sequence--to see what words result). This process is not a predictive effort, but only one of confirmation (because the words only have relevance after the fact).

Per Jeffrey, the “rabbis” have been using computer programs at Hebrew University to make a number of analyses of the Hebrew text. He pointed out that the word “Torah” appears either in the first several letters or last several letters in each of the books in the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy).

Isaiah 52 and 53

Another most interesting phenomenon seems to surface when looking at the great Messianic promises in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12. Jeffrey says that an analysis of these texts reveal 41 names of people, places or things associated with the impalement of YESHUA in the NT (for example, three Marys are named in the NT account, and the Isaiah text also reveals three Marys by numerical sequencing).

While the possibilities of chance can provide for some of the occurrences, it is clear that with Isaiah 52-53, the chance is one out of billions (or virtually statistically impossible).

Heiser discounted this work because he believes that the Isaiah scrolls found in the Qumran find were more authoritative than the later Masoretic text since they are much older in age. True, there are a very few minor textual differences between the two sources (in the spelling of a few words).

Mike Heiser added that when the Masoretes did their work, they sometimes dropped the consonants used as vowels when they added the vowel points to the Hebrew text after 70 CE. His point was that the dropping or addition of even one letter in a given text would disrupt all efforts at numerical sequencing. In other words, the change of any one letter in Isaiah 53 and the 41 names would not necessarily all be found.

As it turned out in the discussion, Jeffrey was unable to effectively refute Heiser’s criticisms and complaints. However, with just a minimum of understanding of what has happened with the texts, it is easy to see that poor Heiser had it wrong.

In the first place, The ELOHIM committed His word to the Jews for preservation and transmission (as is proven herein, from the NT). The Jews have preserved the Rabbinic Recension text (which perhaps had its origin as the official Temple text). Admittedly, the Dead Sea Scrolls are older. But they do offer some evidence of carelessness in copying by the scribes. Simply stated, they were not the official texts.

As far as the allegation that the addition of the vowel points by the Masoretes disrupted some of the letters, this must surely be wrong in terms of what Hebrew University is doing. In Israel, almost all Hebrew writings are now made without vowel points. In other words, the use of vowels points has been discontinued. The writer of this study at hand has seen OT Hebrew texts without vowel points.

Logically, all of these efforts have necessitated the use of the consonants (used as vowels) in the writings in order for them to be read. Surely, the Masoretic OT text now has these proper letters in it, just as they were present in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Second Temple days. Thus, the Hebrew University work was made with a proper text. So Heiser’s argument simply means nothing.

The writer of this study is not suggesting that this analysis at Hebrew University completely authenticates the Rabbinic Recension (the Masoretic text), but it is absolutely fascinating and must be considered and at least studied.

The conclusions, cited above, on codes and remarks by Lamsa and Etheridge on the tendency of Jews (obviously true Jews) to go to the extreme in trying to be absolutely precise in making copies of the Tanakh, raise an interesting question. Where then or how is it that the Dead Sea Scrolls do reflect the few findings of non Rabbinic Recension Hebrew texts discussed so far? This question will be assessed below.

The Septuagint Inspiration Problem

As a minimum, there are three issues on inspiration of the Scripures. What are the canonized books, what texts did they use and what language were they written in originally (before any later translations)?

This writer takes the position that there is just no way that any inspiration or authority can be attached to the Septuagint (or any other non-Hebrew writings, to include Greek NT citations of the Septuagint--to be discussed below and in later comments) for many good reasons. In the first place, the Septuagint is a translation with all of the limitations of a translation, as compared to an original language presentation.

There is no way to know exactly what any predecessor Hebrew text might have looked like or form taken if one actually existed. None have been located, other than the few isolated references in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls linking to the Septuagint.

In a comparison with an hypothetical original Hebrew text, with which the Septuagint may have corresponded, who can be certain as to what the actual Hebrew would specifically say and communicate? After all, some of the Septuagint translations were very loose paraphrases (or almost interpretations--like in the Targums).

Surely, without any argument, every honest person must concede that a translation cannot ever be superior to and more accurate than its original language presentation. This fact alone should answer the language issue. Clearly, no Greek, English or other translation can be a better production than its original Hebrew composition. And when one translates from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, there are manifest problems!

Beyond the obvious limitations in any translation of an imaginary hypothetical document, there are still several other most profound considerations which damage any Septuagint legitimacy.

Hence, the writer of this study at hand takes the position that the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh has to carry authority, because of the following: (1) it has been preserved by the Jews in its original language of Hebrew; (2) its overall presence, authentication and guarantee of accuracy in the Dead Sea Scrolls; (3) its frequent use of Hebrew idioms, expressions and figures of speech which only have real meaning in the context of the Hebrew language, mentality, thinking and mind-set; (4) its often presentations of Hebrew poetry which can only be grasped and appreciated in the Hebrew language; (5) the fact that OT names have meaning only in the Hebrew language; (6) the strange reality of Psalms 119 and its linkage to Psalms 19 which go on to conclusively authenticate Hebrew as their language (as discussed earlier herein); (7) its 2,500-year record of synagogue liturgy in both Palestine and the Diaspora, using hand prepared Hebrew scrolls, and when necessary, using meturgemen for interpretations (like with the Targums, to be later described herein), as was Scripturally authorized (Gen 42:23; Ezra 4:7; Neh 8:6-8; I Cor 12:10-30; 14:5-27); (8) YESHUA, His disciples and the Apostolic Assembly authenticated and endorsed this text because they used it routinely in the regular synagogue worship services which they all attended, as per their custom (Lu 4:16-21; Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14; 15:21; 17:17; 18:4, 11, 19, 26; 19:8: Heb 10:21-25; Jas 2:2-9); (9) YESHUA’s comment about the Hebrew “yod,” which authenticated Hebrew (Matt 5:18, as discussed earlier); (10) YESHUA’s statement that the scribes and Pharisees (Orthodox Jews) sit in Moshe’s seat to teach the Tanakh (Matt 23:1-3); (11) Shaul’s charge that the Jews had the truth about the Torah in Romans 2:17-20; (12) Shaul’s report of YHWH’s commission to the Jews in Romans 3:2; (13) the inaccurate and confused records of chronology in the Samaritan and Septuagint texts, as discussed in previous comments; (14) YESHUA’s complete rejection of the idea that the Samaritans worshipped with any knowledge or understanding--this fact alone must condemn both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the related Septuagint (Jo 4:22); (15) Shaul’s charge that the Greeks worshipped in ignorance, as will be later described (Acts 17:16-33); and (16) for other reasons to now follow.

Questionable People

In terms of both the Greek Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, these productions clearly had no Scriptural basis and involved people who were very suspect--either direct adversaries of truth or possibly others with questionable motives, as pointed out in the proceeding presentations.

Of course, it was people in these questionable categories (Amalekites, Samaritans, Greeks, Hellenistic Jews and early Alexandrian Platonist and Gnostic Christians) who simply were uninformed on the Hebrew language and writings, and would be more prone to take liberty with the text and deliberately introduce some corruption, fraud or deceit into it, as will be broached below and in later chapters.

While some portion of the Samaritan and Septuagint readings may have had support from existing Hebrew texts (like the few in the Dead Sea Scrolls), those Hebrew texts were not the official ones maintained by the Jewish leadership associated with the Temple and synagogue worship services (attended by YESHUA and His people).

In offering this remark, this writer would not argue the point that perhaps a few of the readings from the Greek Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch may carry the preferred, or even more accurate OT text (as was illustrated in a former chapter herein which discussed Deuteronomy 32:8).

In that sense, these translations certainly can be studied and considered, particularly in critical study where an effort is being made to understand and comprehend truth. Even so, this reality is no cause to try to attach inspiration and authority to the overall Greek and Samaritan texts or even to the few texts or words that may offer the better reading.

Authority must remain with the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh, however good or bad it may seem in those instances of conflict. Again, the evidence is that YHWH committed His Word to the Jews for His good reasons--whatever good or bad job they would do in transmitting His Word. A student of truth is hard pressed to argue with His choice!

More on the Possibility of OT Alterations?

Turning now to the question broached in earlier comments on why or how it is that the Dead Sea Scrolls reflected some non-Rabbinic Recension material (which would obviously lack inspiration and authority), several explanations appear allowable.

As a starting place, could it be that some non-Jewish scribes and copyists produced some of the unauthorized Samaritan and Septuagint texts outside the purview of the Rabbinic and/or Temple authorities? Certainly, Yirmeyahu offered a comment about the falsifying pen of some scribes, which has to raise some questions about their work over the years (Jer 8:8-9).

Later chapters herein will focus on the presence of numbers of Kenites, Edomites and Canaanites in Judea in Second Temple days, as well as the earlier mentioned Samaritans. Many of these people were alleged to be of the Jewish religion (they are called Jews in English NT texts). In particular, some of the Kenites were engaged as Jewish scribes (I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14). Could they have altered some OT texts?

Beyond that, there is the bigger problem of the Samaritans and their Scriptures, as noted above. Of course, the Samaritans seemingly adopted the Pentateuch in early Second Temple days (by perhaps 400 BCE). They would have been copying and using their incorrect and altered scrolls, which may have gained some limited circulation among the Jews.

It seems highly plausible that some of these non-Israelite people were responsible for introducing some corruptions into the prevailing Hebrew text in Palestine in Second Temple days. All of these peoples will be addressed in later chapters herein, with some background information on them which will allow that indeed they could have been responsible for some intentional/deliberate Tanakh alterations.

But in going on in the Targums (p. 10), J. W. Etheridge added that while never altering the Scriptural record, the Jew (evidently, in the sense of a true Jew) thinks himself at liberty to illustrate what he considers to be its meaning by the antique and authorized elucidations (of the Targums), “as best suited to the popular capacity.”

If this reasoning by Etheridge is true, is it then not plausible that in making a translation, like the one which became the Greek Septuagint, that those Jewish translators took some liberties with the actual Hebrew text? This possibility must not be ignored.

The Bottom Line

With all of these obvious contributing problems and reasons explaining why there can be variations in the Greek Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, there is then a strong likelihood of improper alterations to those documents (as alluded to in the previously discussed Worldwide Church of God study on the Septuagint).

This probability of textual modifications and changes (either deliberately, or by accident) gains credence on a further examination of the NT which grossly went to the extreme in alterations and changes (to be discussed in the succeeding chapters).

Chapter 25--The New Testament I

The Greek New Testament

The OT background, presented in the prior chapters, leads up to the New Testament that has been preserved to modern times in Greek presentations--actually in a Greek “koine” dialect, which is supposed to have been the language of the common people. Since many of the oldest manuscripts (found) have been preserved in Greek, there has been a Christian assumption that the autographs all were written in Greek as well.

It should be noted that in terms of the oldest, variously discovered, Greek NT writings, there are some major differences between texts, and particularly those from the East (in the Eastern Orthodox areas), as opposed to the West (the Roman Catholic influenced manuscripts).

In “Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament” (p. 14), Philip Wesley Comfort makes the case that the Eastern text underwent some revisions from the fourth to the eight centuries CE. He says that after these revisions, the Eastern Byzantine text was standardized and copied with some degree of accuracy. Apparently, many of the surviving extant Eastern texts came after the standardization.

Interestingly, while the Greek texts from the East are somewhat more uniform, those of the Western persuasion are much more diverse.

In total (East and West), something like 150,000 to 200,000 variations are contained in about 10% of the overall NT text of all of the old documents (“Is Christianity a Fraud? A Preliminary Assessment of the Conder Thesis,” p. 11, by Eric V. Snow).

Possibly, Snow’s cited estimate is somewhat low because New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman gives the range of variations as 200,000 to 300,000, or more variations than there are words even in the Greek NT (“The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,” p. 443).

Philip Comfort (“Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament,” p. 13) says that though the Western text was earlier (than the Eastern one), it is characterized (evidently by scholars) as being an uncontrolled but popular text. It was a production which incorporated many interpolations.

Mr Comfort quoted NT scholars Westcott and Hort as saying that the Western scribes had a “disposition to enrich the text at the cost of its purity by alterations or additions...”

These changes created enormous differences in the surviving texts. Often, these variations are minor, dealing with the spelling of names and other insignificant points. But some variations do involve substantial issues. Eric Snow quoted scholar Philip Schaff, who said that only 400 of these variations caused doubt on textual meaning, and only 50 of these were of great significance (“Is Christianity a Fraud?,” p. 11).

5,000 Different NT Texts

Moreover, there are further complications on this theme. Christian scholar Bruce M. Metzger wrote (in the introduction to his 1971 book “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,” p. xxiv) that of the some 5,000 extant early Greek manuscripts of part or all of the NT known to exist, no two of them agree exactly on all particulars (per Ike Tennison, No. 9, 1999, “Discovering the Bible,” p. 3).

Though Metzger actually used the rough figure of 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts in 1971, Ike Tennison offered a better count of 5,366 in his article on “Pitfalls in the Use of English Translations for Bible Study” in the No. 9, 1999, “Discovering the Bible (p. 3).

As late as the 1993 “Oxford Companion to the Bible” (p. 488), a quotation from the Munster Institute for New Testament Textual Research, in 1989, sets the figure at 5,488 manuscripts. Contrast this 5,488 with the fact that, in 1858, “The Emphatic Diaglott” (p. 5) indicated that there were only 700 manuscripts. From 1858 to 1989, some 4,800 further old manuscripts were discovered and/or made public.

The essence here is that new manuscripts are continuing to be found, and particularly in more modern times (each with new variations and wordings), which means that the Greek NT is ever evolving with every new manuscript find.

In mentioning these 5,000 plus texts, it should be noted that only 59 of them contain all the books of the Greek NT. The others contain either one or more of the NT books; or alternatively, some of them reflect only parts or fragments of books.

The Oldest Finds

In terms of dates, the earliest known text is a small papyrus fragment of five verses of John 18, from 125-140 CE. A few Christian scholars have tried to claim that one of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments in Greek papyrus was from Mark 6:52-53 and dated to about 68 CE. But the better view of most scholars disagrees with this conclusion.

The situation with many of the fragments of old writings found over the years is that they often are the size of a postage stamp and consist of one to four readable words at the most (and rarely in sequence). Obviously, they can be claimed to be from any alleged writing of the period involved. It is very easy to speculate that a certain fragment is from any number of books and writings.

In another case, Magdalen College at Oxford, England has three papyrus fragments which seem to be clearly identified from Matthew 26:6-7. These fragments were found at Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by a Church of England preacher named Charles B. Huleatt. Huleatt gave the fragments to Magdalen, his alma mater (“Eyewitness to Jesus,” p. 1-7). Most scholars believe them to be second or third century CE.

Apparently, there are some similar or sister fragments (from Matthew 3:9, 15 and 5:20-22, 25-28) held by the “Fundacio San Lucas Evangelists de San Mateo” in Barcelona, Spain. These fragments were also thought to be second or third century CE writings (ibid, p. 52, 58, 64-72, 97, 116).

However, in 1994 and 1995, a German papyrologist named Dr Carsten Peter Thiede examined the Magdalen writings and compared them with the Barcelona find. He concluded (based on the style of writing and other factors) that they all were to be dated around 60-70 CE (ibid, p. 1-7).

Whether these fragments can be dated that early or not is still open to debate. If true, these fragments are the oldest Greek NT texts in existence.

Otherwise, the only substantial NT manuscripts date from around 200 CE, and about 300 better manuscripts survive from about 300 CE to 1300 CE. Obviously, all of these NT finds involve documents written long after the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the question must be--which one of the 5,488 different Greek NT manuscripts is correct?

Frederick Field

Per “Notes on the Translation of the New Testament” (p. xv), 19th century NT scholar Frederick Field wrote that as all (NT) manuscripts “are liable to be affected by the errors, and, occasionally, the caprices of their transcribers, the interests of truth require that even the oldest and best of them should be continually checked by a reference to the other great branch of the critical art, the internal evidence of the good sense and propriety of the passage itself.”

The existence of the fantastic textual confusion in the Greek NT makes Field’s words even more germane. While he did not make reference to the need to check NT remarks back to the more authoritative OT, this has to be the sense of his insight. Surely, any NT reference which is inconsistent with or in conflict with an OT text must be held in suspect.

Some Possibilities on the Why

Apparently, various scholars, looking at this problem of the huge assortment of differing and confusing Greek NT texts, have come up with some interesting speculations about “why” this situation developed. Philip Comfort addressed this issue in his book “Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament” (p. 7-12), quoted previously.

Comfort (ibid, p. 12) says that the early Christians expected their “Jesus Christ” to return soon. Hence, they were not concerned with preserving a piece of literature for the future. This source adds that the early Christians did not regard the NT as a “Sacred” text (fixed and immutable--like to the smallest remark and very letter).

This posture was contrasted, by Comfort, with that of the Jews, who treat the OT text with much reverence and respect. As Philip Comfort noted, the Jews copied the Tanakh with extreme fidelity. This simply was not the situation with the Greek NT in the early Christian Churches. Apparently, early Christians were not especially concerned with textual accuracy in their religious writings.

Going on, the writer of “Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament” (p. 7) adds that the early church used the OT primarily for exposition, recitation and mediation. Thus, NT writings were, at first, secondary and not primary documents vis-à-vis the OT. In time, this posture, of course, changed (since the NT is now primary and the OT is secondary within modern Christianity).

The Dilemma

Thus, a current dilemma on the Greek NT exists in making a determination about which NT text is authoritative. Which one of the 5,000 plus manuscripts bears the seal of approval of The MOST HIGH? Which one represents absolute inspiration and authority from The CREATOR of the Universe? And this is no simple question. It is complex beyond description.

As Philip Comfort outlined, in a quotation from scholar Eldon Epp, it is impossible, presently, to establish a genealogical lineage of the different texts that will go back to the original textual progenitors (“Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament,” p. 12). Apparently, Epp has worked extensively at trying to develop trajectories of descent of the different, old, NT documents.

In assessing the textual problems, Greek NT scholars have developed, essentially, two theories. Some have postulated that the oldest manuscripts probably present the better readings, while others have maintained that the largest number of more common readings is the preferred presentation.

Therefore, some scholars would support a reading from one document in 200 CE in preference to a different reading from ten documents in 1000 CE. Others would prefer to accept a more common reading from ten late documents, in preference to a single reading from a writing many years earlier.

The Need for a Standard Text

In any case, the huge number of different Greek NT manuscripts and the multiplied thousands upon thousands of textual variations have created a need for an existing Greek text that will offer acceptance among Christian savants. Through the years, different scholars have compiled such texts.

The “Desiderius Erasmus Version” was published by Johannes Froben, of Basel, Switzerland, in 1516 CE, and gained some recognition.

This version was prepared from only a few of the more recent Greek NT manuscripts (many of the older texts were simply unknown), and some of it (the last six verses of the book of Revelation) was not available. So Erasmus used the “Latin Vulgate” to guess at what the missing portion probably said (“Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 490).

The King James translators in 1604 seem to have used what was called the “Textus Receptus” (based largely on a Theodore Beza text, and the work of Robert Etienne or Stephanus). Like the Erasmus Greek text, there were obvious problems with the text used by the King James translators, since many of the now-known, older, Greek manuscripts were simply unknown and not extant in 1604-1611.

The text of Dr J. J. Griesbach was used for the “Emphatic Diaglott” (which was based primarily on the “Vatican Manuscript,” number 1209, but with use of some supplemental manuscripts). The Nestle and Westcott and Hort texts have seen recent popularity (Westcott and Hort supposedly tried to use some of the more older Greek texts that had been found over the years).

Mainly Quotations From the Septuagint

In terms of the present discussion, it is important to note that the vast majority of the OT references in the Greek NT seem to be from a presentation found in the Greek Septuagint (“The Oxford Companion to the Bible” [p. 687] says that the OT quotations in the NT are “almost always from the Septuagint”), although a few would allow a connection to a different Greek translation from the Hebrew Masoretic text.

The previously mentioned Ike Tennison, in the Number 9, 1999 issue of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 4), recognized the OT quotation problem in the NT (as including texts from both the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text) and then went on to suggest that some NT quotes do not come from either the Septuagint or the Masoretic text.

Tennison didn’t say how many citations were from an unknown source. But there must be only a few of them (based upon comments from the “Oxford Companion to the Bible,” mentioned above). Regardless of the number, questions must immediately surface about this alleged other source since there is no current scholarship supporting such an OT text (beyond the few variations in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

The “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 844) has a unique twist on this. Davis says that The MESSIAH and the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes--but that sometimes they translated themselves from the Hebrew.

While the Davis compiler, John D. Davis, was surely a sincere and well meaning man, he flat had it wrong by asserting that YESHUA and the apostles used the Septuagint. There is absolutely no basis for that reasoning whatsoever (as will be proven in succeeding remarks herein).

Thus, was there still one more OT in use in NT days (beyond the now known OT texts, to include the OT findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls), or did later Catholic scholars invent these alleged other readings from the OT, or did something else happen to generate still other supposed OT quotations?

The Quotation Numbers

Darrell W. Conder quotes the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” which suggests that of some 350 NT texts that quote an OT text, 300 of them favor the Septuagint, while only 50 support the Hebrew Masoretic version (“Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time,” p. 24). However, the Catholic scholars who made this report may not have been very knowledgeable on the OT, since their overall count is not correct.

In the “Jewish New Testament Commentary” (p. xvii), Dr David H. Stern, A Messianic Jewish scholar, gives the number of OT quotations in the NT as 695, mentioned earlier, and this includes 54 Tanakh prophecies fulfilled in YESHUA. Stern’s 695 are precisely identified in his commentary and in his “Complete Jewish Bible.”

Certainly, most of the quotations do come from the Septuagint. Sometimes, the Septuagint citations are very literal, or verbatim; and sometimes, they offer minor, unimportant, verbal changes (Nov-Dec 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 14).

While the reality of NT quotations from the Septuagint has served Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “Bibles,” with their use of the Septuagint, it has caused some trouble for Protestant students of the Book, when trying to go into their Old Testament translations from the Masoretic text to find the NT reference. Often the OT remark just isn’t there. Or if there, it may differ materially from the NT citation.

This Bad Information Prevails

Despite all of these difficulties and problems with the Septuagint, generic Christianity continues to maintain a strong belief that the Septuagint was the OT Scriptures of the developing Christian Church. Like the “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 844) indicated, many Christians actually believe that YESHUA and the apostles used the Septuagint and quoted from it.

Any number of Christian sources continue to maintain that the Septuagint was the OT of the early Christian community. The previously cited “Oxford Companion of the Bible” (p. 174) makes that statement. But Oxford (ibid, p. 310) also suggests that the early Christians used the same Hebrew “Bible” as the Jews. Hence, Oxford seems to be making the case that the early Christians used both.

Still today, Eastern Orthodox Christian Churches routinely use the Septuagint as their OT (“Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 174, 752). The early Old Latin translations found in the Roman Catholic Church used the Septuagint (ibid, p. 752). Even the famous Jerome, translator of the later Latin Vulgate, used the Greek OT along with the Hebrew text in his work.

Though there seems to be some Christian acknowledgment of the inspiration of the Hebrew Masoretic text, Oxford suggests that early Christians also accepted the inspiration of the Septuagint, and believed that the Septuagint carried authority along with the Hebrew text (ibid, p. 310). Obviously, the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text both cannot be equally inspired in the same way, as allowed by Oxford.

Therefore, Christians apparently then developed the theory of the superiority of the Septuagint (ibid, p. 31). And that perhaps explains some of the Christian attitude toward the OT Scriptures for the last 2,000 years. Many Christians agree that the Hebrew was inspired. But they also allow that the Septuagint is superior with even more inspiration and authority.

Consequently, it would seem, per Oxford, that the early Christians used both presentations and treated both as inspired--but maintained that the Greek was superior; and thus, more inspired than the Hebrew.

This assertion seems to be too stupid to be said, but Oxford may be right. Maybe, the early Christians did use both. Later chapters herein will offer evidence from Christian history which would allow for the use of both.

Dr Larry Spargimino, Revisited

This strange paradox, of using and treating both the OT Hebrew and Greek texts as inspired, gains some support from Dr Larry Spargimino’s article, quoted previously. It discusses the impact of the Septuagint by noting that it has come to be used, along with the Masoretic text, for English translations of the OT (Sep 1999 “Prophetic Observer,” p. 1). Specifically, the “New International Version” (NIV) is cited.

Spargimino suggests that the Septuagint is gaining importance in the eyes of modern translators. Effectively, it would seem that many modern translators now have a pick and choose option of which OT texts to use in their work (as Spargimino sees it).

Of course, Spargimino correctly stated reality. The problem is not over his words; but rather, how utterly ridiculous and credulous Christianity has been for the last 2,000 years, as well as today, in trying to use both Old Testaments. In this state of confusion, Christendom has raised real questions about its propriety as a legitimate religion.

An Authoritative Septuagint?

In the Worldwide Church article, discussed in the previous chapters, it was postulated that Origen, or some other early Greek scholar, created a fraudulent Greek OT to authenticate and support the OT references in the Greek NT. The earlier quoted William Dankenbring takes the stance that the Greek NT was inspired, and therefore had to be quoting from an authoritative Septuagint.

As discussed previously, some students of the Book would allow for a presence and use of an inspired Hebrew OT text during Apostolic Assembly times, which supports the Septuagint. If this theory had merit, it would suggest that YESHUA and the apostles could have quoted from the Septuagint.

However, there is absolutely no evidence of such a speculation, beyond the few Dead Sea Scroll readings (that are in Hebrew) and wishful Christian thinking, attempting to justify the Greek Septuagint.

There is also the related problem of the NT quotes of non-Tanakh texts, as if they were authoritative. An example surfaces in Jude 1:14-15, where prophecies from the book of Enoch (chapter 2) are quoted. The book of Enoch is an OT Pseudepigrapha writing, which has no authority in the OT, or among the Jews (except among the Essenes of Second Temple days).

Another Greek NT Linkage to the Septuagint

Besides the reality that many or indeed perhaps most NT quotations from the OT are quotations from the Greek Septuagint, there is another aspect of linkage between the Greek NT and the Greek OT. This one was brought out by Dr Procope S. Costas in his book “An Outline of the History of the Greek Language” (p. 54).

Costas recognized the strong presence of a Semitic influence on the Greek NT (thus, the words may be Greek, but the thinking and idiom are Semite), but then went on to state that “Likewise, the Greek of the NT shows a strong influence of the language of the Septuagint, from which the writers of the gospels quote rather copiously, and its (sic) seems also that the influence of the native language of the Evangelists has not been wholly inoperative, while the NT writings which are based on Aramaic originals are, of course, likely to, and do, display a greater number of Semitisms.”

In other words, it isn’t only the matter of the quotations from the Septuagint (which are extensive), but there is another fall-out in that the Greek Septuagint language influenced the Greek NT (other than where the Aramaic original words prevail in a quotation or possibly in a few cases where the quotation is from the Hebrew OT).

Though Costas’ remarks are not as clear as they could have been, his observation is extremely relevant, as will be assessed in later chapters. The choice of words and style of the Septuagint did impact upon the Greek NT (along with the Semitic thinking and underlying tone).

More on the NT

In terms of dating of the New Testament, the fact is that its individual books were, by and large, written from 10 to 40 years after the time of The MESSIAH's ministry and death. In fact, some scholars would argue that portions of the New Testament were first recorded as late as 70 years or more after the death of The ANOINTED ONE.

Respecting authority for New Testament books, it is useful to note that these writings have been declared to be the inspired word of The EVERLASTING ONE, and canonized, as a result of certain Catholic Church councils conducted centuries after the time of the apostles (Council of Hippo, 393 CE, and Council of Carthage, 397 CE).

In mentioning this late fourth century CE canonization of the Greek NT, it must be noted that various Catholic authorities, over the years, have tried to prepare a list of authoritative NT books. The one thing that can be said for these efforts is that they were all decidedly different in terms of what writings should be in the canon. Confusion and uncertainty have prevailed.

These Catholic works of confusion ranged in time from the mid second century CE (to be assessed later, in the work of Marcion) to as late as 367 CE, when Athanasius, metropolitan of Alexandria, prepared his 39th Paschal Letter, which listed his canon (to include all the current NT books, plus an allowance for Hermas, the Didache, and the Wisdom of Solomon).

In an attempt to find some Scriptural reason for the current canonization, some Christians alternatively do contend that Shaul’s epistles carry some authority because of comments made by Kefa (called Simon Peter in the KJV). Of course, these remarks depend upon the correct meaning and application of the Greek words “loipos” and “graphe” (II Pet 3:16).

However, this assertion on NT inspiration remains doubtful since even Shaul’s writings were first written many years after the time of YESHUA. They could not have had extensive coverage over most of the life of the Apostolic Assembly.

It’s questionable about how much circulation the letters of Shaul had, even by the time of the fall of Jerusalem (c70 CE). Effectively, people today accept Mattityahu, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, Shaul, etc because of Catholic Church decisions made when she canonized the New Testament.

Were the NT Writings Defined as Scripture?

Actually, “Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible” (p. 510) perceptively offers the observation that none of the eight or so writers of the NT ever suggested, in his work, that he (any of the NT writers) was adding further inspired Scriptures to that body already existing in the Tanakh.

Repeatedly Luke, Yohanan, Jude (correctly Yehudah in the Hebrew) and so forth wrote because it seemed good to do so, to impart joy, to inspire the reader to believe, and for other reasons--but never to create any Scriptural additions to the Tanakh (Lu 1:3; Jo 20:31; I Jo 1:4; 2:1; 12, 14; Jude 1:3).

Never is there any hint or suggestion that NT writings were directed by The HIGHEST or The RUACH HA KODESH (as was true with the Torah and most of the OT prophetic writings) or that the NT writings constituted an addition to the Tanakh. Nothing is said in the vein of inspiration, authority or canonization--apart from Kefa’s remark, as noted above (II Peter 3:16).

In “The Ghost of Marcion” (p. 7), the previously cited Daniel Botkin points out that the words “the Scriptures” are never used by the NT writers to describe their own work. They are always reserved for the Tanakh. Botkin suggests that it was as late as the middle of the second century CE before any Christian writings surfaced which used the words “the Scriptures,” as a reference to both the Old and New Testament writings.

The NT Canonization Problem

The truth on the Catholic canonization of the NT presents quite a paradox to many Protestant denominations which owe their very existence and lives to the premise that the Roman Catholic Church is not only false; but is the very personification of evil, in the form of the whore woman of Babylon (Rev 17).

Yet, it is this precise Catholic religious system which seemingly legitimatized the books of the New Testament, as used by these exact same Protestants. The Protestants have recognized these books from the days of the Protestant Reformation, when they accepted them from the ruling Catholic authorities. Over the years, most Protestants did, however, reject the Apocrypha, which carries authority per Rome.

So the place one must come to is that the Hebrew Tanakh is inspired, authoritative Scripture because The MESSIAH, the Jews, Kefa, Mattityahu, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, Shaul and others all say so. But one can only attribute like authority to the Greek New Testament writings because the Roman Catholic Church says so.

This fact, that the Roman Catholic Church established the New Testament canon, deserves a couple of other observations. Darrell W. Conder outlines the canonization dilemma, which arises because of the numerous religious writings, just after the New Testament period (“Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time,” p. 10, 20).

In the first place, there were a host of religious writings from this period which somehow relate to the “Christian story” (as it developed in the early years within the Catholic Church). Many of these stories were spurious, Gnostic or otherwise questionable writings for various and sundry reasons.

A later chapter herein will outline evidence that some of the disciples of the famous Simon Magus (of Acts 8) prepared some spurious Christian writings, which circulated in the early Roman Empire. Since Simon was a Gnostic, one must wonder if any of these writings were preserved to our time; and if so, what form or influence they bear today upon the Christian Church.

Actually, this record of Simon’s work in the early developing Christian Church was not singular or unique. As late as the second century CE, Irenaeus wrote about the practice of so-called Christian heretics (in other words, the opponents of the developing Catholic orthodoxy, as will be described later) in preparing and circulating forgeries within Christendom (“The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures,” p. 22-23).

Yes, Many NT Writings

In historic Christianity, there were possibly as many as 200 of these so-called New Testament writings in circulation (as some writers have suggested). For sure, there are at least 34 specific “Gospels” now identified in modern times. These 34 “Gospels” were discussed at length in the June 2002 “Bible Review” (p. 20-27) in an article on the “34 Gospels” by Charles W. Hedrick

This listing includes the popular Gospel of Thomas, which must have had an extensive circulation during the early Christian era. Per Hedrick, an early fragment of Thomas (c140 CE) is one of the oldest writings found so far (besides a fragment from the book of John, as discussed above in this chapter).

Otherwise, there is still one more early “Gospel” account which was never canonized. In 1934, a fragment of an “Unknown Gospel” (dated to c140-160 CE) was found in Egypt (“Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament,” p. 4-5). Hedrick seemingly names this fragment as the “Egerton Gospel.”

These are some of the earliest germane documents which have survived following the NT period. From this mass of documents (supposedly telling the “Gospel” story), early Catholicism pruned the list down to four, which Rome canonized.

Marcion, Revisited

In “The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” (p. 182), a fantastic revelation was offered on how the early process of editing and changing caused enormous textual problems.

Second century CE, Catholic leader Marcion has been briefly mentioned above and previously. He played such a profoundly important role in the development of early Christianity that his work and ideas will be addressed more carefully in later comments in this production. But in the vein of the huge number of “Gospel” accounts, it would be well to now focus on Marcion.

As will be subsequently covered, Marcion did not like some things in the early NT writings. Accordingly, he spent some years, time and effort at excising, changing and altering the remarks he disapproved of in terms of his own theology (which was essentially Gnosticism).

In the reading of the “Pauline” works, Marcion determined that Shaul was saying things in an entirely different mode than what the “Gospel of Luke” reported. Accordingly, Marcion created his own version of the “Gospel” which used Luke and Mattityahu’s renditions with alterations and changes made by himself. In time, this writing reportedly circulated in the Roman Empire as “Marcion’s Gospel” (ibid, p. 182).

More Canonization Problems

To further complicate the canonization process, the previously quoted Darrell Conder notes that the earliest compilation or grouping of NT books differed substantially. Sometimes, some of the rejected books were in certain groupings, while some of the later accepted books were not present at all in any grouping.

In other words, there was a host of individual writings, books or epistles in circulation in the post Apostolic Assembly days, which were to be found in variously different arrangements (like the 34 “Gospels” and 200 NT writings). It is from this mass of documents that the Catholic Church made the accepted canonization.

Despite the very obvious and inescapable NT canonization problems, when one reviews them in the context of the canonization work of the early Roman Catholic Church, this writer leans in the direction that things worked out according to YHWH’s will on this matter. This condition will be broached in subsequent chapters herein.

Chapter 26--The New Testament II

The Quotation Problem

Beyond the fact that the New Testament is a work of Hebrew thought, and the fact that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is authoritative (as established in previous chapters), it is well to note that many (not 100% of all, but certainly many or most) New Testament Greek references to OT texts are references to the Old Testament Greek translation in the Septuagint, as discussed earlier.

Such a condition from the real world presents problems in any attempt to understand the NT.

The September 1999 “Prophetic Observer” article (p. 1), by Dr Larry Spargimino, chose to quote Dr Kirk D. DiVertro, who claims that the whole authority of the “Bible” is at stake if the Septuagint was accepted by “Jesus” and the writers of (NT) Scriptures as the authoritative “word of God.” Or as DiVertro suggested, the issues of inspiration and preservation are called into question.

A Hybrid OT?

This problem of quotations in the NT is a profound issue to address.

In essence, if the Greek NT is inspired, it used several different OT texts (none of which were authoritative) or a single (allegedly authoritative) Greek or Hebrew OT text, which was actually a hybrid between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text and which evidently included some presence of material from a third, fourth, fifth, etc OT text (as allowed by Ike Tennison, quoted previously).

In this strange and unprecedented mix, it would appear that such a hybrid text was based largely upon the Septuagint. But in a few cases, it was supported by separate Masoretic renditions; and perhaps, in a few other instances of still other unknown texts (if such texts actually existed).

Such a hybrid OT text (in Hebrew or Greek), supporting the NT, would be most extraordinary and would raise serious questions about supposedly inspired OT readings in both of the traditional Septuagint and Masoretic texts.

Furthermore, such a hybrid Tanakh would assuredly be a most incredible possibility since there is no evidence of such an aberration in any of the authoritative Hebrew or Greek writings now preserved--although the earlier mentioned Dead Sea Scrolls did apparently offer a few documents with some unexplainable mixtures of the different texts.

Moreover, such a hybrid would destroy the abundance of NT evidence (described earlier) authenticating the Hebrew OT as maintained and perpetuated by the Jews. Clearly, the commissioned Jews have not maintained such a mixed up work over the years, nor have ancient OT Greek manuscripts turned up to support such a hybrid.

Simply stated, such an authoritative hybrid OT seems totally out of the question. The point is that, in terms of both the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint, the Greek NT presents a real dilemma.

Problems in Alexandria

The previous chapters demonstrate the enormous problems with the Septuagint (which was reportedly translated in Alexandria, Egypt).

Particular focus therein was made to the huge assortment of variations and apparent changes, making the whole production a Babylonian source of confusion (and particularly in the vein that the basic Greek work started off with a bad or corrupt Hebrew text then being used by the Samaritans; and then the Greek translators evidently further corrupted, altered, and changed this text).

But there is more to come. Dr Spargimino’s article, cited earlier (Sep 1999 “Prophetic Observer,” p. 1, 3), echoes almost the same conclusions on the Septuagint.

This article quotes Christian Church historian Philip Schaff as saying that the city of Alexandria, Egypt was a source of “a peculiar theology,” as set forth in the writings of both Clement and Origen. It was “a regenerated Christian form of the Alexandrian Jewish religious philosophy of Philo” (Sep 1999 “Prophetic Observer,” p. 3).

Earl Jones, in the Jan-Feb 2000 “Intelligence Newsletter (p. 4-5), mentioned a Christian school of thought (apparently, of Christian Jews) in Alexandria, Egypt in the 200 years starting sometime after the resurrection of The MESSIAH, but before the NT was finalized and canonized. Jones said that this school used the Septuagint and that its central theme was Gnosticism (to be later addressed).

Jones quoted Dr George Fisher, of Yale University, who wrote that “The school at Alexandria taught mysticism and allegories and they dabbled in astrology. Mysticism may be used as the synonym of ecstasy, the transport of feeling in which thought and will are merged.

“Mysticism, in the sense in which it is productive of error in the sphere of Christian doctrine, is the assumption that to the individual there are vouchsafed visions of truth exceeding the limits of the written revelation. It involves the assumption that feeling is a direct source of knowledge. When a man refers to inward feelings and experiences of which mankind at large are not conscious, as evidence of the truth of any opinion, such a man I call a mystic.”

Though Jones did not date the start of this Gnostic school of thinking in Alexandria exactly, subsequent chapters herein on Christian history will offer some evidence to suggest that it probably started about 42-50 CE (which, of course, parallels much of the work of the Apostolic Assembly). Thus, it is no wonder that Shaul wrote that the mystery of iniquity was busy in his day (II Thes 2:7).

The Essence

Several points emerge from Jones’ comments. Of most importance, there were apparently some Gnostics in Alexandria, who introduced mysticism and other bad thinking into the developing Christian Church (this line of thought will be later assessed). They used the Septuagint (or some part of it, like the Pentateuch) for their purposes.

Clearly, this quotation by Jones sounds much like the reality of the modern Pentecostal-Charismatic movement, where feelings often assume a superior posture over the written words of Scripture. This course will be assessed in later chapters.

While this emotional feeling approach to truth served the early Christians at Alexandria, and many later Christians (like the modern Pentecostals and Charismatics), it is manifestly not the way to approach truth. Truth is present in the written Scriptures and can be obtained through study, belief and obedience (as noted earlier).

The Surviving Alexandrian Influence

Since prior remarks have assessed the enormous textual problems with the Greek NT, one more point is valid here. It has to be significant that Philip Comfort quoted NT scholar Bruce Metzger, who said that scholars regard the Alexandrian (NT) text as, on the whole, the best ancient recension, and the one most nearly approximating the original (“Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament,” p. 12).

Assuredly, Metzger told the truth. And it demonstrates the perception of modern NT scholars when they have to conclude that the best and most authoritative Greek NT texts now extant came from the Alexandrian sphere of influence. This conclusion suggests that the best modern NT texts and translations were influenced and motivated by Alexandrian Gnostics and mystics.

In going back to Dr Spargimino, he reports that various persons have suggested that the Septuagint gives its reader glimpses of the life of the Jewish community in Egypt in the immediate pre-Christian centuries, and of the thought of the early Christians, for whom it was the first supposed “Bible.”

Was the unauthorized and confused Septuagint the Scriptures of the early Jewish Messianic believers? Or alternatively, as suggested by Earl Jones, was it the book used by the Christian Gnostics of Egypt? This dilemma will be assessed in the following argument presented by Eric V. Snow, previously quoted.

The Snow Argument

As just outlined, some NT critics and/or scholars have picked upon this Greek NT problem of quoting from the uninspired Septuagint, as opposed to the authoritative Hebrew text. Eric V. Snow attacked this problem in one of his papers (“Is Christianity a Fraud? Round Two,” p. 38).

Snow quoted Gleason Archer, who said that the apostles had to use the Septuagint because this Greek translation was the OT in use in the Hellenized Diaspora, outside Palestine. In order to allow those persons in the Diaspora to be able to verify the references cited, the Septuagint allegedly had to be used. But this argument won’t hold water.

First, why didn’t the NT writers use the Septuagint exclusively? They didn’t, as noted above. Second, the Targums prove that there were Hebrew OT texts outside Palestine which were used and merely interpreted into the local language or dialect (which has been and is the standard Jewish practice in the synagogues, as will be shown shortly).

Next, there is the situation in Acts 17:16-33 (as mentioned earlier) which suggests that there was no Septuagint in Shaul’s time. Or if one was in existence, it only had a very limited distribution (that did not include Athens).

Last, why should YHWH compromise the truth of the Hebrew Tanakh to accommodate people in Rome who might be using a possibly illegal and certainly a bad Greek translation of His Word? The truth is that The ELOHIM would never compromise truth in order to appeal to, or accommodate anyone.

Potential believers in the Roman Empire could easily have had access to Hebrew OT scrolls--just as the Jews have had them throughout the world for many long centuries. There is no reason or justification at all to think that Hebrew scrolls surfaced in Rome only after 70 CE.

Hebrew Scrolls for 2,500 Years

As just indicated, the Torah scrolls in Jewish synagogues seem to always have been in Hebrew. There is no record of any other scrolls being kept and/or used in the synagogues.

Torah scrolls are prepared by hand procedurally, as prescribed in the Talmud (Shabb. 133b, “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 1258). They are almost always very beautiful, with elaborate ornamentations. Also, they are the most respected and honored materials in a Jewish synagogue.

The synagogue readings were constantly from Hebrew scrolls, which legally had to be “kasher” or fit for use. Obviously, unfit scrolls (Hebrew “pasul”) could not be used (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15. p. 1254). Surely, the Septuagint and all other translations would come under this unfit classification.

The scrolls have always been read in Hebrew by a reading procedure which today appears to be essentially the same one that was historically followed from ancient times. If a translation was needed to the vernacular (for example, as was true in the East where Aramaic prevailed), an interpreter (a “meturgeman”) was employed, as was Scripturally authorized (Gen 42:23; Ezra 4:7; Neh 8:6-8; I Cor 12:10-30; 14:5-27).

Synagogue staffs included these meturgemen, who routinely interpreted the Hebrew readings into the local vernacular, as needed (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 1248). Clearly, interpreters would have been used, if necessary, everywhere in the Roman Empire. Incidentally, this interpretation practice gave rise to the Aramaic Targums in the East (which are elsewhere discussed herein).

The previously cited “Oxford Companion to the Bible” (p. 722) even admits that the ancient scrolls were maintained and read in the synagogues in Hebrew. As Oxford reports, the Torah was then translated into “Greek” or Aramaic (as in the Targums). In mentioning this source, one must remember that this book is a modern Christian reflection and a source for the Christian Church.

In “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (p. 76-81), Dr Emil Schurer quotes the Mishnah as providing the liturgy or service, to include a recitation of the Shema (Deut 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Num 15:37-41), prayer, the reading of the Torah, the reading of the prophets and the blessing of the priest. Per Schurer, the Mishnah assumes the translation of the Hebrew readings into the vernacular where necessary.

In the translation into the vernacular, Schurer says that, accompanying the Hebrew readings, there was a continuous translation or interpretation into the vernacular (like Aramaic, in the Targums). The antiquity of the Mishnah assures us that the cited order was followed in NT times (as is borne out in the NT, elsewhere described herein).

Into Modern Times

The practice of reading Hebrew scrolls has continued into modern times, of course. The “Forward” newspaper, of Sep 24, 1999, had an article by E. J. Kessler on “Group Seeks to Take National Census of Torah Scrolls” which offered a plan on what to do with aging Hebrew Torah scrolls in American synagogues.

As the old scrolls finally wear out, they can be disposed of only by burial. Thus, many synagogues retain them and end up having a number of old scrolls on hand which may have been damaged (in the cases or ornamentation); but often, these scrolls can be repaired and restored to use.

Since the scrolls are written by hand, they are very difficult and expensive to prepare. Thus, there is always a need for a good Torah scroll in many poor synagogues throughout the world and especially in the modern state of Israel (because the scrolls must be fit [kasher], and in Hebrew, to be properly read and used globally).

The gist of Kessler’s article is that a “Legacy Foundation” has been organized with US Senator (later Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate) Joseph Lieberman as honorary chairman. Its purpose is to raise money, take a national census of Torah scrolls, and seek donations of old, damaged scrolls (to restore them and send them to needy places--particularly in Israel).

Estimates are that there are 12,000 scrolls in the US. Some one-third of them are damaged, and could be repaired and restored to allow their use.

Yes, Hebrew Scrolls for 2,500 Years

Following the accepted custom and practice in Jewish synagogues, YESHUA (Lu 4:17) and persons in the Apostolic Assembly (Acts 13:15; 15:21) experienced the same ritual of the reading of the Torah (law) and the Haphtoroth (prophets) from the Hebrew scrolls, as has been true for 2,500 years in Jewish synagogues throughout the world--even to modern times.

Since Hebrew scrolls were manifestly available throughout the Greek/Roman Empires (just as they have been for the last 2,500 years), there remains only the problem of having and using interpreters to translate them into the local vernacular or dialect. As just outlined, the synagogue staffs and procedures provided for these interpreters.

There is no question about this whatsoever. The Septuagint was not the OT Scriptures of Jewish Messianic believers in Palestine or anywhere else in the Greek/Roman Empires. No thinking and believing Jew would dare use the Septuagint on an authoritative level. After all, why should he? He had and understood the actual Hebrew scrolls (or could be made to understand by interpreters).

This reality from the historic Jewish synagogues provides one more great proof that neither the Septuagint, or its quotations in the Greek NT, can be valid or supported as authoritative truth.