Soil from Stone: 2020

The Weightier Matters: Love Your Neighbor

Over the past two decades I have spent a lot of time discovering what it means to follow Torah. We all know that the essence of the Law is love: Love God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself. I have tried to learn how that applies to waking up in the morning, to eating lunch, to watching television, and to building relationships.

I can follow the right calendar, keep all the biblical feasts, not keep any "pagan" feasts, and avoid all the wrong foods and still not really live Torah. I know people who have never given a thought to whether or not they should eat a seafood salad, but who follow Torah much more closely than I do. The couple who give all their time to the spiritual redemption of murderers and thieves, the man who volunteers day after day to serve hot meals at the Rescue Mission, the woman who spends her afternoons teaching art to neglected and hard-to-teach children, the child who saves his allowance all year to buy Christmas presents for everyone but himself.

For if anyone is a hearer of the Word and not a doer, he is like a man studying his natural face in a mirror. For he studied himself and went his way, and immediately he forgot what he was like. But whoever looks into the perfect Law of liberty and continues in it, he is not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work. This one shall be blessed in his doing. If anyone thinks to be religious among you, yet does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world….If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it?

-James, the Just

The Biblical Symbolism of Seventy

Bullinger's Number in Scripture says that the number 70 "signifies perfect spiritual order carried out with all spiritual power and significance" because it is 7 (spiritual perfection) multiplied by 10 (order). I believe he's correct, but possibly not in the precise way that he thought. Look at these 70s:

70 nations of Genesis 10
70 persons of the house of Jacob in Genesis 46:27
70 days of mourning by the Egyptians for Jacob in Genesis 50:3
70 anointed elders of Israel in Numbers 11
70 palm trees in Numbers 33:9
70 kings subdued by Adoni-bezek in Judges 1:7
70 sons of Gideon in Judges 8:30
70 silver paid to Abimelech to depose the sons of Gideon in Judges 9:4
70 sons of Abdon the judge in Judges 12:14
70 men struck by God for mishandling the Ark in 1 Samuel 6:19
70 sons of Ahab in Samaria in 2 Kings 10
70 Shemitot not observed by Israel in 2 Chronicles 36:21
70 years of life in Psalm 90:10
70 years that Tyre will be forgotten in Isaiah 23
70 years for the days of a king in Isaiah 23:15
70 years to serve the king of Babylon in Jeremiah 25
70 elders of Israel in Ezekiel 8:11
70 cubits for the building wall in Ezekiel 41:12
70 years of exile in Daniel 9:2
70 weeks of judgment in Daniel 9:24
70 years of judgment in Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5
70 disciples sent out by Yeshua in Luke 10

I see two common themes in almost all of these instances, and they do seem to be associated with divine order imposed on the affairs of mankind:

First, seventy represents the delegation of authority. God delegated authority to the 70 elders of Israel, while judges and kings delegated authority to their 70 sons, and Yeshua delegated authority to 70 disciples. Several times, God assigned one people to punish another for a period of 70 years or 70 weeks, effectively delegating his authority for a period of 70 units of time rather than to 70 individuals.

Second, seventy represents the transformation of patriarchs into nations. Noah became 70 nations in Genesis 10 and Jacob grew from one man who left Canaan to four wives who bore twelve sons and finally to seventy descendants who entered Egypt. This might even constitute another kind of delegation.

Of course, these two possibilities don't explain every instance of the number seventy. For example, what are the 70 cubits measured in Ezekiel 41:12? A metaphor of the 70 elders, perhaps?

Different Priesthoods for Different Covenants

Torah portion Vayeshev (Genesis 37-40), contains one of many stories of misdeeds and poor decisions of the patriarchs. In this particular episode, Tamar, the widow of Judah's son, disguises herself as a prostitute in order to trick Judah into sleeping with her. He has no idea it was her, and three months later, when he learns that she is pregnant, he suggests that she be burned as punishment.

That seems excessive, but there's always more to the story than the bare text might imply.

Leviticus 21:9 prescribes burning as punishment for the daughter of a priest "if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father". Since Tamar was accused of "whoring", some believe that she was the daughter of a priest. Clearly she was not the daughter of a Levitical priest, because the Levitical priesthood would not be instituted until a few generations later. If her father was a priest, then he was a priest of some other order, one we don't know anything about.

Every covenant between a god and mankind requires the mediation of a priesthood. In many cases, that priesthood is as simple as the father or eldest son. In some cases, the priesthood might be large and complex with castes and compartmentalized responsibilities, like that of Aaron and his sons. The requirements, rituals, and laws that govern each priesthood are necessarily different because they have different purposes, serve different covenants, and often even different gods.

Keep that in mind as you read this article I recently wrote for Founded in Truth: Priests, Laws, and Covenants in Hebrews 7-8.

Short Lessons from Joshua

The Book of Joshua records the events following the death of Moses, when Joshua led the children of Israel into the Promised Land and into war against the many cities and kings of the Canaanites. Although the Israelites were numerous, they had little experience in war, no trained armies that we know of, and less advanced technology than their enemies. What they did have on their side was God and his angelic armies, and the fear that God's presence inspired in peoples all over the region.

In 2019 I recorded a series of short lessons from the Book of Joshua. Each episode is only a few minutes long. I recommend you read the Book of Joshua and use these videos as a supplement to other study aides.

Don't forget to subscribe to my Rumble, Daily Motion and YouTube channels.

Short Lessons from Joshua

Hagar and the Forbidden Fruit

Check out these interesting connections between the stories of Abram, Sarai, and Hagar on one hand and Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit in the Garden.

Adam, Eve, and the Forbidden Fruit

2:10-14 - Land among the rivers, including Euphrates
3:5 - Pretending to higher station
3:6 - Eve doubted God's word
3:6 - Eve gave the fruit to Adam
3:6 - Adam ate the fruit
3:8 - YHVH walked in the Garden
3:8 - Adam and Eve hid themselves
3:9 - YHVH asked Adam "Where are you?"
3:12 - Adam blamed Eve
3:13 - Eve blamed the Serpent
3:15 - Curse of enmity of offspring
3:15 - Promise of offspring
3:23 - Forced to work
3:24 - Exile from the Garden
3:24 - Cherub with flaming sword

Abram, Sarai, and Hagar

15:4 - Promise of offspring
15:13 - Exile from the land
15:13 - Forced to work
15:17 - YHVH with flaming torch
15:18 - Land between the rivers, including Euphrates
16:2 - Sarai doubted God's word
16:3 - Sarai gave Hagar to Abram
16:4 - Abram took Hagar
16:4 - Pretending to higher station
16:5 - Sarai blamed Abram
16:6 - Abram blamed Sarai
16:6 - Hagar hid herself
16:7 - YHVH walked in the wilderness
16:8 - YHVH asked Hagar "Where are you going?"
16:11 - Curse of enmity of offspring

Two Linguistic Traps That Can Make You Look Ridiculous

There are two quirks of language that can trick you into saying some pretty silly things if you aren't aware of them, especially in regard to translation and ancient languages like Hebrew and Greek.

1. False Cognates. A false cognate is a word that sounds or looks so much like another word that you assume they must have the same origin (aka "etymology") and probably mean the same thing at some level. Don't fall for it! Many, many words sound or look like completely unrelated words. Before you say "This word in English (or Greek, Latin, German, etc.) is derived from that word in Hebrew (or Greek, Latin, Egyptian, etc.)" because they resemble each other, make sure that it's actually true. Languages all over the world have very similar sounding words that don't actually have any connection to each other at all. A few minutes of searching the Web can save you hours of fighting over a hill you never should have climbed in the first place.

2. False Friends. A false friend is very similar to a false cognate, but can involve words that really do have the same origins. However, words evolve over time and the exact same word (or closely related words) might have totally different meanings in different contexts. One of the most obvious examples in modern English is the word "gay". The word once meant one thing, but was coopted to mean something else entirely. When a person uses that word, you need to know the context before you can know what meaning they intend.

Regeneration, Volume One by J.D. King

Amazon Affiliate Link

I just finished reading the first of three volumes of J.D. King's Regeneration, a history of divine healing in the Christian Church. Volume One surveys faith healing from the first century to the first few decades of the twentieth. I was surprised at just how much evidence there is for healing throughout the Middle Ages, but documentation is sparse for obvious reasons. Until the invention of the printing press, there was no easy way for a commoner to tell us how his dysentery vanished when traveling missionary prayed for him. In the nineteenth century, printing became much more accessible; a ministry could pay to have books or periodicals printed and distributed around the world. King understandably uses a lot more of his own ink discussing the faith healing movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

This history of divine healing is both encouraging and discouraging. Every era of Christian history has had miracles and dramatic healings, but they come in waves. A new faith healing movement arises, sets the world on fire, and then burns out in controversy and scandal or fades away into institutionalized religion.

With so much evidence, it's hard to argue that miraculous healings don't happen, but it also leaves the reader with some serious questions. Why then and not now? Why him and not me? When God uses such imperfect people to perform miracles, how do we tell charlatans from legitimate people of faith? Should we expect miracles all the time or are they temporary measures that God uses to advance a cause or make a point, like wilderness experiences designed to move his people from here to there?

I'm looking forward to reading Volume Two, but Volume One wasn't light reading. It took me a couple of years and I expect the sequel to take as long.

The State of American Politics

This line represents the normal, human levels of hypocrisy that we all have:

====

This line represents the in-your-face, shameless, mind-blowing level of hypocrisy of the leftist media & politicians:

=========================================================================================================================================================================================^10

They don't even bother trying to hide it. Their elitist hypocrisy is right out in the open and has been for so long, screened from public view by a willing and eager press, that they wouldn't know how to hid it if they wanted to. We didn't see it before because the Press has made it their #1 priority to hide every evil of the left. They don't care about truth or "news". They don't care about children, the poor, justice, racial equality, freedom of speech, or any of the other causes they wrap their perversion in. They care about money, power, control, and corrupting everything beautiful and pure.

A reporter recently excoriated Trump because he wouldn't denounce QANON for accusing the Democrats of being Satan-worshiping pedophiles. I used to think such accusations were wild exaggerations. After everything we've seen in the last four years, I'm not so sure anymore. As far as I can tell, Donald Trump is the only reason we have seen as much as we have. They're tripping over their own feet in their efforts to bring him down, and in the process revealing their true nature.

I'm not sure that most of the Left is consciously engaged in Satan-worship--many are probably just deceived--but I am convinced that they are entirely owned by him. To be a member of the DNC today is essentially to declare your allegiance to Satan, and I suspect that the filth and corruption we have seen to date is only the tip of the iceberg.

No, that's not hyperbole or sarcasm. The Left is pure evil, and it needs to be burned to ash.

Should the Epistle of Barnabas Be in the Bible?

The Letter of Barnabas was not written by Paul's disciple, as has been commonly presumed at different times in the past, but was either a forgery or written by some other Barnabas. Arthur Coxe, editor of Ante-Nicene Fathers, wrote, "The ancient writers who refer to this Epistle unanimously attribute it to Barnabas the Levite, of Cyprus, who held such an honourable place in the infant Church."

Whoever wrote it, I do not believe it to be authoritative, and I am not alone.

Coxe continues, "On perusing the Epistle, the reader will be in circumstances to judge of this matter for himself. He will be led to consider whether the spirit and tone of the writing, as so decidedly opposed to all respect for Judaism-the numerous inaccuracies which it contains with respect to Mosaic enactments and observances-the absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture which it suggests-and the many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges-can possibly comport with its ascription to the fellow-labourer of St. Paul. When it is remembered that no one ascribes the Epistle to the apostolic Barnabas till the times of Clement of Alexandria, and that it is ranked by Eusebius among the "spurious" writings, which, however much known and read in the Church, were never regarded as authoritative, little doubt can remain that the external evidence is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas the Apostle."

All of the Apostles were highly respectful of the Law, if not all of Jewish tradition, which had come to supplant the Law. This Barnabas, on the other hand, seems to be at pains to discredit the Law and to rebuild the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles that Yeshua gave up his life to tear down.

Barnabas is not completely devoid of truth, but it contains enough error that it should be read with caution and should certainly not be the basis for any doctrine. For example, while the dietary restrictions given in the Books of the Law may well have a secondary meaning, they were not inventions of Moses nor were they meant not to be literally obeyed. Whatever hidden meaning the restrictions may have, the writer did not know them. This is obvious from his bizarre characterizations of the animals involved. (He says the hyena is unclean because it can change its gender. It cannot, but some coral reef fish, which are clean, can change gender.)

I believe the misattribution of this letter to Barnabas, the associate of Paul, contributed to the proliferation of many false doctrines in the early Christian church. In this work, as well as in The Shepherd of Hermas, the Books of Adam and Eve, the Nag Hammadi library, and numerous works which no longer exist, lie the roots of the Roman church's errors concerning sex and marriage.

Do All Lives Really Matter?

We hear a lot about systemic racism and nobody doubts that the American people and justice system were once heavily weighted in favor of whites of European extraction, especially Englishmen, but that hasn't been the case for decades now. The plain and obvious truth to anyone who has spent any time outside of the USA is that Americans are among the least racist people on the planet, and anyone who has been in the corporate job market for long knows that if there is any institutional racism remaining, then it is against whites, not blacks. If anyone is likely to be the target of a racist hate crime, it's far more likely to be a white person in a black neighborhood than the other way around. I have never in my life picked a fight with a black person (or "African American" if you prefer), but I was attacked by black people in my own neighborhood many times in my youth.

99.9% of the time, if you obey the law and cooperate with law enforcement in the USA, you will have no problems with them no matter what your race or skin tone might be. When someone is shot or roughed up by a cop, in almost every single case, they could have avoided trouble by not *being* trouble. That doesn't mean that it's always right to cooperate with law enforcement nor that you won't be one of the rare exceptions, but it is a very good reason to obey the law and to be as polite and respectful as possible to all law enforcement officers.

Anyone who needs to be told that "black lives matter" will never believe it no matter how many times they are told, but the message of rioting, looting, & destroying lives will engrave itself in their hearts & minds forever.

Nobody who is countering with "all lives matter" believes that black lives don't matter. NOBODY.

But if BLM terrorists (if you don't like that term, take it up with the many dictionary publishers) are allowed to continue employing violence and threats as a political tool and if people keep accusing normal, decent people of being evil racists for believing that "all lives matter", then those normal, decent people will start changing their minds. Very soon they will stop believing that all lives matter.

And in a very real sense, they will be right because terrorists, murderers, human traffickers, and traitors to their people have forfeit the right to live. Mercy and forgiveness for the penitent is ideal, but eventually we're going to have to take decisive and unpleasant action to restore order and peace.

From Dictionary.com.

A Biblical Day Is from Sunset to Sunset

The traditional Hebrew method of counting days is from sunset to sunset. As far as I know, this has been true throughout recorded history, while most other cultures count days beginning either at sunrise or at midnight. There are multiple scriptural bases for beginning the calendar day at sunset, but the most significant one is from Genesis 1: "It was evening and it was morning, the first day..." etc.

People who take the books of Enoch too seriously tend to get caught up in all kinds of calendar controversies. They say that the day is only from sunrise to sunset and the nighttime doesn't count as part of a calendar day at all, so the Sabbath is really only about 12 hours. They also say that the Sabbath must be counted each month beginning with the new moon, so that the Sabbath is always on the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of the lunar month. (There are some variations on that.) I have read Enoch a couple of times, but haven't studied it--mostly because of the foul fruit I see in the lives of those who do--so I can't comment on exactly what Enoch says about days and months, etc.

These ideas create several contradictions in calculating feast days and Sabbaths, and puts their adherents at odds with the rest of the world. In the minds of most "Enochians", though, being at odds with all other believers is a feature, not a bug, of the Enochian calendar. True believers who accept the *whole* word of God know the *true* calendar. The rest of us are deceived....or so they want to believe.

I talk about the Sabbath idea a little more here: All About the Weekly Sabbath.

Face Masks and Social Distancing

Defense in Depth

"the arrangement of defensive lines or fortifications so that they can defend each other."
"a concept used in Information security in which multiple layers of security controls are placed throughout an information technology system.

A network firewall filters all traffic coming in and out of a network and tries to prevent threats like hackers and viruses from getting onto the network. Each computer on the network has its own firewall that does the same thing in a different way. The computer also has software that checks websites for malicious code, scans files for known viruses, and actively watches the behavior of programs for anything suspicious. A military installation has fences, security cameras, and guards at the gates. Secure facilities within the base will have additional guards, access control using biometrics, passcodes, id cards, etc., and alarms. The personnel are trained to watch for suspicious activity and alert security or intervene when necessary. This is called "Defense in Depth". Everyone understands this concept intuitively. We use it while driving, in our personal safety, and even in our homes. No single element of defense is sufficient to prevent all attacks. In fact, it's impossible to stop *all* attacks. No security system will ever be perfect. However, each additional layer increases the odds that an attack will be stopped before it can do any serious harm. This is also the concept behind vaccines, face masks, social distancing, limited gatherings, etc.. Whether or not each of these layers is effective, necessary, or unintentionally harmful in some other way is another question altogether. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a waste of time, and we should just go about our lives as if this was a bad flu season. Protect the vulnerable, take reasonable precautions, and keep living. My point is that arguments like "If masks stop the virus, why do we have to stand 6' apart" are silly and they make you look silly when you use them.

Parallelisms, Chiasms, and Proverbs 9

A parallelism is a literary structure in which two or more series of statements are set next to each other for comparison or contrast. It's a very common poetic device used in Hebrew literature. Sometimes an author will arrange his text in a parallelism only for the poetic effect, but sometimes it's also to lead the reader to a deeper, implied meaning. The Bible is full of parallelisms, more so in some texts like the Psalms than others, like the books of the Kings.

A Sample Parallelism

Statement 1

Statement 2

Statement related to 1

Statement related to 2

A chiasm is another literary structure that juxtaposes two series of statements, words, or ideas, but in a chiasm, the second series is in reverse order. Frequently--but not always--there is a central point, like an axis. Chiasms are common throughout the Bible, but not as common as parallelisms.

A Sample Chiasm

Statement 1

Statement 2

Central point

Statement related to 2

Statement related to 1

I have a growing list of Biblical chiasms and parallelisms here.

Things get really exciting when these literary structures overlap or are embedded within each other.

A Chiasm Embedded in a Parallelism

Statement 1

Statement 2a

Statement 2b

Statement related to 2a

Statement related to 1

Statement 2c

Statement 2d

Statement related to 2c

Chiasms can be embedded within chiasms or parallelisms, and vice versa.

Proverbs 9 contains just such a structure. It is organized into three main parts:

Parallelism Segment 1
Central Chiasm centered on a parallelism
Parallelism Segment 2

Verses 1-6 describe wisdom, personified as an industrious and generous woman. It's parallel in verses 13-18 describes folly, personified as a brash and lazy woman. Between the two parallel passages, is a chiasm on imparting and gaining wisdom, with yet another parallelism at its center.

Over at American Torah, I'm going to expand on this chapter and talk about what we can learn from the three divisions. I'll add links below.

On Wisdom

Four Characteristics of Wisdom (Youtube, 5/26/2020)
Four Characteristics of Wisdom (American Torah, 5/26/2020)

Dr Harman on the Levitical Sacrifices

Dr. Terry Harman, aka The Tabernacle Man, has created some great videos about the 5 Levitical sacrifices in Leviticus 1-6. I would just point you to a playlist on Youtube, but some of the videos in this series are marked as "made for kids" (I think that was an accident), so Youtube won't let them be added to a playlist. So I'm putting them here instead!

Video 1: 5 Levitical Sacrifices Introduction

Video 2: Burnt Offering Leviticus 1

Video 3: Leviticus 2 Grain or Meal Offering

Video 4: Peace Offering Leviticus 3 part 1

Video 5: Peace Offering Leviticus 3 part 2

Video 6: Sin Offering Leviticus 4 part 1

Video 7: Sin Offering Leviticus 4 part 2
Video 8: Guilt Offering Leviticus 5

Moses & Yeshua, leading the way to God

In the traditional Torah reading schedule, 1 Kings 7:27-8:21 is read together with Exodus 38:21-40:38 (aka Pekudei).

Exodus 40:34-38

Even Moses, the man who spent 80 days talking to God on Sinai, could not go into the Holy Place when God’s presence was too strong. How much less are we able approach God directly? Moses (and the High Priest) was a type of the Messiah, Yeshua. Only they could approach God here on Earth, and even then not whenever they felt like it.

Since there is no Temple or Tabernacle here on earth now, Yeshua is our only High Priest in the Tabernacle in Heaven. He is the cover over the tabernacle of our hearts and our mediator before the Father, and, being infinitely greater than Moses, Yeshua is able to take us where the Law could not.

1 Kings 8:8-9

When the priests placed the Ark into the Temple for the first time, they pulled the staves part way out so they extended through the veil into the main sanctuary. This either indicates that the staves were not parallel with the veil as in most depictions, but perpendicular. When the Ark was carried in the wilderness and into battle, God’s throne could face either forward or back towards the people.

It was probably very dark behind the veil, and the priest might have used the staves to feel his way to the Ark. Alternatively, their position could represent how God reaches through the veil to us, because we cannot reach through it to him. I prefer the latter explanation, but I don’t know what is correct.

Another interesting thing is that Kings says only the two tablets of the Law were in the Ark at this time. It could be that the Philistines removed the rod and the pot of manna when the Ark was in their possession, or it could be that those things were never in the Ark at all. Some believe that they were placed before the Ark instead of inside of it. In a way that makes much more sense, since the Ark was quite short compared to a walking or shepherd’s staff as Aaron’s must have been. The idea that the rod represents God’s authority and guidance, while the manna represents God’s providence is not harmed either way. They are in our hearts with God’s Law or they are before our hearts, while the interior is reserved as a special place for the Law. Either way works for me.

The Age of the Books of the Bible

This is a list of the books of the Bible in the approximate order in which they were written. I say "approximate" because there are three factors that greatly complicate such a list:

Nobody knows exactly when most books were written.
There is much disagreement about when most books were written, with opinions differing by many centuries at times.
Some books were written over the course of many centuries, being compilations of oral histories and records from different sources, and even being edited or updated by later authors.

Order: The order in which the book appears in the standard Protestant Bible.

Name: The commonly understood name.
Author: The traditional, primary, and/or probable author(s). Some books were written by multiple authors and others were edited, translated, or compiled by a later scribe, like Ezra, working from a collection of manuscripts or oral traditions.

Subject Period: The period of time covered by the books contents. Like the date of authorship, the subject period is a fuzzy concept for many books. Some books combine historical narrative with prophecy of the future (Isaiah, for example), and the precise subject period of prophecy is always up for interpretation.

Written: The approximate period of time in which the book was written. Some books, like the Psalms, were written over vast periods of time and other books are of very uncertain date, so their placement in the list is fuzzy, to say the least.

Order	Name	Author(s)	Subject Period	Written
1	Genesis	Moses	4000-1600 BC	2000-1400 BC
2	Exodus	Moses	1600-1400 BC	1600-1400 BC
3	Leviticus	Moses	1600-1400 BC	1600-1400 BC
4	Numbers	Moses	1600-1400 BC	1600-1400 BC
5	Deuteronomy	Moses, Joshua	1600-1400 BC	1600-1400 BC
6	Joshua	Joshua, Phinehas	1500-1300 BC	1500-1300 BC
7	Judges	Samuel/Unknown	1500-1000 BC	1400-900 BC
8	Ruth	Unknown	1100-1000 BC	1050-900 BC
9	1 Samuel	Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Jeremiah, Unknown	1000-700 BC	1000-500 BC
10	2 Samuel	Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Jeremiah, Unknown	1000-700 BC	1000-500 BC
19	Psalms	David, Asaph, et al	1600-400 BC	1600-400 BC
22	Song of Solomon	Solomon	1000-950 BC	1000-900 BC
20	Proverbs	Solomon, Agur/Hezekiah, Lemuel	1000-700 BC	1000-700 BC
18	Job	Unknown	2000-1500 BC	1000-500 BC
21	Ecclesiastes	Solomon	950-900 BC	950-900 BC
31	Obadiah	Obadiah	Prophetic	900-550 BC
29	Joel	Joel	Prophetic	850-600 BC
32	Jonah	Jonah	800-750 BC	800-750 BC
30	Amos	Amos	Prophetic	800-725 BC
28	Hosea	Hosea	Prophetic	750-700 BC
33	Micah	Micah	Prophetic	750-700 BC
23	Isaiah	Isaiah and compiler	700-500 BC	700-500 BC
34	Nahum	Nahum	Prophetic	650-600 BC
35	Habakkuk	Habakkuk	Prophetic	650-600 BC
36	Zephaniah	Zephaniah	Prophetic	650-600 BC
11	1 Kings	Jeremiah/Unknown	950 BC-850 BC	650-570 BC
12	2 Kings	Jeremiah/Unknown	855 BC-560 BC	650-570 BC
24	Jeremiah	Jeremiah and compiler	Prophetic	600-550 BC
26	Ezekiel	Ezekiel	Prophetic	600-550 BC
25	Lamentations	Jeremiah/Zedakiah/Unknown	600-550 BC	600-500 BC
38	Zechariah	Zechariah	Prophetic	550-500 BC
27	Daniel	Daniel	Prophetic	550-500 BC
37	Haggai	Haggai	Prophetic	550-500 BC
17	Esther	Unknown	500-400 BC	500-300 BC
15	Ezra	Ezra	500-400 BC	450-400 BC
16	Nehemiah	Nehemiah	450-400 BC	450-400 BC
39	Malachi	Malachi	Prophetic	450-400 BC
13	1 Chronicles	Ezra	4000-400 BC	450-400 BC
14	2 Chronicles	Ezra	4000-400 BC	450-400 BC
59	James	James the Just	40-50 AD	40-50 AD
40	Matthew	Matthew	10 BC-30 AD	40-65 AD
41	Mark	Mark, Peter	10 BC-30 AD	45-53 AD
48	Galatians	Paul	47-55 AD	47-55 AD
52	1 Thessalonians	Paul	50-55 AD	50-55 AD
53	2 Thessalonians	Paul	50-55 AD	50-55 AD
45	Romans	Paul	54-57 AD	54-57 AD
42	Luke	Luke	10 BC-30 AD	60-64 AD
46	1 Corinthians	Paul	50-60 AD	54-56 AD
47	2 Corinthians	Paul	50-60 AD	50-55 AD
44	Acts	Luke	30-65 AD	60-64 AD
49	Ephesians	Paul	60-65 AD	60-65 AD
50	Philippians	Paul	60-65 AD	60-65 AD
51	Colossians	Paul	60-65 AD	60-65 AD
54	1 Timothy	Paul	60-65 AD	60-65 AD
57	Philemon	Paul	60-65 AD	60-65 AD
60	1 Peter	Peter	60-65 AD	60-65 AD
56	Titus	Paul	60-65 AD	60-67 AD
55	2 Timothy	Paul	65-70 AD	62-67 AD
58	Hebrews	Apollos(?)	65-70 AD	65-70 AD
61	2 Peter	Peter	65-70 AD	65-70 AD
65	Jude	Jude	65-70 AD	65-70 AD
43	John	John	10 BC-30 AD	60-96 AD
62	1 John	John	90-95 AD	90-95 AD
63	2 John	John	90-95 AD	90-95 AD
64	3 John	John	90-95 AD	90-95 AD
66	Revelation	John	Prophetic	90-100 AD

Echo Chambers of Social Media

On Twitter you can apparently now hide replies to your tweets, not just from your own, sensitive self, but from all other Twitter users too. Other readers have to click on a tiny little icon in the corner to see the hidden replies. If you post something stupid, you can hide all of the dissenting comments from those less able to detect your stupidity.

One of the great things about social media is the exposure it gives us to viewpoints outside of our meatspace social circle.

One of the terrible things about social media is the echo chamber it creates by filtering out everything "they" think we might not like. It gives us the illusion that everyone around us agrees with our fringe opinions, thereby reinforcing our biases and errors.

Peer pressure isn't always a bad thing. Bullying is just the pathological extreme of a normal and healthy process that helps keep our wackiest tendencies in check. Contrary opinions, especially a contrary *majority*, are good for us. We need them in order to stay sane and sociable.

Social media platforms (all of them, as far as I can tell) are hell bent on destroying the social controls that keep us from murdering or enslaving our neighbors on the flimsiest of justifications.

Welcome to the world of Bernie and Trump.

Your Father, the Devil

Was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, and not Adam, the real father of Cain?

I had an interesting exchange with someone in another group earlier this week. He insisted that a subset of the Jewish people (specifically the scribes and Pharisees and their physical descendants today, who are the Jews living in the land of Israel) are literally and physically descended from Satan and not from Adam at all.

His scriptural proof?

The Hebrew word translated "beguiled" in Genesis 3:13 (KJV) can also mean "seduced" and Cain isn't mentioned by name in the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5, therefore the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can ONLY be a metaphor for Satan sexually seducing Eve and fathering Cain.
Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil..."
Someone told him that William Branham said it was so.

Never mind that Genesis 5 says that Adam had "many other sons and daughters" that aren't named. Never mind that the Hebrew word nasha is never translated as "seduced" anywhere else in the KJV, and isn't used in any context that is remotely sexual in nature. Never mind that Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that he knew they were the physical descendants of Abraham in the very same conversation in which he called them sons of the devil.

Evidence is meaningless to someone who is determined to believe a lie. Satan had beguiled him so that he was no longer able to see anything else.

My Favorite Messianic & Hebrew Roots YouTube Channels

There are a lot of great YouTube channels created by Yeshua-believing, Torah-keeping folks. Unfortunately, there are a lot of really bad ones too. I subscribe to a long list of channels, but these are the ones that I watch most frequently and can recommend (almost) without reservation:

In no particular order.

And, of course, my own American Torah channel.

There are also a few non-Messianic, non-Torah Observant teachers whom I really appreciate. Just be aware that their perspective is skewed because of that false premise.

And even a few Jewish channels that are pretty good. Again, be aware of a skewed perspective because they haven't yet realized that the Messiah's identity has been hidden from them by centuries of false teachings about him.

Is "Holy Ghost" a Bad Translation of the Hebrew Ruach haKodesh?

Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is translated from the Greek πνευματος αγιου (pnuematos agiou) and Hebrew רוח קדשׁ (ruach kadosh).

Many people feel like "Holy Ghost" is a bizarre and even sacrilegious way to translate this term, but this feeling is based more on poor education than on any actual problem with the translation.

The word "ghost" comes from the Old English word gast, which meant breath, wind, spirit, angel, demon, etc.

The word "spirit" comes from the Latin word spiritus, which meant breath, wind, spirit, angel, demon, etc.

At the time that the KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew into English, if someone wanted to talk about the spirit of God, they were just as likely (maybe even more likely, since the common people were more familiar with Germanic-rooted words) to use the word ghost as the word spirit. They were perfect synonyms. The two words were interchangeable.

In today's English we tend to associate the word ghost only with the spirits of the dead and the word spirit with the spirits of supernatural beings. But that doesn't change the actual meanings of the words. Notice that I said "spirits of..." in both cases. That's because the words mean essentially the same thing, and it is still perfectly acceptable in modern English to refer to the "ghost" of a dead person as a "spirit".

The only two real differences between the words "ghost" and "spirit".

The two words came from different ancestral languages, Proto-German (via Old English) and Latin (via Old French).
We are in the habit of using one word in some contexts and the other word in other contexts.

The definitions of the words haven't really changed. It's only our informal usage of the words that have changed somewhat since the KJV was translated.

Having said all that, a modern English translation of the Scriptures shouldn't use the word "ghost" to refer to the Holy Spirit because it does confuse people who are only used to hearing that word in the context of the spirits of dead people.

Is "God" the Name of a Pagan Deity?

The quotes below are from a comment on a Facebook post in the Common Sense Bible Study group.

The name גד has ancient origins as a false deity in many places around the world, and it is mentioned in Isaiah 65:11 specifically. You cannot deny this. It was used in Europe when the first printing presses rolled out the first bibles and it was a name of one of their foremost deities before the catholic church invaded their land. These are facts and there are many more like them.

Yes, Gad is used in Isaiah 65:11 to refer to the god of fortune that was commonly worshiped in ancient Semitic cultures. However, the word itself just means "fortune" and was applied to the corresponding god more as a nickname than anything else. If someone today decided that there was a god that governed how much light is put out by light bulbs, but didn't know its name, he might call it "the god of lumens". If he started a religion to worship this god, eventually his followers would probably just start calling their god "Lumen" because it's easier. Same thing here. "Gad" was not really the name of the god, but of the god's area of responsibility.

This is almost exactly the same way that ba'al was first a common Hebrew word that simply meant master or husband, but was later used like a proper name for a particular false master. It was a perfectly good word coopted for nefarious purposes. Interestingly enough, YHVH uses the word "ba'al" to refer to himself more than once in Scripture.

The rest of this claim is historical fiction as far as I can tell. I haven't found a single source for the existence of a deity named Gad or God anywhere outside of the Ancient Near East. The English word, god, descends from an old Germanic word that meant almost exactly what it means in English today: a supernatural being. It was never the proper name of any deity. Someone probably made that up because they wanted to impress their friends with their arcane knowledge, what Ryan (IIRC) refers to as more-special-than-thou syndrome.

In the ancient Semitic languages, including Hebrew, gad means fortune or troop, depending on the language and context. This has absolutely no connection to the ancient Germanic word. The German languages, including English, are part of the Indoeuropean family of languages. English and Hebrew share one major element in common: they are both spoken by humans. But that's about it. If a word in Biblical Hebrew sounds similar to a word in Old English or German, there is next to zero chance that the words are actually related in any historical way.

In Exodus 23:13, YHWH specifically says we are not to have the names of other deities even found in our mouths...

And yet the Bible, all of which is clearly meant to be read aloud, contains many names of pagan deities. God commanded the prophets to speak the names of pagan deities on many occasions, for example in Jeremiah 46:25 which contains the name "Amon of No" (strangely translated as "multitude of No" in the KJV).

The same pagans (and Israelites!) who worshiped Ba'al also used the name YHVH to refer to multiple pagan deities. They were only following the example of the Hebrews with the golden calf at Mt Sinai. Since YHVH became the name of one or more pagan gods, does that mean we can't use that name for the original YHVH anymore?

Clearly Exodus 23:13 can't mean that we absolutely must never speak the name of a pagan deity under any circumstances, or else God commanded the prophets to sin. Rather, it means that we must never pray to them, call on them, speak or act in their names, or swear by them. In other words, don't speak of or to them as you should to YHVH.

...yet you would teach as many people as you can in your warped desire to break this command wantonly and to justify your own wrongdoing.

To which I can only respond with Exodus 20:16, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Why not just drop your pride and be wrong for once? Why not just let go of you and say to Him, "Okay, Father." Why not just use the name HE told you was His instead of fighting so hard against Him and everyone who would oppose you, instead of insisting on using what YOU want to call Him.

Like adonai, baal, and elohim, "god" and "father" are both titles, not names. They are both titles applied to countless false deities as well as to the one true Creator (also a title and not a name). YHVH also said to call him Adonai, Elohim, El Shaddai, Father, Yeshua, Emmanuel...and even Ba'al.

I am perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong. I have done so many times, and I'm sure I will make and correct many more mistakes if God (YHVH, if you prefer) allows me the time.

But you're going to have to use some actual evidence of error--as opposed to historical fantasy--before I'll take you seriously.

Short Lessons from Joshua

On Wisdom

SUBSCRIBE ME!