Does Job 37:10 Say the Seas are Flat, Not Curved?

By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.
Job 37:10 KJV

Once more for the those seated in the mezzanine, Job was not written in English. I'm not sure it would matter if it was, though, because the King James Version is more-or-less written in modern English, but its vocabulary might be too challenging for those who think this verse says the seas are flat.

The Hebrew word translated as "is straitened" in Job 37:10 is bamutzak (במוצק). I don't have a problem with that. It's a perfectly acceptable translation. The problem is that some people think it says "straightened" rather than "straitened".

To be fair, the words are homonyms (they sound alike), but they have different etymologies. Strait means "a narrow, confined place" and comes from the Old French word estroit (Online Etymology Dictionary). Straight, on the other hand, means "not bent or curved" and comes from the Old English streht (Online Etymology Dictionary).

Job 37:10 is not saying that the waters are flat (straightened), but that the waters are confined (straitened) within their boundaries, i.e. shorelines. It's acknowledgint that God separated the water from the land in Genesis 1:9 and is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

P.S. This verse isn't saying that frost literally comes out of God's mouth either.

Does Job 38:4-7 Mean the Earth Is Flat?

 

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7 ESV

Several things about this passage lead some people to believe that it teaches a flat-earth cosmology.

1. V4 says the earth has a foundation.
2. V5 says the earth was measured by a line, not a curve.
3. V6 says the earth is supported by pedestals (or a foundation) and a corner stone.

Before I get to the real problem of interpreting this passage to refer to a flat earth, let's see if the actual words in these verses even say what people claim.

Foundation (v4) - If something has a foundation, that must mean it has a bottom and must be sitting on something, right? No. It doesn't even mean that in English, even though it wouldn't matter if it did. I know you think it might seem pedantic, but it seems necessary to me to remind you that the Bible wasn't written in English. The word "foundation" is not in the original text, because that's an English word. The Hebrew word used is bisdi (ביסדי), which does not mean foundation. It's actually rendered into an entire English phrase, "when I laid the foundation", but that's not a strictly literal translation. It literally means "when I founded" or "when I established" and doesn't say anything at all about what's underneath whatever was founded. The root word yasad can refer to a physical foundation of stone, but it doesn't have to. It can refer to the establishment of anything that has a beginning, such as the nation of Egypt in Exodus 9:18 or the Chaldeans in Habakkuk 1:12.

Line (v5) - The Hebrew word for line here is kav (קו), which refers to a string used to measure something. It has no relationship to the mathematical concept of a straight line in English. A kav, in this context, is essentially just a measuring tape. It can be used to measure a property line, a waistline, or the circumference of a bowl. In fact, it is used in precisely that manner in 2 Chronicles 4:2: "Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line (kav) of thirty cubits measured its circumference."

Bases, pedestals, or foundations (v6) - You got me on this one. The word adeniah (אדניה) literally means pedestals or bases. Keep reading, though. Don't get too excited yet.

Corner stone (v6) - Here's another one that means exactly what is claimed. Eben pinatah (אבן פנתה)  literally means corner-stone. But again, don't count your chickens before they hatch. (No, that doesn't mean I think you must have chickens. It's just an expression.)

Two out of four wouldn't be bad if we were playing the lottery, but this is Biblical interpretation, and that's a really bad ratio in this arena. Even so, let's talk about bases, foundations, and corner stones for a moment.

Clearly, Job 38:6 says that the earth's bases were sunk (into what?) and its cornerstone was laid, but does that mean that the earth actually has bases and a cornerstone? 

Only if vs 8-10 means the sea has bars and doors and came out of someone's womb. I suppose if you are a true believer in the Olympian deities, then you could argue that this supports the myth that Gaia gave parthenogenic birth to Pontus, her future lover and the primordial sea god, but that's hardly a biblically sound position to take, and it doesn't account for the bars and doors.

The only sensical reading of Job 38:8-10 is that God is using non-literal poetic language to speak of creating and managing the earth's oceans, not that he is describing the actual process of that creation. The Sports Page in the newspaper must pose quite a challenge for anyone who can't agree with that. "Nebraska Warming after Latest Cold Finish" must be a post-Ragnarok weather report....but there we go with the paganism again.

I kid, but what else can you do on a topic like flatearth? Humor is therapeutic.

Obviously Job 38:8-10 was never meant to be a literal description of the creation of the oceans. This means that vs 4-7 don't have to be entirely literal either, and it's most likely they aren't. God's artistry isn't limited to the natural world. He loves beauty in all forms. He wanted the furnishings of the Wilderness Tabernacle to be beautiful. He gave Abraham a beautiful wife and David a beautiful voice. Apparently, he also loves beautiful poetry and dramatic prose.

An Anonymous Commentary on Jude

Someone shared this commentary on Jude with me, and I'd like your input, whoever you are.

My impression is that it's not bad, but nothing to write home about either. It seems to be trying too hard to avoid anything especially controversial, even to the point of not really saying anything very profound either. 

Commentary on the Epistle of Jude

by Anonymous

Overview:

Yehudah (Jude), a servant and brother of Yeshua (Jesus) and Yaakov (James), wrote this letter in haste--hence its brevity--warning his readers about the dangers of false teachers and apostates among the believers in Yeshua. His message is a passionate plea to contend earnestly for the faith against anyone who might lead believers astray, perverting the grace of God into licentiousness and denying Yeshua's authority. Jude’s focus on apostasy and judgment draws heavily from the Hebrew scripture and contemporary apocalyptic literature, which he probably intended to evoke thoughts of demonic forces and spiritual warfare.

Jude identified himself as the brother of James, connecting him to the well-known leader of the Jerusalem church, but this obliquely also identifies him as the brother of Yeshua, a subtle reminder to his readers that he isn't speaking from ignorance or speculation. He had intimate knowledge of the Messiah, his life, and his teachings. Though Jude did not directly claim Apostleship on the same level as James and Peter, his message carries an authority by association that would resonate with those familiar with the Apostles and the Hebrew scriptures.

Jude’s epistle warns, encourages, and blesses.

V1-2: The Calling and Blessing of the Saints

Jude addresses his readers as those "called" and "beloved in God the Father," underscoring the divine election and love bestowed upon them. This reflects Paul's sentiments in Romans 1:7, where believers are set apart as saints, not due to their own merits but because of God’s calling. The greeting of mercy, peace, and love echoes the deep Hebrew understanding of God’s covenantal blessings, extending beyond mere feelings to a holistic well-being that results from being in right relationship with God.

V3-4: Contending for the Faith

Jude’s original intention was to write a more general letter about salvation, but the urgency of false teaching compels him to focus on exhorting believers to "contend for the faith" delivered once for all. This statement places a strong emphasis on the immutability of the Gospel. Here, the term “faith” refers not just to belief but to the entire body of teachings and practices passed down from Yeshua and the Apostles (2 Timothy 2:2). The intrusion of "ungodly" individuals perverting grace recalls Paul's warnings in Romans about those who turn liberty into license (Romans 6:1-2). Jude’s emphasis is on preserving the purity of the faith.

V5-7: Historical Warnings of Judgment

Jude offers three historical examples of apostasy and its consequences: the unbelief of those saved from Egypt, the angels who sinned, and Sodom and Gomorrah. The use of these examples is consistent with Jewish midrashic traditions, where Scripture is applied to current situations to warn and instruct the people of God. In each case, Jude points to a form of rebellion—whether it’s disbelief, overstepping divine boundaries, or moral corruption—that resulted in divine judgment. 

• Israel’s disbelief (Numbers 14) serves as a reminder that being part of the covenant community does not guarantee salvation if one falls into unbelief and disobedience.
• The angels who abandoned their proper dwelling (Genesis 6:1-4, also referenced in 2 Peter 2:4) symbolize those who reject God's established order. Jude’s emphasis on their punishment highlights the severity of defying divine authority.
• Sodom and Gomorrah are vivid examples of immorality and a rejection of divine law, illustrating how sexual perversion and moral decay lead to destruction. The connection to “eternal fire” underscores the irreversible consequences of rebellion against God's moral standards.

V8-10: Characteristics of Apostates

Jude identifies the apostates as dreamers who defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. The reference to "dreamers" might suggest individuals who claim special revelations or visions as the basis for their teachings, much like the false prophets criticized by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:25-32). Rejecting authority can be seen as a rejection of Yeshua’s lordship and the apostolic teaching, while "blaspheming the glorious ones" refers to disrespecting spiritual beings or divine matters. This is contrasted with the Archangel Michael's restraint when contending with Satan over Moses' body, demonstrating that even angels respect divine authority (Deuteronomy 34:5-6, implied in Jewish tradition).

V11-13: The Way of Cain, Balaam, and Korah

Jude’s use of three Old Testament figures—Cain, Balaam, and Korah—emphasizes the different forms of rebellion seen in the apostates. 

• Cain symbolizes jealousy and selfishness leading to murder and separation from God (Genesis 4).
• Balaam represents greed and the perversion of spiritual gifts for personal gain (Numbers 22-24).
• Korah reflects the rejection of legitimate authority and the desire for self-exaltation (Numbers 16).

Jude’s poetic language (e.g., "waterless clouds" and "wandering stars") paints a vivid picture of these false teachers as empty, unstable, and doomed to destruction. The references to nature—trees without fruit and twice dead—reinforce the idea that these individuals are spiritually barren and devoid of the life that comes from being rooted in Yeshua.

V14-16: Enoch’s Prophecy

Jude cites a prophecy from the apocryphal Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9), a text well-known in Jewish apocalyptic tradition. This highlights the seriousness of the coming judgment, where the Lord will execute justice on the ungodly. Jude’s use of this text is not an endorsement of Enoch as Scripture but serves to emphasize the theme of divine judgment, which was prevalent in Jewish thought. It serves as a solemn reminder that no one, not even angels or mighty men, can escape the consequences of rejecting God’s authority.

V17-19: Apostolic Warnings

Jude reminds the believers of the Apostles' teachings, warning that scoffers will arise in the last days, following their own ungodly passions. This reiterates Paul’s warnings in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and Peter’s in 2 Peter 3:3, both of which foretell the rise of false teachers in the end times. The emphasis on sensuality shows that these individuals live by their desires rather than by the Spirit, causing divisions within the community. Jude highlights the communal responsibility to remain vigilant and united in the face of these challenges.

V20-23: Exhortation to Persevere

Jude calls the believers to build themselves up in their most holy faith and to pray in the Holy Spirit. The emphasis here is on personal and communal growth in faith, ensuring that the love of God sustains them while they await the mercy of Yeshua leading to eternal life. Jude’s encouragement to "snatch others from the fire" shows the balance between judgment and mercy, emphasizing the need for discernment in dealing with those who are wavering or caught in sin (James 5:19-20). Mercy and fear are both necessary in confronting falsehood, reflecting a balanced approach of grace and truth.

V24-25: Doxology

Jude concludes with a beautiful doxology, reminding the believers of God's ability to preserve them and present them blameless before His glory. The focus is on God's sovereignty and power, who alone can sustain the believer through the trials of apostasy. This doxology offers reassurance that despite the dangers of false teachings, God is faithful and will complete His work in those who remain steadfast in the faith.

Genesis 2:1 and the Expanding Universe

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:1 ESV

I read on a website that "finished" in this verse means that the universe absolutely can't be expanding. When the text says that the heavens and the earth were finished, that means.... Well, honestly, I'm not sure how this verse could be interpreted to mean the universe isn't expanding. 

The Hebrew word for "to finish" is kalah (כּלה). It can also mean to accomplish, to cause to end, or to destroy. We know that it can't mean "to cause to an end" or "to destroy" in this context because we can observe that the heavens and the earth still exist.

What's that you say? Observation of the physical universe can help us to correctly interpret the Bible? Why, yes! It most certainly can. 

If observations can definitively show that the universe is expanding, then we can also rule out that kalah could mean the universe is not expanding. Of course, no observations can definitively prove that today. We can only make indirect measurements, calculations, and reasonable hypotheses, unlike the shape and dimensions of the earth, which we can measure and prove definitively.

We don't have to rely only on extra-Biblical evidence to show that kalah doesn't have to mean "finally completed with no possibility of expansion" in Genesis 2:1. Kalah is used more than 200 times in the Old Testament. For example, Genesis 27:30 says that Isaac finished (kalah) blessing Jacob, but just a few verses later in Genesis 28:1, Isaac blessed Jacob again. In 1 Samuel 18:1, David finished (kalah) speaking to Saul, but he spoke to him again in that same chapter. Clearly the word doesn't mean "finally completed with no possibility of expansion" in either of these instances. In fact, it almost never means "finished" with that kind of static finality.

The heavens are constantly moving. The earth is constantly changing. "Finished" in Genesis 2:1 only refers to God's work of creation, not to any ongoing processes that might have been set in motion during that creation. This verse doesn't support a static universe, geocentrism, or flatearth.

Genesis 1 and the Shape of the Earth

I recently saw an argument that since the earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, the earth must be flat. How does someone who thinks like that even have meaningful conversations with other people? It's like saying, "My son was born before my daughter, therefore my daughter is a tree." The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Maybe if they had argued that Genesis 1:2 says "the earth was without form", therefore the earth can't be a sphere, it would at least have some kind of internal logic. However, just like all human language, no matter how technical and precise, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses idioms and figurative language, which is then translated into another language (e.g. English) that uses idioms and figurative language.

The earth was without form (תהו) and void (בהו), and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 ESV

"Without form" is the Hebrew word tohu, which can mean formless, but can also mean unorganized, pointless, or useless. It rarely refers to anything's actual shape. "Void" is the word bohu (notice the rhyming?), which means empty, pretty much exactly what void would mean in the 17th century English of the KJV. It's not a technical term referring to the vacuum of space, but empty like the Sahara desert is void of trees.

The picture that Genesis 1 draws of the earth immediately after its creation is of a muddy place without clear delineation between land and sea, dark, useless, and lifeless. You, the reader, have to read into the text your own idea of how the universe works before you can find even a hint of the earth's shape. The order of creation is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

Lucifer vs Hel-El

Someone on Facebook asked me about this interesting post:

Ooh, sounds scary. I don't want to come across any "dangerous names". 

Although I know it's sometimes hard to tell, most people aren't complete idiots. If you tell them an obvious lie, they can usually tell, and they'll just ignore or mock you. If you want them to believe it, you have to spend a lot of time conditioning them to believe nonsense (see the current trans-mania) or you have to disguise your nonsense with a veneer of truth. That's what this person is doing. It's total nonsense, but it's couched in just enough truth and true-sounding gobbledygook to seem believable.

This warning(?) sounds plausible if you don't know any Hebrew, nor how languages interact and evolve, nor how to use the tools to verify its claims.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, Lucifer is a Latin word that means "light bearer" or "morning star". 

According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew dictionary, helel means "shining one" or "morning star". It appears only once in the entire Bible in Isaiah 14:12.

When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the 4th century, he translated this word literally from the Hebrew to the Latin. That's pretty reasonable, since there is nothing in the context to indicate that it is the name of a person. The Jewish Publication Society and the English Standard Version both translate it as "day star", although the ESV capitalizes it as a proper title. Jerome wasn't trying to hide the original Hebrew, he was just translating it.

The Hebrew word isn't "Hel-El" and did not refer to a "Hel god". The Hebrew is helel (הילל), related to another Hebrew word halal (הלל), which is a verb that means "to shine". It is not a compound word made from hel and el, a generic Hebrew word for a god. It is a deverbal noun derived from a single verb. As far as I can tell, there was no deity named "Hel" in the Ancient Near East, so rendering helel as "Hel god" is doubly nonsensical.

Since almost all early churches in England exclusively used Jerome's Latin Bible, the word "lucifer" was eventually adopted into the Old English language as a pseudonym of Satan. The King James Version translated Hebrew helel as Lucifer, because that was a reasonable translation for the English of that day. Nobody was hiding any "dangerous names".

Lucifer and helel both mean "light bearer". They are synonyms. 2 Corinthians 11:14 says so also: "Satan disguises himself as an angel (messenger/bearer) of light."

The only conspiracy here is by someone trying to make Bible believers look foolish. Beware of peddlers of sensationalism. They are almost always trying to trick you into something.

Now I'm just waiting for someone to claim that drinking Shiner beers is pagan.

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.

Your Father, the Devil

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?

1. 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.
2. Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil..."
3. 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.

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".

1. The two words came from different ancestral languages, Proto-German (via Old English) and Latin (via Old French).
2. 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.

Does the Bible Say that the Earth Doesn't Move?

Tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
1 Chronicles 16:30 

The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 93:1 

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
Psalms 104:5

I have heard some people quote these verses in support of the idea that the earth can't possibly be spinning through space, orbiting around the sun. "God says the earth doesn't move and God doesn't lie!"

If you read these verses in isolation without looking at the context or the underlying Hebrew, and if you squint just right, I can see why a person might think that, but if you take just a few minutes to understand what the authors were trying to communicate, you'll quickly see that it doesn't hold up.

For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 is part of a prayer that David spoke after bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. It's poetic and demonstrative, and--like almost all poetry--uses some very picturesque language that wasn't meant to be understood literally. Other lines in this same prayer describe the land (Hebrew eretz, which can be translated "land", "ground", or "earth") singing to God and speaking to the nations and peoples. If verse 30 literally means that the world (Hebrew tebel) cannot physically move, then verses 23, 24, and 31 must literally mean that the land speaks in an audible, comprehensible voice. We all know that it doesn't. 

The Hebrew word translated as "moved" in these three verses is mot, which literally means to shake. It does not mean to move something from one place to another, as the earth orbiting the sun or a person moving from one room to another. It's used in Job 41:23 to describe the scales of the leviathan. I don't think anyone would seriously propose that the leviathan was in immobile statue, so it obviously doesn't mean that its scales can't move from one place to another. It's also used in Isaiah 41:7 to describe an idol that has been nailed to a base or other type of mount. Again, that doesn't mean the idol can't be moved. It only means that the idol won't wobble and fall over.

Clearly saying that the world or the earth can't be moved, does not have to mean that it is fixed in a static location within the universe or else we would have to say the same thing about finished idols and the leviathan. 

"The world shall never be moved" doesn't even mean that it won't be moved in the literal sense of being shaken. Earthquakes happen all the time, even in the Bible. More than that, the Bible says that entire mountain ranges and oceans have been rearranged over time and will be again.

Even if you believe, despite the overwhelmingly massive evidence all around you, that the earth is a plane, standing on literal pillars, Job 9:5 says that God moves mountains and 9:6 says that he shakes the whole earth out of its place. Psalm 104:5 says the earth's foundations mean it can't be moved, but Psalm 82:5 says all the foundations of the earth are shaken. The selectively hyper-literal reading of flat-earthers requires that the earth cannot be moved and that it moves. It is inherently contradictory. It is physically, literally, and logically absurd.

So if "never moved" doesn't mean that the earth's location is permanently fixed in the universe, and it doesn't mean that the earth never trembles or moves around in any way, what does it mean?

"The world shall never be moved" is just a poetic way of saying "This stuff sure is dependable compared to you and me." And that's all it means. It's an idiomatic expression (Dictionary definition of idiom), never meant to be taken literally. Neither David nor Job believed that the earth could never be moved, and I'm sure they would be dumbfounded if they learned that anyone had taken their words to mean that.

If any "teacher" says otherwise, you should immediately stop listening to him. He is not qualified to be a teacher of anything at all that requires a basic understanding of human language.

One day Is as a Thousand Years

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8 ESV)

Peter originally wrote this in reference to this prayer written by Moses:

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4 ESV)

In context, neither of these writers meant that a thousand of our years is actually just one day to God. Both writers were trying to describe God's ageless perspective. If "a thousand years is as one day" is to be taken literally, then what do we do with the first half of Peter's statement, "one day is as a thousand years?" They can't both be literally true. The only reasonable conclusion is that he meant it as a rhetorical device to illustrate how God is never impatient or in a hurry. Like Gandalf, He arrives precisely when He means to.

In Genesis 2:17, God told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, yet Adam didn't drop dead on the day he ate. In fact, he lived for another 930 years. Some explain this discrepancy by pointing to Psalm 90 or 2 Peter 3. Yet using 2 Peter 3, one could also say that Adam lived for 339,450,000 years because one day is as a thousand years.

When God told Abraham that Sarah would have a son in one year, did He mean one of Abraham's years or one of God's years? If He meant God's years, did He mean the short one or the long one? As you can see, taking a metaphorical passage literally leads to absurd conclusions.

There are clearly prophetic implications to God's inhuman perspective of time, but I very much doubt that they are mathematically dependent on the 1:1000 ratio. It's a theological principle, not an algebraic one.

Choosing to Sit in a Theological Prison of Your Own Making

 

"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness." Isaiah 42:6-7 ESV

Throughout Isaiah 42 God speaks as if to an individual person. The word "you" in verses 6-7 is singular and verses 1-4 define the object as God's chosen servant. While this prophecy is ostensibly about the nation of Israel, it also seems to be addressed to the Messiah, and, in fact, the aging prophet Simeon alluded to this passage when he met the infant Yeshua for the first time:

"Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;  for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel." Luke 2:29-32 ESV

However, prophecy frequently has dual meanings, even dual subjects. Since the roles of Israel and the Messiah are parallel in some ways, it isn't surprising that many prophecies use the same words to address both subjects. While Simeon (and many teachers throughout history) applied Isaiah 42 to Yeshua, Yeshua himself applied it to his twelve disciples, perhaps as a proxy for the twelve tribes of Israel:

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."  Matthew 5:14-16 ESV

Bible commentators like John Gill, a 19th century English theologian, (and myself too) often forget this principle of dual application and latch onto a single possible interpretation of a prophetic passage, sometimes even excluding the plain and most obvious meaning. Concerning Isaiah 42:6, Gill wrote,

'"I the Lord have called thee in righteousness..." Not the Prophet Isaiah, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra (two medieval rabbis) interpret it; nor the people of Israel, as Kimchi; but the Messiah, whom Jehovah called to the office of Mediator, in a righteous way and manner, consistent with his own perfections.'

Gill recognized the reference to Messiah, but dismissed the possibility that the same prophecy could apply to Messiah, Elijah, and the whole nation all at the same time. He was a very intelligent and thoughtful man, but I think this is a typical error of people used to more binary, Greco-Roman patterns of thought.

Think of prophecy as a gem with multi-dimensional images embedded below the surface. The very same stone could present a very different picture depending on how you turn it and on what light you place it under. Even while I offer possible interpretations of some of the elements of this prophecy, keep in mind that these are only possible interpretations and possibly only one of multiple completely valid interpretations.

Isaiah 42:7 talks about three different kinds of people who need to be freed by the light.

1. The blind - As in Isaiah 29:18, these are people who are ignorant of the truth through unfortunate circumstances. They were born to a pagan nation or unbelieving parents who never taught them, etc.
2. Those chained in prison - These are people who have been restrained from finding the truth by unjust rulers, such as the people of North Korea.
3. People who sit in prison - These are people who have rejected the truth in favor of lies, who wilfully remain in darkness. They are atheists and people who attend church and hear the word--at least in part--but refuse to believe it or to put it into practice.

The tragic mistake that many make shows clearly in John Gill's comments to this verse:

'"and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house": of sin, Satan, and the law; being under which, they were in a state of darkness and ignorance as to things divine and spiritual. The allusion is to prisons, which are commonly dark places. Vitringa [a 17-18th century Dutch theologian], by the "prisoners", understands the Jews shut up under the law; and by those in "darkness" the Gentiles, destitute of all divine knowledge.'

In other words, rather than being a light to the world, Vitringa, Gill, and many Christians believed that the Jews are imprisoned in darkness by God's Law, the very Law about which God said "YHWH was pleased, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify his Law and make it glorious," just 14 verses later in the same chapter of Isaiah.

Keeping the Law doesn't keep a person in prison. Quite to the contrary, God's Law is a source of light and understanding.

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Psalms 19:7 ESV

How can the Law keep its adherents in a prison of darkness even while keeping it revives the soul and makes the simple to be wise?

Gill wasn't entirely incorrect. The Law can be a prison to those who use it wrongly, but it can be a liberator if it is used as it was intended. Many of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and others were (and still are) trapped in a rigid system of obedience to a set of rules that are based on the Torah, but are actually contrary to it. Like so many Christians today, they believed that if you obeyed God's Law perfectly, then you would earn a certain place in God's affections. To keep from breaking one rule or another, they added more rules on top of Torah like fences around a cliff's edge. If you can't get close to the edge, you can't fall over!

Such rules are fine if they really help you to stay on the straight and narrow and as long as you remember that they themselves are not God's Law. Unfortunately, by overemphasizing one rule, the Sadducees forgot or misinterpreted a host of others, and by adding more and more fences, the Pharisees ended up fencing off large portions of the Law itself. In their zeal to prevent people from breaking the Law, they prevented people from keeping it!

Because of his antinomian preconceptions, John Gill took one possible interpretation of Isaiah's prison of darkness and dismissed all others, thereby missing a very important message that was repeated throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19 ESV  

Yeshua anticipated and refuted John Gill's rejection of Torah 1700 years before he penned it. Unfortunately for Dr. Gill, he turned away from the light that was offered, choosing instead to remain sitting in his prison, writing about how unfortunate those Jews are because of the prison that God so lovingly imposed upon them.

Forbidden Relationships...aka Love Wins!

Approaching God as a Nation, as Families, and as Individuals

Acharei Mot and Kedoshim (Leviticus 16-20) are about how we are and are not to relate to God. Since marriage is an image of our relationship to God, they contain many examples of forbidden human relationships.

• Leviticus 16 – Approaching God as a nation.
• Leviticus 17 – Approaching God as individuals. Things that will prevent closeness.
• Leviticus 18 – Mistakes other peoples made in their relationships. Judgment as a nation and as individuals.
• Men with women
• The offspring of relationships between men and women
• Men with men
• Men and women with animals
• Leviticus 19 – Being set apart from other nations by a healthy relationship with God and each other.
• Leviticus 20 – Refusing to be different creates unhealthy relationships with God and each other. Don’t blow it.

The Only Love that Matters

In Leviticus 19, God said, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In Leviticus 20, He said "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death."

There is no contradiction. Love means doing what's best for people. It means refusing to tolerate behaviors that destroy the community & its relationship with God.

Celebrating spiritual disease is cowardly. It's an excuse to avoid speaking the hard truth that homosexuality is perverse rot. It's death. Love doesn't see a person committing suicide and say, "Oh, how sweet! Love wins." What vile filth has infected people's souls that they could possibly entertain such things?

No, love says to the man drinking poison, "Stop! No more!"

This is love by God's standard, the only standard that matters: "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them." (Lev 20:22a)

Open sexual perversion defiles the entire nation, not just those who practice it. The closer a nation is to God, the quicker and more severe is the ruin brought on by their wickedness. Things that will bring a nation to ruin: perversion, blood-guilt, idolatry.

Do you want to save America? Then don't tolerate open perversion. End abortion. God won't wait forever.

Fortunately, forgiveness awaits the penitent. "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked."

Prohibited Degrees of Kinship

There are numerous methods of charting degrees of consanguinity floating around out there, so I thought I should post something about my own. Especially since I have mentioned elsewhere that God prohibits marriage to anyone closer than the fourth degree. 

Ancestors and descendants, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, and siblings are all out of bounds. First cousins are acceptable. At least to God. You might feel differently. 

Don't use this chart for legal purposes, of course. Many jurisdictions define the degrees differently.

God's Law prohibits marriage with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree relations. There are rare, marginal cases that are not addressed or that don't fit neatly into this hierarchy, but that's why God gave us minds and spirits.

Nature and Nature's God

Humans Are an Essential Part of the Ecosystem

Researchers are just figuring out what has been obvious to everyone who takes the Biblical account of creation seriously, whether literally or metaphorically: humans are an essential part of the global ecosystem.

Transhumance Helps Vulture Conservation

ScienceDaily (2009-09-23) -- Researchers in Spain have shown for the first time the close space-time relationship between the presence of the griffon vulture and transhumant sheep farming in mountain passes. Transhumance -- the seasonal movement of people with their livestock -- has fallen in some parts of Spain by up to 80 percent over the past four years. The scientists say that traditional livestock farming practices are crucial for the preservation of mountain ecosystems.

Gods of Nature

Large geological structures have a way of profoundly inculcating themselves into one's imagination. Mighty rivers, high mountains, harsh deserts, wide seas. They become the dominant reference point for navigation, rivalry, and recreation. If you have lived near such a creature for an extended period, you probably know just what I mean. I grew up within a few miles of the Mississippi River, and although I moved away twenty years ago, it's still there in the back of my mind. It influences the analogies I employ, the color scheme I chose for my house, and even my dreams. I have lived at the foot of the Rocky Mountains for almost twelve years now, and I always know which way is west. If I can see the mountains, then I can find my way. They have a mystical kind of presence. It's easy to see how people come to ascribe divine attributes to such things.

The Death & Resurrection of All Mankind

God said Adam would die "in the day" that he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but we know that he actually lived more than 900 years longer. Did God lie to him?

When Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he came under the Law's power to condemn. He sentenced himself, and all mankind, to death in that moment. By one man's sin, we are condemned. Fortunately, by another Man's righteousness, we are absolved. "Go," therefore, "and sin no more."

See also: "One Day Is As a Thousand Years"

Santa Claus, Reefer Madness, and Other Fairytales

Rabi Simeon b. Elazar said: Adam can be likened to an Israelite who married a proselyte woman, and he constantly sought to impress upon her mind the following regulations: "My daughter, eat not bread when thy hands are unclean, eat not of fruits which were not tithed, do not violate the Sabbath, do not get into the habit of making vows, and walk not with another man. If thou shouldst violate any of the commands, thou wilt die." Another one, who wished to mislead her, did those very things before her that she had been told were sinful: he ate bread when his hands were unclean, partook of fruits which were not tithed, violated the Sabbath, etc., and thereby caused this proselyte to think that everything that her husband told her was entirely false, so she violated all his commandments.

Babylonian Talmud, Trans. Rodkinson. pp 8-9

I am reminded of parents telling their children that Santa Claus brings presents, teachers telling their students that Marijuana brings madness, and politicians telling us all that single-payer health care brings health and happiness to all. After so many obvious lies, why in the world should anyone believe another word?

Babies Are Good For You

I remember years ago reading about how the incidence of certain types of cancers in women could be dramatically reduced by bearing and breastfeeding babies. To obtain the maximum benefit, I think the article said women should have their first children in their late teen years.

A new study claims that breastfeeding for a year or more halves a woman's likelihood of developing rheumatoid arthritis.

Women Who Breastfeed For More Than A Year Halve Their Risk Of Rheumatoid Arthritis
ScienceDaily (2008-05-13) -- Women who breast feed for longer have a smaller chance of getting rheumatoid arthritis, suggests a new study. The study also found that taking oral contraceptives, which are suspected to protect against the disease because they contain hormones that are raised in pregnancy, did not have the same effect. Also, simply having children and not breast feeding also did not seem to be protective. ... read full article

The old feminist canard about the terrible risks of pregnancy keeps getting weaker.

Are We Gods?

The Jews gathered around [Jesus], saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods’? If he called them `gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken–what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.”

[John 10:24-37]

If you read this story without knowing what the rest of the Bible says, you might think that Jesus was saying that everyone is actually God or at least equal to God. But if you look up the passage that Jesus was quoting (Psalms 82:6), it is evident that this is not what he meant. Psalms 82 makes it clear that, while everyone is divine in the sense that we were all created by God and that we are all children of God, we are nothing in comparison to Him.

Psalms 82:6-8 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The Hebrew word used here for “gods” can mean “rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, or gods.” It is a form of the same word used to refer to the one God. Since the Psalms were written as songs or poetry, the writer probably specifically chose this word to represent the contrast between the creation and the creator. He was addressing the leaders of mankind. Even though they were great lords among men and even though God himself gave them their power, they are still accountable to Him for their treatment of the poor and needy. It is a warning against undue pride and an admonition to humble, godly rule. Don’t set yourself to be like God because He can take you down as easily as He put you up. The desire to become like God is one of the gravest sins the Bible describes. This was the sin which tempted Eve and caused the fall of mankind. This is also the sin which brought about the fall of the civilization of Babel and the division of all mankind. It is also the sin which caused God to exile Satan and his angels from Heaven.

With obvious sarcasm, God said to Job, “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?…Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at every proud man and bring him low, look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand. Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave. Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you.” But we know from Psalm 82 that Job could not do these things. It is God who grants and who rescinds power, not man. Job repented of his presumption. He said, “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] `Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. [You said,] `Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” God rewarded Job for his repentance.

When Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6, he was making fools of his questioners. The Psalter called all leaders of men representatives of god. Jesus said that if he lived up to the standards he set by calling himself “the Son of God”, who were they to dispute it? If they objected to him referring so to himself, they had not been paying attention. By referring to Psalm 82, he justified his own claim and challenged them to live up to God’s standards. In effect he was saying, “You claim to be leaders chosen by God, yet you don’t do the minimum that God says his leaders must. I claim to be the Son of God, and I can back up my claim with my actions.” He did not say that everyone was God or could even become like God.

Far too many false doctrines come about by reading our own desires into the Scriptures rather than letting them say what God intends.