Bible Research Tools Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


The Bible Research Tools Discussion Forum is now online!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FaithIsKey

Pages: [1]

Faith & LXX, I was listening to the BRT playlist of Dr. Terry Mortensen (PhD, History of Geology), when I recalled your conversation about seminaries teaching evolution. The lecture, titled "Millions of Years", provides a history of the transformation of traditional Christian doctrine into conformity with the doctrines of mere men.

Thanks, Dan. It is good to see that you have finished your projects and are posting again.

Those are hidden gems by Dr. Mortenson for any Christian who hasn't been keeping up. It is far worse than I thought, and I have been trying to keep up. It appears that many (most) of our seminaries have sacrificed the Word of God on the altar of Darwin and "science" (so-called).



I still cannot resolve the ancestry of Moses when combined with the statement by Paul in Galatians, who was obviously quoting from the Septuagint. When I weigh the DSS and LXX, I have to ask myself: which was first?

The bottom line is, we do not have the 1st Chronicles 6th chapter scrolls, that I am aware of; and there is nothing in the other scrolls, or the scripture, that clearly adds more generations to the ancestry of Moses.

As it stands now, we have:

"The sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar." -- 1Chr 6:1-3 KJV

Since Kohath went into Egypt with Jacob, that would require Kohath and Amran to have lived a very long time, and/or to have had their children at very old ages.

What am I missing?

Holy cow!



Now, in the above narrative and biblical passages, replace "flood" and "water(s)" with "local flood" and "local flood water(s)", respectively, and see if it still makes sense.

This makes sense, doesn't it?

9.  God promised to never again destroy the earth with a local flood:

"And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a local flood; neither shall there any more be a local flood to destroy the earth." -- Gen 9:11 KJV

No, I guess not.

Faith 8)

The Revelation / Re: To Him That Overcometh!
« on: May 18, 2018, 08:04:47 AM »

I am still not certain, but James Stuart Russell, undoubtedly one of the most objective biblical commentators ever, presents the case for the disciples, or for those disciples in Jerusalem

Thanks so much, Dan.  I must have read past that when I initially read the Parousia.  I am reading it again.



The Bible Study Video Series can be accessed here:

This is very informative, Dan, and nicely made! The Psalms 44 link in Part III was like 'icing on the cake' for us "free will" types.

I had previously listened to Michael Heiser's 20-video Commentary on Acts (mentioned in Part III), and would recommend everyone listen to it. This is the link to his commentary:

Page-down to the series titled "Acts of the Apostles".



Faith & LXX, check out this link that talks about theistic evolution:

Thanks, Dan.  I suspected it was bad, but not that bad.  The devil is truly the great deceiver!

I have been watching (for some time) the "Is Genesis History" video playlist available on the Age of the Earth page.  Those professors are very knowledgeable, and their lectures have helped my apologetics considerably.


The Creation / How long were the Genesis days?
« on: February 01, 2018, 05:55:49 PM »
Could the Genesis creation days be millions of years long, or are the six days of evenings and mornings our 24 hour days? This analysis by Creation Ministries International examines the day in Genesis, and in other parts of the scripture.

For more information, see:


The Revelation / Re: To Him That Overcometh!
« on: January 20, 2018, 06:30:30 PM »

1.  Jesus sent his angel to show his servants things which must shortly come to pass (Rev 1:10, 22:6)

2.  His angel was sent to testify the things in the churches (Rev 22:16)

What else did His angel tell us was to shortly come to pass?

Nothing.  Wow!


PS I almost forgot.  This part:

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." -- Rev 1:7 ESV 1970


The Revelation / Re: To Him That Overcometh!
« on: January 18, 2018, 08:32:04 AM »

In other words, it appears the Lamb was the only one who heard the Spirit(s), and, therefore, he was the only one who "overcame".

I wonder who he is?


The Revelation / Re: To Him That Overcometh!
« on: January 17, 2018, 12:39:58 AM »

there is a problem with that interpretation.  First, the timing of the event of the lamb in the midst of the throne was/is future to John receiving the letters to the churches:

"After this [after receiving the letters] I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." -- Rev 4:1 KJV

There was also this dilemma in John's future:

"And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon." -- Rev 5:3 KJV

Jesus, as aforementioned in Rev 3:21, was already sitting with the Father in his heavenly throne when that occurred.

Somehow I missed this one. This is really freaky.


The Life of Christ / Re: Not Taste of Death
« on: January 13, 2018, 09:29:45 AM »

These are my first footnotes so bear with me.  It took a while to get things lined up.

Thanks, Brenda.  Nice footnotes.


The Life of Christ / Re: Not Taste of Death
« on: January 11, 2018, 10:04:41 AM »

 Are there any full preterists on this board?

I'm a partial preterist.


General History Discussion / Re: Biblical Timeline Using The Septuagint
« on: January 06, 2018, 11:51:28 AM »

My recommendation?  Stick with the scripture.

Amen to that!

Posting Tips / Re: Word Macro to assist in formatting
« on: January 01, 2018, 11:52:55 PM »

This Microsoft Word Macro will automatically format posts with the 'Bold', 'Italic' and 'Indent' BBC Codes.

Thanks, Dan.  That is very helpful! 



Faith, what about the second one he quoted, Joel 2:11?

Daniel, that was mentioned on another thread. Read the last half of this post by Rev:

Joel is placing the fulfillment of that prophecy prior to the day of Pentecost:

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:" -- Joel 2:28 KJV

The only significant invasion of Israel I am aware that fits that part of Joel was by Antiochus IV during the days of the Maccabees about 165 BC. This is part of the prophecy of Joel, followed by the final days of Antiochus which occurred while traveling with his army from Persia back to Jerusalem to take vengeance on the Jews:

"But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things." -- Joel 2:20 KJV

"Howbeit he nothing at all ceased from his bragging, but still was filled with pride, breathing out fire in his rage against the Jews, and commanding to haste the journey: but it came to pass that he fell down from his chariot, carried violently; so that having a sore fall, all the members of his body were much pained. And thus he that a little afore thought he might command the waves of the sea, (so proud was he beyond the condition of man) and weigh the high mountains in a balance, was now cast on the ground, and carried in an horselitter, shewing forth unto all the manifest power of God. So that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man, and whiles he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell away, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to all his army. And the man, that thought a little afore he could reach to the stars of heaven, no man could endure to carry for his intolerable stink." -- 2Mac 9:7-10 KJV



Where can I find information about Pharaoh Hophra being the target of Nebuchadrezzar's invasion?

Good question. I sorta left that out. It was an assumption based on a statement by Josephus, combined with a footnote by Whiston:

"when [Nebuchadnezzar] had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned [329] and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon." [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book X.9.7, Eze 30:10, pp.559-60]

"329 Herodotus says, this king of Egypt [Pharaoh Hophra, or Apries] was slain by the Egyptians, as Jeremiah  foretold his slaughter by his enemies, Jeremiah 44:29, 30, and that as a sign of the destruction of Egypt [by Nebuchadnezzar]. Josephus says, this king was slain by Nebuchadnezzar himself. " [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book X.9.7, fn329, Eze 30:10, p.560]

In any case, I should not have been so dogmatic.

Thanks for catching that, LXX.  I am editing the post to include this information.



Faith, why do they do that? It doesn't make any sense.,

It is all they know. Some were brought up on premillennial doctrine, which was then reinforced, even demanded in the seminaries. Pastor LeBoutillier is about as good as they come in the premillennial ranks; but his doctrine is based on a future, earthly, millennial reign, which is untenable.  The reign of Christ began in the first century:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." -- Rev 3:21 KJV

There is only one throne:

"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." -- Rev 22:3-4 KJV

Either Jesus was sitting in his throne when his angel gave John the epistles to the seven churches of Asia (Rev 1ff, 22:16), or the book of the Revelation is a fable.

Jesus also said:
  • he would return during his generation (Matt 24:34)
  • while some in his audience were still alive (Mat 16:27-28), and
  • before his disciples had "gone over" the cities of Israel (Matt 10:23)
The first two are confirmed in the gospels of Mark (8:34-38, 9:1 & 13:30), and Luke (9:26-27 & 21:32).  If he did not return during that time, the gospels are fables.

None of that is a problem for me since I know he returned when he said he would. I now patiently await the destruction of Satan so everyone can live happily every after.



I  don't understand double fulfillment.  It has been explained to me, but I don't understand it.

Brenda, neither do I.  I attribute that "principle" to the doctrine being more important than the plain words of the text.

Have you read anything by Milton Terry?  He said this about double fulfillment:

"But the moment we admit the principle that portions of Scripture contain an occult or double sense we introduce an element of uncertainty in the sacred volume, and unsettle all scientific interpretation. "If the Scripture has more than one meaning," says Dr. [John] Owen, "it has no meaning at all." "I hold," says [John Charles] Ryle, "that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it.... To say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture." "This scheme of interpretation," says [Moses] Stuart, "forsakes and sets aside the common laws of language." [Milton S Terry, No Double Sense, "Biblical Hermeneutics." Eaton & Mains, New Ed, 1890, Mal 4:5, pp.383-4]



Do you have a link where this book can be obtained?

Jim Reilly, "Displaced Dynasties - Nebuchadnezzars Wars." Displaced Dynasties, 2000

Matt, check out this web site:

That chapter on Nebuchadnezzar is found in Volume 1, Chapter 1.


The Gospels / Re: Behold, I send you Elijah the Prophet!
« on: December 23, 2017, 11:47:23 AM »

In the following sermon, in a manner similar to your pastor's, John MacArthur also promotes the popular notion that John was a "preview" of Elijah:

Hi, guys. I posted a related topic in the Babylon to the Maccabees forum at:

Any feedback will be appreciated.


The Day of the LORD is Near; a Time of Doom for the Nations

Pastor Paul LeBoutillier of Calvary Chapel Ontario, one of the featured pastors on the Bible Research Tools Website, presented a common theme in a sermon on Elijah. Pastor LeBoutillier first quoted Ezekiel 30:3, presenting it as a future, "end times" prophecy, in this segment:

This is the text in question:

"For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near; it will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations." -- Eze 30:3 ESV

The context of that passage is found in the following verses:

"Cush, and Put, and Lud, and all Arabia, and Libya, and the people of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword. 'Thus says the LORD: Those who support Egypt shall fall, and her proud might shall come down; from Migdol to Syene they shall fall within her by the sword, declares the Lord GOD. And they shall be desolated in the midst of desolated countries, and their cities shall be in the midst of cities that are laid waste . . . Thus says the Lord GOD: I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most ruthless of nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land, and they shall draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain." -- Eze 30:5-7, 10-11 ESV

Ezekiel was in Babylonian Exile at the time of that prophecy.  Jeremiah also wrote of a battle between Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar, and a future invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar:

"About Egypt. Concerning the army of Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates at Carchemish and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: . . . The word that the LORD spoke to Jeremiah the prophet about the coming of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to strike the land of Egypt: 'Declare in Egypt, and proclaim in Migdol; proclaim in Memphis and Tahpanhes; say, 'Stand ready and be prepared, for the sword shall devour around you.'" -- Jer 46:2, 13-14 ESV

"Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.." -- Jer 46:2 ESV

The biblical timeline for the 4th year of Jehoiakim is about 605 BC.  However, Ezekiel's prophecy occurred in the 10th year and 10 month of his captivity, which was about 597 BC:

"In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 'Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt;" -- Eze 29:1-2 ESV

"In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the Lord was upon me, and brought me thither." -- Eze 40:1 ESV

Therefore, Ezekiel was foretelling a future invasion of Egypt by the Chaldeans. But so was Jeremiah:

"Thus says the LORD, Behold, I will give Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those who seek his life, as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, who was his enemy and sought his life.'" -- Jer 44:30 ESV

The text says Pharaoh Hophra would be killed after the days of King Zedekiah. Combine that information with the invasion mentioned in Jeremiah 46:13-14 above reveals the invasion would also occur after the days of Zedekiah. That would place it after the destruction of the temple in 586BC, which was the 19th year of Nebuchadrezzar's reign:

"In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month--that was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon--Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  And he burned the house of the LORD and the king's house and all the houses of Jerusalem; every great house he burned down." -- 2Kin 25:8-9 ESV

Josephus said this about the invasion:

"when [Nebuchadnezzar] had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned [329] and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon." [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book X.9.7, Eze 30:10, pp.559-60]

"329 Herodotus says, this king of Egypt [Pharaoh Hophra, or Apries] was slain by the Egyptians, as Jeremiah  foretold his slaughter by his enemies, Jeremiah 44:29, 30, and that as a sign of the destruction of Egypt [by Nebuchadnezzar]. Josephus says, this king was slain by Nebuchadnezzar himself. " [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book X.9.7, fn329, Eze 30:10, p.560]

Those statements indicate the invasion occurred during the reign of Pharaoh Hophra.

  • Nebuchadrezzar fought Egypt in 605BC, in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah.
  • Nebuchadrezzar invaded Egypt after the captivity of Zedekiah, king of Judah -- after 586 BC.

The time of that invasion was approximately 564-565 BC, based in part on the following prophecy, and assuming the captivity of the Egyptians ended at or after the end of the captivity of Israel (Nebuchadrezzar died about 561 BC):

"therefore, behold, I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Cush. No foot of man shall pass through it, and no foot of beast shall pass through it; it shall be uninhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of desolated countries, and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them through the countries. For thus says the Lord GOD: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered, and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin, and there they shall be a lowly kingdom." -- Eze 29:10-14 ESV

This footnote provides other possibilities:

"The desolation that followed the invasion of Egypt was of long duration - a forty-year hiatus in the normal political life of the nation. There was for Egypt as there was for Judah, an exile, which left the land bleak and barren. For Judah the exile ended by degrees with a succession of returns of exiled Jews under Cyrus and his Persian successors. We assume that the Egyptian exile, as understood by Ezekiel, ended with the 525 B.C. arrival in Egypt of Cambyses, son and successor of Cyrus. Working backward from that date, and taking Ezekiel's figure of forty years literally, a tentative date around 565 B.C. is determined for the invasion. Other considerations lead us to reduce that figure by a single year. For the chronological revision that follows, the date 564 B.C. will be adopted as a working hypothesis." [Jim Reilly, "Displaced Dynasties - Nebuchadnezzars Wars." Displaced Dynasties, 2000, Eze 29:10, p.21]


The prophecy of Ezekiel 30:3 is not a prophecy of our future, but was fulfilled about 565 BC.  Improper exegesis of that and similar passages is typically based on the "desire" that the "great and dreadful day of the Lord" has not been fulfilled.  For example, later in the video, Pastor LeBoutillier said this:

"We don't refer to the first coming as the great and dreadful day of the Lord. That was the fun and exciting day of the Lord because it was the time of good news".

The first-century Christians who were persecuted and killed by the Jews, and the Jews who were slaughtered in Jerusalem, Jotapata, Joppa, and other cities throughout the Roman Empire may beg to differ. Jesus foretold that great slaughter:

"Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation." -- Luk 11:49-51 ESV

"Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.' O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!''" -- Luk 13:33-35 ESV

"Rejoice over [Babylon the Great], thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her . . . And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." -- Rev 18:20,24 KJV

The prophet Daniel foretold the Roman Empire to be "great" and "dreadful":

"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns." -- Dan 7:7 ESV

And of course, to the Egyptians, the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar's armies was also the "great and dreadful day of the Lord".



LXX, thank you. Did you know there are seminaries that teach evolution?

The Hebrews / Re: Hebrews 6:1-6. Those who fell away!
« on: October 12, 2017, 10:45:54 AM »

I interpreted that to be referring to the first century Christians who had received the awesome powers of the Holy Spirit, as foretold in Micah 7:15, and then fell away, perhaps by abusing or rejecting those powers.

Please share your insights.

Thank you for the invite, Dan.

Warnings against "falling away" seem to be commonplace in the epistles, even in those of Christ to the Christian churches in Asia:

"But I have this against you (Ephesus), that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent." -- Rev 2:4-5 ESV

"But I have a few things against you (Pergamum): you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth." -- Rev 2:14-16 ESV

"But I have this against you (Thyatira), that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come." -- Rev 2:20-25 ESV

"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. 'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.'" -- Rev 3:1-3 ESV

''I know your works (Laodicea): you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent." -- Rev 3:15-19 ESV

It certainly appears there was a lot of falling away in those Churches, one of which Paul addressed directly (Ephesus), and in which, according to the King James translators, Timothy was ordained as bishop:

"The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. [The second [epistle] unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.]" -- 2Tim 4:22 KJV

As mentioned, warnings against "falling away" are prevalent in other epistles. When reading these, assume you cannot "fall away" from something you never possessed:

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." -- Gal 5:4 ESV

"But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation." -- Jas 5:12 ESV

"Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall." -- 2Pet 1:10 ESV

"Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace." -- 2Pet 3:14 ESV

"You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability." -- 2Pet 3:17 ESV

There were many, many more, so much so that the primary purpose of the epistles appears to have been attempts to keep the early Christians from falling away.

Christ also foretold during his ministry that there would be a "falling away":

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another." -- Mat 24:9-10 ESV

I, like you, Dan, believe the falling away occurred among the first century Christians, primarily due to time statements (e.g., "this generation", "not taste of death", etc.) and the consistent expressions of imminence for the (first) judgment.


The Pauline Epistles / Re: Man of Sin
« on: October 12, 2017, 12:00:31 AM »

Faith, I never heard any of this before. Thank you. Everyone I know says there will be an Antichrist. How did that happen?

Daniel, I am not sure how it all started. The biblical term "antichrist" is given to anyone who denies that Jesus Christ (Jesus as the Christ or Messiah) came in the flesh -- and there were/are many:

"Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour." -- 1John 2:18 ESV
"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." -- 1John 2:22 ESV
"and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." -- 1John 4:3 ESV
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." -- 2John 1:7 ESV

The first characterization of the man of sin as "the antichrist" appears to have been penned by Irenaeus about 175-185 AD, possibly in this paragraph:

"And the Apostle Paul also, saying,"For though ye have served them which are no gods; ye now know God, or rather, are known of God," has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not." [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1913, Chap III.6.5, p. 420]

The few earlier writers present a more cautious, biblical interpretation. These are from two spurious works by Ignatius who possibly lived in the mid to late first century, followed by one from Polycarp who wrote about 150 AD:

"Chapter II. "Cautions against false teachers. Every one that teaches anything beyond what is commanded, though he be [deemed] worthy of credit, though he be in the habit of fasting, though he live in continence, though he work miracles, though he have the gift of prophecy, let him be in thy sight as a wolf in sheep's clothing, labouring for the destruction of the sheep. If any one denies the cross, and is ashamed of the passion, let him be to thee as the adversary himself. "Though he gives all his goods to feed the poor, though he remove mountains, though he give his body to be burned," let him be regarded by thee as abominable. If any one makes light of the law or the prophets, which Christ fulfilled at His coming, let him be to thee as antichrist. If any one says that the Lord is a mere man, he is a Jew, a murderer of Christ." [Roberts & Donaldson, Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1913, Chap II, p.113]

"Chapter V. "Denunciation of false teachers. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the [declaration of the] prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. Wherefore also he is unfruitful, like the wild myrtle-tree." [Roberts & Donaldson, Ignatius, Epistle to the Antiochians, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1913, Chap V, p.111]

"Chapter VII."Avoid the Docet", and persevere in fasting and prayer. "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;" and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation," as the Lord has said: 'The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.'" [Roberts & Donaldson, Epistle of Polycarp, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1913, Chap VII, p. 34-35]

The historical record of the Church between A.D. 70 and 150 is virtually non-existent. But what little is available shows no association of the man of sin and the word "antichrist" until Irenaeus, nor was Paul's phrase "son of perdition" mentioned before Irenaeus.

The letter of Paul is all we really have to go on, and he wrote of the restrainer as current to his day, and the man of sin as about to be revealed.


The Pauline Epistles / Re: Man of Sin
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:01:07 PM »

I found what he is talking about but why would is he trusting this writer when everyone says the man of sin is the antichrist in Revelations?

Not everyone says the Man of Sin is the "Antichrist" of the Revelation, Daniel, nor is the word "Antichrist" even found in the Revelation. Those claims about the so-called "Antichrist" are all interpretations.

There is no doubt that Psuedo-Hegesippus is non-canonical; but neither is Josephus, nor even Irenaeus who provides futurists with the only reference for a late-date of the book of the Revelation. So, let's turn to the instructions of Christ found in the Scripture:

"But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." -- Mat 18:16 ESV

In this case we have a multitude of witnesses, including a historical figure (Josephus), and a non-historical figure (Pseudo-Hegesippus). There is another historical figure, Yosippon, quoted by Ed Stevens, whom I know very little about, nor do I have access to his work, so I will use Mr. Stevens' references in my answer.

First, carefully examine this statement by Paul:

"Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day (of the Lord) will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction . . . For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." -- 2Th 2:7-8 ESV

I interpret that to mean the lawlessness of the Man of Sin was being restrained by someone at the time Paul wrote the letter. The lawlessness was already in the works, but the rebellion had to begin before the restrainer would be removed and Man of Sin would be revealed. We need to find out "who" was restraining "who", prior to the rebellion.  The second "who" must also fall within these parameters:

"who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." -- 2Th 2:4 ESV

Now to Josephus who wrote that there were some unsavory events in the city:

"I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus [the High Priest] was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city." [William Whiston, Wars of the Jews, "The Works of Flavius Josephus." David McKay, 1890, Book IV.5, 2Th 2:7, p.776]

"But on the next day the high priest was caught where he had concealed himself in an aqueduct; he was slain, together with Hezekiah his brother, by the robbers: hereupon the seditious besieged the towers, and kept them guarded, lest any one of the soldiers should escape. Now the overthrow of the places of strength, and the death of the high priest Ananias, so puffed up Manahem, that he became barbarously cruel; and as he thought he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant; but Eleazar and his party, when words had passed between them, how it was not proper when they revolted from the Romans, out of the desire of liberty, to betray that liberty to any of their own people, and to bear a lord, who, though he should be guilty of no violence, was yet meaner than themselves; as also, that in case they were obliged to set some one over their public affairs, it was fitter they should give that privilege to any one rather than to him; they made an assault upon him in the temple; for he went up thither to worship in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments, and had his followers with him in their armor." [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book II.17.9,  p.714]

"At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor (Captain, or "Sagan") of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner (the daily sacrifice). And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon. These relied much upon their multitude, for the most flourishing part of the innovators assisted them; but they had the chief regard to Eleazar, the governor of the temple." [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book II.17.2, pp.711-12]

Now to "Hegesippus" who expands on this part of Josephus' work:

"And so things having been despaired of Eleazarus the originator of the disturbance seeing nothing of a help to be left delivered this speech, which we as a mournful conclusion for finishing the work have not let pass in a rhetorical manner:"What are we to do, men descended from Abraham, a royal race, unconquerable by virtue of priestly favor? For not from the outcome of victory, which is frequently uncertain, but from the steadfastness of a way of life is character seen. From which it is permitted to conclude, because for the enemy to make us subject is fate, not to change your attitude of mind is the act of courage. Rightly therefore I have designated you unconquerable, if no fear of death has as yet conquered you. But not thus did father Abraham instruct you, who in his one son taught, his was not to be death but immortality, if he was sacrificed for his religion." [Pseudo-Hegesippus, "Hegesippus." Early Church Fathers, 370, Book V.53, 2Th 2:7, p.409]

"Eleazarus the son of the foremost of the priests a man of reckless boldness, persuaded that an offering or sacrifice of a foreigner should not be accepted, which was a trumpet call of war against the Romans and aroused everyone into an uproar. And so those who were most prominent seeing that this thing would be the cause of an abrupt withdrawal, stressed upon the people that not only war against Caesar would be invited but even the institution of religion would be violated and reverence for the temple would be diminished, the traditions of the fathers would be complained of and condemned, who from the offerings of foreigners decorated the temple, to which much more of wealth accrued from the contribution of nations and the gifts of separate and innumerable peoples, the sacred things of our ancestors would be forgotten, the sacred rites would be changed." [Pseudo-Hegesippus, "Hegesippus." Early Church Fathers, 370, Book II.10, 2Th 2:7, p.159]

And to Yosippon, according to Ed Stevens:

"As Yosippon indicates (Sefer Yosippon, Chapters 72, 75), Eleazar was the one who literally 'sat in the temple' controlling all the affairs of the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices, and used the Temple as his fortress during nearly the entire war, beginning in April AD 66, until just before Titus began the siege in AD 70 (about three and a half years). Eleazar took it upon himself to make changes in the Law and customs that had always been followed since the beginning of their nation. Thus, it appears that Eleazar may have been the Man of Lawlessness that Apostle Paul pointed to in his second letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:3-9)." [Edward E Stevens, "2014.03.30 Eleazar Blew the Horn AD 66." 2014, p.3]

There is another factor that should be considered, and that is the imminence spoke of by the Lord and all of his Apostles. For example, John said the winnowing fork, used for harvest, was already in the hand of the Lord:

"Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 'I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.'" -- Mat 3:10-12 ESV

Jesus confirmed John's prophecy by stating the fields were already ripe for harvest:

"Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest. Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, 'One sows and another reaps.' I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.'" -- John 4:35-38 ESV

Jesus said he would return before his disciples has visited all the cities of Israel:

"When they persecute you [disciples] in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." -- Mat 10:23 ESV

Jesus said some in his audience would still be alive to when he came in his kingdom:

"For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.'" -- Mat 16:27-28 ESV

Jesus said all the things he prophesied in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:1-33) would be fulfilled during his generation, which included him coming with his angels:

"Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other . . . Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. -- Mat 24:30-31, 34 ESV

So, when Paul said this:

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" -- 2Th 2:1-3 KJV

Paul is explaining that the Man of Sin will be revealed, and the Lord will return, while some of those he is writing are still alive.


The Pauline Epistles / Re: Man of Sin
« on: October 05, 2017, 10:55:24 PM »

Where did he get those quotes?

Daniel, he was quoting a fourth-century work called Pseudo-Hegesippus, available here:

The first reference, Heg 5.53, is found at the bottom this page:

And so forth. Eleazar is listed as Eleazarus in those books.


The Revelation / Re: The Destruction of Satan
« on: September 18, 2017, 08:13:49 PM »

I was not amused. That is what is called a "leading statement": a psychological trick that gives the impression that whosoever does not interpret those biblical passages the way Pastor Curtis interprets them does not believe the Bible.

I guess we all use leading statements from time to time, although some are more "in-your-face" than others. The following link reveals an extreme version where R. C. Sproul declares the concept of "free will" to be a "blasphemous doctrine":

As a devout "free-willer" and therefore a "blasphemer destined to hell" in the eyes of Sproul, perhaps my thermostat will be set a little lower now that I provided free advertisement for their sacred "The Calvinist" movie.

It seems that Sproul learned his approach to neighborly love from a reformed college course called In-Your-Face Arrogance 101, also catalogued as Limited Atonement 101, modeled along the lines of John Calvin's loving approach to identifying the heretic, which is, simply, "I am of the elect, and you disagree with me, so you must be a heretic". Judgment, after all, must begin at the House of Calvin, and only the Calvinist is worthy to enter those "hallowed" doors.

Don't think of me as so proud that I will not gladly repent from spreading the "blasphemous" doctrine of "free will" if someone can convince me that John the Baptist and Christ did not mean "repent" when they preached "repent". If that is too difficult, how about demonstrating the concepts of "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace" in this statement by Peter:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." -- 2Pet 3:9 KJV

Perhaps we should let Mr. Calvin interpret that short verse, himself:

"But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way [isn't that called free-will?].

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

There you have it, folks, from the "master" himself. Few have ever had the skill to take so few clean and clear words of the Lord and muddy them up like that. Aren't you glad you don't have to jump through those kinds of hoops to justify your "blasphemous" doctrine?


Prophets: Isaiah - Daniel / Re: Exegesis of Ezekiel 38-39 Gog and Magog
« on: September 15, 2017, 10:48:34 PM »

The common interpretation of those verses is the destruction of Jerusalem, or some event in the distant future. But this verse places the fulfillment prior to the day of Pentecost:

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:" -- Joel 2:28 KJV

Thanks, Rev. I can see from that statement that I need to spend more time in Joel. The LXX reads the same, so I cannot hide behind the translation:

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." -- Joel 2:28 LXX


The Gospels / Re: Sequencing the Olivet Discourse
« on: September 15, 2017, 10:38:17 PM »

So when Jesus says "the stars shall fall from heaven", maybe he means something like this occurs:

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." -- Rev 12:7-9 KJV

The stars in the right hand of the angel of the Lord are also angels:

"Write therefore the things which thou sawest, and the things which are, and the things which shall come to pass hereafter; the mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks are seven churches." -- Rev 1:19-20 RV

Why was that considered a mystery, unless the Lord was telling us how to interpret the word "stars"?



In the Featured Sermon on on BRT web site, Dr. John MacArthur presents an example of staking a claim on that prophecy,

The words he emphasized, "chosen race", seems bizarre when talking about the Gentiles.  The Gentiles were not chosen for anything, nor are they a race.


The Pauline Epistles / Re: Man of Sin
« on: September 15, 2017, 10:03:03 PM »
I never heard that before.  I always heard he was the antichrist.

Daniel, none of that is written in stone. But it seems reasonable to interpret Paul's statement about the "restrainer" as someone alive at that time.


The Pauline Epistles / Re: Man of Sin
« on: September 15, 2017, 06:07:42 PM »

I am new to the forum and I am hoping for a better understanding of the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2.

I doubt anyone knows, but there are two "time stamps" that indicate a first century fulfillment:

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," -- 2Th 2:1-3 ESV

Paul and his audience were expecting an imminent return of Christ, but not before the rebellion. The rebellion of the Jews against the Romans was in full bloom by the time Cestius Gallus arrived with his armies in A.D. 66:

"But now Cestius, observing that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, took his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight, and pursued them to Jerusalem." [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Book II.19.4, p.719]

Paul also indicated the man of sin was alive and being restrained at the time of his letter:

"Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way." -- 2Th 2:5-7 ESV

There was a good candidate for the man of sin in one Eleazar ben Ananias, the son of the (former?) high priest Ananias, and the leader of one of the three rival factions of Jews who were maneuvering for power. You may recollect that Ananias was the one who ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth (Acts 23:2). When Ananias was killed by one of the other two factions, Eleazar went rogue, as referenced here: 

"Hegesippus claims that it was this very same Eleazar (ben Ananias) who was "the originator" of the rebellion (Heg. 5:53). Eleazar then seized control of the temple and used it as his fortress (in violation of the Law) from that point forward [Wars 2.424 (2.17.5); Yos. 61; Heg. 2:10; 5:1]. A few days after this, the angelic armies were seen in the clouds over Palestine, signaling that the Son of Man had arrived to begin His judgment and wrath out-pouring (April-May AD 66).

"A few months later, Eleazar illegally stopped the daily sacrifices of all Gentiles (Aug AD 66). This was totally unprecedented and lawless in the extreme. Never (before) had Gentile sacrifices and offerings been refused. At the very time God was grafting the Gentiles into His Church, the Zealots were breaking off all religious ties with the Gentiles--quite a contrast!" [Edward E Stevens, "2014.03.30 Eleazar Blew the Horn AD 66." 2014, p.2]

If we assume the "restrainer" was Eleazar's father, then Eleazar becomes the "perfect" candidate for the man of sin.


David to Babylon / Re: Ye are Gods?
« on: September 05, 2017, 09:00:52 PM »
Pastor David Curtis came out with a new video on the Psalms 82 phrase, "Ye are Gods", that Jesus quoted in a John 10:31-42 discourse:

I watched that in Youtube, by clicking the Youtube icon, so I could browse the boards while listening. This video on the same subject auto-played next:


Septuagint / Re: New Testament Quotes From the Septuagint
« on: September 01, 2017, 08:05:10 AM »
This may be a little off topic, but I can think of an NT verse that is not in the LXX:

John was possibly quoting from the MT, or its precursor

There is an article mentioned in the "Research Library Tutorial 09 Strongs Concordance & the Septuagint" by Manachem Cohen that states the Jews were not restricted to one manuscript:

Many footnotes from the article were available in the Beta Test Version of the Research Library:

"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dating from c. 150 BCE-75 CE, shows that in this period there was not always the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed in later centuries. According to Menachem Cohen, the Dead Sea scrolls decided these issues 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'. The scrolls show numerous small variations in orthography, both as against the later Masoretic text, and between each other. It is also evident from the notings of corrections and of variant alternatives that scribes felt free to choose according to their personal taste and discretion between different readings."

"The existence of tens of thousands of variants in text-traditions of the Bible should be cause for wonder-why didn't scholars and sages of that period point to this reality as a fundamental religious problem, for it seems to contradict the accepted historic notion of a single sanctified text? How could textual multiplicity be compatible with faith in the accuracy of the Masoretic transmission? A short discussion of the issue is appropriate before we examine the stand Judaism takes today on the subject of textual corrections in the Bible."

"It can also now be proven beyond doubt that the author of Chronicles used a version of Samuel different from the MT and closer to the Lucianic version of the Septuagint, whose Hebrew prototype was found at Qumran."

"Establishing this sort of version involves a battle not only against the rejected texttypes, but also against many texts of the MT group itself -- those which have alternate spellings, changes in prepositional prefixes, differing grammatical forms, etc. Since we are speaking of a precise letter-sequence, propagating the Authorized Text was dependent upon the actual availability of the one precise text and expertise in identifying this one proper version. As will be seen, during the lengthy period of manual text-transmission until the first printed editions were produced, these conditions were never more than partially fulfilled." [Cohen, Menachem, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text." 1979, p.8]

That dispels at least one of the myths.


Noah's Flood / Re: Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6?
« on: August 31, 2017, 08:59:10 PM »
This is a very nice forum, Dan.  Thanks for setting it up for us.

I have listened to many videos by Michael Heiser on this and related subjects. One thing I have not heard him address is the LXX and the MT have "sons of God" in Genesis 6, but in Job the MT has "sons of God" while the LXX has "angels" and "angels of God":

"And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them." -- Job 1:6 LXX
"And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord." -- Job 2:1 LXX
"Where wast thou when I founded the earth? tell me now, if thou hast knowledge . . . When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." -- Job 38:4,7 LXX

Do you know of anyone who has discussed this?


Pages: [1]