Download Category: Scripture

IN THE CORRESPONDENCE COLUMNS OF BACONIANA OF JANUARY 1948, there appeared a letter on the above subject from Earle Cornwall. In it he says:

Here of late I have been reading a bound volume or two of the Baconian booklets, two years earlier Baconiana Magazine, and the Life of Alice Bamham and Thos. Meautys, all from curiosity concerning Bacon’s life. He was surely a fascinating character. I have as yet no “Life” of Bacon.

Somewhere I have seen one of those short references to his connection with the translation and publication of King James* Holy Bible, 1611—at least the statement that he had some connection with this great work. Yet in my recent search I cannot find any reference whatever to Bacon and the Bible: if he was connected with it he should have credit.

OFTEN HEARD IN THE CHURCHES OF OUR LAND IS THE REFRAIN SUNG ABOUT THE SAVIOUR, “There’s something about that name–” In our English-speaking world we have been taught that the saving name of the Redeemer of Israel is “Jesus.” So accepted is this name that few stop to consider its authenticity.

But the truth is, there is indeed “something about that Name.” That “something” is the inescapable fact that the Savior’s name is not Jesus, and never was. What’s more, the Name of the Heavenly Father is not Jehovah, a designation that is only five centuries old.

Churchianity has so thoroughly immersed the world in the error of this tradition for the past 500 years that few even think to research the matter or to consider the consequences of calling on the wrong name. As a result, most continue believing that the Hebrew Savior is called by a Latinised Greek name that could not possibly have existed at the time He walked the earth. It’s a name that would have been completely foreign to Him.

Eminent French historian, scholar, and archaeologist Ernest Renan acknowledges that the Savior was never in His lifetime called “Jesus.” In his book, The Life of Jesus, Renan doubts that the Savior even spoke Greek (p. 90). Greek was mostly the language of business and commerce n cosmopolitan circles. As for the Father’s Name, the hybrid “Jehovah” came into existence through the ignorance of Christian writers who did not understand the Old Testament Hebrew. Credit for the error is given to Petrus Galatinus, confessor to Pope Leo X in the 16th century.

FROM TIME TO TIME I get e-mails asking why the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally. One of the reasons is that the scripture itself makes this clear. I’ve decided to provide the scriptural reasons themselves all in one post so I can refer people to it. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it gets the point across.

Old Testament Scriptures

1) Psalms 78:2: “I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old.”

Dark sayings of old are ancient teachings in the forms of riddles and parables. The Biblical writers call them “dark” because the meanings are hidden, or concealed. They are meant to figure out through careful meditation, prayer, and contemplation.

Why would the Lord speak to us like this? The answer is provided in the following scripture.

Is God’s Name Jehovah?
By
Charue H. Campbell

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES INSIST THAT GOD’S NAME (YHWH in the ancient Hebrew manuscript copies of the Old Testament) is supposed to be pronounced “Jehovah.” So persuaded are they about this, they believe they are the only church (organization) that has God’s favour because they are the only ones who consistently call God by this name. Yet, Jewish and Christian scholars, who are thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament Hebrew language and how to pronounce Hebrew words, make it clear that the Hebrew word YHWH is more accurately pronounced “Yahweh” (Yaw-Way) rather than “Jehovah.”

Richard Abanes, a nationally recognized authority on cults and religions, points out that:

The origin of the word Jehovah can be traced to the late Middle Ages (around the year 1500), when Jewish scribes began inserting the vowels from the Hebrew word adonai (“my Lord”) into the name YHWH. The insertion resulted in the hybrid term YaHoWaH. Scribes wanted this new word to remind readers that God’s name was too holy to pronounce, so they should substitute adonah for it when reading biblical passages aloud.

Then, when the term YaHoWaH was Latinised, the “Y” and “W” were changed to “J” and “V”—resulting in Jehovah. In other words, Jehovah is a mistransliteration, compounded by the fact that, while “J” has a “Y” sound in Latin, it has a very different sound in English—as in the word jam. Jehovah appears in no literature earlier than about the thirteenth century, and it began to be popularised in the sixteenth century by well-meaning but mistaken Christians. (Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, p. 19, 83)

IN THIS LAODICEAN CHURCH AGE IN WHICH WE LIVE, we see the Scriptures of Truth under increasing assault from the forces of Modernism and self-styled Higher Criticism. The Virgin Birth, miraculous ministry and even the Resurrection of our Lord are questioned by our leading Churchmen and the faith of many is being daily undermined. We, in the Israel-identity movement, who accept the National Historicist interpretation of the Prophetic Scriptures have however,” —a more sure word of prophecy–-” which, says Peter” —shineth in a dark place until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts”. (II Peter 1 V. 19).

We know that Almighty God in His sovereign plan and purpose, allowed the knowledge of our Israel-identity to come to the fore at just that period of time when Modernism began to arise and had our message been accepted by the Evangelicals, faith in God and His Word would have been re-established and confirmed. There is no doubt, whatsoever, but that prophecy fulfilled in history constitutes the most convincing proof of the Inspiration and Inerrancy of God’s Word; this can be well illustrated by a study of one of the least known of the so-called Minor Prophets – Nahum.

Who was Nahum?

The meaning of names was of great significance to the ancient Israelites and the name “Nahum” means ‘consoler’ or ‘comforter’. We are told little about him except that in the opening verse of his book, he is described as an Elkoshite. Whilst Nahum ministered in Judah, some Bible scholars suggest that Elkosh may have been a village in the area of Galilee, and they point out that the town of Capernaum, the centre of Christ’s ministry means the ‘village of Nahum’, and that, therefore, the birth place of the prophet may have been nearby. There is also said to have been a town called Elkosh, twenty miles north of Nineveh the object of Nahum’s prophecy and some have suggested that he may have been of the Ten Tribes of Israel carried away captive by the Assyrians.

NKJV Bible is counterfeit translation – The History of the English Bible

THE FIRST HAND‑WRITTEN ENGLISH LANGUAGE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE WERE PRODUCED IN 1380’S AD BY OXFORD THEOLOGIAN JOHN WYCLIFF (WYCLIFFE). Curiously, he was also the inventor of bifocal eyeglasses. Wycliff spent many of his years arguing against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. Though he died a non-violent death, the Pope was so infuriated by his teachings that 44 years after Wycliff had died, he ordered the bones to be dug‑up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450’s, and the first book to ever be printed was the Bible. It was, however, in Latin rather than English. With the onset of the Reformation in the early 1500’s, the first printings of the Bible in the English language were produced. illegally and at great personal risk of those involved. William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of reformers, and was their spiritual leader.

He worked most of his translating years alone, but had help from time to time as God discerned he needed it. Indirectly, he had the help of Erasmus in the publication of his Greek/Latin New Testament printed in 1516. Erasmus and the great printer, scholar, and reformer John Froben published the first non‑Latin Vulgate text of the Bible in a millennium. Latin was the language for centuries of scholarship and it was understood by virtually every European who could read or write.

Scholars and the Second Advent

The following extracts are taken from “Notes of Recent Exposition” which appeared in the March 1953 issue of “The Expository Times”.
(pp. 161, 162)

WE WERE RECENTLY SURVEYING SOME OF THE MOST NOTABLE PUBLICATIONS in the last year or two– What struck us most vividly was not simply the renascence of eschatology but the revival of interest in what is commonly called “the Second Advent”.

Fifty years ago, or even less, our pundits took a different view. If they did not seek to get rid of the doctrine altogether on the ground that it was no part of the permanent message of Christ and His apostles, they skated over the subject in the most perfunctory manner.

Now, our theological leaders seem to be resolved that we take the idea very seriously indeed. Part of the reason for the renewed interest in eschatology is no doubt the fact that we have been living through apocalyptic times, when the very foundations of our civilisation have been profoundly shaken.

Part of the reason also is the fact that our New Testament scholars have proved that the apostolic gospel is shot through with eschatology so that the man who refuses the eschatological key cannot begin to understand it aright. And part of the reason is the fact that with the advent of the A and. (still more) the H bomb, the end of the world has become, for many minds, a live possibility. At any rate, our theologians are determined that as Christians we should give more serious thought to the ideas of the end of the world and the coming of Christ––

“Our ministers, so far from preaching often about the Second Advent, tend in choosing hymns to fight shy of those which sing about it–-“It appears to us, therefore, that one of the major theological tasks before the Church is that of rethinking the whole issue of Christian eschatology.

PREFACE.

This is called “free Inquiry,” because it is strictly such : the subject with which it deals being entirely an open question, and the investigation of it being con- ducted with all due deference (I trust) to prejudices which it may disturb, but without any appeal to mere authority, whether of the early Church or the modern. In some parts of the work the ground has been broken by others, and I have of course availed myself of the advantage of their labours. The chronology, for example, has been learnedly explored by Browne, in his Ordo Sæclorum, a book frequently referred to in the course of this Inquiry. But I have not simply followed Browne. A mistake of his, in one important point, led me to work out the whole scheme de novo et ab ovo. The result has been that, with the exception of this one point, I find my effort to harmonize in the main with his, and so far as the principle is concerned to be more than corroborative of his remarkable conclusions.
In that part of the work which will be the newest to most readers, and in which I may have to entreat them to “strike, but hear,” the leading idea is one familiar to the early Church. It does not appear, however, that it was ever subjected to a rigorous scientific examination.
As to the connection between these parts, the application of mystic numbers as a key to sacred dates, I do not know whether any one has been before me. The famous Mirandula professed to have found the secret of Spiritual Arithmetic but what he made of the subject, or whether he put his discoveries to the severe proof of connecting them with Chronology, I have not been able to ascertain. Hoping the effort may be useful, at least in calling attention to an interesting subject, I submit it to the judgment of the candid and thoughtful reader.

M. Mahan.
General Theological Seminary, N. Y., June 9th, 1863.

IN the following biographical sketches of the more famous women of Israel an attempt has been made to supply what can hardly be said to exist already: a short historical work which might enable the reader of the Bible to realize that the women of both the Old and New Testaments were characters worthy of our highest esteem and very little removed in feeling and thought from ourselves. If this little work has any real value it is as a picture of manners and customs, a drama in which the personages are living characters and not mere historical names.

In the beginning woman was the equal of man in every respect; in patriarchal times she had an independence surpassing even today, and was entrusted with the administration of her husband’s property as well as her own.

The women of heathen nations were the first to lose this independence which was retained by the women of Israel until the captivities. Upon the return of the Jewish captives from Babylon to Palestine a marked change is discernible; family life was never again the same. The women of both Houses of Israel had become degraded to the level of the women of their captors, and a woman was viewed by her husband as a mere chattel and his slave.

Perhaps no better illustration of the gradual decline in the status of women of ancient times could be found than that to be seen in the Gizeh Museum, near Cairo. Here there is displayed a long line of Egyptian monarchs in stone; at the end where the most ancient were placed the queen sat by the side of the king, of equal size and importance. A few centuries down the line the queen is found to be smaller than the king; progressing farther down the line the queen is found to be much smaller and to sit on a lower level than the king.

Lastly, the queen is no longer carved out of a stone block, she is merely sketched in portraiture on the stool upon which the king sat or upon the arm of his throne.

THE ORIGIN OR INVENTION OF LETTERS IS A SUBJECT that has frequently engaged the attention and researches of learned men, and as often defied their power to explain, with any considerable amount of probability and satisfaction. The several alphabets of the known world, indeed, exhibit that mutual similarity of form, which fully warrants them in assigning to the whole class one common source; but that source is apparently sought for in every place except where, we are persuaded, it can alone be found.

It has been very much the fashion hitherto to depreciate the literature and traditions of the Cymry; yet we can confidently assert that in them lie treasures which would amply compensate for any amount of trouble that may be taken in arriving at them. The patient and-impartial study of Welsh lore will assuredly tend to throw no inconsiderable light upon the science and mythology of all nations.

Even the sacred Tetragrammaton of the Hebrews, taken by itself, is perfectly inexplicable—we cannot see how it represents the great I AM, and wherefore it is invested with extraordinary terror—or why it may not be pronounced or revealed. But the origin and reason of all this are discovered to us in the Bardic traditions. There we learn that God created the world by the melodious threefold utterance of His Holy Name—and that the form or figure of that Name was /1\ , being the rays of the rising sun at the equinoxes and the solstices converging into a focus—“the eye of light.” These rays, we are informed, according to the influence which the sun has upon the earth at the different seasons which they represent, show God in His various characters as a Creator, a Preserver, and a Destroyer.