The Little Stone of Daniel 2 * Temperal Vatican Papal State to End Soon

Dear Daniel

As far as the outcome or the truth of Daniel chapter 2 is concerned it does not matter whether King Neb. remembered the dream or not, does it?

However" Also my understanding of the stone that grows is the stone represents the Kingdom of God which will destroy all of other earthly kingdoms. "

This sentence should be examined. Does the dream say that the stone would bring down "all the kingdoms of the world?" Or does it say it will bring down four kingdoms and their structure represented by the statue?

That does not mean that there are not other places in the Bible that teach that Jesus will overcome all his enemies in historical time. But that Neb.'s dream is limited to these four empires and their destruction in the fourth and the system associated with it which was started by and passed on by the Babylonians.

The statue represents not only the four kingdoms but also the ethos strenghtened by Nebuchadnezzar that was passed on to the three succeeding kingdoms making it world wide, and would be brought down with the demise of the fourth . The Paganism of the Babylonians was passed on to all those symbolized and come to its end with the struggle with the ethic of Jesus at the time of Constantine when after 300 years of persecution the moral ethic of Jesus overcame was accepted as the truth in the Western World until 1963. Thus chapter 2 in Daniel reached to the end of the Roman Empire and not to the end of the world.

That means that the little stone's appearance and continuation in History is in the past and not to be expected to show up for the first time in the future.

Most of the orthodox denominations accept that the little stone is the church of Christ established some time in the summer of 30 AD and came into conflict with the Roman Empire which ultimately expired and with it the predominance of paganism in the civilized world which condition existed until about 1963 when Satan was loosed from his chains to deceive the nations again, but not the church nor the Christians.

Other fringe groups like the JW's Mormons, Seventh Day folk and many evangelicals of the "Left Behind" persuasion do not see the church of Christ as the Kngdom of God, which it is.

The same four empires are pictured as animals (beasts) in Daniel 7 and the predictions there extend the the parcelling of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms and the rise of an antichrist kingdom. (If the Ten horns are kingdoms as almost all seem to agree then the little horn is a kingdom as well and not a person.) He has a period of time given to his tenure. In Daniel it is "time, times and half a time" The same figure is given in Revelation as well as 1260 days and fourty two months and three and a half years.. They all represent the same 1260. The year in which the symbol was first given was 360 days, 3 1/2 X 360 = 1260; 42 x 30 = 1260.


The restoration of the pagan ethic (1963 to the present) and the rejection of the ethics of Jesus that held sway in the Western World for about 1600 years marks us as being close to but not at the end. There is more... "Then shall the saints take the kingdom." and "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our LORD and of His Christ. That will ne history some day.

Many historical interpreters believe the reign of the temporal Papal State combining the authority of Earthly political power with assumed heavenly power began in 533 and the first blow (of seven) to limit that power came in 1793, which end the 1260 day-years of prophecy. The first vial of the last seven was poured out at that time and the demise of the Vatican State lost power by degrees until the present weakened unrepentent condition of their spurious false claim to Statehood. One blow left and the Vatican State, not to say the Roman church, will join other states in the dust bin of history.

If you are interested in a more in-depth study of these same thigs covering Dan 2, abd 7 and Revelation 13 which is built on the seventh chapter of Daniel you can find it here: http://www.moellerhaus.com/rev666.htm

all the best

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from your presence; and do not take your
Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation;
and uphold me with your free spirit.

Fred P Miller
10 Valley Drive
Carrollton, GA 30117
770 214 0627
Cell 770 880 8089
www.moellerhaus.com
Blog: http://moellerhaus.blogspot.com
Please visit Charlotte's paintings and art
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/charlt.htm

Hello Mr. Miller,

I thank you for you insight comments about the Euphrates River and the beginning of the divided kingdom between the northern and southern tribes. I hope you did have a nice Christmas, I do have to admit it is really hard for me to focus at times on the true "reason for the season," but at least I have noticed that people tend to be more giving and selfless, some of them anyways. But I wish I would get less caught up in who I need to buy gifts for and more in the fact that I'm supposed to be celebrating a really special event. I have been reading in the book of Daniel about the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the "great image," that he saw in Daniel chapter 2. I have a couple of questions. I was under the impression that Nebuchadnezzar was troubled by a dream that he had forgotten and for that reason he called his magicians, astrologers, etc. to tell him the dream and then interpret his dream for him. But now that I am reading it again, a footnote attached to the King James version that I have (actually I saw it first in one of my Spanish versions and then I looked it up also in my English King James version) for verse 5. "The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, the thing is gone from me: if you will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation.... A footnote referencing the phrase "gone from me," in verse 5 says, Persian: sure with me, then whoever added the footnotes then explains a little, "i.e. he knew his dream and desired to test them." So now that I am reading this chapter again and thinking somewhat in the matter, that does make some sense to me, as the king complains in verse 7 about the Chaldeans, "would gain the time," which seems to me that the Chaldeans are trying to stall to gain time, and in verse 9 the king says; "for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me." So I can believe that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to have his dream interpreted, but wasn't totally convinced that his Magicians & Astrologers, etc. would be able to give him the correct interpretation and for that reason he wanted them to tell him his dream first so that way he could feel sure that he would be getting the correct interpretation of his dream instead of being told, "lies and corrupt words." I've read other translations that use the verb to forget in verse 5. Do you feel that to forget or what I quoted before; "the thing is gone from me," is a bad translation or a confusing translation in that verse? Knowing that Nebuchadnezzar remembered his dream fairly well makes a difference as opposed to, I dreamed something, now I feel bothered, and now I want to know what I dreamed about. I easily believe that the king of Babylon didn't really believe in or trust his court magicians, chaldeans, astrologers, and wise men, that they really truly had those special powers that they claimed to have or if they weren't just going to tell him something he wanted to hear. Another thing, I have a question about the dream itself. He saw an image that makes me think of a humanoid, with a head, chest, legs, etc. As a side note, I will have to say that I am favorably impressed with the humility of Daniel in verse 30. Back to the dream, so a humanoid figure made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay destroyed or perhaps crushed into dust by a stone cut out of a mountain without hands that then grows into a mountain. The image of a person apparently represents worldly kingdoms, the Babylonians is one of them for sure, along with perhaps the Persians, Greeks, Romans. Also my understanding of the stone that grows is the stone represents the Kingdom of God which will destroy all of other earthly kingdoms. Okay, but what I really don't understand is the part of the image with feet of clay and iron. I don't understand that, really. The fact that the feet are made out of clay and iron, some kind of divided kingdom that is partially strong due to the iron and partially fragile due to the clay. So feet and toes made out of clay and iron, maybe I just don't understand, but what kind of divided kingdom is strong and fragile (Daniel 2: 41 -43)? Human alliances, but they don't mix together. Well, definitely an interesting chapter, so did Nebuchadnezzar remember his dream or not, and I'm confused about the feet and toes made out of clay and iron. I will have to say that I do find the Old Testament more interesting now that I understand it better. I feel that a lot of that has to do with my studies of your book of Isaiah. I wish you a prosper 2011.


Respectfully Yours,

Daniel

Hebrew Pronunciation of Jesus' Name

Tim

Your question about the right Hebrew spelling of the name of Jesus or Yeshua.

I am not convinced that getting the "correct" pronunciation of a Hebrew name is all that important nor does the correct pronumciation carry any revelation with it.

And - Also -Importantly - Biblical Hebrew was (is not now) a tonal language. If you look at a Hebrew Masoretic text of the Scriptures you will find 10 or so added markings for vowels added by the masoretes. Masorah means traditional. Different vowel sounds change the meaning of a word. Thus, just in case the proper vowel pronunciation might be lost the masoretic scholars added vowels for what they believed was the traditional and correct reading. For vowels they were probably right most of the time but they were human so their choices are subject to discussion in some cases. However We are dependent on fifth and sixth century Jews (who rejected Jesus as the Messiah) for being able to read the Hebrew text. The unpointed text would be indecipherable to most scholars including Modern-Hebrew speaking scholars. There are just too many possibilities to get it right if those who memorized and, from generation to generation, orally transmitted the masorah, had not developed marks to indicate proper vowel, accent and tone. Modern-Hebrew is a close relative to Biblical Hebrew but it has a much different grammar.

In the masoretic text, beside vowel points, there are about 35 other marks added to indicate kind of accent and probably tones.

There are no forms for tense-time in Biblical Hebrew. There are no forms for subjunctive mode in Biblical Hebrew. At this time these grammatical concepts must be determined by the context. Thus there is disagreement in rendering the tense time of a verb depending on the translaters doctrinal position.

One good example of this among many, many, is Zechariah 8:3 "Thus says the LORD; I am returned to Zion" If you believe as I do that the passage is announcing the return of the Shekina to the Second Temple then the KJV is correct. However if you are a "Futurist" you will follow the NIV and translate "I will (or shall) return to Zion."

Is one of them wrong? No! the tense time depends on the context and therefore the translation is subject to interpretation because there is no tense-time forms in Biblical Hebrew. But, since the concepts of time and subjunctive are a part of any language, they had to be a part of Biblical Hebrew, that is now lost. I believe the tones that are understood only partially by only a few of the current Hebrew scholars would have indicated these concepts.

Like saying the English slang word "yeah." Depending on the tone of voice in English, you might be agreeing with something, or you might be (depending on the tone), expressing extreme doubt.

Thus getting the pronunciation of a name right is an exercise in furility. Getting the pronunciation of a verb correct however will determine whether your doctrinal position is right or wrong.

There are other reasons,in changing spelling, and not being right or wrong, in the pronunciation or vowel pointing of a Hebrew name in the masoretic text. The place of the name in the sentence, whether it is subject or object, and what sounds go before and after, whether it has sufformatives or preformatives added to the word are a few of the reasons the same Hebrew word or name will have a different vowel spelling.

Also; Tim - the question that you asked indicates that you know only a little of the Holy language. I recommend that you take some college level courses in this language. It is a very simple language. But it takes about four years to see the simplicity.

All the best en el nombre de Jesu Christo
o en ho onoma Iasou Christou

Islam and Sharia Law in the USA

Many Muslims have come to the USA because they enjoy the freedom guaranteed by our Constitution which could not be enjoyed by them in their countries of origin. If indeed they are here for that reason then they ought to be required to publically renounce Sharia Law. How can we non-islamic citizens be required to trust or respect them othewise? Imagine Sharia Law excusing a parent or relative for physically injuring or killing a daughter or sister for refusing to marry a man or leaving an abusive husband chosen by the relative. Imagine justifying killing a former Muslim who chooses to convert from Islam to another religion. If Muslims want ordinary non-muslim citizens to trust and respect their right of religious freedom then let them publically renounce Sharia Law. Let them accept publically the right of personal choice in religious matters. Let that begin with the leaders of the proposed Mosques in Manhattan and Murfreesboro, TN. How can we trust them otherwise? Let Mr Obama be the first to ratify this idea or quit supporting Islam publically.

Let them also renounce the absolutely offensive doctrine that men will enjoy endless physical sex with unlimited virgins for eternity. What an evil doctrine! How does that sound in light of Islamic claims of equality of the sexes? I can not think that any non-muslim woman could see equality in eternity in that perverted doctrine. At present Muslim women dare not, without fear, renounce that ugly doctrine which means enslavement in eternity and thus here too.

The Song of Solomon: A Drama

SONG OF SONGS

Dead Sea Scrolls hoax

Today an article on Yahoo.com reads:

"The scrolls include the earliest known version of portions of the Hebrew Bible and have shed important light on Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity." (Full text of the article here)

Except for Isaiah and Habakkuk there is very little of Hebrew Bible in the scrolls. Most items are fragments many hardly bigger than a postage stamp.

John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were unique teachers and there is nothing in the scrolls relating to them. Some "scholars" have made money making allegations, but they are far fetched and have been disproved.

Many scholars say the scrolls were assembled by a sect known as the Essenes. Others - including University of Chicago professor Norman Golb, Raphael Golb's father - say the writings were the work of a range of Jewish groups and communities.

The origin of the scrolls is suspect. There are too many medieval markings in the scrolls to discount. I have some of them cataloged under "Controversial Marks." If interested you can see some of them here.

Also, check here and scroll to the end of the page.

Pediphile Priests not limited to 2010

The following was written in Feb. 26 2007

except for Peter who was a bishop in Babylon but no doubt died in Rome, the rest of the first six men listed as Popes in your list may have been bishops of Rome but they made no claim to being the head of all the churches. Historical facts seem clear that there was no fusion of the authority of Spiritual and the temporal or what is known as the Temporality until Justinian in the 6th century. While Constantinople remained in the Catholic community and were participants in the first seven councils they did not a ccept the superiority of the Bishop of Rome over "all the churches."

However in some things I accept the moral superiority of Roman Catholic influence over the secular demon that now holds sway over western civilization. The Roman church held the line on abortion and properly taught that human life begins at the moment of conception. This too while evangelical protestants thought it was a political issue rather than a moral issue and had to be taught by their Roman Catholic friends and who eventually (most of them) adopted the thinking of the Roman church on this issue.

The principles confronting the Roman church on homosexuality are under assault. I hope they can not only hold the moral ground on the issue but get their priesthood cleansed from the sexual sins plaguing the system world wide.

Albert Barnes on Rev 19 written before 1850


And out of the mouth of the false prophet. The word rendered false prophet--qeudoprofhtou--does not before occur in the book of Revelation, though the use of the article would seem to imply that some well-known power or influence was referred to by this. Compare Barnes on "Re 10:3". The word occurs in other places in the New Testament, Mt 7:15; 24:11,24; Mr 13:22; Lu 6:26; Ac 13:6; 2Pe 2:1; 1Jo 4:1; and twice elsewhere in the book of Revelation, with the same reference as here, Re 19:20; 20:10. In both these latter places it is connected with the "beast." "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet." "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are." It would seem then to refer to some power that was similar to that of the beast, and that was to share the same fate in the overthrow of the enemies of the gospel. As to the application of this, there is no opinion so probable as that it alludes to the Mohammedan power--not strictly the Turkish power, for that was to be "dried up" or to diminish; but to the Mohammedan power as such, that was still to continue for awhile in its rigour, and that was yet to exert a formidable influence against the gospel, and probably in some combination, in fact, if not in form, with Paganism and the Papacy. The reasons for this opinion are,

(a) that this was referred to in the former part of the book is one of the formidable powers that would arise, and that would materially affect the destiny of the world--and it may be presumed that it would be again referred to in the account of the final consummation- see Re 9:1-11;

(b) the name "false prophet" would better than any other describe has that power, and would naturally suggest it in future times--for to no one that ever appeared in our world could the name be so properly applied as to Mohammed;

Ordinary Islam Fosters Terrorism

Islam fosters terrorism. The religion itself is of human origin and archaic. Medieval violence and ugly hatred is imbedded in the religion. It is oppressive to women and any free thought.

The youth in Iran want to over throw the oppression and seek secular freedom. Islam in general itself is in the way of that proper attitude. The God of creation has allowed freedom to choose good or evil for your self in this life until the day of the Great Divide. Then the "blessed and only Potentate" will make the final decisions. At this point you can love him or hate him without impunity. Islam has no such doctrine of freedom of speech or thought for the enemy.

I have been writing and speaking for more than 20 years that Islamic nations will open to religious and political freedom in the season we are living in. The Wahabi militants will not let that happen without murder and mayhem and worse of all is that a majority of so called moderate Islamists condone and intellectually justify the method of murdering working class bus riders and countless children to make their religious-political point.

Just now in the USA our media is beginning to insist on describing the hate filled muslims as "Fundamental Islamist terrorists" instead of the generic term "terrorist" as though terrorist acts are not 99% the product of muslims in Algeria, Somolia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi, Russia, Palestine, etc. etc. And several now see the terrorist war as an ideological struggle of resurgent Islam with the goal to spread its ugly sharia to every "infidel" nation in the world. The Mosque is the center for hate and destruction, it is inherent in the religion. It will not go away until the religion changes.

This struggle will get worse before it gets better and in all likelihood some one involved in the "Holy Jihad" will detonate an atomic device in a Western city and murder millions to make a point for their false, ungodly, and unholy religion. OK , not every doctrine or cultural expression is bad. So down with the worse! i.e. the Koran, and Mohammed. I am not naive.

King Arthur Tour: Joseph of Armethea

The legend says that Joseph of Armethea was uncle of Jesus of Nazareth and he was also a business man and trader in metals. The latter would have brought him to Cornwall where B.C. tin mines existed and still exist. You will see the tin mine towers in Cornwall. The legend says this is why Joseph evangelized in Cornwall where he had visited on business trips earlier. (Tin is mentioned in the Bible and there are no tin mines in the Near East.)

One Anglican Hymn that all Brits used to know as a favorite "Jerusalem" indicates there is the possibility that Joseph took his nephew Jesus on one of those journeys. William Blake's poem, based on the same legend, and famously set to music by Sir Hubert Parry as 'Jerusalem':

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England's mountains green?

And was the holy Lamb of God

On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the countenance divine

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here

Among those dark satanic mills?

Here is a video of these words being sung at The Proms at Royal Albert Hall in 2008.

There are many other oral traditions that affirm that Joseph had Jesus with him. For instance one: as a confirmation of an oath.

"In the 19th century, the people of Priddy, a tin mining village just north of Glastonbury, had a saying, "As sure as our Lord was in Priddy."

This should enhance a visit to Glastonbury and Cornwall.

King Arthur Tour

Tour of the West Country Featuring King Arthur's Historical Locations but not excluding Interesting Sites on the Way.


There are so many extraordinary things to see on this tour. You can not see them all. Stick with what is recommended. You can always come back. Start your tour on the M3.


Actually the Arthur tour really starts at Cadbury Camelot also called Cadbury Castle, located just south of South Cadbury in Somerset. Just off the A303 a mile or two past Wincanton, but:


If you have time, the tour should start with a visit to Winchester. Which is the first capitol of Saxon England. There is a giant statue of Alfred the Great (about the year 800) the first Saxon King of England in the center of town (park there) near the Norman Cathedral which has the longest nave in Europe. See it. There is an Arthur round table near the Cathedral. Ask directions there. The M3 goes to Winchester.


From Winchester I recommend that you take the short cut to the A 30 to Salisbury and visit the Norman Cathedral there which has the highest spire in Europe and its repair by Wren is worth learning about. It almost fell down.


Then leave Salisbury take the road straight north to Amesbury 5 or 6 miles and junction with the A 303 and two miles west (left) find Stone Henge. If you haven't seen it stop for a few minutes


Then about 15 miles further west on the A 303 pass Wincanton and find Cadbury Camelot located just south of South Cadbury in Somerset. Just off the A303 a mile or two past Wincanton. At the site is a path owned by National Trust to the top of the tel. Many Arthur sites are close by. The Battle of Baden was fought at Badbury Rings some miles southwest near Poole which we will visit at the end of the tour. Cadbury Camelot is a major site and time spent here will be worth while. Archaeologists have found pottery from Tintagel in the ruins of this Camelot. Arthur was born at Tintagel Castle (later on the tour). Glastonbury Tor is less than 10 miles away, as the crow flies. It can be seen from the top of Camelot. Further by car.



Glastonbury Tor


I am not sure how long these visits will take but you should be able to make it to Glastonbury for the night. Perhaps book a B&B there and tour the town next day. There you must climb Glastonbury Tor, a mystical and magical place and visit the spring at the bottom ot the Tor where 25,000 gallons of water issues out every day. Then to town center and visit Glastonbury Abby. Arthur and Guinevere were buried there and the place is marked. Learn the legendary story about Joseph of Armethea starting the Abby after he started the church in Exeter in Cornwall. There is no other legend so it may be true and is the background of Arthur's Knights seeking the Holy Grail because Joseph (Uncle to Mary mother of Jesus) is said to have brought it there. The fact that about the year 500 they were still looking for it 400 plus years later establishes how old and how strong the word of mouth legend was. You will learn about the Dissolution under Henry VIII there. Lots to be seen in Glastonbury. Big drive tomorrow or if time drive 30 to 35 miles to Lynton the same night. Go through Minehead. Don't stop.


From Clastonbury to Lynton-Lynmouth on the Severn Estuary in N Devon. You can see Wales across the estuary. Lots of good B&B's in Lynton ranging fro $27 per person and up up. Look them up on line. Lynmouth is on the bottom of the cliff and is a harbor town. Lynton is at the top. Good hotels there. The main thing you must see is the funicular rail road connecting the two towns. Almost straight up and down and it is free or was when we were there. It is run by gravity and you will enjoy the experience of riding this phenomenal invention which has been operating every day since 1890. 120 years!


Then from Lynton find your way to Clovelly. From Lynton it is probably about 20 to 23 miles just off the A 39 south of Westward Ho and Northam. It is a must see. Many tourists will be there. Clovelly is built on the Cliff side face. It is called up and down Clovelly. There are no roads in this sizeable town with shops and restaurants etc and all shops are stocked by donkey back. No motorized vehicles. At the very bottom there is a Range Rover that will take you a circuitous route to the top for a fee. But it is a walking town and a unique English place. Cornish Pasties that will knock your eye out are sold in most villages. Nothing like them anywhere else in the world.


Continue on south from Clovelly on the A 39 about 15 miles to Tintagel the fabled home of Merlin who raised Arthur after his illegitimate birth. Look it up on line. It was near here that Uther Pendragon committed adultery with Igraine the duke of Cornwall's wife and Arthur was born of the union and raised by Merlin the sorceror. The castle is a ruin but if you don't get an eerie feeling there I will know you do not believe in ghosts. You have to do a lot of walking there and a digital camera is a must.


If you miss Bedruthen Rocks its OK but they are on the coast north of Newquay which is a good place to eat and seals are in the ocean here. But then make the rest of the journey to Penzance I am not sure how far, may be as much as 40 miles from Tintagel. Settle in at Penzance. Here you have to see Mousehole, Land's End, palm trees there. Walk the streets of St Ives too popular to miss. Then visit Michael Mount in the bay of Penzance. It is an Island accessible by walking at low tide but you may have to take a boat back. Don't miss it.


Start the day leaving Penzance and go to Looe Pool only a very few miles east. See it last when you are leaving Penzance. It is near Porthleven just east of it on the B3304. It is where excalibur went back to the Lady of the lake. The first picture in this article is of Looe Pool. You have to open and close gates on private land where there are signs but it is worth the walk. If you can't find it ask, do not miss it. All locals will know where it is. It is on the maps of UK and is a mile long lake which is separated from the ocean by a 200 yard wide causeway of sand and stone almost a mile long. Beside being an authentic Arthur location it is a geological wonder worth seeing.


This s almost the end. There is just one more stop on the Arthur tour and it is back in Dorset a long long way. You can fill in some places if you like on the way. Seeing the original church at Exeter might be one where Joseph Of Armathea is said to have begun his ministry in England, before he went to Glastonbury. (I am a believer.) And perhaps Plymouth where a replica of the Mayflower, the ship that took the first settlers to New England, is moored. Good fish restaurants in Plymouth harbor. Next stop is near Poole before Bournemouth. Follow the A 35 to the A 31 to Wimbourne Minster and junction with the B3082. and go toward Blandford Forum and Badury Rings will be half way on the right about 4 or 5 miles from Wimbourne. Badbury Rings had been inhabited as a fortress from 800 years before Christ. And it is the location of the Battle of Baden where Arthur defeated the Saxon invaders and turned them back in the early 500's which set the stage for Camelot when Arthur ruled. He ruled when and because the Romans had abandoned Britain until the overthrow of Arthur's Celts by the Saxons, aided by Mordred's foolish overthrow of Arthur. The Saxon vistories began the Anglo Saxon rule which gave England its name derived from the Angles. Badbury Rings was also where, later during Nero's reign, Vespatian and his Roman armies were stationed in Britain. It was most likely that Nero called him from there in about 68 to put down the rebellion in Jerusalem. Vespatian became Emperor before Jerusalem fell. Which event he left to his son Titus who ended the siege of Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in 70 AD.


There are many extraordinary places and things that you will miss on this tour, like Bodman Moor, Polperro and the town of Looe really beautiful places and great beaches. But you can always go back. One of the best ways to go back is to ask my son George where and how he rents self catering cottages and get one and drive out from there to the areas near by.


All the best and let me know what you think.


Fred

The right Name? Is it wrong to say it "wrong"?

Q:

Fred,

I joined a social network that was originally called Jewish/Christian coalition. It has shifted to more of the Messianic movement and is now called http://4yahweh.ning.com. Anyway, they had a blog post recently stating that the word Jesus is a modern creation and is not in the original text. I wanted to refute that argument, but as I checked my Greek NT and lexicon, I could not find the word Jesus. Wondered if you could give me any thoughts on this. Sure would appreciate any help you can give me.

Leona

A:

The name Jesus from Hebrew יְשׁוּעָ

Trying to get a proper pronunciation for a name does not take into consideration that each language has peculiarities of sounds and that language changes over time. For instance there is no Y or J in Greek and Spanish J is pronounced H etc. Thus Yeshua in Hebrew, which means Salvation, is pronounved Iasous in Greek and the spelling changes when as a noun it is declined like ιησου. In Spanish it is Jesu pronounced Hesu, in Navaho it is Yeasu, In Latin Iesus since there is no J in Latin either; or French Jésus with an accent. Were the Jewish masoretes wrong when they accented Yeshua in Isaiah? Or Russian Иисус If you transliterated it into English it would almost be Aasus, but we have no exact equivalent for И. Croatians have Isus. etc. Or How about Aramaic which you could not read if I printed it. Even many languages which spell the name "Jesus" will not pronounce it the same due to the peculiarities of that language like German for instance. What is the use of getting the "real" pronunciation anyway. What rubbish! Is it a magic thing that makes everyone addressing our Lord unacceptable because they lisp or do not speak Hebrew?

There is no J in Hebrew. The yod is often translated into English as J like Josiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Jacob, and Javan, Yavan in Hebrew (Or more properly Ion) in Hebrew is translated as Javan (Greece but more likely Ionia) in English.

But the worst part of their arrogance is that Yeshua is not the exact Hebrew original pronunciation. The last consonent in the word is an ayin which is a gutteral like "ghh" but not as rough. This was the original sound but is not used in modern Hebrew. So Yeshua is not the real original pronunciation that would have been used by Isaiah others! Isaiah wrote Yeshuatiy which means my saviour or My Jesus in Isaiah 49:6; and he did have Messiah Jesus in mind. Read it.

Is it wrong to say Messiah instead of the more Hebrew Meshiach or Yeshua Meshiach instead of Jesus Christ? What rubbish!

I also see the group you cite gives a false pronunciation for YHWH. The pronunciation of which is lost and reverent observant Jews will not attempt to pronounce the NAME. They substitue the Hebrew word for my Lord "adonai" Like in the most popular prayer called the Schma which is "Hear O Israel YHWH our God is one YHWH." They pray in Hebrew: "Schma Yisrael, Adonai elohenu adonai 'echod." The proper pronunciation of YHWH is lost but Yahweh is an arbitrary pronunciation with arbitrary vowels the group has presumptiously chosen and most likely not correct! Who do they think they are? If over 2000 years of Jewish Hebrew speaking scholars would not attempt to reconstruct the word with vowels lest they get it wrong -- Who are these upstarts to make such conclusions and attempt to bind them on others. They are heretics pure and simple.

A new brand of Judaisers who are clueless.

All the best,

Fred

Isaiah Study

Mr. Miller,

My church adult Sunday School class wanted to study the book of Isaiah. We are part of the RCA in North central Illinois. I led the class, chapter by chapter. As of today, we have been at it for 10 months and we are on Chapter 53. Your material, although not initially planned, has become a great tool for us. I stumbled on it from the net one day as I was preparing for class. I wanted to thank you for your work and dedication. You have taken a group of about 20 of us, and helped us to learn so much. Thank you again!

(Name Removed)
Ebenezer Reformed Church
Oregon Illinois, 61061


Thanks for your comments, that is why it is online. You give me the satisfaction I have posted it for. I think you will really enjoy my material on Isaiah 63.

Fred P Miller

Is this a prophecy about Jews and Muslims ultimately worshipping together?

Q:

Dear Mr. Miller,

Would you explain whether these verses is a prophecy about Jews and Muslims ultimately worshipping together?

Isa. 19:23-25 23 "In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance."

A:

THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE TEMPLE built in Egypt during the "Silent" years. Since Isa 19 prophecies the building of the alternative Temple which was done at the command of one of the Pyolemies the prophecy you cite was most likely fulfilled at that time long before there was an Islam.

Read my whole chapter called there A Temple Built in Egypt to get the context, then tell me what you think.

Fred P Miller

Variations of Q from M, line 24 of the Qa 8:8 to 9:11

Q:

Dear Mr. Miller,

In the section "Variations of Q from Masoretic" of your comments to your translation of Column VIII of The Great Isaiah Scroll 8:8 to 9:11, you indicate the following: (Line 20: 3rd word: Q adds final "he" to the word "higaltah" (you increased) and in the 4th word "simcha" (joy) for the same reason described in ther last note. Line 21: 3rd word begins vs 3 Heb, Eng vs 4. The word "kiy" has a superfluous yod in Q. Line 22: 2nd word is Midian spelled "midiym" in Q and "midiyn" in the masoretic. Line 25, 1st word: "ha-misrah" has a yod over it which would make it to be pronounced "ha mi siy rah").

I wonder why you do not include the line 24 in the variations list.

Your translation of the line 24 reads:

"24. his shoulders and he shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father the prince of peace." The Tanach translation of this line reads: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

I am sure you can agree that there is a great difference between "he shall be called mighty God, prince of peace" and "the mighty God called his name 'the prince of peace'".

How can you explain this discrepancy, please?

Yours sincerely,

(Name removed)

A:

Dear ------,

In English it is Isa 9:6, in Hebrew it is Isa 9:5.

The Hebrew masoretic text is plain. וַיִּקְרָ֨א He shall be called. Not He shall call. The dagesh (dot) in the yod indicates an elided nun making the verb a niphal 2nd stem meaning "he shall be called." The qal or 1st stem would be he shall call. The masoretic (Jewish) text reads "He shall be called." However even if it were a first stem the subject could not be el gibor (mighty God). The placement of el gibor in the sentence makes it one of the titles given to the son who is given to us. It is impossible for it to be the subject of וַיִּקְרָ֨א.

It is obvious why Jews, who do not believe in the messianic Mission of the Nazarene, would want to alter this verse from the masoretic meaning of its text. They also change the tense of the verb from an imperfect implying future to past (called) implying a perfect tense verb which it is not. I believe that Majorettes were correct and that the current modern Jewish translation of this verse is unscholarly to say the least.

all the best,

Fred P Miller

Water on Mars

Mars as a source of the water that came at the time of Noah's flood.


by Fred P Miller
Fact: Several "meteors" found in the Antarctic ice are confirmed by astronomers to have originated on Mars.

It had been proposed about 1950 by one secular writer in the past that the ice on Antarctica was dumped there in a near cosmic collision. Immanuel Velikovski was a well known historian who taught with and was a companion of Albert Einstein at Princeton University. Also, Donald Patten, a Christian writer also proposed the same thing about 1966 in his Book The Biblical Flood and Ice Age Epic"(See Patten's work on line at: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SNCMeteorites.html) Recently discovered ancient cosmic events lend some support to this hypothesis. Mingled with the ice on the Antarctic continent are "meteors" (12 discovered so far) whose origin has been established fairly firmly as being from Mars. A larger number of Martian meteors have also been found widely distributed over the rest of the planet Earth.

The Bible account of the Genesis Flood indicates two or three sources for the waters that covered the planet. One was from earth movements from beneath and the other from outer space including the prediluvian water canopy.

Gen 7:11 ...the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

According to the narrative in Genesis the source of the flood diminished when these two sources were turned off and also when the rain stopped.

Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

It is Velikovski's view, with some supporting and corroborating evidence, since his book was written, (He predicted the high surface temperature of Venus among other things before it was possible to verify the data.) that Venus, originally a wandering star and a late-comer to the Solar system, was in a near collision with Mars. Mars was moved and drawn from it's orbit toward the earth and its moons were seen by earth inhabitants, (see number 10 below.) It is therefore possible that these "Worlds in near collision" caused not only some of the rocks to be drawn off Mars and deposited on the earth but also the water that formerly covered a portion of the Mars surface, was, according to Patten's proposal, deposited as ice in the Antarctic and other regions. This may be the answer to where the water on Mars went. There seems to be clear erosion evidence of former oceans on Mars

Several things support this idea.

1. At some time in the past Mars was close enough to the earth for the 2 Moons of Mars to be seen. They have been described in more than one ancient source. They can not be seen with the naked eye.

2. The orbit of Mars is not regular but very eccentric giving evidence of a disturbance of its orbit in the past. The asteroid belt which is beyond Mars also gives evidence of a collision in the past and the fragmenting of a planet that orbited between Mars and Jupiter The former planet now fragmented into asteroids now orbits very eccentrically and crosses the orbits of both Mars and the Earth.

3. The fact that in the past the continents on Earth were much larger and the ocean beds smaller is evidenced by the river valleys in the continental shelves under the present sea level and may be evidence of the addition of water from a celestial source at the time of the Flood.

4. The "meteors" ascertained to be from the surface of Mars show signs of heat by partial burning when entering the atmosphere of the earth amd confirm their "foreign" origin. The fireball of a meteor is caused by melting and ionization of the outer layers of the meteorite, leaving a blackened layer called a fusion crust.

5. The ice in the Antarctic is resting on bedrock far below the surface of the ocean. A buildup of snow over eons can not account for the depth of the ice below sea level. Being dumped from outer space can do so.

6. There is clear evidence that Mars at one time supported a great amount of water, enough to have had an ocean. Please see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4582649 for this evidence of a shoreline on Mars.

7. The Martian rocks called meteors found in many parts of the Earth are also mingled in the Antarctic ice and are of recent origin according to the most eminent astronomers. The recent origin of the Mars meteors is cited in well documented article on line http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SNCMeteorites.html


"The ALH84001 meteorite was among the SNCs discovered in Antarctica. It is the oldest known SNC, with its crystallization age of 4.5 billion years indicating the rock is as old as Mars itself. The meteorite is thought to have been blasted off Mars 15 million years ago and remained in interplanetary orbit until entering the Earth's atmosphere and landing in Antarctica approximately 13,000 years ago. "

8. Loss of oceans on Mars. In the same scientific survey of the evidence the origin of the Martian "meteors" the astronomers point out that there is evidence on Mars of a condition where there were vast amounts of water that are now missing. Thus the amount of water may have been swept off the planet by the near collision postulated by Velikoski and Patten. The astronomers agree there were oceans (called flood conditions) on Mars in the past as indicated in the following quotation.

An analysis of the Chassigny, Shergotty, and Zagami meteorites by Watson et al. (1994) found a high deuterium/hydrogen ratio relative to terrestrial values, as well as only a tenth as much water in the amphibole mineral phases as expected. Watson et al. interpreted these results as supporting the assertion that, in order for Mars to have lost the amount of water implied by the contrast between current Martian conditions and the ancient flood features seen on the planet, the escape rate of hydrogen from Mars must have been higher in the past.

9. Mars' two Moons: There is one other evidence on Mars similar to the fragmentation of the Planet that once orbited in the asteroid belt. That is the two moons of Mars whose origin is more akin to capturing a fragment of an asteroid than to portions of the planet being torn from the surface of Mars itself. The moons are not round as are other planetary moons in the solar system but are elongated and erose and craggy in nature. Astronomers agree with this assumption in a comment in an article on the moons of Mars.


Phobos and Deimos [are] compositionally similar to Type 1 carbonaceous chondrites found in the asteroid belt. These data strongly suggest capture as the origin of the two asteroid like moons of Mars.

10. The Moons were seen from Earth with the naked eye. Jonathan Swift wrote in 1726 a remarkably accurate description of the moons of Mars 151 years before they were discovered by astronomers. In Gulliver's Voyage to Laputa Chapter 3 he describes the astronomers in a fictitious place and their ability to describe the moons of Mars before they had been first discovered by astronomers in 1877.

They have likewise discovered two lesser Stars, or Satellites, which revolve about Mars; whereof the innermost is distant from the Center of the primary Planet exactly three of his Diameters, and the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten Hours, and the latter in Twenty-one and an Half; so that the Squares of their periodical Times, are very near in the same Proportion with the Cubes of their Distance from the Center of Mars; which evidently shews them to be governed by the same Law of Gravitation, that influences the other heavenly Bodies.

Could this be coincidence? Or did Swift have knowledge from an earlier period when Mars was drawn off its orbital path close to the Earth where and when the moons were observed and their sighting preserved in folk lore and oral history.

Where did all the extra water come from? Possibly from Mars.

Weekly Communion

The Weekly Observance of the Lord’s Supper

I recently heard someone say "there is no commandment in the New Testament. to observe the Lord’s Supper every week" Of course this statement is both True and False. It is true because there is no such commandment. But it is false in that it implies that a weekly observance of communion is not God’s directive will for The Lord’s church. We do not learn God’s will for the church only by commandments. Jesus said He had all religious authority. He transferred that authority only to his Apostles, no one else. He not only told them that what ever they bound or loosed on earth was bound and loosed in Heaven; But he also told them to wait in Jerusalem until they were endowed with Authority from on High! Thus what ever the apostles set as precedents. in all the churches we are to follow. We learn God’s directive will, (that is, those things He expects us to obey or be penalized if we do not) not only by Commandments but also by examples laid down for us by what the Apostles bound and loosed, and by principles in the word of God. We obey the commandments, we follow the examples, and we apply the principles. But it is the example of a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper that we are addressing here. It is understood that the Apostles set the precedent of meeting on the first day of the week. We follow that example and there is no commandment saying the church must have its assembly on the first day of the week. We simply see the example of the Apostles setting the precedent of the Lord’s church meeting on the first day of every week. There are four New Testament passages that plainly show that it was also the practice of the New Testament church to partake of the Breaking of Bread (a euphemism of the Lord’s Supper) every first day week assembly. Thus we are to follow their example if we want to do God’s will.

Scripture Examples to follow.

1. Acts 2:42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

If all four of these religious items were followed steadfastly. What would that mean? If a person came to church once a year,. Would he be steadfast ? How about every three months? No? How about once a month? We would probably say, "he comes once in a while, but he is not steadfast." Thus to be steadfast the observance of each requires them to be a part of every weekly assembly. Breaking of bread is a euphemism for the Lord’s Supper. It can also mean taking a meal. But would eating a meal fit this context? For instance: Fellowship, Apostle’s doctrine, prayers, and eating breakfast steadfastly. It does not fit the context. We take the Lord’s Supper in the weekly observance of being steadfast in the prayers and Preaching Apostle’s doctrine and sharing. All or none are enjoined by precedent.

2. Acts 20:5These going before waited for us at Troas. 6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread and came to them at Troas in five days; where we stayed seven days. 7And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart in the morning; and continued his speech until midnight.

The disciples came on the first day of the week. Why? Because they were taught by the Apostles that that was the day to assemble. Most commentators note that 5 days crossing the Aegean Sea must have been caused by bad weather and made Paul late arriving on Monday instead of Sunday or earlier as he must have planned. It is obvious from the ensuing context that did not want to delay because he wanted to be in Jerusalem on a set time. However he felt it was needful for this church which he had started on his way out to Corinth for him to meet with them and it is clear that they came together for the primary purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper. This is another precedent setting verse. We are to follow precedents.

3. 1 Corinthians 11::20 When you come together therefore into one place, it is not the eating of the Lord's supper (the way you are doing it). ......... ........33Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait one for another. 34And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; so that you do not come together to condemnation. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

This passage shows that the Corinthian church were eating the Lord’s supper when they assembled. They assembled on the first day of the week according to 1 Cor. 16:1. But they were taking Communion improperly. They were making a meal out of it instead of a memorial eating to observe Jesus death. and according to 1Cor 10:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Gaining spiritual access to that death and blood. He told them to do it right and explained how. Thus they also were taking Communion on the first day of the week, Every first day of the week. Because that is the Apostolic precedent. They continued doing so after being corrected.

4. Hebrews 10"25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as you see the day approaching. 26For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He who despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, he shall be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God and has counted the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing and has done despite to the Spirit of grace?

How can one lose his relationship to the sacrifice of the Cross? Well this verse says it is possible for the sin of "forsaking the assembling? How is that possible? What connection does weekly church attendance have to do with the sacrifice of the cross or "blood of the covenant?"

Jesus called the cup or fruit of the vine in the observance that he instituted at the last Passover, "the blood of the covenant." It is recorded four times in the New Testament. Testament and Covenant are the same word in the Greek New Testament.

1. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

2. Mark14:24 And he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

3. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

4 1 Corinthians 11:25 He also took the cup after the same manner, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood:

It is plain in the Hebrews passage that the sin that would cause one to lose his sacrifice is turning ones back on the Lord’s supper, The Blood of the Covenant, in its weekly observance. The Lord’s Supper then was in the assembly that Hebrews warns us not to forsake. It is forsaking the Blood of the Testament; or the passage makes no sense. Thus this is the fourth passage that gives an Apostolic precedent for a weekly observance of the Lord’s supper.

Indeed, we should take this article of Faith as seriously as the apostle makes it in the Hebrews passage.

Was Membership in a Local Church a Part of New Testament Polity?

1. Acts 18 27 is the earliest mention of letters which would accompany a person moving to another church fellowship. Speaking of Apollos:

Acts 18:26ff ........ Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him to them and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly. 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brothers wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he had come, helped them greatly who had believed through grace:

2. 2 Cor 3:1 shows that some needed letters of commendation also showing that was a common practice as it says that they also wrote such letters as well as receiving them.

2 Cor 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or do we need, as some do, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

3. 1Tim 5:9 speaks of supporting widows. "Taken into the number" shows there had to be a reckoning of who was and was not a member "in the number."

1 Tim 5:9 let not a widow be taken into the number under sixty years old, having been the wife of one man,

4. The tradition of extending "the right hand of fellowship" to someone who has not been a local member but makes their own statement that they have been baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and wish membership in a local Christian Church is based on Gal 2:9. Our tradition is to accept a statement in lieu of a letter. No letter seems to have been given to or carried by Paul and Barnabas.

Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision.

5. A person could be deprived of membership. He could be "disfellowshipped" by the action of the whole congregation (not the preacher or elders). If he was removed as a member then there must have been a membership roll to which he with others belonged.

1Cor 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your glorying is not good. Do you not know a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened.

6. Elders have responsibility over the "flock." There has to be some way to know who is in the flock and who is not. How can you watch over some one if you do not know who is in the flock.

Acts 29 :28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

1Pet 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight of it, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but from a ready mind; 3Not as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

7. Christians are admonished to obey the elders in their local church. How do you know which congregation’s elders are responsible for you and which ones you are to respect as your spiritual overseers if you are not a member of a local church. Christians are to obey their elders of their local "flock." Members at 1st Christian do not need to seek the advice of the elders of Ben Hill Christian Church, Their elders are responsible for their flock, not ours. Unless someone, from there, places his "membership" here.

Hebrews 13: 7 Remember those who have leadership over you, who have spoken to you the word of God: whose faith follow, .........17Obey those who have the leadership and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as those who must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

8. A Bible based church scripturally, fully "set in order" (see Titus 1:5) has elders who are the leaders assisted by deacons who SERVE the saints who make up the congregation. Paul and Timothy wrote to them. Notice they did not write to "The Pastor." There was no one man "Pastor." They included the saints or those saved Christians who would be in the "number."

Plilp 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

9. A sinning member who had been expelled from the local church could be restored to membership. That is: he could be restored to the fellowship of that local church upon his repentance. There seems to have been a formal acceptance offered that was yet to be offered in Corinth to the repentant sinner who was expelled after the action in 1 Cor 5. The following scripture show that the disfellowship action was carried out by the congregation i.e. was inflicted of many, – not by officers or one man. The repentant brother was restored to membership.

2Cor 2: 6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. 7So that contrariwise you ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 8Therefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him. 9For also to this end I wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you would be obedient in all things. 10 To whom you forgive any thing, I forgive also:

10. Some people in Bible time, as well as the present, usurp authority that does not scripturally belong to them. (We are speaking about a New Testament church not any denomination which does not try to follow New Testament church order as Christian Churches have aimed at doing.) Diotrephes mentioned in 3rd John usurped the congregation’s authority as to who could and could not be received as a member and also "cast out" members of the church. If there were no church roll as who was or was not a member, how could they be "cast out?" Diotrephes could not have acted arbitrarily at all if he did not know which member opposed him. He was a usurper of the freedom which belonged to all. The rest of the letter shows that John ignored the false usurper and visited the church anyway.

John says in 3Jo. 9 I wrote to the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. 10Therefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words: and is not content with that, neither does he himself receive the brothers and forbids those who would and casts them out of the church.

What do you think happened to Diotrephes? Did the church let him stay?

Is Cannabis in the Bible

Does the Greek word kannabis which is hemp derive from the Hebrew "sweet cane" in Ex 30:23? And if so: Did they smoke it?

First since there is a Greek word for hemp, that is kannabis, (the Latin word for hemp is cannabis.) it would seem clear that if the Greek word were derived from the Hebrew words "q'neh-bosem" or that the Greek writers of the Septuagint would have known that derivation and have written kannabis meaning cannabis or hemp in Ex 30:23 instead of (kalamos) which means reed or cane, which is the same Greek word used for papyrus and all other reeds. The coincidence of similar sound between q'neh-bosem and cannabis is probably just that, coincidence.

In Ex 30:23

the mixture of spices which were to be mixed together which has among them the Hebrew words that your Rabbi says refers to cannabis could hardly be an intoxicating potion no matter what the composition of the "chrism"since it was to be used for pouring as an anointing oil on the head of Aaron and his sons and the conclusions of all the mixing is: "This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations." So it really doesn't matter if you defend the herbs or not that were in this oil. What ever the mixture was made of, the result was not to send Aaron on a "high." Even if hemp, though doubtful, were in this passage, it would not be justification of its use as a hallucinogen.

But the derivation of the word that has been given to you seems to me to be in error. The Hebrew word for Calamus in Ex 30:23 is made up of two words. They are qeneh-bosem. The word bosem is "sweet: (just above this is qiniman-bosem which is translated "sweet cinnamon") Again bosem is "sweet". That leaves us with the word qeneh (actually q'neh) which is only related to hemp in that hemp is also a reed or a cane. But is hemp a "sweet" cane? I don't know as I have never even seen a part of the plant. I suppose however that hemp is not a "sweet" cane. I have smelled the aroma at hippie gatherings at Stone Henge and I did not consider it sweet. Thus what ever was in the mixture of anointing oil, called calamus in English, it was probably not cannabis or hemp

The word calamus is used 3 times in the KJV. Of these both the Song 4:15 and the Ezek passage have the word q'neh in Hebrew without the word sweet following as in Ex. There is no "bosem" Thus Calamus is a proper translation of q'neh both of which mean reed or cane and they are generic, that is any reed or cane. Again, the word calamus in Song 4:15 is from the Hebrew q'neh alone. The word bosem (sweet) is not in the text in Song 4:15. The word q'neh translated calamus here appears 62 time in the OT and is translated reed, cane, spear, pen etc. beside calamus.

Now let us do the word cannabis. There is no word for this drug in Biblical Hebrew just as there is no word for galaxy in Biblical Hebrew since Galaxies were not discovered until the early part of the 20th century. Yes there is a word for galaxy in modern Hebrew,- it is a transliteration "galaqsah" an obvious transliteration of an English word, and so the word for cannabis in modern Hebrew is "qannabbos" which is obviously a transliteration of the English or Greek word. Thus the Hebrew word for hemp is derived from English (or Greek) not ancient Levitical Hebrew in Ex 30:23. Cannabis then is not mentioned in Ex 30:23 but "sweet cane" is mentioned

The word "calamus" as you have already discovered is derived from Greek. The Greek word (Kalamos) is used in the LXX in place of q'neh in Ex 30:23 and simply means reed or cane, and as the measuring reed used by Ezekiel to measure the temple of his vision. It stands for any kind of reed or cane. There may be a remote possible phonetic relation between hemp which is a reed called cannabis and the Greek word for reed which in English is calamus but there is not any Hebrew connection. And in spite of what I just wrote, it is very doubtful there is any etymological relation between the words cannabis and calamus.

Thus I would say your Rabbi smokes weed and would like to find some Biblical justification for it, rather than to say he is an expert in ancient Hebrew herbal mixtures. I doubt very much that he is.

I agree that legal opposition to the use of this weed and the penalties for possessing it is over done by authorities in our government at this time, but I do not use it , never have, and believe no Christian would use it except a backslider or one just baptized trying to get over it. Get high on the Holy Ghost just as it says in Eph 5:18 don't get high on booze, but fill yourself with the Holy Spirit". (Miller's translation) means "don't get high on weed, but let the Holy Spirit be your high through Christian music, worship, etc.

Let us be sure to see that even if there were a connection between the hemp plant and Ex 30:23 it was not going to be used for a hallucinogen. That kind of worship is a part of idolatrous and forbidden speaking-to-the-dead religions but not a part of Mosaic or Christian worship. Hemp makes good rope and good sack cloth. I am sorry that the misuse of the plant creates a shortage in the good uses the plant can be put to.

Semetic languages and Hebrew

Semetic Languages

All the Semetic languages are very similar. They may have a different script like the wedge shaped cuneiform of the original Assyrians. That script changed with the coming of Aramaic block script but still the same language. The Behistun Inscription of Darius I is an illustration of Aramaic written in cuneiform script about 500 BC. The cuneiform script was invented by the Sumerians (3500 BC?) whose language was different (a Hamitic language.) But the culture and science (Astronomy, the zodiac has not changed to this day, 360 degree circle and angles based on it, a base 60 and more) was adopted by the conquering Semites about 2000 to 1800 BC.

Another illustration of similar but not the same languages is Italian and Spanish. Same grammar, many similar words, but not the same language. But speakers of each can understand much of what the other speaker is saying. I had the experience with a French church of Christ evangelist in Lille, France, who was born in Italy. He didn't do English and I didn't do French but we communicated more or less in Spanish and hand signs. Hebrew and Aramaic is like that.

All the Semetic languages are related. Aramaic is similar to Hebrew and Arabic actually having the same Alef Bet for all three languages. Aramaic was the language of the whole of the Fertile Crescent (from the Persian Gulf round through Caananite Palestine) at least from the time of the Assyrian Empire beginning 800 BCE and probably before to Abrahamic time, on through New Testament times. The returnees from Babylonian captivity, 536 BCE, spoke Aramaic and it became the lingua franca of the Jews through the time of Ezra to the Advent of The Nazarene Carpenter. Since all people spoke Aramaic, Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the scriptures) were written in the inter testament period so that attenders of the synogogue could understand what was taught. Targums are Aramaic paraphrases of Hebrew scripture and commentary. As you know Jesus spoke Aramaic. There is no Hebrew quotation from Jesus. Even Tabatha qumi is Aramaic. Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani is Aramaic. The Hebrew is Ely Ely lama azavtani. It means the same thing.

Original Hebrew script differs from the Block style Hebrew we are used to. In fact the block Hebrew characters are actually Aramaic and were adopted after the Babylonian captivity. To see an inscription in the Hebrew that was extant in Hezekiahs time click http://www.moellerhaus/22.htm and scroll down till you find the inscription that was written inside Hezekiah's Siloam Gihon Tunnel.

The Inscription, now in the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul, was found in 1880 by two boys wading inside Siloam tunnel some 20 feet above the western reservoir .

The ancient Hebrew script is nothing like the Aramaic block letters we now use. A part of the Bible is written in Aramaic, that is, a portion of Daniel is written in Aramaic and -- a large portion of Ezra is written in Aramaic and even the Hebrew portion has many Aramaic words.

100 years before Christ The Essenes are said to have composed the DSS Isaiah Scroll. The language of the scroll is Hebrew with a heavy Aramaic accent and some (a few only) Aramaic words. The script is manuscript Hebrew and does not look like the current characters. My Isaiah Scroll introduction pages are actually a grammar of the scroll. You might want to have a look. http://www.moellerhaus/qum-intr.htm

Of the Semetic languages the grammar is almost identical, the Alep Bet the same and much (but not all) vocabulary is shared. All pronominal suffixes are the same except Aramaic adds an open sylable. Like kem in Heb. is 2plural you (ye) and the same in Aramaic is kemah.

The Arabic is still the same: Salaam aley Kem is "peace upon you (ye) Hebrew is: Shalom
aley-kem

Resurgent Islam predicted after the end of the Turkish Empire as early as 1650

Resurgent Islam. Historical interpreters have predicted a resurgent
Islam from the beginning of the 1800's and even earlier. I am just some one
following the lead of those who have gone before in many protestant
denominations including Anglicans, all of whom unfortunately have thrown
their prophetic heritage away with the popularity of the left behind
doctrines.

Durham (1647)and bishop Newton (1750) were both Anglicans, Scott, Farber, (1815) were Methodists, Barnes (1853) a Presbyterian, and B.W.Johnson (1878) of the noninsturment church of Christ. All the preceding predicted a resurgeance of islam after the end of the Turkish Empire(1917).

When most Islamic nations in mid 1800's were under the control of European powers (mostly
English and French) it would hardly seem to be the time to predict a
reassertion of Islamic power is the future after predicting that the Turkish
empire would "dry up" first. But that is what these interpreters and
many more did.

They place the time after the fall of the Turkish Empire 1917 and in
conjunction with the rise and fall of Russian Atheism and the return to
political power of the Papacy lost in 1870 and restored in 1931 which has
crown stronger as Islam increases. It is similar to the argument for
maintain the "temporality" that Luther opposed which the Papists said was
needed to maintain the crusades and hold back the Turks. The Papists are
using it again today to maintain political assertiveness. The alliance of
Soviet atheism, renewed papal political power and an alliance with Islam to
impede true religion was voiced by most of those mentioned above in the 18th
and 19th centuries.

The fall of the soviet system (1991) has taken place and is ongoing to its ultimate
completion. Already, no nation will ever again collectivize its peasantry
and nationalize their industry, that is over, not even the "communist"
Chinese have held the line. Perhaps Cuba and a few other minor entities are
still enamored with the false concept but it will all soon pass as it has in
the former soviet satellites,

The next events of the next 20 years, will include the passing of political
organized power of the Vatican. They will no longer hang anyone under
Blackfriars Bridge, The Bishop of Rome will still be around but not in the
same position. All his embassies world wide will close. and perhaps the
church will get back to the business of interpreting the Bible.
Islam is undergoing great changes. The changes have already been outlined
in prophecy. Islamic nations will open to more and more political and
religious freedom. Islam it self will not disappear but political and
religious freedom will come to Islamic nations. Political freedom and
religious freedom are one in the same. If you have one you have the other.

The Almighty, through the sword of Jesus' mouth, is the most potent weapon and
with all these entities here the war is ideological and will be won on an
ideological battleground and not with the weapons of war.

It is like this: If God is to discipline any person or nation he does not
need our help to do so. I think the Jews were under a discipline from God
and scattering was the punishment. Any nation who felt that God needed help
in disciplining Jews from the Romans, to the Spanish, and then Germans has
suffered themselves. God does not need our help. Islamic nations will open
to Political and religious freedom. I think the current bloody events to
help that concept along are ill conceived and will just impede what is
inevitable. My own position from the 1980's been that the Christian truth
brought to the light of day in our time by Lesbian Atheists is the major
force (not the only ideology but the main one) that must and is bringing
about change in politics and religion in Islamic nations. The woman's
movement is unstoppable and it will do more to bring change than all wars and
the atomic bombs that may yet fall before western politicians get wise.
When you hear that some Baptist and Methodist and perhaps some church of
Christ missionaries have opened little missions in Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina
then you will know the season is well underway.

From 1930 to 2030 Satan is
scheduled to loose his major force against God. All sin will not be gone,
but the 1. Dragon (Godless secular government as an enemy of the growth of
the Christian religion) 2. The Beast ( The false Babylonish religion and
political power of the Papacy) and 3, The False Prophet (the incredible
influence of Islam from Gibraltar to the Indus River and Indonesia to cloud
the minds of multiple millions for more than 1300 years) will be gone.
Militant Islam will be as dead in Riyadh as communism is in Warsaw and
Kiev. Give it 20 or so years. The only thing that will make it longer is
humans trying to help it along with war. That will just delay the
inevitable and we in the west will pay a high price for our interference.