Some folks are really upset with my presentation on a study of Paul; both pro and con as to whether he was a true disciple or not. I really don’t understand their thinking about that because we know that the Jews have been screwing with the scriptures for many years. I have presented this before, and no one commented on it very much, not that it makes any difference but we must realize that the enemy has put many things into the Scriptures that don’t belong there.
I would remind you that the following is an apparent deception on the part of the scribes, the Kenites, the descendants of Cain.
Have you ever wondered about this verse and its seemingly contradiction to what the rest of the Scriptures say about Edom. Well many of us have and we present the following from Pastor Clifton A. Emahiser, 1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830; Phone No. (419) 435-2836.
As I promised you in my last teaching letter #22, I am going to clear up and document the problem with Deuteronomy 23:7. As I told you before, there are approximately 27,000 transnational errors in our present Bibles. Some various translations by various translators have attempted to clean up many of these discrepancies, but the errors are very numerous and overwhelming. The translation of Deuteronomy 23:7 is one of them. I will start by quoting this passage:
“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou was a stranger in his land.”
From this verse it would appear that we should welcome all Edomites into our congregations with open arms, and with no questions asked, and that we are somehow guilty of some dire contemptible sin for even thinking an evil thought against them. I ask you: Is this not the impression which seized upon you when you read this passage for the first time? Remember the guilty, dirty, condemning feeling which overcame you for even giving the Edomites the slightest hint of disparaging thought, that possibly Yahweh might suddenly kill you in your very tracks for even blinking an eye?
If this has been your reaction when reading this passage in the past, forget it, for that is not what this verse is saying; not even remotely. I happened upon this verse many years ago when I was listening to a presentation by an Identity speaker who was making reference to the Edomites by using this verse as one of his points. At the time, I decided to look into the Hebrew meaning of the word “Edomite” for myself. I found the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible,” assigned the term “Edomite” the Hebrew word “130 which says:
“130...Edômîy,...Edôwmîy, ed-o-mee’: patronymic [derived from father’s name] from #123; an Edomite, or descendant from (or inhabitant of) Edom: Edomite. See #726 Which had the following to say:
#726 ... Arôwmîy, ar-o-mee’; A CLERICAL ERROR FOR #130; an Edomite (as in the margin): Syrian.
At once the truth struck me (and this was about 15 years ago), for if the proper rendering was “Syrian” instead of “Edomite,” it would make all the difference in the world. Over the years, since that time, I have pointed this clerical error out to many people of our persuasion. At the time, I knew this made more sense if Deuteronomy 23:7 were to correctly read “Syrian” rather than “Edomite” for the Syrians were Abraham’s relatives, in which case this verse would read:
“Thou shalt not abhor a SYRIAN: for he is thy brother, thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”
Over the years, I have been satisfied that the word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. I remember one party who challenged me, indicating that it was only a clerical error, and really didn’t mean anything. I finally came to the conclusion that it would be a hard proposition to prove and decided not to push the point openly any further.
That is, however, until recently, when I was preparing for this lesson, I accidentally discovered what the CLERICAL ERROR was. I will now reveal to you how I made this discovery. As I had decided to take up the topic of Esau, I was in the process of reading anything and everything I could find on the subject. I was reading along in “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” volume E-J, page 24, under the subtitle Edom, when I read this:
“...there are places where, because of the similarity between the letters _ (d) and _ (r), the text has wrongly read __À, ‘Aram’ (i.e. Syria), and ____À, ‘Arameans” (i.e., Syrians), for __À, ‘Edom,’ and ____À, ‘Edomites,’ such as 2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chronicles 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.
“Note: I have followed the Hebrew characters as faithfully as I know how to do on my computer; I may have made a mistake ... The main thing to notice here is the ‘similarity between the letters _ (d) and _ (r). You can see very readily, that a very small slip of the pen can change the word from Edomite to Samian, or Syrian to Edomite. I will enlarge these two Hebrew letters and place them side by side so you can observe the difference in them:
With this very small change in the Hebrew writing, and the word can be changed from Syrian to Edomite! Think of it this way, syRian or eDomite. By this above slight change, the Hebrew ‘r’ sound is changed to a ‘d’ sound.
Since I originally wrote this, I now realize that the small remnant of Judah from Jerusalem who went into Babylonian captivity spoke Hebrew when they went in and spoke Chaldee when they came out seventy years later.
Also, when they went in they were using a rounded style of Hebrew to write in, and when they came out they were using a square style of Hebrew. Is it possible that the changing from a rounded style to a square style produced such an error? Well, if it did, how many other mistakes are there because of this? After all, it is absurd to believe we should not “abhor an Edomite” when the Almighty hates them Himself.
“And I HATED ESAU, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, THE PEOPLE AGAINST WHOM THE LORD HATH INDIGNATION FOR EVER.” (Malachi 1:3-4)
“And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword...And he (Edom) said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.” (Numbers 20:18-21)
[EE dum ites] descendants of Edom, or ESAU; an ancient people who were enemies of the Israelites. During the days of Abraham, the region which later became the home of the Edomites was occupied by more than one tribe of non‑Israelite peoples. When Esau moved to this region with his family and possessions, the HORITES already lived in the land Genesis 36:20.
Edom and Israel after Kadesh Barnea. After the years of wilderness wandering, Moses wanted to lead Israel northward to Canaan across Edom into Moab. The king of Edom, however, refused them passage (Numbers 20:14‑21), forcing them to bypass Edom and Moab through the desert to the east (Judges 11:17-18. Later in the journey northward to Abel Acacia Grove in the plains of Moab across from Jericho (Numbers 33:48‑49), Balaam prophesied that Israel would one day possess Edom. (Numbers 24:18).
From the Conquest Until the Division. In dividing the land of Canaan after the conquest, Joshua established Judah's border to the west of the Dead Sea and to the border of Edom (Joshua 15:1,21). During the reign of Saul, Israel fought against Edom (1 Samuel 14:47). But Edomites at times served in Saul's army (1 Samuel 21:7; 22:9).
David conquered Edom, along with a number of other adjacent countries, and stationed troops in the land (2 Samuel 8:13‑14). In later years, Solomon promoted the building of a port on the northern coast of the Red Sea in Edomite territory. He also built a smeltery nearby as a significant part of his developing copper industry. (1 Kings 9:26‑29).
After the Division. During the time of the Divided Kingdom, a number of hostile encounters occurred between the nations of Judah or Israel and Edom. During Jehoshaphat's reign, Edomites raided Judah but were turned back. (2 Chronicles 20:1, 8). An attempt to reopen the port at Ezion Geber failed (1 Kings 22:48); and the Edomites joined forces with those of Judah in Jehoshaphat's move to put down the rebellion of Mesha of Moab. (2 Kings 3:4‑5) During the reign of Joram, Edom freed herself of Judah's control (2 Kings 8:20‑22), but again came under Judah's control when Amaziah assaulted and captured Sela, their capital city. Edom became a vassal state of Assyria, beginning about 736 B. C.
Edom the Place of the Nabateans. After the downfall of Judah in 586 B. C., Edom rejoiced (Psalm 137:7). Edomites settled in southern Judah as far north as Hebron. Nabateans occupied old Edom beginning in the third century B. C., continuing their civilization well into the first century A. D. During the period from about 400‑100 B. C., Judas Maccabeus subdued the Edomites and John Hyrcanus forced them to be circumcised and then made them a part of the Jewish people. The Herod family of New Testament times was of Edomite stock.
Since no written Edomite records have been found, knowledge of the Edomites comes mainly from the Bible, archaeological excavations of their ancient cities, and references to Edom in Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian sources. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
E'DOMITES (e'do‑mits). The descendants of Esau, who settled in the S of Palestine and at a later period came into conflict with the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:7); frequently called merely Edom (Numbers 20:14‑21; 24:18; Joshua 15:1; 2 Samuel 8:14); etc.)
Country. Edom ("Idumaea," KJV) was situated at the SE border of Palestine (Judges 11:17; Numbers 34:3) and was properly called the land or mountain of Seir (Genesis 36:8; 32:3; Joshua 24:4; Ezekiel 35:3, 7, 15). The country lay along the route pursued by the Israelites from Sinai to Kadesh‑barnea and thence back again to Elath (Deuteronomy 1:2; 2:1‑8), i.e., along the E side of the great valley of Arabah. On the N of Edom lay the territory of Moab, the boundary appearing to have been the "brook Zered." (Deuteronomy 2:13‑14, 18).
The physical geography of Edom is somewhat peculiar. Along the western base of the mountain range are low calcareous hills. These are succeeded by lofty masses of igneous rock, chiefly porphyry, over which lies red and variegated sandstone in irregular ridges and abrupt cliffs with deep ravines between.
The latter strata give the mountains their most striking features and remarkable colors. The average elevation of the summit is about two thousand feet above the sea. Along the eastern side runs an almost unbroken limestone ridge, a thousand feet or more higher than the other. This ridge sinks down with an easy slope into the plateau of the Arabian Desert. Although Edom is thus wild, rugged, and almost inaccessible, the deep glens and flat terraces along the mountainsides are covered with rich soil, from which trees, shrubs, and flowers now spring up luxuriantly.
People. The Edomites were descendants of Esau, or Edom, who expelled the original inhabitants, the Horites. (Deuteronomy 2:12) A statement made in Genesis 36:31) serves to fix the period of the dynasty of the eight kings. They "reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel;" i.e., before the time of Moses, who may be regarded as the first virtual king of Israel. (cf. Deuteronomy 33:4‑5; Exodus 18:16‑19). It would also appear that these kings were elected. The chiefs ("dukes," KJV) of the Edomites are named in (Genesis 36:40‑43) and were probably petty chiefs or sheikhs of their several clans.
History. Esau's bitter hatred toward his brother, Jacob, for fraudulently obtaining his blessing appears to have been inherited by his posterity. The Edomites peremptorily refused to permit the Israelites to pass through their land. (Numbers 20:18‑21) For a period of 400 years we hear no more of the Edomites. They were then attacked and defeated by Saul. (1 Samuel 14:47)
Some forty years later David overthrew their army in the "Valley of Salt," and his general, Joab, following up the victory, destroyed nearly the whole male population (1 Kings 11:15‑16) and placed Jewish garrisons in all the strongholds of Edom. (2 Samuel 8:13‑14)
Hadad, a member of the royal family of Edom, made his escape with a few followers to Egypt, where he was kindly received by Pharaoh. After the death of David he returned and tried to excite his countrymen to rebellion against Israel, but failing in the attempt he went on to Syria, where he became one of Solomon's greatest enemies. (1 Kings 11:14‑22)
In the reign of Jehoshaphat (875 B.C.) the Edomites attempted to invade Israel in conjunction with Ammon and Moab but were miraculously destroyed in the valley of Beracah. (2 Chronicles 20:22, 26) A few years later they revolted against Jehoram, elected a king, and for half a century retained their independence. (2 Chronicles 21:8)
They were then attacked by Amaziah, and Sela, their great stronghold, was captured (2 Kings 4:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11‑12) Yet the Israelites were never again able to completely subdue them. 2 Chronicles 28:17)
WHEN NEBUCHADNEZZAR BESIEGED JERUSALEM THE EDOMITES JOINED HIM AND TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN THE PLUNDER OF THE CITY AND slaughter OF THE ISRAELITES. THEIR CRUELTY AT THAT TIME SEEMS TO BE SPECIALLY REFERRED TO IN (Psalm 137).
IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THESE ACTS OF CRUELTY COMMITTED AGAINST THE ISRAELITES IN THE DAY OF THEIR CALAMITY THAT THE EDOMITES WERE SO FEARFULLY DENOUNCED BY THE LATER PROPHETS. (Isaiah 34:5‑8; 63:1‑4; Jeremiah 49:17; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 25:13‑14; Amos 1:11‑12; Obadiah 8‑10, 15
On the conquest of Judah, the Edomites, probably in reward for their services during the war, were permitted to settle in southern Palestine and the whole plateau between it and Egypt; but at about the same time they were driven out of Edom proper by the Nabateans.
For more than four centuries they continued to prosper. But during the warlike rule of the Maccabees they were again completely subdued and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites and submit to the government of Jewish prefects.
THE EDOMITES WERE THEN INCORPORATED INTO THE JEWISH NATION, AND THE WHOLE PROVINCE WAS OFTEN TERMED BY GREEK AND ROMAN WRITERS “IDUMAEA.”
Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, twenty thousand Idumaeans were admitted to the Holy City, which they filled with robbery and bloodshed. From this time the Edomites, as a separate people, disappear from the pages of history. Scriptural indications that they were idolaters (2 Chronicles 25:14‑15, 20) are amply confirmed and illuminated by discoveries at Petra. For a discussion of the degrading practices of Edomite religion, see George L. Robinson, The Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization. (bibliography: D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell, eds., Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2 (1964): 51‑58; T. C. Vriezen, Oudtestament Studien 14 (1965): 330‑53; N. Glueck, The Other Side of Jordan (1970); D. J. Wiseman, ed., Peoples of Old Testament Times (1973), pp. 229‑58). (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)
There always seems to be someone writing on a subject for which they really haven’t done their research. In preparing this lesson, I ran into a good example of such a person. Actually another person got the information from the Internet. No doubt, there may be a vast amount of information on the Internet, but it would appear we need to be very careful with some of the things being promoted from such a source. Generally, if we will examine what is being advanced, we can see through the subterfuge. While many times it’s just a matter of ignorance there are other times when the writer has an agenda. This article has the title “The Chronology Of Egypt And Israel,” and was downloaded from http://bilbicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/chronolgy_of_egypt_and_Israel.html. On page 12, the writer seems to be a David K. Down, P.O. Box 341, Hornsby, NSW.
On page one, the writer lays his premise. He points to 1 Kings 6:1 to establish the Exodus at 1445 B.C. He then refers to a Dr. Immanual Velikovsky who supposedly makes the claim that Egyptian history is 600 years to old. This is what is said on page one:
“...Dr. Immanual Velikovsky’s claims that the fault lies, not with the Biblical information, but with the generally accepted chronology of Egypt, and that the Egyptian dates need to be reduced by some 600 years at the time of the Exodus. This would mean that the ruling dynasty of Egypt at the time of the Exodus would be the 13th dynasty, rather than the 18th or 19th dynasty as is now generally believed, and the Pharaohs who ruled at the time of Joseph and Moses were the Kings of the 12th dynasty. When this system is adopted there is found to be remarkable agreement between the histories of Egypt and Israel.”
If you will remember, this is similar to the position which F. David Fry took in his book “Hebrew Sages of Ancient Egypt (A Revised Discipline In Antiquity),” which I spoke about in lesson #31. I must point out again, people like Fry and David K. Down quoted above failed to check out the archaeological finds which have been made at Jericho. The following is what I said concerning this in that lesson:
“Finds at Jericho prove beyond all doubt that Fry cannot be correct. If you know your Bible story of Jericho, it will be remembered that after the Israelites destroyed it, Joshua placed a curse on it that it would never again be occupied.” With this in mind, let’s read “The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible,”“Archaeological Supplement,” page 1802, ©1990:
“On the outskirts of the old city mound Garstang discovered a cemetery where he opened scores of graves that yielded quantities of pottery vessels, considerable jewelry, and about 170 scarab beatles. In these tombs he found pottery from the Early Middle, and Late Bronze periods, but only a few shards of Mycenian ware...The Egyptian scarabs can be dated with certainty since they mention various pharaohs by name and represent each of them from Thutmose III, another that of Amenhotep II, who was depicted as an archer, corresponding well with his tomb records in Egypt. The series of dated scarabs end with the two royal seals of Amenhotep III...Nothing else in the tombs suggests later dates.”
As Joshua had placed a curse on anyone who might try to rebuild and occupy Jericho (Joshua 6:26), this is very good evidence that these 18th Egyptian pharaohs lived before Jericho was destroyed by the Israelites under Joshua’s command. This evidence alone blows Fry and Down clean out of the water.
On pages 7-9 Down postulates that the Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba; that somehow Queen Hatshepsut was contemporary with Solomon. It makes one wonder how any of Queen Hatshepsut’s scarabs ended up 450 years previous to Solomon’s time in the ruins of Jericho, doesn’t it? I thought maybe the next thing that Down might contend was that Pharaoh Ramesses II, the Great, was contemporary with Alexander the Great, or maybe even the same person. Who knows how such a mind reasons.
Then on page 9, Down tries to identify Shishak of Egypt (1 Kings 11:40; 14:25-26) as “Thutmosis.” Although he didn’t say which Thutmosis, he could only mean Thutmosis III. Here is a good example of starting with a false premise, and then trying to build on it. I hope you are beginning to see how important it is that we be careful in our research in order to get things in their proper sequence. So much for that.
God of the Day vs. God of the Night
It seems that Egypt may have had their version of
Genesis 3:15. there have been and are two classes of people in the world in an all-out opposing WAR with each other; namely, the children of light and the children of darkness. There seems to be evidence of this in Egypt. To show you this, I will quote from “Cleopatra’s Needles,” by E.A. Wallis Budge, pages 80-83:
“One of the most important temples rebuilt, or more probably founded by Amenemhat I, was the great temple that he dedicated to the Sun-god of Heliopolis, in his forms of Her-em-aakhu...i.e., Horus on the eastern or morning horizon, and Atem...i.e., the Sun-god on the western or evening horizon. The city of Heliopolis, called in Egyptian Anu Meht...i.e., the ‘Northern Anu’ to distinguish it from Anu rest...the ‘Southern Anu’ or Hermonthis, which lies a few miles to the south of Thebes, was one of the oldest cities in Egypt. From time immemorial Helioplois formed the terminus of the caravan roads from the north, west and south, and was in consequence a flourishing trade center. (No wonder the Hyksos wanted it]. It is probable that it was the capital of the ‘kings of the North,’ i.e., Lower Egypt, in predynastic times. It was home of many cult (belief systems), first and foremost among which was the cult of the Sun-god, whose various forms were, in early times, called Khepera, Atem, etc.
“The Hebrews called the city ‘On’ or ‘Aven’ (Genesis 41:45, 50; Ezekiel 30:17) and ‘Beth Shemesh,’ (Jeremiah 43:13), or ‘House of the Sun,’ and it will be remembered that Joseph married a daughter of Potipherah (in Egyptian .. Pa-ta-pa-Ra, ‘The gift of Ra’), a priest of On (Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20). There was a famous well or fountain at Heliopolis in which, according to tradition, the Sun-god Ra bathed his face when he rose for the first time on the world. This well is still to be seen at Matariyah, which the Arabs call ‘Ain ash-Shems,’ i.e., ‘Fountain of the Sun.’
“It is stated in the Apocryphal Books that the Virgin Mary rested by this well, and drew from it the water with which she washed the clothes of her Child, and that wherever the water fell balsam-bearing plants sprang up; drops of oil made from them were always mixed with the water used in baptizing Christians...The priests of Heliopolis were famed for their leaning, and they were a very powerful body at all times. Little is known of them or of their god Ra...under Dynasties I-III, but the name of their god forms part of the praenomen of Neb-ka-Ra, a king of the IIIrd dynasty, and it also appears in the names Khaf-Ra and Men-kau-Ra, kings of the IV Dynasty. The first three kings of the Vth Dynasty were sons of a high priest of Ra, and from this time, onwards each Pharaoh bore a special name as the ‘son of Ra.’
“Several of the kings of the Vth Dynasty built great ‘sun-temples’ on the west bank of the Nile at Abu Gurab and Abusir, and the object of the cult was a monolith, probably of sandstone, in the form of a short obelisk resting on a plinth of pedestal in the form of a truncated pyramid. That the priests of Ra. were able to seize the throne of Egypt, and the priests of Ra. were able to seize the throne of Egypt and to set, first, members of their corporation and, next, their nominees upon it in succession makes it clear that they were predominant among the priesthood of that country ... Ra. was the god of the day and of this world, and his power was believed to be supreme and absolute; all the other great gods were regarded as forms of him. But when his priesthood attempted to force his cult upon all Egyptians in the South as well as upon those in the North, they found it most difficult to accomplish, because the people generally worshiped the ancient, and perhaps Indigenous, God Osiris...Asar, or Asari, the god of the night, the Underworld and death. A GREAT STRUGGLE TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE PRIESTHOOD OF RA AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF OSIRIS, and in the end the supposed powers of Ra and the extent of his dominion were curtailed...”
It appears that the early Egyptian dynasty kings, their names being “sons of Ra.,” was symbolic for “sons of light.” On page 92 of this same book we are told that Thothmes I looked favorably on the priesthood at Heliopolis. Thothmes I (Tuthmosis I) was still of unmixed royal blood. This is what the passage says:
“...Thothmes I was the first king who set up obelisks in Thebes, and in view of the later religious history of the XVIIIth Dynasty his actions seem to show that he was favorably disposed to the doctrines of the priesthood of Heliopolis, and that he wished to link the cult of Ra. with that of the Theban god amen. As Usertsen I had set up a pair of obelisks before the house of Ra at Hellopolis, so Thothmes I set up a pair before a pylon of the temple of Amen.
“The obelisk that is still standing is about 90 feet high, and is in a good state of preservation...A single column of inscription originally occupied the middle of each of the four faces, and from these texts we learn that Thothmes I dedicated ‘two great obelisks’...to his father Amen-Ra. On the pieces of the fallen obelisk the cartouches of Thothmes III are found, and because of this some have argued that this obelisk was made by Thothmes III and not by Thothmes I, but the inscription of the latter on the standing obelisk speaks distinctly of two obelisks, and the official Anni states in his biography that he superintended the erection of two obelisks. It is probable that Thothmes I died before his inscriptions were cut on the second obelisk and that it was usurped by Thothmes III...”
“Horus of the Double Crown, Beloved of Ra, King of the South and the North, Men-kheper-Ra. The monuments of the gods the lover, supplying with meat and drink the altar of the souls of Heliopolis making to be satisfied their Majesties at the two seasons (i.e., morning and evening). This [is] with them with life [and] serenity for hundreds of thousands of the Set Festival, many, great, sons of Ra., Thothmes, governor of the god, of Ra.-Harakhtes beloved, living for ever.”
We should not be surprised that Thothmes I looked favorably on the priesthood of Heliopolis, for the Bible tells us that a pharaoh gave Joseph his wife. (Genesis 41:45) But, if you will remember, Thothmes III (Tuthmosis III) was not of pure royal blood. This is the same Tuthmosis III that Queen Hatshepsut prevented from gaining the throne for a number of years, after which he tried to destroy all memory of her. HERE AGAIN, WE SEE GENESIS 3:15 AT WORK BETWEEN THE TRUE ROYAL BLOOD OF THE PHARAOHS OF EGYPT AND THE CORRUPTED BLOOD OF THE ENEMY GAINING THE THRONE. It is obvious, that if we can’t understand the Satanic seedline, we can understand neither Bible nor history. In other words, there are a lot of people walking around in a lopsided dream-world of universal religion.
Ben of the Ben
In the last lesson (#41), we discussed the subject of the”Ben Stone,” many times referred to as the “benben.” I will now repeat part of a quote I used in that lesson from “Cleopatra’s Needles,” by E.A. Wallis Budge, page 8:
“At a period which is so remote that no date can be assigned to it, the people of Anu (the On of the Hebrews and the Heliopolis of the Greeks) had as the object of their cult a stone, which was thick at the base and tapered to a point at the top, and much resembled in shape the funerary stelae found in the tombs of Tcha, or Tchat, and other early kings at Abydos. This stone was called Ben, and in the texts of the 6th Dynasty its determinative resembles a small obelisk...i.e., a short, thick shaft surrounded by a little pyramid...Why this Ben Stone was sacred, or how it acquired its sanctity, is not known...”
If the priesthood at Heliopolis were Shemites, which we can be fairly assured they were, we really shouldn’t be surprised at such a stone called the “benben.” In the Hebrew the term “ben” means “son.” The Hebrew term “ben” is #1121 in the Strong’s Concordance. It is used in Genesis 3:16, “thou shalt bring forth children;” genesis 4:25, “and she bare a son;” Genesis 30:1, “Give me children or else I die;” Exodus 34:7, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children;” Proverbs 13:22, “leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children;” Ecclesiastes 2:3, “sons of men (Adam)” and 1 Kings 20:35, “sons of the prophets.”
What is interesting is that the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for “ben” is a man’s foot up to just below the knee. Therefore, I believe we can be sure that it has something to do with a man or mankind. It would seem that a man’s footsteps could surely represent a man’s life, (or a woman’s for that matter). When there are two feet in the hieroglyphics, it is then “benben.” It appears that it might be saying “sons of sons,” or possibly “children of children.” This sounds to me like the genealogy of a family, is it possible the “Ben Stone” is sacred, as it represents the Almighty’s family or posterity?
The “Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies,” explains the term “ben,” in its various forms, as follows on page 404:
“SON. 1 ... a son by whom parents are built up and families increased; also a son by adoption, Exodus 2:10; by creation and preservation, as the angels, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; by regeneration, as the faithful Psalm 73:15; Proverbs 14:26; who are loved, sanctified and blessed of God as their Father, Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Isaiah 1:2; Jeremiah 3:19; Hosea 11:1. The young of any creature, Metaph., the branch is a son with respect of the tree, Psalm 80:15; the scholar with respect to his master (sons of the prophets), an arrow with respect to the bow or quiver, Job 41:38; corn with respect to the threshing-floor, Isaiah 21:10; a hill is the son of oil with respect to fertility, Isaiah 5:1; a wicked person is a son of Belial or wickedness; a person guilty of a capital crime is a son of death, 1 Samuel 20:31. Any man is said to be a son in respect to the years of his age, a son of two, & etc. 2...a son, from the idea of begetting, being born; the common word for son in Chaldee, but in Hebrew only poetic...3...to make affinity by marriage...to be son-in-law...4 ...to beget; to bear...a child...5...progeny, offspring...condition of a son. 6...posterity, son’s son.” (I.e., benben, my observation)
The Ashet Tree
Of particular interest are the inscriptions found on the obelisks of Queen Hatshepsut where affectionate mention is made to an “Ashet tree.” Wallis Budge makes reference to the “Ashet tree” three times in his book “Cleopatra’s Needles,” on the following pages:
Page 95: “Marked out for him the lord of the gods of the Set festival on the Ashet tree; the son of Ra., Thothmes diademed like Ra., beloved of Amen-Ra. Ka-mut-f, endowed with life for ever.”
Page 105: “Her father, Amen, hath established her great name, Maat-ka-Ra, on the Holy Ashet tree, being united to life, stability and serenity. The son of Ra, the counterpart of Amen, Hatshepsut, beloved of Amen-Ra, the king of the gods...this beautiful [and enduring] monument...which she made (i.e., dedicated) to him on the first day of the Set Festival, she doing this that life might be given to her for ever.
Pages 170-171: “Horus of the Double Crown, Bull mighty of Ra beloved, King of the South and the North, Men-Kheper-Ra. Established Father Tem his name great of cartouches with enduring sovereignty in the Great House of Anu, when he gave to him the throne of God [and] the rank of Khepera, the son of Ra., Thothmes, righteous governor, of the Souls of Heliopolis beloved, given life forever...Horus of the Double Crown, Bull mighty crowned by Truth, King of the south and the North, Men-Kheper-Ra. Multiplied for him the Lord of the gods...Set knowing that his son was I, flesh producing from Neb-er-tcher, the son of Ra. Thothmes, governor of Heliopolis, of Ra.-Harakhthes beloved, living for ever.”
Undoubtedly, if the priesthood at Heliopolis was of the House of Shem, it would be safe to conclude that the “Set Festivals” were the celebration of Seth as their patriarch, and the “Holy Ashet tree” could possibly represent the Seth family tree. For some confirmation that this might be true, I will now quote from a book entitled “The World of the Past,” edited by Jacquetta Hawks, chapter 2, “Greece and Crete,”“The Bronze Age of Hesiod:”
“The Greek poet Hesiod wrote his Works and Days in the eighth century B.C. In it he divides human history into five Ages. His pre-archaeological idea of a Bronze Age preceding an Iron Age probably owes something to genuine folk memory
‘Then Zeus the father again made humankind,
A breed of bronze, far differently designed,
A bred from the Ash-tree sprung, huge-limbed and
Lovers of battle and horror, no eaters of bread,
Their hearts were hard, their adamant hearts: none
To meet their power of limbs and their hardihood,
And the swing of the terrible arms their shoulders bore.
Bronze were their arms, bronze the armour they word,
And their tools; for no dark iron suppled their needs...’”
Often we wonder where some of our family names came from; the name “Ash” being one of them. Checking my phone book there are several, including Ashburn and Ashcraft. Are these names more ancient than we imagine? Could the Tribe of Asher, for instance, be named after the “Ash-tree” family of Seth? Out of many varieties of ash, there is one named Oleaceæ, which is related to the OLIVE TREE, producing a single winged seed; a most useful tree as regards to rapid growth and production of lumber, and being distinguished for its height, shape, and graceful foliage. Ash wood is hard, stiff and especially strong, and mainly used for shovel, hoe, and rake handles. It is also used for spears, boat oars and baseball bats. No doubt, a great wood for “battle-ax” handles. How fitting a tree to represent our people. Does all this seem to exemplify the Adam-man?
Another point worth mentioning which the poet Hesiod puts forth is: not all peoples were created at the same time; that there was a separate creation of a SPECIAL KIND of man. Do you notice how this “differently designed” man is described similar to Jeremiah 51:20 as: “my battle axe and weapons of war ...?”
Herodotus on the “Phoenix”
I shall address Herodotus’ version of the “phoenix bird” story. Before I do, however, I would like to show some of Herodotus’ other deductions. Once we observe some of his conclusions, caution might be advisable. Let’s go back to “Cleopatra’s Needles,” by E.A. Wallis Budge, page 9, for his reported version:
“The home of this bird was someplace in Arabia, and a phoenix visited Heliopolis at the close of every period of 500 years. Towards the end of his life he built a nest in Arabia to which he imported the power of generation, so when he died another phoenix arose out of it. When the new phoenix had grown up he went to Heliopolis and burned his father, whose ashes he burned in the temple of the Sun-god there.”
On February 21, Educational channel 30, WGTE, Toledo, Ohio, ran a program entitled “Lost City of the Pyramids.” It was about a city some archaeologists had found where the workers were housed during the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza. As the story developed, with archaeological evidence, they established with little doubt that Herodotus’ account of the building of the pyramids lacked credibility. The following are excerpts of the narration of that program:
“The most common myth about the pyramid builders is that they were slaves. This view made popular by Hollywood actually dates back to the Greek historian Herodotus. He visited Egypt 2700 years after the pyramids had been finished, and was told by his guide that slaves had provided the labor. With no contradictonary evidence this view has persisted, and it is still offered in modern-day guidebooks...Egyptologist Mark Lehner believed evidence of large scale food production was an important clue...
“Hundreds of bread molds and numerous baking pits indicated food preparation on a vast scale. Archaeologists had the first sign that the site was the base for a large undertaking ... elsewhere on the site, other bones were found that indicated a healthy and diverse diet...our animal bone specialist tells us there is an awful lot of cattle, and cattle is very expensive meat; came from the provinces. And a lot of the cattle we are finding here is prime cut and under two years of age. So, everything about our site suggests its expensive.
“Far from the image of starving laborers surviving on rations, this site has revealed a work force who drank beer, and ate baked bread, fresh fish, and expensive cuts of prime beef. From the tombs in the town a picture was emerging of a construction project manned by a large number of workers who were well fed and highly organized...The equal numbers of men and women, and the proportion of children, including babies as young as two months, suggested to the scientists that they were examining whole families ... As hoped, the DNA proved conclusively that there were complete families living in the city of the pyramid builders. This was no work camp, but a thriving social community...The high standard of medical care the laborers of the plateau enjoyed makes it quite unlikely that they were slaves...
“Why, for instance, spend time and effort looking after slaves? If this was simply slave labor, then another slave can be brought in...The evidence continued to build: their tombs; the food the workers ate; and the medical care they received all suggest a community that was treated as something of an elite...In his account, the Greek historian Herodotus was clear; he had recorded that it had taken 100,000 slaves 30 years to build the great Pyramid of Khufu, but the picture that was emerging from the excavation was a vastly different one. The discoveries had already proved Herodotus wrong once. The pyramid builders had clearly not been slaves. Would the findings now reveal that he was also wrong about the number of workers and the methods they had used.”
As the story turned out, at least according to this program, Herodotus was wrong on that score too. It was estimated by a Dr. Craig Smith, a modern engineering consultant, that it would have been more likely 20,000 men working 20 years to build the Great Pyramid. What does this have to do with the phoenix? It shows that if Herodotus was wrong about the building of the Great Pyramid, he could be wrong about the phoenix bird story also.
In researching this topic, I can see where Herodotus might have been relying too much on his contemporary Egyptian folk tale. When we realize that Herodotus was investigating the story 2700 years after the fact, it’s hard to imagine how much the story might have been corrupted by his time. Again this is something I will have to take up in the next lesson. I will tell you this, though: there seems to be a connection between the “phoenix bird” of Heliopolis and the Phoenicians, and we’ve only gotten a good start on this thing.
I have been getting all kinds of reports of various teachings being introduced into Identity circles. For the life of me, I can only wonder where all this garbage is coming from. Furthermore, the enemy is really blasting away on television employing every possible avenue to promote his multi-cultural program. The tide of interracial relationships and marriages is rising steadily. It is evident that we are under attack from without and within. I must warn you, everyone who is spouting Israel Identity is not necessarily a friend. Have you ever wondered what “Jewry’s” Luciferin priesthood means in Protocol No. 14 which says:
“Our philosophers will discuss all the shortcomings of the varius beliefs of the non-Jews. But no one will bring under discussion our faith from its true point of view since this will be learned by none save ours, who will never dare betray its secret?”
If there were ever a belief system the enemy would want to infiltrate and destroy, it would be the Israel Identity message. There are some now who are ashamed of this name designation. If it was good enough for John Wilson and Edward Hine, it’s good enough for me, and I shall continue to use it.
(I agree, I still use it, and I am not afraid of what the enemy calls us, or how they try to demonize us; for I know that my God: Yahweh reigns in all things and that they cannot do anything without His permission.)
The so-called “Christian” television has joined the enemy in their agenda of promoting race-mixing. I caught one of John Hagee’s programs which I later tried to record when it was rebroadcast. In my at5tempt to record him, I missed his pro-interracial remarks. I did get his last few word where he said this:
“We’re (meaning all races) one in the spirit, and if that’s too liberal for your red-neck theology, hit the door, we need your seat.”
I also managed to get his remarks on the “Jews” when he stated:
“...The third kind of hatred or enmity, mentioned in Scriptures, is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the Jewish people. The Romans called the Jewish religion barbaric superstition. Why? Because the Jewish people circumcise their sons on the eighth day, according to the Commandment of God to enter into the Covenant.
“The Romans looked at what God told the Jewish people to do, and called it barbaric superstition. God called it a Covenant relationship. The Jews considered the Gentiles as unclean because they were polytheist; they had hundreds of gods, as did the Romans. They believed that; they ate swine’s flesh which made them unclean. And, they were in general, and I’m talking about the Gentiles, and his word Gentile, was the word goyim, which in the King James is translated heathen. So when you read the word heathen in the King James version, your picture is right beside it, cause that’s us. The heathen were sexual; were sexually immoral. All you have to do is read Acts 15 and 1st Corinthians to understand what Paul was trying to get the Gentiles to do.
“Anti-Semitism is alive and well in America. Let me tell you this: Genesis 12:1 and 3 says: ‘I will bless those that bless you, and I will curse those who curse you.’ If something within you resents the Jewish people, that something is a demon spirit. The Jewish people, according to the Word of God, are the apple of God’s eye. The nation of Israel is the object of God’s affection, for David said: ‘He that keepth Israel (and the phrase ‘keep’ was a military term), he that defends Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.’ Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus Christ were all Jews. How can Christians praise the dead Jews of the past and hate the Jews living across the street? You cannot do that. It is not possi8ble to say: ‘I’m a Christian’ and be an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is sin, and as sin, it damns the soul. If anti-Semitism is in your thought, is in your speech, is in your nature, get it out, because the judgment of God will come to you...”
Here we have Hagee giving the Jews the credit for the Bible and everything else that is Christian. When nothing could be further from the truth. He is an unmitaged liar; for the Jews are NOT Israelites, they are the children of the devil, Bastards from a mixture of True Israelites and the other races and people indegenious to the area around Palestine. The Jews being a Bastard race, a mixture of True Israelites, Canaanites (the cursed seed of Ham, the son of Noah), the Kenites (the cursed seed of Cain), the Edomites (the cursed son of Esau, who despised his birthright, and whom Yahweh said He hated). Hagee knows all this but will not teach it because he desires the wealth that the Jews can provide him, instead of the glory of Yahweh.
I don’t have to tell you, there is no doubt about it, that Hagee is in bed with the enemy! He is aiding and abetting them in a time of WAR! Folks, we are living in dangerous times.
There does not seem to much doubt that Hagee will be one of these:
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:20-23)
Today (August 7, 2001), there was a professed “teacher” on “Christian television.” He started talking about the Abrahamic Covenant, and how the whole human race is offered salvation through it. He repeated this “whole human race’ doctrine three times. Each time he quoted a Scripture he used it out of context. When he quoted Genesis 3:15, the only subject he discussed was that “Christ” was the seed of the woman. However, he never so much as mentioned the seed of the serpent. He went through the usual routine of nominal or Judeo-“Churchianity,” trying to prove the Law was done away with.
Here was a man trying to present himself as an authority on the Word of Yahweh, and does not have the slightest iota of what it is all about. When we consider characters of this man’s nature, and the perilous danger our race is in today, we can begin to realize our dilemma. People like this have nothing to offer in our time of need. They are only working against us; against the Almighty and His Kingdom. They are no good to themselves nor anyone else, and at judgment they will stand empty-handed before Yahweh.
“WOE BE UNTO THE PASTORS THAT DESTROY AND SCATTER THE SHEEP OF MY PASTURE!... Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel AGAINST THE PASTORS THAT FEED MY PEOPLE; YE HAVE SCATTERED MY FLOCK, AND DRIVEN THEM AWAY, AND HAVE NOT VISITED THEM: BEHOLD, I WILL VISIT UPON YOU THE EVIL OF YOUR DOINGS ... For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right. For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, IN MY HOUSE HAVE I FOUND THEIR WICKEDNESS ...Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in the darkness: they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I WILL BRING EVIL UPON THEM, EVEN THE YEAR OF THEIR VISITATION...I HAVE SEEN FOLLY IN THE PROPHETS...THEY PROPHESIED IN BAAL, AND CAUSED MY PEOPLE ISRAEL TO ERR. I HAVE SEEN ALSO IN THE PROPHETS...AN HORRIBLE THING: THEY COMMIT ADULTERY, AND WALK IN LIES: THEY STRENGTHEN ALSO THE HANDS OF EVILDOERS, THAT NONE DOTH RETURN FROM HIS WICKEDNESS: THEY ARE ALL OF THEM UNTO ME AS SODOM, AND THE INHABITANTS THEREOF AS GOMORRAH. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets; BEHOLD, I WILL FEED THEM WITH WORMWOOD, AND MAKE THEM DRINK THE WATER OF GALL: FOR FROM THE PROPHETS...IS PROFANENESS GONE FORTH INTO ALL THE LAND. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, HEARKEN NOT UNTO THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS THAT PROPHESY UNTO YOU: THEY MAKE YOU VAIN: THEY SPEAK A VISION OF THEIR OWN HEART, AND NOT OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE LORD. THEY SAY STILL UNTO THEM THAT DESPISE ME...Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: IT SHALL FALL GRIEVOUSLY UPON THE HEAD OF THE WICKED...I HAVE NOT SENT THESE PROPHETS, YET THEY RAN: I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THEM, YET THEY PROPHESIED. BUT IF THEY HAD STOOD IN MY COUNSEL, AND HAD CAUSED MY PEOPLE TO HEAR MY WORDS, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED THEM FROM THEIR EVIL WAY, AND FROM THE EVIL OF THEIR DOINGS...I HAVE HEARD WHAT THE PROPHETS SAID, THAT PROPHESY LIES IN MY NAME...WHICH THINK TO CAUSE MY PEOPLE TO FORGET MY NAME BY THEIR DREAMS ...AS THEIR FATHERS HAVE FORGOTTEN MY NAME FOR BAAL...THEREFORE, BEHOLD, I AM AGAINST THE PROPHETS...THAT STEAL MY WORDS EVERY ONE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR. BEHOLD, I AM AGAINST THE PROPHETS...BEHOLD, I AM AGAINST THEM THAT PROPHESY FALSE DREAMS ...AND CAUSE MY PEOPLE TO ERR BY THEIR LIES, AND BY THEIR LIGHTNESS; YET I SENT THEM NOT, NOR COMMANDED THEM: THEREFORE THEY SHALL NOT PROFIT THIS PEOPLE AT ALL...THEREFORE, BEHOLD, I, EVEN I, WILL UTTERLY FORGET YOU, AND I WILL FORSAKE YOU, AND THE CITY THAT I GAVE YOU AND YOUR FATHERS, AND CAST YOU OUT OF MY PRESENCE: AND I WILL BRING AN EVERLASTING REPROACH UPON YOU, AND A PERPETUAL SHAME, WHICH SHALL NOT BE FORGOTTEN.” (Jeremiah 23:1‑40)
Another teaching that I have always considered to be very truthful, yet I have began to question it also, because when compared to other scriptures it would appear that it does not belong in the Bible or should be worded differently. And that is the teaching on John 3:16. Now you can chastize me all you wish but there is a question about it and I again present it for your review.
When I first heard that John 3:16 was added at some point in time and that it was not in the original, I was a little skeptical. But after doing a little research
on it, I find that It would indeed appear that it was added.
Please read and let me know your thoughts on it. Also let me know your thoughts about it and if there is anything that I should add to it.
Original New Testament (ONT)
(See Authentic New Testament). Footnote: While much that was in his documentary source (the Memoirs of John the Priest) has been adapted by the Greek author to bring the text into line with his ideas, as here, some passages, largely by way of commentary, stand out as his distinctive contribution. Whenever possible attention has been drawn to these, as in this instance, and some have been placed below the main body of the text and in slightly smaller type. The present passage is John 3:16‑21. [This passage has been so placed by the translator].
The Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation has the following in bracket indicating that the verse WAS ADDED BY THE TRANSLATORS at some point in time.
[For God so loved the world that He gave the only‑ begotten Son, so that every one believing in Him should not be lost, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son to the world that He might condemn the world; but that He might save the world through Him...] and ends with John 3:21, Therefore it would appear that all the verses from John 3:16 forward to John 3:21 were added.
It appears that John 3:16 was not in the original Gutenberg Bible. You can see for yourself at the following url:
Love Not The World
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15)
If this is true, and we believe that it is, then why would Yahweh say that He so loved the world? We don't believe that He would do so.
Now the question that was put forth that so many began jumping up and down because it was even suggested that John 3:16 should not be in the Bible.
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26)
We also have the testimony of Luke:
"...take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." (Luke 21:34‑36)
"...know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4)
In Colossians we are told:
"Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." (Colossians 3:2)
Yet John 3:16 is a direct contradiction to the above verses.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
Therefore, we must research the word "world" and see what it actually means.
World: Strong's Concordance: #2889 kosmos (kos'‑ mos); probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): KJV‑adorning, world.
World: Strong's Concordance: #2865 komizo (kom‑ id'‑zo); from a primary komeo (to tend, i.e. take care of); properly, to provide for, i.e. (by implication) to carry off (as if from harm; genitive case obtain): KJV‑‑ bring, receive.
World: Thayer's Definition: #2889 kosmos‑
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, that is, the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts,’ as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Romans 11:12 etc)
a) used of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19
World: Thayer's Definition: #2865 komizo‑
1) to care for, to take care of, to provide for
2) to take up or carry away in order to care for and preserve
3) to carry away, to bear off
4) to carry, to bear, to bring to, to carry away for oneself, to carry off what is one's own, to bring back
a) to receive, to obtain: the promised blessing
b) to receive what was previously one's own, to get back, to receive back, to recover
Now does it make sense that Yahweh would tell us that He loved world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, SEDUCE FROM GOD AND ARE OBSTACLES TO THE CAUSE OF CHRIST.
WORLD: "World is also associated with mankind. Christ said of His disciples, 'Ye are the light of the world' <Matt. 5:14a>. OFTEN WORLD IS USED TO INDICATE 'THE MEN OF THIS WORLD' WHO ARE SAID TO LIE IN WICKEDNESS <Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19>. THE MEN ARE CALLED 'THE WORLD,' not only because they compose the greater part of the world's population, but mainly because they pursue and cherish the things of this world. The Psalmist describes these men 'as having their portion in this life' <Ps. 17:14>.
"World may also denote the fleeting character of life's riches and pleasures and the folly of making them of central importance in life. "Will a person gain anything if he wins the whole world, but loses his life?" <Matt. 16:26>. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Now John 3:16 makes even less sense, and it certainly appears that it does not belong in the Bible or men have been interpreting it in error for a long period of time. It would appear that John 3:16, like the rest of the Bible is making reference only to the Israelites in the world; not to all mankind.
When reading John 3:16, seldom does the Judeo‑ Christian clergy mention the following verse:
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)
This is very clear, if men of Yahweh will only look with their eyes open and not closed by the lying, deceiving Judeo‑Christian clergy, that John is speaking of the Israelites who were, even then, scattered all over the earth. He is not speaking of the blacks, Chinese, and the other races or peoples, he is speaking only of the world of Israelites.
But men will deny this because their eyes have been blinded to the truth as the scriptures say:
"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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And THEN SHALL THAT WICKED BE REVEALED, WHOM THE LORD SHALL CONSUME WITH THE SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH, AND SHALL DESTROY WITH THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thessalonians 2:3‑12)
We full well realize that many will say we are the ones deceived, not them. But you be the judge, if we are explaining this and MOST WILL DENY IT, and we know that most are deceived, who is telling the truth. It is those who are few in number, whom the masses will deny.
Many people who claim to be Christian don't know the meaning of the word; for they think all they have to do is run down to the altar and bow down on their knees and pray and that is accepting Yahshua as their savior. IT IS NOT. For they will go out and not think about church again for the next week when they attend church again.
Oh yes some will listen to the television preachers, or listen to the radio preachers, never knowing that these people are not teaching them a thing; but are only regurgating a politically correct sermon from some book or set of books. Therefore, they have wasted that much time listening to them because they have not learned anything about Yahweh's Word or His Laws, Statutes, and Judgment.
Yet they will listen to these same television evangelists, and radio evangelist tell them that Yahweh's Laws have been done away with. Which is a bald faced lie. They have not been done away with, for if they had then there would be no more sin, and if there were no sin then Yahshua died in vain.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)
Therefore, if the Laws of Yahweh have been done away with then what law are the sinners breaking in order to have to be saved from their sins. No it is not possible for the Law to be done away with and any preacher or teacher that tells you that is a liar and the truth is not in him.
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4)
We know just from observation that it is the jews who love the world, and all the material goods, gold, silver and things of value. Yet they are the ones who will be totally destroyed in the end, by God’s Servant Race, the Anglo-Saxon, Germainc, Scandinavian, Celtic, Nordic, Slavic and kindred people of the so-called Christian Nations of the West.