Ex-Minister's Blog....Ministers that have left the faith!

Website changes!!!

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:15:00 +0000

from Brian

Hello everyone! Just a brief note about some major changes upon the website.

First, I had learned that my lil ole website was NOT search engine friendly. In fact, I had 516 ERRORS that hurt Ex-Minister with search engines. I have been working to correct those and still have much work to do! The biggest problem was with the titles and naming of the pages. SO MANY OF THE BOOKMARKS HAVE CHANGED!

Second, as I have always wanted to reach outside of the usual English speaking territories; I have always wanted translation tools upon each page. So I have fixed this and most every page upon the website can be translated with the useful Google translation tools.

Third, as I have come to understand how to do more things with my old MS Front Page software, I have been wanting to GIVE BACK to the many contributors to the website in my small little way. SO NOW, I can POST AUTHORS BOOKS and etc. with links to where you can browse and purchase their work if you so desire! I encourage you to do so! I have sought to display what I consider to be outstanding truths or messages to the website. (Sorry, but my writing gets a free pass and gets to hang out with these fantastic writers)

Website traffic has continually climbed every month. I could rightfully say that last month's traffic numbers were the best ever (and repeat this every month.) Still, I get so many hacking jobs and seems like that I cannot go more than a week between someone placing "tracking" information upon the website. I would probably post the numbers if only I could trust the ones that I see. Needless to say, I see a lot of strange stuff!

Last, I have not worked the blog as much as I would like to. I am pondering some changes and possibly thinking about replacing it with a new concept. That concept would integrate people of faith...but...as they say this thought is "still in the oven!"

How long was Jesus' tomb left unsealed?

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:04:00 +0000

Now, from this time just before sunset on Friday evening, until sometime the next day, probably around mid-day or afternoon, according to what was done and the dialog.

"Now the NEXT DAY, that followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and

Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver

said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore,

that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day, LEST HIS DISCIPLES COME

BY NIGHT, AND STEAL HIM AWAY, AND SAY UNTO THE PEOPLE, HE IS

RISEN FROM THE DEAD; so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate

said unto them, Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So

they went, and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone, and setting watch." (Matt. 27:62-66)

I think that is exactly what happened. I think that night (Friday night) before the tomb was sealed, some came to the tomb and took the body away, probably to another place and buried it there. When they took the body wrapped in linen, they probably left the excess linen that Nicodemus left there. Remember, later on Sunday;

Now the women had seen the tomb where the body was put by Joseph, so they came to THAT TOMB early Sunday morning (either before day brake or after it was light, depending on which gospel record you read.)It should also be noted that an empty tomb does not prove a resurrection really occurred. As Geisler admits on page 37 in "The Battle for the Resurrection," "The empty tomb in itself does not prove the resurrection of Christ any more than a missing body in a morgue proves someone has resurrected." Neither does an empty tomb plus A SERIES OF APPEARANCES OF SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANYONE, prove the resurrection. The original body could have been moved and have disappeared and the appearances could have been of someone else who slightly resembled him.

I think it is entirely possible that from the time he was buried and the stone rolled up to the entrance, until the next day when the soldiers sealed it, that disciples came, rolled the stone away, (it wasn't sealed yet) moved the body to an undisclosed location, left some of the grave clothes, then rolled back the stone. The woman/women who had watched where he was buried, returned two days later, (early Sunday morning), thinking the body was in that tomb, to the tomb which was now empty. Peter and John returned to this now empty tomb also.

Moreover, every time someone saw the resurrected Jesus, they all did not recognize him as Jesus.

In answer to the original question, which was, "How long was Jesus' tomb left unsealed?" I believe the answer is; from about 6:00 P.M. until about mid-afternoon the following day. Or, about some 20 plus hours. Ample time to remove the body and roll the stone back, and re-bury the body.

Bill Henness

Don't send an escaped slave back to his master

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:01:00 +0000

Paul claimed to always be free from offending God, men or the Law.

"And paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brothren, I have lived in all

good conscience before God until this day." (Acts 23:1)

"And in this do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward

God, and toward men." (24:16)

Paul was very familiar with the laws of God, so, he, without any doubt, knew this one.

"Thou shalt NOT deliver unto his master the servant who is escaped from his master

unto thee." (deut. 23:15)

However, Paul, who was well aquainted with the law, did the exact opposite. He wrote to the slave's master:

"Whom I have sent again; thou, therefore, receive him, that is, mine own heart." (Phil. 12)

There was a servant named Onesimus, who ran away from his master, Philemon. He and Paul met and Paul sent him back to his master, contrary to what the law of God said. How could Paul say his conscience was ALWAYS clean, unless he was a pretender and a fake?

Bill Henness

So Many Paths

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:06:00 +0000

from Paul Benedict

As a regular reader and sometime contributor to this excellent site I have been challenged and saddened. It would appear that sometimes, some of us, tend to become what we might have been in our previous days of ministry - intolerant. I wonder whether this lyric will help to stabilise us emotionally when those turbulent thoughts emerge.

So Many Paths lyrics

Artist: Little River Band
Album: Backstage Pass
Buy Backstage Pass CD
Lyrics: So Many Paths

The atmosphere is electric and the minds are on the move,
they all know where they're going but noone is too sure,
I've heard a lot of talking, I've nearly drowned in their words,
and my heart is full of answers just as the sky is full of birds.

There are so many paths up the mountain,
nobody knows all the ways,
there are so many paths up the mountain,
and the view from the top is still the same.

If you should stumble and fall down, people don't know what to do,
pretend that they didn't notice, they'll sidestep and walk around you,
don't let it be your worry, no, no don't let it get you concerned,
you've got to move on in your own direction, forget what you ever learned.

There are so many paths up the mountain,
nobody knows all the ways,
there are so many paths up the mountain,
and the view from the top is still the same.

Angry voices from the shadows,
in the valley, the sun don't shine,
make your mind up which way you're going,
there are ooh so many paths.

Rainy day thoughts

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:33:00 +0000

from Bill Henness
I have been sitting on the front porch swing watching it rain and thinking (which will get you in trouble every time). Here are some of my thoughts.

Since no one knows how everything first started, i.e. life on Earth, plant and animal, then there is no point of trying to determine how it all started.

When I look at the trees I have no idea whether they were created or how they got here.

All the miracles recorded in the bible have allegedly happened thousands of years ago, so this is all hearsay from someone else. Sometimes second handed. It is obvious that miracles, like the ones in the bible do not happen today. So, if you discount miracles, everything just moves alone with nature, century after century.

I think the only reason a person even thinks about a Supreme Being creating everything is because of their upbringing and childhood teachings. If it wasn't for that, I doubt if anyone would even think of creation.

All the people I have known in my life time who died, are still dead, as are everyone who has ever lived. One day I will join them in the ground. I think the dead know nothing as the bible says. I have seen on forensic programs on TV, when they dig up a skeleton that has been dead hundreds of years, the skull is usually full of clay. So their brain is long gone along with their thoughts and feelings. Or so it seems.

I have, for many years, referred to myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. However, if I could only see some evidence of a God....... But alas, there doesn't seem to be any evidence. I was thinking of the definition of a theist, and agnostic and an atheist. A theist believes there is a God, but that is where it stops. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not and says there is no way for a person to know about it. An atheist says they do not believe in a God.

Its too bad that the word "Atheist" has such a bad name in society. It doesn't mean the person is bad, but only that they don't believe there is a God.

I have read Thomas Payne's book, "The Age of Reason", and in it he, being a theist, says he hopes there is a resurrection but he wasn't planning on it.

I seem to be leaning more and more toward atheism, but apparently I'm not there....yet.

Do the dead ever return to life?

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:27:00 +0000

from Bill Henness

These verses are either a flat out contradiction, or a bald face lie, or both. They all cannot be true. These are all taken from the New King James Version of the bible.

The first statement is from Job, which says:

As the cloud disappears and vanishes away,
So he who goes down to the grave does not come up. (Job 7:9)

No one ever comes back from the grave.

The dead know nothing. No thought or memory.

For the living know that they will die;
But the dead know nothing,
And they have no more reward,
For the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished;
Nevermore will they have a share
In anything done under the sun. (Eccl. 9:5,6)

Now compare the following verses with this statement that the dead never return to life.

The Shunammite's son.

When Elisha came into the house, there was the child, lying dead on his bed. 33 He went in therefore, shut the door behind the two of them, and prayed to the LORD. 34 And he went up and lay on the child, and put his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands; and he stretched himself out on the child, and the flesh of the child became warm. 35 He returned and walked back and forth in the house, and again went up and stretched himself out on him; then the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. (2 Kings 4:32-35)

Dead man thrown in on Elisha's bones.

Then Elisha died, and they buried him. And the raiding bands from Moab invaded the land in the spring of the year.21 So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet. (2 Kings 13:20,21)

Widow's son at Nain

12 And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her. 13 When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 Then He came and touched the open coffin, and those who carried him stood still. And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” 15 So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. (Luke 7:12-15)

Lazareth

43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!”44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with grave clothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.” (John 11:43,44)

The Ruler's daughter

49 While He was still speaking, someone came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, “Your daughter is dead. Do not trouble the Teacher.”[a]
50 But when Jesus heard it, He answered him, saying, “Do not be afraid; only believe, and she will be made well.” 51 When He came into the house, He permitted no one to go in[b] except Peter, James, and John,[c] and the father and mother of the girl. 52 Now all wept and mourned for her; but He said, “Do not weep; she is not dead, but sleeping.” 53 And they ridiculed Him, knowing that she was dead.
54 But He put them all outside,[d] took her by the hand and called, saying, “Little girl, arise.” 55 Then her spirit returned, and she arose immediately. And He commanded that she be given something to eat. (Luke 8:49-55)

Jesus' resurrection

12 And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”
She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.”
14 Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?”
She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!”
She turned and said to Him,[a] “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher).
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” (John 20:12-17)

So, in light of these scriptures, do the dead come back to life again? Or, is this a contradiction? Or are they all false?

Obama’s Admin got it right!

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:58:00 +0000

Click the above title to see the Yahoo article
from Brian

As you know, I rarely venture into political matters and seek to focus upon religious issues without any partisan biases. But the Obama Administration got it right while answering the Islamic “full court press” to enact blasphemy laws that protect Islam from scrutiny which are contrary to democracy. I particularly thought Hillary Clinton’s statements to be well informed and expressed beautifully!

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree."

Clinton said the United States was opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths and would always fight against belief-based discrimination. But she said a person's ability to practice their religion was entirely unrelated to another person's right to free speech.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions," Clinton said. "These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse."

I believe that Islam has failed to understand some things that Christianity has learned how to properly deal with. Things which I would call basic evolutionary survival of the fittest ideas. I won't re-address it here, you could read my thoughts upon this in the midst of this link.

Bravo Home Depot!

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:03:00 +0000

Click the above title to get the Yahoo story!
from Brian

I have always liked Home Depot, whenever you walk into their stores, you could tell that they respect people! Their policy was well thought out to prevent these types of occurrences. Then you get people like these who disrespect their fellow man, the Bible (yes, see the next to last paragraph), and society by driving up the prices upon goods because of these needless lawsuits!

Glad to see that they parted ways with this Trevor Keezor fella whom didn’t respect his employer or fellow man. Keezor went out of his way to cause some problems and deserved his fate!

Now he wants to play the Christian martyr and found a disgusting greedy lawyer (Kara Skorupa) whose statements tell me that she is just as confused as Keezor is!

Throw the legal profession another bone! People like these help to drive up the cost upon goods because they are so self-centered. Selfishness is the very essense of what sin is. Keezer and Skorupa have violated the principles of their God. See I Cor 6:1-8 and Matt 5:25, 40 Christians are supposed to suffer rather than going to court! Don’t they teach the Bible in Okeechobee?

I’m not saying they are ignorant for being Christians, they are ignorant for not being able or discern what the Bible teaches! What the Bible taught upon this matter isn’t hard to comprehend, a junior high school student should be able to grasp the thought! But it does say something about the character of these two!

David & Nabal today

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:33:00 +0000

Here is a little story for you to judge.

A rich farmer lived in a small town in Kansas. He had virtually all his wealth in live stock. He was a mature business man. He also had a good wife.

Over in Nebraska, a prominent preacher told a young man he would be the next president of the U.S.. This young man became a political fugitive. He fled from the law and several other outlaws joined themselves to him. They lived and hid out in the woods and wilderness of Kansas.

One day this young outlaw sent a message to the rich farmer asking for a handout for he and his men. The farmer had heard the claim of the young man to be the next president. When they asked for a handout the farmer denied them saying, there were many outlaws and why should he endanger himself politically by helping them, since they were all outlaws.

When the men brought this reply to the young man it made him very mad. He swore to kill the farmer, his sons and all his hired hands.

Now, you judge. Was the farmer right or was the young man right?

This same story is told in 1 Sam. 25. David was the young man and Nabal was the farmer. Listen to Nabal's answer to the men who asked for a hand out and see if he was logical.

"And Nabal answered David's servants, and said, Who is David? And who is the son of Jesse? There are

many servants nowadays who break away, from their masters. Shall I, then, take my bread, and my water,

and my flesh that I have killed for my sharers, and give it unto men, whom I know not from where they are?" (1 Sam. 25:10,11)

So, the story goes on that David was going to kill Nabal and all his men but Nabal's wife gave David what he wanted and so David did not do it. When Nabal found out what his wife had done he had a stroke and died 10 days later.

Oh yes, the young man married the rich farmer's widow, and they lived happily ever after.

Bill Henness

Website realignment matters

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:13:00 +0000

from Brian

I have made steady progress re-aligning the website towards the direction of the proposed organization. I have written this in order to draw attention to the content of some pages upon the website that have recently changed or been created!

1. Christian Common Good * Oh my, I have gone and broken one of the non-theists biggest taboos here! In the clearest terms, certain aspects within religion are extremely positive and reasonable, such is the case of helping people who are in need! Christians are inspirational with their compassion and I think they set a good example for non-theist to follow. Unfortunately, many non-theists like to deny this aspect from their mindset when they consider the value of religion.

2. Foundation Beyond Belief * Click the link at the top right hand side of the main page and explore what they are doing! I absolutely love what Dale McGowan has done! Non-theism is largely “lop-sided” whenever it focuses only upon certain issues or matters such as belief.

3. Human/Civil Rights * Human rights came to the forefront of my thinking after being denied and stripped of ours here in Latvia. We must fight for our rights, because places like the UN, EU, media, and human rights organizations ARE SELECTIVE in what they choose to address. Several non-theists talk about human/civil rights but it appears to me that many aren’t that familiar with them in reality. This page also has a selection of religious peacemaker websites that I wished non-theists would visit.

4. Religious News * Have non-theists already made up their minds? I think that those of us whom desire to have an audience with the faithful need to keep abreast of their world rather than have divisive “MTV or Limbaughistic types” decipher the news for us!

5. Facebook * Being in Latvia is so “out of sight, out of mind” for me. I have been checking website traffic, but really wanted to get to know about people like yourselves who come to the sight and THEIR WORK where they live!!! So I placed the Facebook link upon the website and would like as many of you who are friendly, somewhat likeminded in or with a reasonable civil non-theist cause to become friends with me! I had made a page for the proposed organization already. Although we haven’t started (been funded) I’d still like to hear from those of you whom are receptive to the ideas expressed upon the organization page. I will probably start to use Facebook more frequently in the future. I’ve had the profile for something but have only started to use it within the last few weeks. Lets be friends!

6. Chubby Guy with the Open Arms * I’m thinking about “curb appeal” here. First time visitors pull up to our non-theist websites and think many things. This page expresses what I would like to say to them. I basically like Christians and have sought to make the sight inviting to them. Too often non-theists web’s presence are written with the non-theist in mind…..I take the opposite approach!

7. Ex-Minister Support (weightlifter pix) * It isn’t easy for me to ask for support. Those two gold buttons in the upper left hand column express the why and what of the proposed Ex-Minister organization. The things expressed there are within reach, but there is only so much I can do as an individual. The support page has broken things down into things or areas of need that perhaps you might be able to fill with the skills that you have. I really desire your support!

8. Advertise * To help the organization get up upon it’s feet, there is a way for sponsors to support us through advertising upon the website. The link to that page is upon the very bottom right hand side.

9. FIRST PROJECT * This is a humanitarian project! This is that big reddish icon in the upper center column that I wish people would visit. This also aligns with one of the objectives of the proposed organization which would be to start getting secular and religious people to work together for the common good! Plenty of needs here within Latvia! I don’t think the standoffish mindset of thinking that because another person whom desires to reach out with compassion should be thwarted due to one of them having religious beliefs while the other doesn’t! These are big barriers in the path of the common good (secular vs. faith.) divide,it is 2009!!! Hardly anyone seems to care or has visited this page, this just confirms to me the hard hearted attitude within non-theists that isn’t mindful of the real world.

10. BLOG * I’m in the midst of re-writing the blog recruitment page. I had already changed the connecting icon from the website. I will probably post this page upon the website once I am able to complete it. I really want to get after and turn up the heat upon matters that REALLY MATTER in our world. I think there is a needless division between secular and religious progressive minded folks. Well, I’d like it if you kept an eye out for that soon to be posted page!

These 10 pages have been a part of the re-alignment of the website to the goals of the proposed organization. I have so many things in mind and do what I can as time permits! I hope to re-write the “What are you: Atheist or Agnostic” page fairly soon (the last parts have long been out of date) concerning my views.

Thanks for reading,
Brian

NPR banishes Ex-Minister's comment

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:20:00 +0000

from Brian

They plan to have a religious book burning event to include non-KJV Bibles back in my hometown of Canton NC! I plan to write about this soon! But now "uptown folks" at NPR have reverted to protecting new atheism & proponents of Blasphemy Day by deleting my comment on their "A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists" post. Seems I challenged those feeble fellas a little too strongly!

You know what they say, when you can't stand the heat....

I wish I had saved it, I should have known. I suppose they don't want the world to know somebody who knows how to handle the blaspheming bunch. I suppose challenging them for a debate WAS a little threatening! It is just little ole me.....if they are so so invincible then why must NPR protect them?

THESE ARE THE FIRST FEW LINES I WAS ABLE TO SALVAGE (from my Facebook page)

I'm curious to know if Lindsey, Dawkins, Myers, or Hitchens ever held religious beliefs during their lifetimes? Paul Kurtz is a wise man who knows how to apply his education and deliver a point of vie...

I recall mentioning something like: There is nothing sadder than seeing grown men like (Lindsey, Dawkins, Myers, or Hitchens) employ MTV logic to impress their teenage like "flunkies" while polarizing people of faith. These men know little of the"sheep."

I wonder what flimsy excuse they will give for protecting these guys and deleting my comment? I remember saying at the end that I would love to see Kurtz have the opportunity to debate and embarrass Ron Lindsey in a debate. Oops, I did it again....lets see if they can muzzle this!!!

I'm seeing a pattern, atheists whom are afraid of select people. I'm laughing my ass off over here in Latvia at these frightened guys! What next, will they hold their hands when they attempt to cross the street?

Robber prays with his victim

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:05:00 +0000

from Brian
See the Indy Star article:
Robbery suspect who prayed with victim surrenders

This has got to be the story of the year! No, no, no, not for the reason you might initially suspect because you see this story mentioned upon a non-theist’s blog.

No, I’m not going to “pile on” here because a Christian man committed a crime then prayed with the victim. I can comprehend Gregory Smith’s dilemma and the feeling of hopelessness. I have a two-year-old child as well!

I want you to promise me you will think about this one after we are done! The robber (Mr. Smith) evidentially has a need and knows that what he was doing was WRONG! You say he should have found a better way to handle this (we are in full agreement here) but things such as hunger are impatient!

I’d still say his religion was good (the man had plenty of remorse) to go along with his bad judgment. I want to use this story as an “illustration” to supplement something here that I can’t help but notice because of Latvia.

The convenience store within 15 meters of my home has been broken into 7 times within the last 2 months waking us in the middle of the night. I asked a local teenager what he thought of “Robin Hood?” He said he thought that he was “cool” because he saw nothing wrong with stealing from the rich to give to the poor. His attitude is typical here in a pagan country.

When you feel your back is up against the wall you do what you feel you need to do to rectify the situation and fill that need! I’ll put a different spin upon Karl Marx’s notorious quotation by stating that “religion is often a poor man’s dope.” You know, a little dope to help dull your senses in order to make it easier to navigate through the rough times. Religion is often prevalent in poor communities; this is common knowledge.

In Gregory Smith’s case it seems that the “dope” was good but that it wasn’t the culprit here, economics is the real story! Gregory’s actions will probably garner a lot of media attention, but I hope that they don’t miss the real story in order to sell some advertising. While times are more difficult during economic downturns, some truths become more apparent in those tough times.

Although religion is more prevalent in poor communities, what screams at me is the value of religion. For example, Latvia (poor country and little religion) which doesn’t make pretenses (as religious folks normally would) about having their faith to help them deal with the circumstances of life. Pagan people like these are more direct, selfish, and belligerent than religious folks normally are under the same conditions. They are not pleasant to live around!

If I could take a “magic wand” and make the world wealthy, then religion makes even more sense. Just look at greed and what IT does to society! Gregory Smith’s case wasn’t greed, it was motivated by need! Where is the remorse from those greedy SOB’s who defrauded so many? Go ahead, and point out bad clergy in the churches today as a rebuttal to my argument about the value of religion. This is where you see will see the value of skeptical non-theism!

Religion is a mixed bag from my perspective. I was deep enough into it to know better than to say that it was all bad! In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need religion; but then again our world is far from perfect! Religion often employs guilt, which is good when it helps to keep people “in line.” Religion is good when it helps those people who are in need. Perspective is the key word, killing religion sounds noble from the “Ivory Towers” but those having the benefit of religion’s perspective among the poor see otherwise! That is IF they have perspective!

PS: “dope” was used as a metaphor in this post!

The Prophecies Conspiracy

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:04:00 +0000

The Prophecies Conspiracy

By William F. Henness

For nearly 2,000 years Christians have been taught that Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy and that his second coming is necessary for the fulfillment of many prophecies yet unfulfilled.

Part one of this work reveals the way Jesus allegedly fulfilled prophecy at his first advent. Part two shows his future fulfillment of prophecy.

The purpose of this work is to reveal the conspiracy the first century writers put upon believers and the continuation of it by Christian theologians since the first century and up to this present day. Some of which do so intentionally while others are naive, only teaching the prophecy of the Bible as they were taught, without thinking or questioning it.

Although there are hundreds of errors, contradictions, and false prophecies in the Bible, this work is limited to only those prophecies concerning the Jewish messiah, or his alleged fulfillment's of them.

I believe most preachers and teachers teach the future fulfillment of prophecies, not because they intend to deceive, but because they also were taught the same by others who were also taught the same, clear back to the first century. In order for a seminary student to get passing grades he must answer the questions the way his teachers want. So continues the Biblical prophecies conspiracy.

PART 1

The Virgin Birth

In order to understand the entire context of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin having a son, I will quote all of the story.

"Moreover, the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of the LORD, thy God; ask it either in the

depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I test the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now,

O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the LORD

himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a (the) virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name

Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before

the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken by

both her kings." (Isa. 7:10-16)

In verse 10 & 11 God is asking the king to ask for a sign concerning what he has just said to him about the enemy not prevailing against Judah (v.v. 1-9). Verse 12, Ahaz refuses and gives his reason. Verse 13 is directed to the house of David. God says, "hear now".

Now we come to the great verse that has caused so much misunderstanding. Verse 14 says, "the LORD himself shall give you (Ahaz and the house of Israel and Judah) a sign." This will be a sign that the lands of the two enemies shall not prevail over Israel. Next is that sign. "A (the) virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,...". Why Isaiah used this word which has been mistranslated "virgin" by the King James Version, is evident.

In Hebrew there were two words that could have been used. One was beth-oo-law', which meant definitely a virgin. (see # 1330 Strong's Heb. Lex.). But the other word was used instead, which was Al-maw', which means, "a lass" or fem. for lad. (#5959)

He also used the definite article "the". The way this should read is, 'the young lass' or 'the young girl'. Apparently Ahaz knew this 'lass', who may or may not have been a virgin. If she had definitely been a virgin, he would have used the correct word for virgin, which he did not do.

this sign to Ahaz was for a definite time period before these two enemy nations would loose their kings.

Another thing worth mentioning is, this lass shall name her baby boy, Emmanuel. She shall call his name Emmanuel, (God is with us, or God has not forsaken us). In the N.T., Mary was told her son would be called the son of God. (Luke 1:35) She did not name him. The father always named his son, and Joseph was told he was to name the son, Jesus, (Matt. 1:21), not Emmanuel. People since have called him Emmanuel.

Verse 15 tells the king that the child will be poor, eating butter from sheep or goats, and honey, as it was found, much like John the Baptist ate.

The time the invasion is to be over is when the child becomes old enough to choose good over evil. The time element was probably several years.

Notice in Ch. 8, verse 10, God is saying that even if they make an alliance and counsel, God is still with them. (Emmanuel) Then in verses 13,14, God says to sanctify the LORD, and let him be your fear and he shall be for a sanctuary. He will also be to both Israel and Judah a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence, also He (god) will be a trap and a snare to those who live in Jerusalem. Read it and think!

Now, back to Isa. 7:14. That word in the K.D.V. is not virgin. It is almah(a lass). but the N.T. quote of Isa. 7:14 word for virgin, is virgin.

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,

which, being interpreted, is God with us." (Matt. 1:23)

No one in the N.T. called Jesus Emmanuel. this wasn't done until centuries later in order to fulfill what Matthew said.

Bethlehem

Matthew names the town of Bethlehem as the place where the Messiah is to be born. He misquotes from Micah.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall

he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Micah 5:2)

Matthew said concerning this verse that Bethlehem Ephrathah was a place, a town, however, most bible readers don't know that Bethlehem was a man, and Ephrathah was a woman. Because of this fact, the verse in Micah probably refers to a small clan of people rather than a town. Notice these verses.

"And when Azubal was dead, Caleb took unto him Ephrath, who bore him Hur." (1 Chron. 2:19)

"... the son of Hur, the first born of Ephrathah: Shobal, the father of Kiriath-jearim; Salma, the father of

Bethlehem; Hareph, the father of Beth-gader." (v.v.50,51)

"The sons of Salma: Bethlehem..." (v.54)

"And Penuel, the father of Gedor, and Ezer, the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the first

born of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem." (1 Chron. 4:4)

The bethlehem in Micah, rather than being a town, was likely intended as a reference to the head of a family clan. In Micah 5:2, where it says;

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee

shall he come forth."

The Bethlehem, in this verse was described as "little among the thousands of Judah", casts doubt on Matthew's application of this verse. In a region as small as Judah, one could hardly speak of a town as one of "thousands", yet in terms of a Judean clan descended from one bethlehem of the woman Ephrathah, it would have been an appropriate description for an obscure family group that hadn't particularly distinguished itself in the nation's history.

Another thing is the word, "princes of Judah". A small town isn't called a "prince of Judah", however, a family clan, descending from Caleb as a prince, would be called a "prince of Judah."

Matthew probably intentionally distorted the original statement of Micah, to make it better suit his purpose of wanting it to appear to be a reference to the town of Bethlehem of Judah, rather than a family clan. We have only Matthew's word for the whole story of Herod inquiring of the wise men, chief priests, scribes, where the Messiah would be born.

If the verse from Micah is referring to a family clan, from the prince Caleb, through the woman Ephrathah, and the offspring Bethlehem, then the town of Bethlehem has no significance to the birth of Jesus who was called the Messiah.

The prophecies conspiracy has begun.

Parables

Matthew gives several parables that Jesus spoke to the multitudes, which were; the sower and the soil, (Matt. 13:1-23) the tares among the wheat, (v.v. 24-30) the mustard seed, (v.v. 31,32) the leven, (v. 33). Then Matthew gives the reason for all these parables in v.v. 34,35.

"All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a parable spoke he not unto them,

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will

utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." (Matt. 13:34,35)

The writer of Matthew misquoted the prophet and even made the prophecy say the exact opposite. Here it is.

"Give ear, O my people, to my law; incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a

parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us." (Ps. 78:1-3)

This prophecy in Psalms was polluted and applied to Jesus wrongly by the first century writer to fit his need that Jesus fulfilled Psalms. The statement in Ps. 78:1-3 isn't even a prophecy.

My Son Called Out of Egypt

After Jesus' birth, according to the gospel of Matthew, an angel told Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt for fear of Herod.

"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there

until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt. 2:14,15)

This so-called fulfillment was taken from Hosea 11:1, where God is saying he has called the nation of Israel out of Egyptian bondage.

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." (Hosea 11:1)

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my first-born." (Ex. 4:22)

Matthew took the "son" (Israel) in Hos. 11:1, and made it to be Jesus, the son of God, trying to fulfill prophecy.

Rachel Weeping

Even though there is nothing in history, other than the gospel of Matthew about Herod killing all baby boys under the age of two at Bethlehem, Matthew tries to make this a fulfilled prophecy.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying, In ramah was there a voice

heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be

comforted, because they are not." (Matt. 2:17,18)

This is taken from Jer. 31:15, but it is speaking of children being taken captive by the Babylonians. The rest of the verses say:

"Thus saith the LORD, Restrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall

be rewarded, saith the LORD, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is

hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border." (Jer. 31:15-17)

Matthew is trying very hard to make Jesus' birth a fulfillment of prophecy, but he hailed if we read the scriptures with reason.

The Voice in the Wilderness

Matthew said, concerning John the Baptist, that he fulfilled prophecy.

"For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet, Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." (Matt. 3:3)

However, the rest of what Isaiah said should be taken with it.

"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall

be made straight, and the rough places plain; and the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all

flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. The voice said, Cry. And he

said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all it's beauty is like the flower of the field..." (Isa. 40:3-8)

Matthew again reached back in the O.T. and grabbed a verse out of context, applied it to someone or something entirely different, and passed it off as fulfilled prophecy.

Land of Zebulun and Naphtali

"And Leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the seacoast, in the borders

of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah, the prophet, saying,

The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of

the Gentiles; the people who sat in darkness saw great light, and to them who sat in the region and

shadow of death, light is sprung up.' (Matt. 4:13,16)

In Isaiah 9:1-4, the prophet is saying the great light is that their burden has been broken.

"Thou hast multiplied the nation, and increased the joy; they rejoice before thee according to the

joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For thou hast broken the yoke

of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian." (Isa. 9:1-4)

God had broken their burden and they rejoiced because of that. Not that a man named Jesus came to Capernaum and lived there.

My Servant

When Jesus found out his life was in danger, (Matt. 12:14,15) he told the people to not tell where or who he was. (v.16)

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah, the prophets, saying, Behold my servant,

whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my spirit upon him,

and he shall show justice to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear

his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench,

till he send forth justice unto victory. And in his name shall the gentiles trust." (Matt. 12:17-21)

In the four gospel accounts, especially John's, they show that Jesus actually did strive, he did cry out, he did raise his voice in the streets.

The word "cry" is # 2905 in Strong's Lex., and it means to clamor, cry out. In John"s gospel it says;

"Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught,..." (John 7:28,29)

In John this word "cried" is # 2896, to croak or scream, to call aloud. (see also John 7:37,38; 12:44-59) Another prophetic fulfillment misapplied.

Jonah

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so shall the son of man be

three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:40)

If Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday and allegedly arose early Sunday morning, there is no way one can get three days and three nights, dead and buried.

Thy King Cometh

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto

thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." (Zech. 9:9)

In Hebrew, to strengthen a statement, it is repeated another way. Matthew apparently didn't know this, but he thought the king rode on two animals.

"All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,..." (Matt. 21:4)

Then he quotes the verse above from Zech. 9:9. He then goes on to say they brought two asses, and put their clothes on them, and sat him thereon. (v.7) Jesus and Matthew both try very hard to fulfill this prophecy.

Scatter the Sheep

"Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night; for it is written,

I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." (Matt. 26:31)

Here is that statement in Zechariah.

"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man who is my fellow, saith the LORD

of hosts; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn mine hand upon

the little ones." (Zech. 13:7)

The rest of this prophecy says that even though two thirds of the people will be cut off, yet one third will be refined and will obey their god.

Jesus took this statement out of it's context and applied it to he and his disciples.

There are so many so-called prophecy fulfillment's that were either taken out of context and applied to something else, or misquoted and misapplied. These are in Matthew only, not to mention Mark, Luke and John.

Next I will show how the writers of the N.T., took statements from the O.T. and words of Jesus, and either misapplied them or extended the prophecy to the distant future.

Peter's Misapplication of Psalm 132:11,12

Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost, and trying to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ. He said to them concerning King David;

"Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of

his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne,..." (Acts 2:30)

Now, lets look at what this O.T. verse really says.

"The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it: of the fruit of thy body will I set upon

thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children

shall also sit upon thy throne forevermore." (Ps. 132:11,12)

Notice, it says that of the fruit of David's body will God set a king on his throne, namely Solomon. In the LXX it says; "..., of the fruit of thy body will I set (a King) upon thy throne." Also, it says if David's grand-children, etc., obey God, then the following generations will be kings also, forever.

There is no hint whatsoever that only one man received the promise. Even if one person were under discussion, why assume Jesus of Nazareth was that specific person? Psalms does not mention Christ, Peter just read Christ into the verse he quoted.

The part that says, "of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne", is speaking of Solomon. It should read, "will I set a king upon thy throne". Read it in it's own context, please!

Was Jesus Dumb?

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the

slaughter, and as a sheep before her sharers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." (Isa. 53:7)

Later on in the book of Acts, Philip read this verse from Isaiah 53, to the Ethiopian eunuch, and applied it to Jesus being silent before going to the cross.

"..., He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his sheerer, so opened he

not his mouth;..." (Acts 8:32)

Just in passing, did you notice in the O.T. it says; "her" shearers is dumb, but in the N.T. it says "his" shearer, (no plural)? But that is beside the point, the point is, was Jesus really silent or dumb, and did he not open his mouth?

I will, to save space, only quote what Jesus said from the time he was before the counsel, to being crucified.

"..., thou hast said; nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right

hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64)

"..., thou sayest." (Matt. 27:11)

"..., I am; and ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of

heaven." (Mark 14:62)

"..., thou sayest it." (Mark 15:2)

"..., if I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter

shall the son of man, sit on the right hand of the power of God. Ye say that I am." (Luke 22:67-70)

"..., thou sayest it." (Luke 23:3)

"..., I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always

resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them who heard me, what I have said.

If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John 18:20,21,23)

"Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? My kingdom is not of this world;

if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the

Jews; but now is my kingdom not from here. Thou sayest that I am a King. To this end was I

born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone

that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:34,36,37,38)

"Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above; therefore,

he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11)

So, was Jesus dumb or silent, and did he open not his mouth? If you will count them, in English, he pronounced no less than 188 words from the time he was taken before the counsel until he was crucified. This is not counting what he said in route.

"..., Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold,

the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the berren, and the wombs that never bore,

and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us;

and to the hills, cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke 23:28-31)

Here are an additional 78 words, making a total of 366 words he spoke when, if he was the Messiah, would have been silent.

Jesus Begins His Ministry

In the book of Isaiah, chapter 59, verse 15, starts with God speaking until verse 22. Then the prophet, Isaiah begins to speak in 61:1, where he says;

"The spirit of the LORD God is upon me(Isaiah), because the LORD hath anointed me(Isaiah)

to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison

to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance

of our (Isaiah & Israel) God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto those who mourn in Zion,

to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the

spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD,

that he (God) might be glorified." (Isa. 61:1-3)

This is very clear that Isaiah said the spirit of God was upon him, and that the LORD had (past tense) anointed him to, etc..

Some 800 years later, a man named Luke said that a man named Jesus from Nazareth, claimed this verse to himself. Luke said this Jesus went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and got the scroll of Isaiah, and found 61:1, and read it publicly.

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;

he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering

of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18,19)

"And he began to say unto them. This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." (v.21)

Notice what he did. He claimed this was said about him, not Isaiah. It is no wonder the people who heard Jesus do this said;

"..., Is not this Joseph's son?" (v.22)

"And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose

up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill on which their city was

built, that they might cast him down headlong." (v.v.28,29)

Matthew adds these words to the incident.

"And they were offended in him." (Matt. 13:57 & Mark 6:3)

This portion in Isaiah is clearly Isaiah telling what God had commissioned him to do. Then 800 years later, Jesus comes along and says this is God commissioning him to do these things. On top of that, he changes some of the things to do and adds one. Then he stops in the middle of a sentence as though the rest of the commission doesn't apply to him.

PART TWO

Ever since the first century Bible scholars have had a dilemma with unfulfilled prophecies. What to do with them? If prophecies are unfulfilled then the prophets were false prophets and therefore the whole Bible becomes suspect. They must do something to shore up the character of the prophets. The answer to the problem; MOVE THE FULFILLMENT UP TO THE DISTANT FUTURE, and all generations from the first century will hope and expect the fulfillment to occur in their generation or shortly thereafter.

The following are only a few examples of this unfulfilled prophecy being moved up to the distant future.

Her Seed Shall Bruise His Head

Probably the most important verse in the Old Testament that is supposed to be a prophecy concerning Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilling it, is this one.

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy

head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15)

This is God saying that he will put enmity between Satan and the woman, who is Eve, and between her seed and Satan's seed. First, I want to show the meaning of the word seed. In all places in the O.T., except one, the word seed(singular) means descendants(plural), even though Paul tried to make the word "seed" refer to one person, even Jesus.

In Strong's Heb. Lex., it is # 2233; seh'-rah; seed; fig. fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity.

Now lets look at this verse. I think it is obvious that Satan's seed were his posterity, so, Eve's seed would be her posterity also. Her posterity would be plural as is always the meaning of the word "seed". It would not mean her egg because an egg alone, without the sperm, does not produce anyone. It has to mean her future descendants, or posterity. And her "seed" would not mean some certain individual, as her son, who was Seth.

In the modern Jewish O.T., called the "tanakh", it says;

"... they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel."

The LXX also says the same as the K.J.V.; "he" and "his". So, it means only that Eve's posterity will bruise Satan's head and he will bruise his, or their heel.

The same word, "seed", meaning plural, future posterity, was used concerning Hagar, when she and her son Ishmael, were cast out of Sarai's house.

"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered

for multitude." (Gen. 16:10)

Notice Hagar's seed was not Ishmael, but her future posterity, which would be very many.

The same logic applies to Eve in Gen. 3:15. Bible interpreters have made Gen. 3:15, apply to one person, even Jesus of Nazareth, instead of the very many descendants of Eve as the verse really means. The reason the LXX and the K.J.V. has "he" and "his", is because it couldn't very well be her, and hers, when it is speaking of the future posterity of Eve, but rather the future offspring's were called "he" and "his".

I believe the true interpretation of Gen. 3:15, is this: that mankind will bruise Satan's authority in this world by resisting temptations, but Satan will bruise mankind's heel by causing life's problems and troubles, etc..

It certainly doesn't mean that Jesus bruised Satan's head, because Satan's power is as strong as it was before Jesus' time. People still have temptations, troubles, sickness, disappointments, and death, just as they always have had.

All Must be Fulfilled in the Law, Prophets and Psalms

We are taught that when Jesus comes back at the second advent, he will fulfill prophecy by returning at the Mount of Olives, setting up judgments, i.e. judgments of the nations, etc., all nations bringing offerings to Jerusalem, 1,000 years of peace, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb, etc., when he will receive honor from kings, and the list goes on for many more. In other words there are many prophecies that will be fulfilled at and after Jesus' return to earth.

Now, please use your reason and read these two verses.

"And he said unto them these are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that

all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the

psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:44)

"Think not that I am come(1st. advent) to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am cot come to destroy,

but to fulfill." (Matt. 5:17)

In this verse Jesus is saying that he came(past tense) to fulfill the law and the prophets. In the other verse he says that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, that concerns him in any way.

In the law there are supposed to be many antitypes of the Messiah. In the prophets there are many prophecies about the Messiah when he comes. In the Psalms there are many prophecies(so called) about the coming Messiah.

If Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all these from the law, the prophets, and the psalms, when he came, what need is there in his second coming? If he did not fulfill them, then he was a false Messiah.

The facts are he did not fulfill all the prophecies that concerned him when he lived here on earth. So, Bible scholars, such as Paul, John, and modern day ones, have invented the second coming so Jesus can finish fulfilling prophecies that concern him. If you don't have a second chance at finishing fulfillment, you are left with a Messiah who did not fulfill all prophecies about him, and a lying Messiah who said that he did.

"Even So, Come Quickly, Lord Jesus."

Ever since I was converted, I have understood the quick return of Jesus, to mean, he will come in a moment of time. Here are some verses in question. (Rev. 2:5,16; 3:11;22:7,12,20) However, this is not the meaning of the word "quickly", as used in Revelation. All the times it is used in Revelations, it is # 5035, which is: takh-oo'; shortly, i.e. without delay, soon.

So in all of Revelation, it refers to it occurring shortly, as in, without delay, or soon. That was 2,000 years ago! If he was to come back soon or shortly, without delay, it certainly did not happen.

Another word for "quickly", which is very closely linked is # 5032; takh'-ee-on; more swiftly, i.e. (in manner) more rapidly, or (in time) more speedily. As in;

"... then said Jesus unto him, what thou doest, do quickly." (John 13:27)

Here it means to do it very soon in time, as right now. Notice that Judas left immediately.

Another word for "quickly" is # 5031 with # 1722. Takh'-os; a brief space of time. As in;

"..., saying, Arise quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands." (Acts 12:7)

Here also it means to happen soon in time, "arise quickly", which is what he did immediately.

When Jesus or John, said this "quickly", 2,000 years has proven it did not happen shortly, without delay or soon.

"Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." (Rev. 3:11)

"behold, I come quickly..." (Rev. 22:7)

"And, behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work

shall be." (Rev. 22:12)

"He who testifieth these things saith, surely, I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Rev. 22:20)

You see? All these places that speak of Jesus coming back "quickly", speak of him coming, "shortly", "without delay", "soon". It never happened! It's not speaking of his return happening quickly, as in a moment, but rather, soon.

Here are several more verses with # 5035, to show how it means a short duration of time and not quick as a wink.

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while you are in the way with him,..." (Matt. 5:25)

"And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead,..." (Matt. 28:7)

"And they departed quickly from the sepulcher..." (v.8)

"As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him." (John 11:29)

Even some of the apostles thought and said his coming would be soon.

"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." (Heb. 10:37)

"Be ye also patient,...; for the coming of the Lord draweth near." (Jam. 5:8)

"But the end of all things is at hand;..." (1 Pet. 4:7)

Paul also, beside the author of Hebrews, James, and Peter, believed in Jesus' soon return.

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming

of the Lord shall not precede them who are asleep... Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught

up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thess. 4:15,17)

It is quite obvious, after 2,000 years, that "quickly", and "a little while", and "will not tarry", and "draweth near", and "is at hand", was a deception.

The doctrine of the second coming of Jesus was created because Jesus did not complete all the Messiah was expected to accomplish. If Jesus did not reflect the completeness of the Messianic promises, the whole Christian religion collapses. The Christian church could never allow that to happen.

If It Didn't Happen, Move It To the Future

After studying prophecy, it occurred to me that when something that was prophesied came to pass, or so the Bible scholars think has already happened, they classify it as fulfilled prophecy. However, when part of the same prophecy doesn't seem to have been fulfilled, they move it up into the distant future so as to not admit there has been failed, or unfulfilled prophecy. Beside, they will have died thousands of years and scholar will still be looking in the future for it to somehow happen.

The following examples are only some of these somehow yet unfulfilled, or failed prophecies, which they have moved up into the far distant future, even though the context is back in ancient history.

In Isaiah, chapter 10, there is a predicted judgment against Assyria because they were coming against Israel. Verse 5-19, describes this, then verses 20-27, tells of a few of Israel that will return. Verses 28-34, describe Assyria's advance and defeat. Chapter 11:1-5, tells of one who will come on the scene from Jesse, who will be wise, mighty, knowledgeable, who will judge righteously, and will be righteous. Then in the next verses (6-16), it describes a time of peace. Verses 10-16, then says, "in that day", for the second time, a few people will be recovered from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, etc., and they will be gathered and they will attack the Philistines, the Edomites and Moabites, and Ammonites, etc.. But, since none of this happened (Ch. 11), scholars have decided it must be in the distant future, for, it isn't possible that prophecy failed; so, they say it is in the future, even though the context is historical.

Chapter 12 is also, "in that day". What day? Why, of course the same day Assyria came against Israel.

Chapter 13 starts with an approaching invasion of Babylon. But in verses 6-16, since it did not happen in history, it has been moved up to the future, so that it may yet happen someday.

Chapter 19 starts out with the decline and collapse of Egypt (v.v.1-15). Then in verse 16-25, man says is the future restoration of Egypt and Assyria in Christ's kingdom (future). However, in verse 16, starts by saying, "in that day". What day? Why, the decline of Egypt (v.v.1-15). But in 17-23, since it didn't happen in history, Bible scholars say 17-23 is during the great tribulation, even though verse 21 starts with "in that day". What day? Why, the day Palestine was left desolate by the Babylonians. Chapter 25 follows the same way. Scholars say Ch. 25 is the triumphs of the future kingdom age.

Chapter 26 starts with, "in that day" again, and describes how worship and testimony are restored to Israel (v.v.1-15). Then in verses 16-21, scholars say this is future at the so-called, Day of the Lord, when the dead will be raised.

In Chapter 51, the last verse, describes how Israel had bowed down to her invaders, "... and thou hast laid thy body like the ground, and like the street, to those who went over." (v.23) Then in verse 1 of Ch. 52, it says to Israel, "... Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem the holy city; for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

This chapter is said to be future, because it is a failed prophecy, and we can't tolerate that.

Everyone knows that Jerusalem has, ever since the Babylonian captivity, even to Jesus' time, to present time, been entered by unclean and uncircumcised people. Even tourists today enter Jerusalem daily. So, it must be pushed up into the far, unknown, distant future.

These chapters before chapter 60, are generally to Israel and Judah concerning how they have been put down by Babylon and how they may arise afterward. Chapter 60 starts by saying to God's people;

"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee." (Isa. 60:1)

The Bible scholars tell us this chapter is the glorious Jerusalem in the future kingdom age, however, it may be that they say that because chapter 60 was not fulfilled and failed.

Chapter 63, verses 1-6, are supposed to be the future days of the Messiah's vengeance. However, that means that Christ will come from the land of Edom, southeast of Judah and the city of Bozrah, located on the kings highway in Edom. (See a Bible map) Christ's dyed garments were from Bozrah.

Then in verse 4 it says of Christ, it is the year of my redeemer. Christ's redeemer? Verse 5 says that Christ's own arm brought salvation to me. This portion of scripture is questions asked by Isaiah and answers by the Messiah.

Chapter 65 of Isaiah, is supposed to be a statement by the LORD that Judah will not return to her land until she repents, (v.v.1-16), but then in verse 17-25, there is more of what will happen when she repents and returns to her land, but, it didn't happen, so, Bible scholars say, "Lets move verses 17-25 up into the distant future, so we won't have to admit this prophecy failed." So they did. This way everyone will live and die thinking it is yet to be fulfilled.

Chapter 66:1-6, say that God rebukes hypocrisy, in 7-9, is the rebirth of Israel. God says when Israel is returned it will become a reborn nation. But, verses 10-24, tells of great joy in Jerusalem, and great peace. In verses 19,20, God says he will send those who escape unto the nations of Tarshis, Pul, Lud, Tubal and Javan. This didn't happen either, so the learned scholars moved this portion (v.v.10-24) into the far distant future.

So much for the prophet Isaiah.

In Ezekiel, chapter 20, God is telling Israel his dealings with her is right, and in verses 33-44, God says he will establish Israel in her land after they have returned, but this never happened as it says in v.v. 33-44, so it also, has been moved up into the future, rather than admit it failed to come to pass.

In chapter 28, there are prophecies about Tyre's ruler, and prophecies against Sidon, then v.v. 25,26, tells of the regathering of Israel after their captivity and scattering. But it didn't happen either as it says, so, it too, has been moved up to the future.

Chapters 34 and 36, both are what will happen to Israel when they have returned from captivity, but it didn't happen, so, both chapters were also put in the future.

Chapters 38 and 39 also, are predictions against the lands of Gog and Magog. Neither did these predictions happen, so, they were also thrust into the distant future, so that, hopefully, sometime they may actually occur.

In Chapter 47, verses 13-23, god tells Ezekiel that the borders of the land at some future time, will be, according to the 12 tribes of Israel. But the 10 northern tribes are lost. They have lost their national identify as the result of the Assyrians hauling off some 20,000 to Assyria and replacing Israel with foreigners. What people were in Assyria intermarried and lost their identity, and what Jews were left in their land intermarried with the foreigners and also lost their identity.

From that time to the time of Jesus, were at least 15 generations of intermarrying Jews. They were known and despised by Judah as Samaritans.

Then imagine all the succeeding generations since the first century, of intermarrying Israelites.

Verses 13-23 could not have happened, so, Bible theologians have moved it up to the future. I don't know how they will be able to explain the 12 tribes, when 10 are totally lost.

In Daniel, chapter 11, he is telling about a king who will greatly hurt Israel. His name was Antiochus Epiphanies, the Syrian king. This is valid history, however, in verses 36-45, it tells more about this king that did not happen, so, naturally, it was moved up to the future also.

These are only a small portion of prophecies that did not come to pass, so, they were moved up into the distant future by Bible interpreters to try to avoid failed prophecies.

Virtually all the prophets who predicted something had some predictions that did not come to pass. They all have died, but people still fear what they said, believing it either did, or will, come to pass.

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that

is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou

shalt not be afraid of him." (Deut. 18:22)

New Paradigm & a Jekyll & Hyde Approach

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:13:00 +0000

Clicking the title above will bring you to the new website essayfrom Brian

You don’t know me too well, my intention is to express my thoughts and opinions from my vantage point in life thus far. I am not some ole sage that knows all of the answers. My convoluted path has taken some rather unexpected turns due to simply seeking to follow one of my father’s admonitions “to just be yourself and don’t feel that you need to keep up with the Jones’!”

Ex-Minister is something that I have done that aligns with my father’s admonition (but he doesn't like it!...most everyone from my childhood days are vehemently against what I do here.) In fact, several non-theists avoid, shun or otherwise “punk” me. They are afraid to associate with me...perhaps I am not divisive enough or fail to pitch the "party line." Can't build their types of coalitions this way....whatever! I don’t say a lot about myself, I am not the story and don’t want the message I seek to proclaim lost by injecting too much emotion into the equation.

Latvia has definitely changed me. Went from high expectations to facing up to a xenophobic inept mafia that doesn’t have to answer to anybody, not even Human Rights groups, EU, UN! Perhaps one day I do decide to tell my story openly, but now isn’t the time. From the depths of my heart this article (which is a vision of the proposed Ex-Minister Organization) shares what I believe to be a stark contrast of radical thinking for non-theists to chew upon. Nobody in the non-theist world wants to reach the Christian decision maker more than I! What I have stated here will work, but I need this to be something other than my thought process. I think we can change the world without feeling the need to change the bulk of Christianity. Hang with me in the early part of the article as I set the context for the one line paradigm I expressed mid-way through this essay. I hope your desire to reach the Christian decision maker matches mine. You would be justified in ignoring what I have stated here if your satisfied with progressive people being in the minority. I would appreciate your thoughts and insights to my radical proposal!

Fundamental Christian believers think like this.

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:10:00 +0000

The average fundamental Christian believer, thinks like this:

I don't need any proof of the existence of my God because scripture says in Hebrew 11:6:

⁶But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him [out]. (A.B.)

I believe if I have doubts about my God, it is a sin of unbelief. If I confess my sin, I am forgiven.

If I run across something in the bible that seems wrong, it is because I don't understand it. If I fully understood it, I would see it is not wrong.

I must hold true to my faith until I die, and if I do, I will receive a reward for faithfulness. If I do not, I will suffer loss of reward.

If I doubt or fall into a sin it is because of fault in me. If my heart was right I wouldn't backslid.

I believe my faith without proof is a virtue, that is very valuable.

I believe I must read and study my bible daily or Satan will get a foothold in my life.

I believe if I do not pray daily Satan will get a foothold in my life. Therefore, I must pray and read daily to stay spiritually healthy.

If I am tempted on anything, I must hold up my shield of faith to stop Satan's darts.

I must not try to reason or use my own intellect, but use my faith when in doubt.

Therefore, it doesn't do much good to try to get a believer to reason, think, question his faith.

I generally give up on them and let them go on their merry way to their grave, believing what they will. Too bad though, they will not ever learn they were wrong.

⁵ For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. (N.K.J.V.)

Bill

Counselling Perspectives

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:31:00 +0000

"How do we, as non-theists, respond to those who occupy the positions and pews we once left? As a counsellor, I sometimes find myself in a situation where, in a professional context, where I am engaging with a person who is a fervent evangelical bringing some of their dogma to the table. Dealing with it professionally is one thing but locating and addressing my own feelings after the client has left is another. I have noted some of my inner feelings that I shared with my supervisor and wondered how readers of this blog feel and how they deal with their reactions.

"1. I want to jump in and challenge the dogma - but do not, because I work with clients where they are and cannot manipulate a session to address their belief structure.
"2. I feel surges of anger when religious defences preclude any inner analysis by the client.
"3. I feel despair when Bible verses are trotted out to compensate for actions that might address better an issue - this includes prayer and prayer-chain involvement.
"4. Many clients say, "You must be a Christian because you are so compassionate and understanding" ... oops, this certainly strokes my ego but raises all sorts of reactive but unuttered comments in my mind.

"So, please respond. Life remains a journey of discovery and sharing with those of like minds as well as others who differ.

"Paul Benedict"

Amish Children

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:47:00 +0000

I live in a part of Illinois where there are many homes of Amish people. I would like to relate some of my thoughts about them.

First, they seem to be law abiding and gently people who virtually never get in trouble with the law. They have, for the most part, obedient children. I have witnessed them in Wal-Marts on many occasions. The little tikes walk along holding onto the cart that their mother is pushing. Of course all of them are dressed just like their parents. Little girls have on long plain dresses with little bonnets. The little boys have home-made pants and shirts with little hats like their daddy's. I have never seen any Amish children acting bad,ever. They seem to be a loving family.

I understand that one of their main reasons for not having TV, radios, etc. is so their kids will be more family orientated. And that, I think, is good.

However, there are some down sides to all of it also.

One negative aspect of being Amish is NONE of them has an education beyond the 8th. grade. They all attend Amish schools taught by a teacher who also only has an 8th. grade education.

The speak a form of low German until they start school where they are taught English. So, all Amish are bilingual.

No one know what kind of parental punishment goes on in the home but all kids are very timid and obedient and intelligent to carry on a normal conversation with.

Now, after telling all the good about Amish children I will move on to, in my opinion, the most negative thing about them. From infancy they are taught nothing but Amish. They are taught to be proud of the fact that they can live hard like other people cannot. They are only exposed to the outside world, (English as we are called by them) and many thing about our normal life style is spoken bad about by their parents to them.

Their religion is from the 17th century, and it is taught to them from the cradle. When they get to be teens, they are given a little more freedom and when they turn 18, I think, they must then choose whether they want to remain Amish for the rest of their lives or leave the Amish. If they choose to leave they are looked upon by their family and friends as practically dead. They are not supposed to be spoken to or acknowledged at all.

Naturally if they choose to leave they will be forced to alienate themselves from ALL their relations and ALL their friends and acquaintances for the rest of their natural lives. So, naturally, not many ever leave the Amish on penalty of loosing all friends and family.

When I see little cute Amish children I feel so very sorry for them because they don't have a chance at a real good life. They must always ride a buggy, always have an outside toilet, always ware the same style clothing. Especially the little girls I feel sorry for. Their lot in life is to marry as soon as possible, raise a huge family, and work hard all their lives. Plus be in subject to their husband. They little boys will be expected to marry as soon as possible, have lots of kids to help with the work, and to help take care of mom and dad when they grow old.

I really feel for these little kids. They have been really brainwashed from as soon as they are born in their parents religion and they don't have a chance or a choice of ever leaving it.

This article is by no means all that concerns little Amish kids but I hope you may learn a little more about these gentle people, the Amish.

Bill

Amazing trust

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:43:00 +0000

Amazing Trust (tune of amazing grace)

Amazing trust and childlike faith,

Void of all logic thought.

The "holy" book from which faith comes,

all this, to man has brought.

This book, so pure and full of truth,

upon close scrutiny;

is found with error, falsehoods, lies;

yet claims to set one free.

When we've been dead 10,000 years,

and bones are then but dust.

The simple ones who here remain,

will still live lives of trust.

William F. Henness

All must be fulfilled in the law, prophets and Psalms.

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:41:00 +0000

We are taught that when Jesus comes back at the second advent, he will fulfill prophecy by returning at the Mt. of Olives, setting up judgments, i.e. judgments of the nations, etc., all nations bringing offerings to Jerusalem, 1,000 years of peace, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb, etc., when he will receive honor from kings, and the list goes on for many more. In other words there are many prophecies that will be fulfilled at and after Jesus' return to earth.

Now, please use your reason and read these two verses.

"And he (Jesus) said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you,

that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the

Psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:44)

"Think not that I am come (1st. Advent) to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy,

but to fulfill." (Matt. 5:17)

In this verse Jesus is saying that he came (past tense) to fulfill the law and the prophets. In the other verse he says that ALL things must be fulfilled which are written in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, that concerns him in any way.

If Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled ALL these from the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, when he came, what need is there in his second coming? If he did not fulfill them all, then he was a false prophet.

The facts are he did not fulfill ALL the prophecies that concerned him when he lived here on earth. So, Bible scholars, such as Paul, John , and modern day ones, have invented the second coming so Jesus can finish fulfilling prophecies that concern him. If you don't have a second chance at finishing fulfillment, you are left with Messiah who did not fulfill ALL prophecies about himself, and a lying Messiah who said that he did. Beside this there are some more scriptures in question.

"And beginning at Moses (the Pentateuch) and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the scriptures,

the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)

If this were not enough, he then proceeds to say that the scripture predicted his death and resurrection, which it does not.

"And said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the

third day." (v. 46)

Here he calls himself "Christ," and refers to nonexistent scriptures. Then he goes a step more and refers to another nonexistent scripture.

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all the nations, beginning

at Jerusalem." (v. 47)

Bill Henness

Questions Concerning God, Man and Faith

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:55:00 +0000

Clicking the above title will take you to the website article
article by Howard Ferstler

I would like to introduce a well-written article from Howard Ferstler. You might recognize Mr. Ferstler for his work in audio-video and record reviewing. Click this link for: more of Howard Ferstler's work. The next two paragraphs will tell you about the author and afterwards my thoughts about his essay.

Howard says:

I have never been a minister, and actually have been a religious skeptic for most of my life. While I dabbled with the Youth For Christ movement for a while during my high-school years, it did not take long after graduation for me to revert to a skeptical point of view. After four years of military service I went to college and majored in history and philosophy, and then in grad school I majored in humanities and philosophy. Unfortunately, I did not get my advanced degrees, and ended up working in a university library for 35 years before retiring.

I have actually not done much in the way of philosophical or theological work for the past few decades, although I did have an article published on the philosopher Spinoza back in 1975. In the service I was an electronics technician and for the most part my literary work has involved publishing several books on audio-video and record reviewing, and also helping to edit a small encyclopedia, plus a dictionary, both dealing with recording history and technology. Now that I am retired from both library work and A/V writing, I spend most of my time reading history, art, and philosophy books, and have no desire to become a firebrand for the secular humanism movement. However, it would be nice if the essay could get into print and do some good.

I’m fairly picky about what I post from others upon the website, in fact the first few paragraphs almost turned me off. Yet, I found it intriguing enough to venture forward and went on to thoughroughly enjoy and benefit from reading the article! You can tell that Howard is very well read and what he has written will provoke your thinking. I appreciate Howard sharing this his “Questions Concerning God, Man and Faith” with us here!

Howard has a different perspective upon the subject. Upon reading I suspected that he might be a deist and asked him about it. He answered: “As for my own theological beliefs, well, I may be a deist of sorts, or maybe an Aristotelian or even a Hegelian.”

I appreciate Howard initiating my thinking about how to better present the website (although it probably wasn’t his intention.) Although, I am decidedly a secular humanist, I have framed the boundaries too tightly that may make others reluctant to share with this website. I have always wanted critical, fair-minded thinking that isn’t mean spirited that has a better world as it’s target. Our titles don’t need to match, as long as we share similar goals! Enjoy the article and I hope that you will express your thoughts to Howard with your comments!

posted by Brian

A good woman

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:25:00 +0000

A good woman

My brother and I were talking about a lady he is attracted to, since his wife died. He is a fundamental Christian and would not even consider a lady unless she also was a "good Christian". If a lady smoked, took a social drink, wasn't faithful attending church services, etc., she would be "out."

This conversation got me to thinking about what constitutes a "good Christian" lady.

My wife always says that religion is what makes people decent and nice.

A good Christian lady must comply with the following:

She must stay at home and not visit and gossip. (1 Tim. 5:13)

She must be quiet. (! Peter 3:4)

She must be in subject to her husband. (1 Peter 3:1-3)

She must not speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34,35)

These few verses will suffice to show what a "good Christian woman" is supposed to be like.

Then there are Muslim women who are "good".

They completely cover their bodies with loose hanging cloth. (I am unable to give scripture from the "holy book", The Koran, not being familial with it.)

They do not drink alcohol.

They do not swear.

They do not smoke.

They are submissive to their father, husband, and basically all men.

They are not outspoken. And many more I'm sure.

A "good Jewish woman" in order to be a "good Jewish woman", would have to be submissive to her husband and father, as the Law says.

She would be modest and not a liar.

So, my point is this: all religions, if a woman will adhere to her religion, would be a "good" woman. And, I'm sure, there are many non-religious women who also are good.

So, my brother is very "picky" regarding a woman he would date or marry.

Bill

A few word studies

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:18:00 +0000

A few word studies

1. This one is, I believe, a gross mistranslation.

"Put in the sickle; for the harvest is ripe; come, get down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great." (Joel 3:13)

The only English word for fat means only related to fat, grease, etc. So, it doesn't make any sense; 'the press is full, the fats overflow.' Most other versions give the verse some sense by the word "vats". Isn't it amazing what a difference a little v makes?

2. "The lion did tear in pieces enough for his whelps, and strangled for his lionesses, and filled his holes with prey, and his dens with raven. (Nahum 2:12)

# 2966; from 2964; prey, i.e., flocks devoured by animals. #2964 means, something torn. So, how did they get raven out of torn? Other versions have "torn flesh", etc., which is understandable.

3. "Her Nazarites were purer than snow; they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in body than rubies; their polishing was of sapphire;..." (Lam. 4:7)

This word Nazarites is # 5139; from 5144; separate, i.e. consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite); hence (fig. from the latter) an unpruned vine (like an unshorn Nazirite):--Nazarite {by a false alliteration with Nazareth}

This means there were two words in English, one was Nazarites which meant the people from Nazareth the town; the other word was Nazirites which had to do with the vow of separation a person could take.

Apparently the K.J. translators mistook one word for another. They used the one with an (A) in it instead of the one with an (I). (Nazarites -- Nazirites)

Other versions have princes, nobles, etc.

4. "... Where are thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? Are they restrained?" (Isa. 63:15b)

These are two words, # 1995 & 4578. #1995 is a noise, tumult, crowd, etc., and # 4578 is to be soft; used only in plur. the intestines, or (collect) the abdomen, fig. sympathy, etc.

The New Scofield has, "the yearning of thine heart", so also most all versions.

Did the early Hebrews think the sound of guts growling was the yearning of the heart? Or, did the other versions want to cover up this "sojnding of the bowels", for more delicate ears?

5. "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." (Ex. 22:28)

This phrase "the gods", is # 430, pronounced (el-o-heem'). It is the plural of god in the ordinary sense; but specially used (in the plural with the article) of the supreme God;. So, here in this verse the article is used (the) so, it apparently means "the supreme God". On the other hand, if it is plural with the article, it would read; 'the supreme Gods". Take your pick.

6. "And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah; this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon, his father." (Gen. 36:24)

In Strong's Ex. Conc. Lex., the word 'mules' is # 3222, from the same as 3117; a warm spring.

The Hebrews did have a word for 'mules'. It was peh'-red, a mule (perh. from his lonely habits) #6505, where it is used several times in the Old Testament.

Since they did have a word for mules (peh'red), why didn't they use that word in Gen. 36:24, instead of (yame), which means a warm spring? Or, was this a blunder by the translators? Or, a mistake by a scribe in copying? Somebody goofed!

7. "They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms , because the shadow of them is good; therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery." (Hosea 4:13)

The word oak, in this verse, is #437 in Strong's Lex., which says; al-lone'; a var. of 436 - oak. #436 says ay-lone'; an oak, or other strong tree.

So, this word is undoubtly the right word, oaks. However, the word for elms is another story. Elms is #424, which says; ay-law'; fem. of 352; an oak or other strong tree.

It looks like the translators would portray ignorance if they put two oaks in the same sentence, such as ".., under oaks and poplars and oaks...," so, they put the word elms where oaks should have been.

It does look better, unless you check the word's meanings, then we see a problem with translation.

8. "And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole." (Lev. 11:30)

This word, translated into English as snail is #2546, in Strong's Heb. Lex., pronounced kho'met, from an unused root prob. mean. to lie low; a lizard (as creeping).

However, the word lizard in the same verse is #3911, pronounced, let-aw-aw', from an unused root mean. to hide, a kind of lizard (from its covert habits).

So, it looks like the K.J. translators had already done the word lizard, then next, when they came to lizard again, they probably wanted to make sense of it, and instead of putting down lizard again, thought, what other animal can we put here, because we are guardians of he faith, and we wouldn't want some ignorant lamb finding offence at two lizards so close together, and beside, how many people will check out the meaning of this word? So, they wrote snail. It looks pretty good there, doesn't it?

9. How about one more slip of the word for lizard?

"The spider taketh hold with her hands and is in king's palaces." (Prov. 30:28)

This word they put for spider, is #8079; sem-aw-meeth'; a lizard (from the superstition of its noxiousness.)

Its not as though there wasn't a word for spider, for in two other scriptures (Job 8:14 & Isa., 59:5) the word is correct, #5908, ak-kaw-beesh' , prob. from an unused root in the lit. sense of entangling; a spider (as weaving a network).

10. The following are all the places in the K.J.V. where the word, turtle, or turtles, are found.

"The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;" (Song Sol. 2:12)

"Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD." (Jer. 8:7)

"And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons'..." (Lev. 12:8)

"And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons,..." (Lev. 15:29)

"And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons,..." (Num. 6:10)

All these words turtle(s) are the same word in Hebrew. In Strong's Heb. Lex., they all have the same number: #8449; tore; probably the same as # 8447; a RING-dove,... #8447; tore; from 8446; a SUCCESSION, i.e. a string or (abstract) order. #8446; toor; a prim. root: to meander. (caus. guide) about, espec. for trade or reconnoitering.,

So, its a progression from: meander, guide=succession, string, order=ring.

The word dove was added by Strong; why, we 'll never know. Yet, the word turtle, is supposed to be turtledove.

In addition to all this, #8448; tore; probably the same as # 8447; a manner (as a sort of turn).

Another addition to all of this is even weirder. #8450; tore; corresponds to # 7794; a Bull.

Now, to magnify this fraud, all the places in the O.T. where the words, turtledove(s) are, are ALL the same number: #8449, (a ring).

Bill Henness

12 Stones, a memorial forever

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Henness) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:17:00 +0000

12 Stones, a memorial forever

When Joshua and Israel crossed the Jordan river into the promised land, God supposedly commanded him to take 12 large stones from the rivers bed and build a mound with them on the west shore.

"That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones? Then ye shall answer them, that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. And these stones shall be for a memorial unto the children of Israel forever." (Josh. 4:6,7)

Now, a memorial forever means just what it says; forever is forever. However, I can find nothing about this memorial of 12 stones in Israel today. Where were they located?

"And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and encamped in Gilgal, in the east border of Jericho. And those twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, did Joshua set up in Gilgal." (Josh. 4:19,20)

If you take a map you can plainly see where they were supposed to be located.

If it was to be a memorial forever, where is it today?

The name Gilgal is now Jiljulieh which is 2 miles east of Jericho. There were two Gilgals; the other was near Bethel.

I asked a pastor about this and he gave the standard fundamental answer; "The stones could be a memorial forever without still being there."

Suppose we consider the Lincoln Memorial. It stands today, but suppose it were torn down and the land used for a parking lot, or a farm field. 3,000 years from now would that building and statue still be a memorial having not been there for 3,000 years?

The verse says, "these stones (12) shall be for a memorial to the children of Israel forever."

Could it be said of the Lincoln Memorial that it's stones and statue will be for a memorial to the people of the U.S.A. forever? Even though for thousands of years it was not there?

Bill Henness

Confronting CFI's Childish Blasphemy Contest

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:49:00 +0000

from Brian

Clicking the title link above will bring you to the website article

(Sigh!) I never thought that I would be writing an article like this concerning the Center For Inquiry. In this article, little ole me will be confronting the giant CFI! They that have the established support networks, personnel, history, and financial backing are in one corner and I am in the other corner with none of the above. So be it!

I won’t say too much more here, the article is a bit long and I lay out my case there! I would like for people to get familiar with the Ex-Minister organization pages, this blasphemy contest case is main street material for matters that I will be dealing with when we eventually get funding. I don’t plan to wait around for that day, I will do whatever I can do today that aligns with what we will be doing.

Let me say that I have a lot of respect for Paul Kurtz, I have included excerpts of an excellent article of his in this piece. Everything rises and falls upon leadership; Kurtz's leadership will be missed!

Nevertheless, don’t let anyone confuse me with being a pacifist! I have learned quite a bit running the website, I’m not going to backdown but will fight for principles that I believe in. The overwhelming majority of non-theist websites and organizations cater to the new atheist crowd that doesn’t have a clue about their prospective market which should be people of faith. Judging from their actions, I believe that they have deluded themselves and confused chasing internet popularity with trying to reach the decision maker within people of faith.

Ex-Minister knows the difference and isn’t interested in popularity, but I would appreciate your verbal, moral and financial support. Help me get the message out so that we could become an organization.

PS: Some issues like blasphemy have a built in “fudge factor.” I’m sure some knucklehead will want to diffuse my opposition to blasphemy and turn my clearly stated “I am against blasphemy legislation” around and try to justify their saber-rattling blasphemy contest idea. Blasphemy is wrong!

Getting back to the basics

webmaster@exminister.org (Brian Worley) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:38:00 +0000

from Bill Henness

Wouldn't it be just great if our nation were to go back to the way it used to be? When there were the rich and poor and middle class.

The rich, because of their education, their high intelligence, or their daddy, received a good education, had that old drive and went on to further themselves as much as they were able. As a result they had good health care because they could afford it. They drove nice cars because they could afford them. They ate well because they could afford it. Their children went to good schools and were well fed and healthy as a general result of it.

Then there were the middle class who were hard workers. They were frugal with what money they had. They saved for expensive things they wanted or needed. They may have taken a vacation once a year to visit relatives where they could sleep for free. As they gradually aged they accumulated many things they needed or wanted. They had to go into debt to buy a car or house or something expensive.

Then there were the poor. On this I can speak from experience. Of the poorest people in my home town we were the poorest, mainly because my dad was disabled with heart problems. Other poor families were poor but many of them were poor because of so many kids. There was one family with 14 kids, another with 12, and yet another with 12. In my family there were only three kids of which I was the oldest.

Poor people back then could not afford to go to the Doctor every time they got sick. If it was life threatening, then maybe. We had NO insurance. No saving account. We had no car, and no electricity until I was a freshman in High School. We could not afford to buy new school books like most other kids, but used old previously used ones. Seldom could we afford new clothes but rather wore other people's clothes. We did not eat very well either. We survived on WPA trucks that came around once a month with a basket of food, usually raisins, beans, flour, sager, etc. We had a few chickens for eggs and meat. We were on welfare and received a small monthly check from the State that allowed us to just barely survive. When you got sick you either got well eventually or you died.

None of we three kids have ever since been on welfare but have worked for our livings. Skimped and saved the best we could and each raised a family ourselves but hard work.

My reason for typing this subject is because I see our nation going toward socialism and I hate that. What ever happened to free people who either survived by their own efforts or died trying? If a person was desperately poor they could not reach their potential as a rich person could. They went under. But they went under proudly. Why do so many people believe we should give money and things to people who have not? Let them work for it themselves or die trying. What ever happened to the rich, the middle class, and the poor? Why must we all be well off? Many without even working for it. And, what's wrong with a poor person dying because they have no medical insurance? We're not all wealthy.

There. I have aired my feeling and thoughts and I feel a little better now. However, I know it will change nothing.