One in Messiah Congregation
קָּהָל אֶחָד
בְּמָּשִׁיחַ
A part of the Congregation of Israel
עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל
Our website: OneInMessiah.net
27 S. Maple Street, Hohenwald, Tn. 38462
Phone: 615 712-3931
Email: MinisterMalachi@comcast.net
Shabbat Shalom
שַׁבָּת
שָׁלוֹם
Today is February 15, 2020
February -- month of Februa
Middle English Februarius
Latin Februarius "of Februa"
Latin Februa(s) "Februa" + -arius "ary (pertaining to)"
Latin Februarius mensis
"month of Februa"
Latin dies februatus "day of
purification"
Februarius had 28 days, until circa 450 BC when it had 23 or 24 days on some of every second year, until Julius when it had 29 days on every fourth year and 28 days otherwise.
Februa is the Roman festival of purification, held on February fifteenth. It is possibly of Sabine origin.
We acknowledge Yehovah’s calendar:
We are now in the eleventh month, which is the month Sh’vat שְׁבָט
Day 20
Sh’vat is found in: Zech.1 [7] … the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat / Sh’vat
Part of Feb. and March 2020
Today’s Topic:
Word study again
Sometimes: Want means lack and Lack means lack
Below are just a few examples, let’s review:
Want: חָסֵר chacer
Meaning: 1) to lack, be without, decrease, be lacking, have a need
1a) (Qal) 1a1) to lack 1a2) to be lacking
Pss.23 [1]
Yehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Pss.34 [9]
O fear Yehovah, ye his saints: for there is no
want to them that fear Him.
[10]
The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek Yehovah shall not want any good thing.
Prov.9 [4]
Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,[16] Whoso is
simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, [17] Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
[18] But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests
are in the depths of hell.
Prov.10 [19]
In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
[21]
The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.
Prov.13 [23]
Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but there is
that is destroyed for want of judgment.
[25]
The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul:
but the belly of the wicked shall want.
Prov.14 [28]
In the multitude of people is the king's honour: but in the want of people is the destruction
of the prince.
Prov.19 [7]
All the brethren of the poor do hate him: how much more do his friends go far
from him? he pursueth them
with words, yet they are wanting to him.
Prov.21 [5]
The thoughts of the diligent tend only to
plenteousness; but of every one that is hasty only to want.
Prov.22 [16]
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches,
and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to
want.
Prov.24 [34]
So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth; and thy want
as an armed man.
Prov.28 [30] I went by the field of the slothful, and by the
vineyard of the man void of understanding;
[31] And, lo, it was
all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the
stone wall thereof was broken down.
[32] Then I saw, and
considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction.
[33] Yet a little
sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep:
[16]
The prince that wanteth
understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth
covetousness shall prolong his days.
Ecc.: [15]
That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting
cannot be numbered.
Ecc.6 [2]
A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour,
so that he wanteth
nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God
giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.
Same meaning in the
Gospels and letters, here are a few examples:
ὑστέρημα
husterema {hoos-ter'-ay-mah} Meaning: 1)
deficiency, that which is lacking
Mark.12 [41] And Yeshua sat over
against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury:
and many that were rich cast in much.
[42] And there came a
certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
[43] And he called
unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I
say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in,
than all they which have cast into the treasury:
[44]
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did
cast in all that she had, even all her living.
2 Cor. 11 [9]
And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man:
for that which was lacking to me
the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept
myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
Phil.2 [25]
Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus,
my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered
to my wants.
Tit.1 [4] To Titus, mine own son after the common faith:
Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Yeshua
the Messiah our Saviour. [5]
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that you should set in order the things
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee:
Tit.3 [13]
Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos
on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.
Jas.1 [4]
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire,
wanting nothing.
Lack means lack
I am
not going to go over this word, I think most people
understand this.
מַחְסוֹר machcowr {makh-sore'}
or מַחְסֹר machcor {makh-sore'}
Meaning: 1) need, poverty, thing needed 1a) need, thing needed 1b)
lack, want 1c) need, poverty
Use all concordances with spiritual
caution.
There might be a bias or two here J
Strong's
concordance was first published in 1890
James Strong
died in 1893
James
Strong, LL.D., S.T.D, former professor of exegetical theology at
Drew Theological Seminary, spent more than thirty-five years preparing his
landmark concordance. First published in 1890 Strong's
remains the most widely used concordance and dictionary of Bible words from
the King James Version of the Bible.
( LLD Doctor of Laws ) STD Doctor(ate) of Sacred Theology (degree)
Drew
Theological Seminary -- Started as a Methodist seminary in 1867
, Drew is
today an independent university of distinction with an abiding belief in
the liberal arts and the use of technology in support of teaching and learning.
James Strong
was a Methodist layman who argued for formal
ministerial training and the establishment of a major Methodist seminary in
the mid-Atlantic region prior to Drew's founding. He studied at Wesleyan, attained
three degrees, and became acting president of Troy University before joining
the faculty of Drew as chair of exegetical theology in 1868 . Strong was one of "the
Great Five" revered professors who led Drew for decades. He died in 1893 , after
serving Drew for nearly twenty-five years.
In the Strongs & Thayer, when looking up a word, always be
very careful.
Some of
their words are right and some of their words replace the Textus
Reseptus words giving a different meaning.
The
translators of the KJV 1611 are the most reliable sources of the Koine Greek which we do not have today.
The KJV
agrees with the Textus Reseptus
Koine Greek which comes from the over 5000 Greek manuscripts
which agree with each other approx. 98-99 %
All the
other versions of the bible only agree approx. 5%
Which
version do you think you should use? The answer is a simple one. 98-99 % sounds
much better then 5 %, I know you would agree.
After
reviewing even the worst versions of the bible, we see they also say first day
of the week.
Let’s go
over our Bible
Perfected or Perverted? (byNorman Ward)
Chapter 3: The History of
the Gospels and Letters
The "original"
Bible
In discussing the text of the Bible, the
revisionists will often use the phrase "according to the original
Greek." This leads one to believe that they have access to the original autograph
manuscripts. They do not. Nobody today has the original writings themselves. Let me repeat that: The original autographical
manuscripts of the Gospels and Letters no longer exist. They were written on perishable material and
it is unlikely that they lasted more than a few years, let alone nineteen centuries!
This is why the doctrine of Divine
preservation is so vital. If God has not
preserved His word (Psalm 12:6-7), then it was irrevocably lost on thousand
nine hundred years ago. That would mean
that no Bible is existence today is any more inspired that a Harold Robbins
novel and Yeshua the
Messiah is a liar (Matt. 24:35)!
Often, the same people who refer you to the
"original Greek" will also refer you to the "Original
Bible." There was no "original
Bible." At no time did the original autographical manuscripts of the
twenty-seven books of the Gospels and Letters ever reside between the covers of
one particular book. To say, "I
believe in the verbal plenary (absolute) inspiration of the "original Bible" is to say you believe in nothing, for no
such book ever existed! (The TaNaKh existed).
The Gospels and Letters were not written as a
book, per se. It was written by eight or nine different men, in a variety of
locations and circumstances, over a period of about sixty years. Generally speaking, the Gospels and Letters
were originally letters which were written to certain churches or individuals.
These letters were written on papyrus in a
particular kind of Greek called "Koine" Greek.
Koine Greek
was the language of the common man at that time. It is important to remember that the Gospels
and Letters were originally written in Koine Greek because later on we are going to
encounter manuscripts written in classical Greek.
As the Gospels and Letters were circulated
from church to church, each church would make a copy of the letter before
passing it on. Eventually, each church
had its own collection of letters. It
was only natural that these collections of letters would eventually be put
together in book form.
It is a this point that our story begins, for it is at this
point that the development of the bible splits into two separate lines of
Ascension.
We will examine first the line of ascension
which culminates in the A.V. 1611 and then we will examine the line which gives
to rise to the the
modern versions.
The Textus Receptus
The underlying Greek text of the A.V. 1611 is
called the “Textus Receptus” or the “Received
Text.” It is also called the “Majority
Text” because ninety-five percent of all manuscript evidence supports this
text. Let me emphasize that: Ninety-five
percent of all manuscript evidence comes from the same line of ascension that
the A.V. 1611 comes from. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT! In other words all the manuscripts were
almost exact copies of each other.
This text originated in Antioch where the
disciples were first called Christians (Messiah Followers) (Acts 11:26). It was written on papyrus in Koine Greek as were the original letters. There is no evidence that anyone at Antioch
ever tampered with this text.
This text traveled from Syria, through the
Balkans to Germany and, thence, to England.
It was the text the Messiah Followers used.
Milestones in the development of this text include:
1. The Syrian peshito and the old Latin (first and second centuries),
2. Papyrus readings of the the Receptus (150-400 A.D,
3. The Uncial readings of the Receptus (500-1500),
4. The Latin Bibles of the Waldensians (1100-1300),
5. The Latin Bibles of the Albigenses (1380-1550),
6. The Latin Bibles of the Lollards (1300-1500),
7. Martin Luther's Bible (1530), and
8. The Receptus of 1615, 1534, 1550, and 1565.
English
Versions included:
1. Tyndale's (1525),
2. Coverdale's (1535),
3. Matthew's (1537),
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560),
6. The Bishops Bible (1568), and
7. The Authorized Version (1611)
The Line of Corruption
We will
now examine the second line of ascension, the line that supports the modern
versions.
This
line of ascension begins in Alexandria, Egypt, the Land of Bondage. From there it moves to Rome, the City of
Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore and the Roman Catholic Pope.
This
line of text is written on vellum in classical Greek. Remember, the Gospels and Letters were
written on papyrus in Koine
Greek.
It is
important to note the difference between classical Greek and Koine Greek foe three reasons:
1. Since
the Gospels and Letters were written in Koine Greek, a manuscript copy in Koine Greek is apt to have a closer reading.
2. There are some 500 works in Koine Greek which are used in the Gospels and Letters
which cannot be translated into classical Greek.
3. The majority of early Messiah Followers accepted
manuscripts in Koine Greek
in preference to manuscripts in classical Greek.
This
corrupt line of ascension accounts for only five percent of manuscript
evidence. Let me repeat that: Only five percent of manuscript evidence
supports this line of text. FIVE PERCENT. In other
words does not agree with the original copies of the Gospels and Letters.
The story
of this corrupt line starts with a man named Origen. Origen lived about 185-251 A.D. He was an Ebionite (one who accepts the moral teachings of Messiah
but denies the doctrine of salvation).
He believed in infant baptism. He
believed in universal salvation (that is, that all men would be saved rather
than should be saved. He believed that
sin was forgiven through communion. He
did not believe that Messiah was our High Priest. He did not believe in physical resurrection. He did not believe in the second coming of
Messiah. There is no record of his ever
winning anyone to Messiah. He could not
tell you where, when, how, or why he is saved.
By his
own admission, he amended the Gospels and Letters whenever and wherever he felt
like it. It is on the work of this man
that the whole line of the corrupt texts exists.
In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine of
Rome converted to Christianity. The sincerity of his conversion and his motivation
for converting have come
under serious question. At any rate, he
asked a fellow named Eusebius to make him fifty copies of the bible.
Unfortunately, Eusebius was the wrong man to
ask. He was an Arian (one who denies the
Deity of Messiah) and he did not believe in literal interpretation of the
bible. Worst of all, he was a great admirer of Origen. As a result, the fifty copies of the Bible
that he made up for Constantine were based on the corrupt works of Origen.
The next step in the corrupt line was
Jerome's Latin Vulgate written about 400 A.D.
It was based primarily on the work of Origen and Eusebius. For the next thousand years, this was the
standard Bible of the Catholic church.
The last stop before the modern versions is
the Rheims-Douay Bible completed about 1610.
It is the current Bible of the Catholic church. Of
course, it reflects the work of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.
The most cursory examination of this line of
Bibles reveals the fact that it has Roman Catholic heritage. It should be noted that the Catholic church has tradionally been opposed to laymen reading the Bible. At times, the Roman Catholic church has even forbidden ownership of the Bible by
the common man. The corrupt nature of
these Bibles and the attitude of the church which promoted them helps to explain why none of these Bibles were ever
popular.
In short,
the KJV was directly written from Koine Greek to English. The corrupt line was from Koine
Greek, to Modern Greek, Latin (with changes from Origen), and then to English.
Westcott and Hort
Introduction
On February 10, 1870, the Southern
Convocation of the Church of England passed a resolution expressing the
desirability of revising the Authorized Version of 1611 (KJV). The clear intent of the Southern Convocation
can be noted in the following quote::
We do not
contemplate any new translation of the Bible or any alternation of the language,
except, when in the judgment of the most competent scholars, such changes are
necessary.
What actually happened is quite another
story. Instead of being a revision of
the A. V. 1611, the Revised Version was actually a whole new Bible that threw
out entirely the time-tested, God-honored, fruit-bearing, life-changing,
Messiah-exalting A. V. 1611.
The story of the Revised Version (and all
subsequent modern Bibles) is really the story of two men, B. B Wescott and F.J A. Hort. Westcott and Hort were two well know Greek scholars who dominated
the Revision Committee.
Westcott and Hort were not Bible believers. As a matter of fact, they detested the A. V.
1611 and the Greek text on which it was based.
Their expressed purpose was to “Rid the Church of that Vile Text”.
Westcott and Hort had no desire to simply revise the A.V. 1611 as
the Southern Convocation had authorized, nor would they be satisfied with a
fresh translation from the existing Greek text.
Why they insisted upon was a brand new translation based on a brand new
Greek text.
Where was this text to come from? Why, it
just so happened that Westcott and Hort had composed a Greek text that they felt was
perfectly suitable for the job? This man
inspired text was the basic text used by the Revision Committee (after the
committee had been sworn to secrecy by Westcott and Hort), and it was published within days of the
Revised Version.
The new Greek text
of Westcott and Hort, and
especially their theories, have had an unwholesome and devastating effect on
the Gospels and Letters textual criticism.
Almost every Bible published today has been tainted by their poison.
Some versions such as the Revised Version and
the American Standard Version are based directly on the Westcott and Hort text.
Other version are based on texts which are either revisions fo the
Westcott and Hort text,
or ones which utilize the theories of Westcott and Hort, for example: Nestle's text (the basic text for the new American
Standard Version) and the Bible Society's text (the basic text for the New
international Version). Every bible
published Today, except the A.V. 1611 is Based on the work of Westcott and
Hort.
This is the crux of the difference between the
various versions. On one side stands the
A.V. 1611 (KJV) which is based on the Textus Receptus, an historically transmitted Greek text, supported
by the vast majority of manuscript evidence (95 percent). On the other side stands virtually every
other version based on a text invented in the nineteenth century and support by
only a handful of manuscript evidence.
(the New King James Bible and KJV II claim to
be base on the Textus Receptus but have serious defects).
Be aware of the Aramaic Scriptures.
In the Aramaic manuscripts as, 'Eli, Eli, lemana
shabakthani' (My God, My God, for this I was spared
[this was my destiny.) THIS IS
WRONG!!!
NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, Dr. George Lamsa
states, 'Not a word of the Scriptures
was originally written in Greek...the
Scriptures were written in Aramaic.' THIS IS FALSE!!!!
He
must have missed the over 5000 Greek manuscripts
In the ancient text of the Peshitta,
written in Jesus' native Aramaic language, 'lama sabachthani' is REPLACED by 'lemana shabakthani'. 'Lemana' means 'for
this purpose', and 'shabakthani' means 'spare, keep,
or reserve'. So you see that Jesus did not say "why hast thou forsaken
me", but "for this
purpose was I spared", or
"this is my destiny". THIS IS WRONG!!!
Psalm
22: 1 -- My God, my God, why hast thou let me to
live? And yet thou has delayed my salvation from me,
because of the words of my folly. [Aramaic Translation] FALSE TRANSLATION - Please read the HEBREW for
correct text from whence it comes.
KJV is correct in the Psalm 22 and
אֵלִי
אֵלִי, לָמָה
עֲזַבְתָּנִי;
רָחוֹק
מִישׁוּעָתִי,
דִּבְרֵי
שַׁאֲגָתִי
sabachthani is not replaced here in our Bible
Matt.27 [46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?
You should go over some of these links below; it
is for your benefit.
Just hold down the ctrl key and click to go to
the link, simple
In closing:
2Tim.2 [15] Study to show yourself
approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of truth.
Shabbat Shalom
שַׁבָּת
שָׁלוֹם