[This Rumination starts off on an introductory topic, merely because that was its setting; however, it takes many twists and turns and discusses many very interesting things.]
These comments of mine are in response to a brief list of highlights of Islamic terrorist attacks from a.d. 732 - 2013. However, though the data is mostly correct, its interpretation is flawed. Islam is not the head. It is, indeed, the tentacles doing the dirty work, but Zionism is the head. It is Zionism (which seduced Christendom) that has opened the floodgates to the Third World and the antichrist world... first slowly, then full tilt. So what if a few Jews are sacrificed as pawns by Zionism at the hands of Islam or anyone... the Zionist leaders and Jewish elite don’t care—in fact, they plan it--well in advance of it happening. [see pp.10-14 of A Greater Miracle...] All warmongers have the same attitude. They put their sons and daughters in “safe” positions and send the rest, the “common people”, their “cannon fodder” off to certain death on the front lines, or leave them unprotected in their neighborhoods to be robbed, raped, and murdered as the criminal element is imported. The elite receive phone calls not to show up to work and magically later that day there is a “terrorist attack”. They import aliens—our very sworn eternal enemies and invite them to come and live among us and then try to take away our right to defend ourselves, pass laws to make us third-class citizens in our own nation; rob us to fund the enemy, pay the enemy to reproduce, and stack the corrupt courts against us and persecute us—packing aliens and leftists and antichrists into the courtrooms as our jury and judges!
Accompanying this list was the introductory comments of someone who thinks himself a Bible expert, but is in the deepest of spiritual blindness and has no fear of God concerning the consequences of his leading the sheep astray. His arguments are vapid and his use of the English language hurts the brain and his spiritual blindness hurts the heart. Regardless, in one comment he stupidly said,
“Reason being that in governing biblical texts there is only “one” English (as in other languages) word for “stranger.” This word then, is all-inclusive of any and all strangers, while the original Hebrew and Greek languages show that there are at least 5 different words in each language that depict a “stranger” by type, by his countenance/race/color, by how he relates to the Israelite peoples of the Bible, and by his basic genetic origins. Seems that the original Bible translators were influenced by those who would benefit from such deviant translations of the Word. Two of these opposing “faiths” involved in translations should be obvious to all. ”
I have repeatedly emailed this person and informed him that he is completely wrong. I informed him that just like the Hebrew goy/goyim and the Greek ethos/ethney [erroneously translated, inconsistently as “Gentile” simply mean “nation, people”] and just like pronouns, all Hebrew and Greek words translated “stranger / sojourner / alien” are generic words with no racial connotation whatsoever and context alone determines exactly which people are being referred to. His spiritual and scholary response was, “THE HELL WITH CONTEXT!” I then emailed him a verse in which each of these words was used in reference to both Israelites and aliens outside the racial family. He never replied. But he continues to spew his error as fact even though he has been shown it is not true.
To claim that the original Bible translators were influenced by those who would benefit from this translation is the height of ignorance. WHICH “original” Bible translators is he talking about? The Latin Vulgate? The Geneva Bible? The King James Bible? Who did this benefit even as late as 1611? The accusatory notion is absurd. Has this person consulted a Strong’s or Young’s Concordance to see just how many different Hebrew or Greek words are translated into a singular English word? I doubt that he has ever done any real study; he merely spews forth his faulty opinion. His accusation is actually false because the words are not merely translated “stranger”, but also “alien, sojourner, foreigner, profane, lodger, etc.”
Regardless, it is not the Bible translation that is wrong, but the spurious modern, humanist interpretation in bankrupt. This is because God declared BLINDNESS to come upon His people—yes, even upon those who think that they can see—especially upon those who think that they can see; when what they see is different from what the Word of God clearly says. When man operates upon the delusion that he is in charge of his own destiny, and not God, then such will reap what he has sown: confusion and destruction (for himself, as well as those foolish enough to follow him). God will not share His Glory with another and those who reject His Doctrine, His Commands, His Order, His Plan, reject God. You cannot “accept” and “worship” God when you reject His Truth, His Commands, His Decrees—when you reject nearly everything that He said (except those bits and pieces that you like, glued together the way you like).
[Here is a interesting test: Read through Genesis to Numbers (the Books of the Law, the Pentatuch) and each time that you come to a “Thou shalt not” or a “This thou shalt do” or any inference of a command, prohibition, or God’s will in any matter, write on a piece of paper the verse, the command, and then whether you think it is a good idea, whether you think it applies today, and whether you are obedient to it or not. When done, add up the ones that you agree with, the ones you think are still valid, the ones you actually obey; and add up the ones you don’t. If you don’t answer “yes” to every one, God is not your LORD. Even if you say yes to 75% He is not “mostly your Lord” because Lord is all or none. Lord means “Master, Sovereign, Boss, Emperor”. The slave / servant does not determine which of the Master’s Laws are important, proper, or need to be obeyed.]
Those who don’t obey Him and yet claim to have accepted Jesus as “Lord” and sing songs and go through the motions or “worship”, give lipservice and “worship” Him in Name only (not even knowing His Name!). God said He wants obedience rather than sacrifice and hearkening than the fat of rams. This does not mean that sacrifice for sin was not commanded and manditory, but that if God’s people obeyed from the heart there would be far-less sin and therefore far-less need for sacrifice. God also said that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornnes as the sin of idolatry (both stoning offenses). God also said that those who worship Him must worship Him in sincerity and in Truth. If He is not worshipped in Truth—that which He declares to be true (“woe unto him that called good evil and evil good”) —not man’s opinions or preferences—then He is not worshipped. In such cases a false humanistic god is worshipped and that spurious worship is then projected unto God as if it is to Him. Such a god stripped of His Being, His Nature, His Truth, His Decrees is an empty god, a hollow facade; a humanistic myth upon which “Christians” project godhood to justify their hedonistic humanism. Such a god is made in the image of man; and therefore, man is the real god if he has the power to create god. Such a god is little different than the gods of mythology, which gods shared all the foibles, weaknesses, and faults that humans have. The only difference is that the ancients were honest about their perceived faults of their gods and they did not have Gods’ self-Revelation (they had lost God’s Word in their period of blindness, and therefore developed their mythology from reminiscences of their own Biblical history and doctrine that was corrupted by their faulty memory over time, and the introduction of paganism with it). Modern “Christians” have no such “excuse”. When sinful man projects onto God the notions that sinful man has rationalized and imagines all things to which a “Holy” and “Good” God must conform, man has just forced God to be sinful and faulty and imperfect, like man himself. This is abominable. Fortunately for the elect, God does not play man’s stupid game.
Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God and that faith comes from the facts (doctrine) of the Word of God—not from man’s humanistic notions and “feelings” of what any man thinks would be a better narrative / drama / reality / morality than the reality that God decreed. What God decreed does not change with man’s opinions over the millennia.
I have even heard a few “Christians”, who claim to understand deeper truths speak blasphemies such as, “We need God to forgive us and God needs us to forgive Him. He is still learning even as we are” and “we need to repent of our sins and God needs to repent of his”. Such blasphemies may seem outrageous to those whose pet blasphemies are mild by comparison, but one compromise and false doctrine leads to deeper of the same, until the result is utter apostasy.*1 All of Christendom is not in the predicament that it is in today because all of our problems and evil “just happened” over night. “Shift doesn’t just happen.” It is planned. And even if some individuals don’t plan it, apostasy follows the same path as entropy on autopilot. A boat placed in the river will float downstream all by itself—and eventually sink. Gravity totalitarianly seeks equilibrium, not just physically, but spiritually, morally, and politically. Things don’t build themselves, but they do decay on their own.*2 The moral and theological and political shift has happened, slowly by degrees, compromising, abandoning the true faith, inching farther from what God commanded and closer to what pleases the godless world (self).*3 The progress from erosion to total destruction is just a matter of time, if one maintains that fatal course and does not swim against the tide. Digging a tunnel 500 feet below sea level that breaks through into the ocean, thinking that the tunnel will break through into wonderful utopia, whether the tunnel is 1 mile long or 100 miles long, will have the same result (death) and the same cause (stupidity). All the STUPID ideas of fantasy and utopia along the road to destruction are meaningless delusion. All that really matters is the ultimate impact of tons of water pressure on the unsuspecting. It is the same way with navigating through this life without God and breaking through into Hellish Eternity.
[*1 A perfect example is the American psychiatrist philosopher William James, who with John Dewey, helped further destroy the minds of America and Christendom. William James’ grandfather was also named William James; he was a firm Calvinist, and became very successful; and as a result he could afford to send his sons to college. William James’ son Henry James entered the already apostate Princeton Theological Seminary and came out a full-fledged Swedenborgian—a brand of Arminianism denying God’s Sovereignty in Predestination in favor of man’s free will. Henry’s son, William James (the psychiatrist-turned-philosopher) after reading the philosopher Charles Renouvier declared, “my first act of free will shall be to believe in free will”—and within a short space of time rejected Christianity entirely and believed that the basis for all true religion was founded upon each individual’s personal experience; which appears to be the same humanism (antichrist) philosophy promoted by Kierkegaard, Schweitzer, and Barth. See Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s small book (141pp.), William James and John Dewey; inquire. See also the last paragraph of *3 below starting with, “However...”.
*2 Technically, things do not decay on their own. The phenomena of gravity, the oxidative effects of the sun’s UV rays, the oxidative effect of oxygen, the corrosive effect of minerals and gases, and the expanding and contracting effects of cold and heat and becoming wet and drying, and the erosion produced by rain and wind (and sand particles in the wind), the additional trauma inflicted by micro-organisms, algae, fungi, insects, rodents, birds, etc., all work on something to cause decay and entropy. In a vacuum no other factors would work on, let’s say, a rubber tire or a coffee table or a bedsheet, to erode it—but in a vacuum it would not exist; so it is a moot point.
*3 In time man apostatized completely and even refuses to admit that God exists, because then man would be required to also admit that it is his duty to submit to Him and obey Him. Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1875), a famous biologist (grandson of the more-famous Sir Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog”, but who was not antagonistic, but respectful to Christianity, which he had not entirely abandoned). Julian was shockingly honest (not recognizing his own shame). He declared,
“[I suppose the reason that] we all jumped at [believing] the [Darwinian] Origin [of the Species, thereby embracing Evolution] was because the [very] idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.*” [Brackets mine for clarity. R.A.B.]
* Mores (a Latin word prounounced like the eels, morays) are “folkways or customs of central importance that are accepted by society without question, which embody the fundamental moral views of society.” Mores also entail the recognition of societal taboos. Taboos are particularly vile forms of immorality. Sadly, as our society becomes less and less Christian, as we absorb pagan peoples, what were once universally recognized as taboos, are now considered, “perfectly normal lifestyle choices”).
What an astounding confession! The only difference between him and all other atheists is that he was honest.
However, Julian Huxley rejected God altogether because his grandfather Doubting Sir Thomas Huxley questioned God’s existence and wavered in his faith. “The curse causeless shall not come.” “Be not deceived... whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.”]
Also, the person who interjected his awkward introductory commentary (like a blind-man serving as a tour-guide at an amusement park or historic site) also stated, “...Esau, having abandoned both birthright and blessing...” It is a minor point, but deserves correction. Esau did not abandon his blessing. Oddly, he highly valued it. Jacob had tricked Isaac into conferring the blessing unto Jacob masquerading as Esau; Isaac thinking that Jacob was Esau (Isaac’s eyesight having failed). Upon learning of the treachery, Esau was enraged and asked, with tears, for his father to undo the blessing and give it to him, and Isaac rightfully declared that it was of God and could not be undone; Esau then continued to beg for some blessing, any blessing and Isaac then by Divine inspiration gave Esau an ignominious blessing, though a fitting one and actually a significant one (Esau actually having picked up the torch of the Curse on Cain and the Curse on Canaan by marrying two Canaanie women; and thus his blessing is actaully a continuation of that curse*). But understand clearly Esau did not despise his blessing; he despised his birthright—and in so doing, he was unworthy of the blessing; though for some reason he still cherished it. The NT refers to esau in tears but finding no place of repentance, does not refer to Esau himself repenting of anything, but refers to Esau not being able to convince his father to repent/change his mind and rescind the blessing given to Jacob and give it to Esau for whom Isaac had intended it.
[* Part of the curse on the Serpent (Satan) is that he would “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” (Genesis 3:14). This, it seems should more properly be understood as a curse of his progeny. The Greek word doulos, slave, literally means, “one who goes through the dust”, which seems to be what is implied in going upon the belly: servitude. This is what was pronounced upon Canaan (who was born of incest, cursed, and who went out and married a woman descended from Cain). This is also the blessing Isaac conferred on Jacob, thinking he was Esau: servitude; though that servitude would one day be broken—and instead, it seems, Esau-Edom has fulfilled the curse on the Serpent in eating dust—“the dust of Jacob” (Numbers 23:10). David cried out in imprecation in Psalm 79: “6Pour out Thy Wrath upon the heathen that have not known Thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon Thy Name. 7For they have devoured Jacob...” Jeremiah then repeats this entire prayer “Pour out Thy Fury upon the heathen that know Thee not, and upon the families that call not on Thy Name: for they have eaten up Jacob, and devoured him, and consumed him” (10:25). However, once again God shall turn the tables, in the final prophecy against Edom God declared that the devouree shall become the devourer: “And the House of Jacob shall be a fire, and the House of Joseph a flame, and the House of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the House of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it” (Obadiah 1:18). However, it is odd that Esau would despise his birthright inheritance of the firstborn (which was a double portion of all of the wealth of Isaac: the inheritance would be split into 3 equal portions and the firstborn would get two shares). This was sizable wealth. However, it seems Esau cared not about wealth, as he was already becoming a powerful warlord and could simply take whatever he wanted. However, it is odd that he cared about the blessing—for he did not honor or obey his father; about all that he did for his father (as far as we know) was hunt him venison every now and then, which his father loved. Furthermore, Esau rebelled against and rejected God—so what could any blessing possibly mean to him? Certainly he knew that the blessing was not conferred by Isaac as if he were a magician. It seems that Esau thought that Isaac could wrap God around his little finger the way that Esau wrapped Isaac around his. He thought that Isaac “had pull” with God and that Isaac could convince, even force God to honor whatever blessing Isaac would bestow upon Esau. Yet Esau learned that God controls the blessing. For more on Cain, the Serpent, and the Canaanites see my What Was the "Mark" that God Placed on Cain...? and Who Was the Serpent in the Garden...?]