Is it a sin for a woman to pray with her head uncovered or wear pants?
Is it a sin for a woman to pray with her head uncovered or wear pants?
Short answer: No. After we read about instructions given for women to cover their heads, Paul goes on to say none of the other congregations have that custom (1 Corinthians 11:16).
There are some congregations that will ask women to cover their heads when praying or before entering for service. This tradition is not very popular among Christian churches but is more commonly practiced in many Hebrew centered groups. Although Muslims are known for having covered women, this tradition of women praying with covered heads is indeed from the Word.
When reading 1 Corinthians 11:4 we see that a man dishonors his head when he prays with his head covered. This should be our first clue that this is not a Hebrew custom.
2Sam 15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.
2Sam 15:31 And one told David, saying, Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom. And David said, O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.
2Sam 15:32 And it came to pass, that when David was come to the top of the mount, where he worshipped God, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat rent, and earth upon his head
David had his head covered while praying but there is no commentary that leads us to believe that what he did was dishonored. Paul’s instruction was not instruction that came from the Scriptures. When Paul does give an instruction that came from the wisdom of the Scripture, he usually references the Scripture to further prove his point. For example, when he wrote that women should not teach over men he proved this point by saying, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13-14). Another example is in 1 Corinthians 14, when Paul writes about women keeping silence and learning in obedience, he proves his point by writing “as also saith the Law” (1 Corinthians 14:34). However, in 1 Corinthians 11 he doesn’t reference the Law of Moses or anyone in the Scriptures. Instead, he references nature (1 Corinthians 11:14) and caps off his explanation by making it clear that neither him nor any of the churches have that custom (1 Corinthians 11:16). I assure you, it is not a sin.
When it comes to women wearing pants, this comes from the assumption that pants are exclusively for males to wear. The logic there is, pants were originally designed for males and therefore, are men’s clothing. Our Law teaches, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man” (Deuteronomy 22:5). If we use this logic for pants then we would have to use the same logic for women’s dresses. Our men in the Scriptures wore open bottom clothing (like dresses). This is why Yah prohibited stairs for the altar (Exodus 20:26). Just like dresses, our clothing was opened at the bottom yet now we would not wear that type of clothing because those designs are almost exclusively for women. There are pants that are designed for women and pants that are designed for men. If you would have a problem with your son wearing women’s jeans then you acknowledge that there are jeans made for women and therefore, not pertaining unto a man.
If we are all his children why would he forsake us for making mistakes he knew we would make since he created us?
Contrary to popular Christian tradition, the Word does not teach that everyone is a child of God. In fact, the writer of Hebrews teaches directly against it when discussing the discipline of God saying, “then are ye bastards, and not sons” of God [Hebrews 12:7-8]. John the apostle also makes a clear distinction between God’s children and others in 1 John 3:7-10, even giving a stern instruction to “let no man deceive you” before giving the differences of God’s children and the Devil’s.
The question still remains, however, why create people who He knows will be children of the Devil and destined for destruction? There are a few ways to answer a question like this. One way is to share how the Most High has described Himself in the Scripture as one who “made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” [Proverbs 16:4] With Him being the owner, Paul adds to that thought by explaining that the Most High has the right to do what He pleases with His creation [Romans 9:21-22].
That said, our judgement is often slanted against God before we have been changed by the engrafting of the Word, therefore, please allow me to present the logic and righteousness of God to you this way. What if the Government obtained a piece of technology that could predict the future and had been proven to be 100% accurate. Then you get a knock at your door at the beginning of the year with an itemized citation of all the traffic violations you are predicted to make that year and are ordered to pay the associated fines for these future crimes. Wouldn’t you request a day before the judge to dispute the unjust nature of being charged for something you haven’t had a chance to do? I suspect a “future” sinner that God didn’t even allow to exist might have a similar dispute. Sure, some might say, “but He’s God… if He makes it so they never exist then how could they dispute?” I say to that… He is not merely God… He is the only wise, just, fair and equitable God [Deuteronomy 32:4]. Therefore, He is patient in giving all people a fair chance at finding Him despite His knowledge that many of them will not [Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43]. Then, after He has collected all the evidence, everyone will get their day to meet the Judge [2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 20:11-12].
Who is Lilith? Why was her story taken from the Bible?
Lilith’s “story” was never taken out of the Scriptures because it was never there, to begin with. The legends seem to agree that Lilith was a woman who was married to Adam prior to Eve. There are variations about how she and Adam supposedly split, but most say that she refused to be ruled by Adam.
This is a myth and is not compatible with what the Scriptures teach. Some try to argue that Genesis describes two separate creations and that there were people created before Adam. They insist that Genesis 1 describes one creation account and Genesis 2 describes a second. The issue is, however, the Scriptures teach in Genesis 2:7 that Adam was created from the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib [Genesis 2:21-22]. So, if Adam was created in Genesis 2 and there was another man created before him in Genesis 1, why does Paul call Adam the first man [1 Corinthians 15:45, 47]? In addition to that, why is Eve called the “mother of all living” in Genesis 3:20? There was never any opportunity for this myth to be included in the Scripture but let’s take a look at who or what Lilith actually is.
In Isaiah 34:14 there is a Hebrew word that is pronounced Lilith, translated as “screech-owl” in the King James Version. What is interesting is Isaiah 34:13-14 also mentions a number of animals that are associated with evil spirits (i.e. dragons [Revelation 12:9] and satyr [Leviticus 17:7]). Even more so, the Dead Sea scrolls mention “monsters” and Lilith is among the creatures that are named. If Lilith is anything out of the ordinary, it is an evil spirit.
So where did this “Adam’s first wife” tale come from? Looks like it crept up as late as a thousand years after the death of the Messiah in a writing called “Alphabet of Ben Sira” which some thought to be a humorous exaggeration and/or satire. In other words… it started with a joke!
Hey, I say we start a new myth. Let’s say Lilith was the serpent’s wife. Check the internet first, though… someone may have already come up with that one.
There was a talking serpent in Genesis, why have we never observed a talking snake since?
Even if a person or two saw a talking snake and came to tell others about it, who would believe them? Kind of answering the question with a question but I think it highlights the answer. God works by miracles. Things like, walking on water, being taken up alive in a world wind and flaming chariots, splitting large bodies of water to make a path for a million people to walk by… oh and flooding the whole earth. We haven’t seen any of these things, but they are being told to us by witnesses in the Word. Do we believe it? The Word only tells us Adam and Eve saw and spoke with the serpent. I think it’s safe to say the rest of us just have to take it on faith.
Remember, the Most High never said His goal was to tap dance for everyone until they believe. His Word shows us that He reveals Himself to a particular group, usually small, and uses that group to spread a message to the larger masses. For example, Israel was called the smallest of all nations [Deuteronomy 7:7] but He revealed Himself only to them on Mt. Sinai. Another example would be the Messiah, Himself, who was shown “not to all people” but a chosen few [Acts 10:40-41]. He is looking for those who will walk worthy of the calling based off of the Testimony that we have been given rather than each of us seeing the miracles for ourselves [John 20:29].
Was King James Gay?
The earliest record I could find of someone directly accusing King James of having homosexual leanings is in a book from the year 1650 called “The Court and Character of King James I” written by Anthony Weldon. Of course, we will discuss this book and Weldon in more detail but first let’s address the real questions: Is it true? Was King James gay?
So here’s the summary, King James does have some letters that if a person wrote today they would be thought to be gay, for sure. However, it appears that much of that language was either, just his style of speaking and/or perfectly normal (by normal I mean heterosexual) in the culture of that day. Aside from that there are plenty of sources from that time period that maintain King James was a righteous man and good king (in other words, not gay). It appears the majority of the few people that accused him of homosexuality were his enemies or were at odds with him. King James has many published works (not including his Authorized Version of the Bible) and also private letters that clearly and strongly articulate his position against homosexuality. Lastly, he was married and had a lot of babies…
Those who wish to discredit the King James’ Authorized Version will continue to think he’s gay. Those who seek the glory of the Most High God will probably not be affected either way because they know how the King James Version came about and that King James obviously pulled no punches publicly showing himself as a vigorous opponent to homosexuality. His version of the Bible is still the most trustworthy in English.
The answer: Probably not.
There is no straightforward trustworthy evidence to say he was gay and there are plenty of sources and testimony from King James himself that would suggest he was not gay. Somethings are questionable but to say that he is gay requires a person to make an assumption far past the evidence but in all fairness that does not mean it is not possible that he was absolutely not gay.
Let’s examine a bit of the evidence
Anthony Weldon did interact with and live in the same time period as King James, but his testimony is untrustworthy because of his relationship with King James. See, apparently Weldon made false claims about the Scottish nation which were discovered around the time he was with King James to go to Scotland in 1617. So, Weldon was then dismissed from his responsibilities. Later, — I’m talking like, 25 years after King James died type of “later” — Weldon wrote the book that was mentioned above which contains many accusations including homosexuality to the then dead King James.
After Weldon, there were few other of the time that made these accusations but most of those that died (from what I can tell) had some type of personal gripe with King James. This is likely why, almost immediately after these types of accusations were made public, people came to the defense of King James’ legacy.
In the book “Examen historicum” Peter Heylyn, who also lived in the same period of King James and Weldon, suggested Weldon’s claims were false and that there was no sufficient evidence to support it.
Godfrey Goodman, another who lived in the same period of time said, “I never read a more malicious-minded author, nor any who had such poor and mean observations”.
To me, the most solid evidence to support King James being gay is in one of his own letters to George Villiers. In many of his letters to Villiers, King James calls him “sweetheart” and uses language that if used today would lead some to interpret it as sexual but a lot of the language was simply common to the culture. I say a lot and not all because of one particular letter that King James wrote.
My only sweet and dear child,
Notwithstanding of your desiring me not to write yesterday, yet had I written in the evening if, at my coming out of the park, such a drowsiness had not come upon me as I was forced to set and sleep in my chair half an hour. And yet I cannot content myself without sending you this present, praying God that I may have a joyful and comfortable meeting with you and that we may make at this Christmas a new marriage ever to be kept hereafter; for, God so love me, as I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.
This is the letter that I would consider the most solid evidence for a homosexual King James. He calls a man his wife and talks of their marriage and him being a widow. Definitely appears to be at least borderline to me. However, there is more to consider.
King James, in his writing, often played with relationship titles and used them as metaphorical to relay a message to the reader. In these other situations, it is never a thought that these titles were literal or sexual in his mind. For example, in his books in which he wrote advice to his son he often related the king of nations as a father and the people as the children. He even wrote, when attempting to unify nations, saying:
He even wrote to Queen Elizabeth (who was queen before him) calling her his friend, cousin, brother (even though she is female), mother (even though she was not), and wife (she was not his wife).
No one is suspicious of a romantic relationship between Queen Elizabeth and King James even though he fancies her as his wife in the letter he wrote above.
Now that we’ve looked at, what I consider, the most solid evidence that supports a gay King James; why don’t we have a look at the most solid evidence against that notion.
We’ve already discussed the historians of the day that did not accept King James as a homosexual but let’s examine why that would have been hard for them to believe.
King James was married to Anne of Denmark for about 30 years, until her death in 1619. Now there is such thing as marriages being strictly for public view and not a true marriage in private which some suggest about their marriage. However, let’s look at more facts. She gave birth to seven kids and there is documentation of at least two miscarriages. Looking at the dates of the births/miscarriages, there’s no doubt that this was more than just a “for show” marriage. She was coming up pregnant by James almost every year from 1594-1606. This doesn’t require us to “read between the lines” of letters and make assumptions about his sexuality; this is clear, straightforward results of a heterosexual relationship.
However, if we did want to look at his letters, we could find more evidence there. Here are a few quotes from King James’ writings related to his wife and marriage:
“…I thank God I carry that love and respect unto you which, by the law of God and nature, I ought to do to my wife and mother of my children. . . For the respect of your honorable earth and descent I married you; but the love and respect I now bear you for that ye are my married wife and so partaker of my honour, as of all my other fortunes… Where ye were a king’s or cook’s daughter ye must be all alike to me being one my wife.”
“Marriage is one of the greatest actions that a man does all his time.” “When you are married, keep inviolably your promise made to God in your marriage, which all stands in doing of one thing. And abstaining from another, to treat her in all things as your wife and the half of yourself, and to make your body (which then is no more yours but property hers) common with none other. I trust I need not to insist there to dissuade you from filthy vice of adultery remember only what solemn promise you made to God at your marriage.” And for your behavior to your wife, the Scripture can best give you counsel therein. Treat her as your own flesh, command her as her lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupil, please her in all things reasonable, but teach her not to be curious in things that belong not to her. You are the head, she is your body, it is your office to command and hers to obey, but yet with such a sweet harmony as she should be as ready to obey as you to command, as willing to follow as you to go before, your love being wholly knit unto her, and all her affections lovingly bent to follow your will.”
James repeatedly taught the importance of morality and marriage. James wrote in Basilicon Doron:
“But the principal blessing that you can get of good company will stand, in your marrying of a godly and virtuous wife. . . being flesh of your flesh and bone of your bone. . . Marriage is the greatest earthlv felicity. .. without the blessing of God you cannot look for a happy marriage.”
James instructed his son:
“Keep your body clean and unpolluted while you give it to your wife whom to only it belongs for how can you justly crave to be joined with a Virgin if your body be polluted? Why should the one half be clean, and other defiled? And suppose I know, fornication is thought but a venial sin by the most part of the world, yet remember well what I said to you in my first book regarding conscience, and count every sin and breach of God’s law, not according as the vain world esteems of it, but as God judge and maker of the law accounts of the same: hear God commanding by the mouth of Paul to abstain from fornication, declaring that the fornicator shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and by the mouth of John reckoning out fornication among other grievous sins that declares the commiters among dogs and swine.” James notes the end thereof is a “man given over to his own filthy affections.”
It doesn’t stop there. He also was very outspoken about homosexuality in particular:
King James book Basilicon Doron (the Kingly Gift) was written in 1599. It contained instructions to his son about how to properly carry out the responsibilities of the king. Included among his instructions is this statement: “there are some horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience never to forgive: such as witchcraft, willful murder, incest and sodomv (homosexuality)…”
In July of 1610, James was asked to pardon a number of criminals. He did pardon several on the list but refused to pardon those convicted of sodomy. He advised his son to stay away from “effeminate ones.” James repeatedly referred to homosexuality as the “horrible crime!” These are indeed strange statements from someone given to homosexuality. James routinely listed homosexuality with witchcraft and murder just as the Bible does.(http://www.scionofzion.com/kj_real_story.html)
Did someone eavesdrop so they could write it in the Bible?
It is a pretty humorous thought to eavesdrop on a conversation between the Most High and His Son, but I doubt that was the case at all. It’s more likely that the Messiah told the disciples Himself. Remember He walked with the disciples for at least a year which he could have easily explained it to them like He did so many other things. Don’t forget, even after His death He appeared to them for 40 days and continued to discuss with them the things of the Kingdom [Acts 1:3].
Another possibility is that the Spirit revealed these things to the disciples to have them written as a testimony to the people [John 14:25-26]. The Spirit of God was promised to teach the apostles all things and it is beyond reasonable that the private prayers of the Messiah were included. There’s also a precedent for the Spirit revealing things to people because that is how the prophets of old had the Word revealed to them [1 Peter 1:21].
No need to eavesdrop.
What is your interpretation of Mark 7:7,9?
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Here, Yahushua (Jesus) spoke directly to the scribes and Pharisees [Mark 7:1] who were viewed as the leaders and experts of God’s Word. Yahushua accused them of preferring to keep traditions that God did not give over the commandments of God.
The conversation came about because the Pharisees and Scribes accused the disciples of the Messiah of being defiled (rejected of God due to uncleanliness) because they didn’t wash their hands before eating [Mark 7:2].
Today the perceived leaders and experts of God’s Word would be Christian pastors and scholars. If we examined the Christian traditions we would find the same faults. God commands every man to turn from sin [Acts 17:30, 1 John 3:9] yet many Christian leaders teach it is impossible to completely turn from sin. Other examples would be Sunday Worship instead of the Sabbath, Christmas and Easter instead of the Appointed Times and Feasts, ect.
Was “Jesus” the name of the first slave ship?
Was Jesus the name of the first slave ship?
Yes. The “Jesus of Lebuck” was the name.
The African Muslims, also known as Moors, even took Europeans as slaves for a time because they were Christians and would not convert to Islam. Christian Europeans would in turn enslave Moors when they captured Muslims during their battles. In fact, Christopher Columbus was aided by a Moor named Pedro Alonso Niño whose mother was a slave in Spain. After Columbus’ findings, a European Christian named John Hawkins sought to make a profit by trading slaves. He had a ship named “Jesus of Lubeck” which he used to transport slaves that he says he obtained “partly by the sword and partly by other means” into the Americas to trade with the Spaniards. Others realized Hawkins discovered a black gold mine. While Hawkins captured many of his slaves by battle with Moors, later European slave traders found it more profitable to trade goods with the Moors for their slaves. Valentim Fernandes even noted about trading alcohol when commenting on a group with Muslims in it saying, they were “drunkards who derive great pleasure from our wine.” This is when Hebrews who would not convert to Islam would have begun to be traded; before this many of the slaves from Africa were Moors who were taken by Christians as prisoners of war. But when rum that came from the Americas was used, along with other alcoholic beverages, to obtain slaves the Moors began to trade Hebrew prisoners for goods from the Europeans. Just as it was prophesied by Joel.
Read more about the History of slavery that is not taught, here.
How did they get the name Jesus?
It is a matter of transliteration. His actual name in Hebrew is vocalized as “Yahushua”. When transliterating the Hebrew word for Yahushua into Greek/Latin, the Greek word is vocalized “Iesus”. Then from Greek to English it would have originally been “Yesus” then “Jesus” as the “J” sound developed.
The exact thing happens today. If I go to Japan and introduce myself as Phillip, then the people of the language could vocalize my name just as I say it to them. However, if I attempt to write my name in their language and ask them to vocalize it, the results would be “Firippu.”
You will hear a lot of myths about how the name ended up as Jesus. Just know that His name is Yahushua (some pronounce it differently) and if you know His name it makes sense to call Him that. Everything else is debatable and you shouldn’t waste your time.
Where did Christianity come from?
Christianity came from gentiles who called themselves Christians while seeking to follow the God of the Scripture with the teachings of the apostles. The key thing to understand about Christianity is, the Word does not teach Christianity, but Christianity does attempt to observe the Word.
How did it start? The apostles taught people how to be disciples of the Messiah and called them, believers, saints and disciples. It was not until the disciples went to the Antioch, a Gentile city, that they were called Christians [Acts 11:26]. There are no examples throughout the Word of any of the disciples calling themselves or any other disciples by the title Christian but it is found in the Bible discussed as disciples being called Christians two other times [Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16]. It makes sense that the original disciples who wrote the Epistles that make up the New Testament would not have referred to themselves as Christians because it originated in Greek and the disciples were Hebrew. Gentiles who did not speak Hebrew, however, would have used Christian. For example, when Jews opposed to the disciples they called them Nazarenes which has its roots in Hebrew [Acts 24:5] but when King Agrippa – a gentile – is opposed he used Christian.
Once the disciples died and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the Hebrews were scattered and captured which left a space for a Gentile centric type of disciple. The Gentiles, who indeed were observers of the teachings of the apostles, called themselves Christians throughout the territories that Rome controlled. Christians developed various ways of following Gospel which left bishops or individual churches in disagreement. Certain bishops had more influence than others and over time, based on influence, grew more powerful. All this occurred while Rome had a ban on Christianity for fear that it would unsettle society. Many Christians were put to death during this time and punished to send a message. Eventually, Rome adopted the belief of Christians – or Christianity – as acceptable then later a kind of state religion. Whether this move was political or genuine is up for debate, regardless, the bishop of Rome was given authority after the council of Nicea which was an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine’s, the emperor of Rome, conversion was instrumental in much of this being set forth. Although he promoted Christianity he did still participate in many pagan observances. This led to many traditions, which were originally pagan, later becoming Christian. Examples would be, the trinity teaching, the worship of Mary, Christmas, Easter, ect.
Eventually, the Roman Catholic Church was known and the Bishop of Rome became known as the Pope. Later in history, groups began to reject the authority of the Pope who decided what should be believed by the people. Groups protested against the pope with different interpretations of the Word which created multiple protestant movements. This is why, today, there are said to be over 30,000 Christian denominations in operation.
Think of the Catholic Church as Babylon’s Tower and after God scattered the teachings it created the Protestants. All of which come together to be the confusion of Christianity that is full of lies and misunderstandings.
Who is really going to heaven? What is heaven?
Short answer: Heaven is translated in the KJV from Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the area above (i.e., the sky or beyond the sky). For example, Genesis 1:20 refers to birds in “heaven” which we can look up and see, however, Matthew 6:9 mentions our God being in Heaven although we cannot look up and see Him. The reason is because the Most High is beyond the heaven that we can see.
According to the Scriptures, the Most High is in the Heaven of heavens [1 Kings 8:27] which Paul the apostle calls the “third heaven” [2 Corinthians 12:2]. Said differently, He is in the area above the areas that are above us; perhaps, beyond our atmosphere and outer space.
So, who goes to Heaven where God is? Well, there have been a few people. Enoch [Genesis 5:24] and Elijah [2 Kings 2:11] are two that were taken into Heaven. Another example would be the Messiah [Acts 1:9] who was taken up out of sight into Heaven after His resurrection. With that information, we can say that God can and has taken people to Heaven but it is not set as an expectation in the Word.
Many Christian sects teach that people die and immediately go to heaven. What the Scripture and Epistles teach is that we, who are in the Messiah, sleep until His return and we are then resurrected according to His glory. This comes from a poor and out of context interpretation of some isolated verses in Paul’s writings [2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:23] which is often used to defend this position. Interestingly enough, Paul himself rejects this view in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 where he makes clear that those alive will not precede those that are dead, but all will be gathered with the Messiah upon His return. Which makes sense when taking into consideration that Peter clearly taught that David did not ascend into heaven [Acts 2:34]. God even comforts Daniel by prophecy, revealing to him that he would rest until the end and be resurrected [Daniel 12:13] which is exactly how Paul taught us to comfort one another [1 Thessalonians 4:13-18]. I know what you are thinking… just try not to cringe when you hear people comfort themselves after Christian tradition saying, “I know my grandmother is watching down on me from heaven…”
What many don’t realize is, Heaven will actually come to us! The Messiah will return, we will meet Him in the sky then the earth will be judged. After all is said and done, Revelation prophesied by the writing of John saying the following:
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
The chapter goes on to describe what the city looks like, being covered in precious stones and gold, even the streets. This is what comes down from Heaven from God and will be New Jerusalem on the New Earth in the end. Our God is such a gentlemen.
Why is everything I say or think a sin?
Short answer: Everything you say and think, according to the Testimony of God, is not a sin.
There have been false teachings perpetuated in some sects of Christianity that promote the idea that everything (or almost everything) you say or think is a sin. In fact, the Word spoken by the apostles often spoke of liberty even going so far as to say, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient” in 1 Corinthians 10:23.
The reason Paul can make that statement is because he obeyed the commandments of the Son. Commands of the Son are pretty simple: Love His people according to His example [John 13:34] and repent (turn from sin) with our faith toward Him. So, what exactly is a sin and what should we repent from? It is detailed here.
Shouldn’t an evolving world have an evolving god?
I don’t think God should evolve at all. Apparently, the Most High doesn’t either because He says, “I am יהוה,(Yahuah) I change not” in Malachi 3:6 and also in Hebrews 13:8 “Yahushua Messiah (Jesus Christ) the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”
We evolve, we change, we update based off of new information and discoveries. Apple drops an iPhone every year because new technology is developed by new discoveries and uncovering knowledge that was not known which they deem profitable for the next product. I think that is the major difference between the things that evolve around us and the Word; we change for our own profit and the Most High doesn’t change from the Word of His prophets. There’s a certain value to that. Since Yah has an infinite understanding [Psalm 147:5] then we can expect that He doesn’t have a need to discover new information or develop a Scripture 2.0. In fact, even the New Testament that came by the Word of His Son was prophesied in the Scripture [Deuteronomy 18:18] and He waited on us to “evolve” before He released the mysteries of His Kingdom.
So, if the question is, “do you think these ‘old’ ideas are still valuable?” then yes. If for no other reason, it serves as a road map to guide my heart to true love toward my Master and toward His children with a buried treasure of redemption at the end.
Did God make a mistake in his creations? Did he second guess himself?
God created the universe, man and all animals and then he said all was good. Turns out all was bad and he killed them all In a flood. Did God make a mistake in his creations? Did he 2nd guess himself?
In the sixth day of creation, God said what He created was “very good”… then shortly after that Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden… it was all good just a week ago. Although, even with the disobedience of Adam, it wasn’t all bad; there was Noah [Genesis 6:9].
When God saw much of His creation turn to evil and corrupt themselves in various ways He repented (or changed His mind) [Genesis 6:6] about making them. Most will say, I thought God does not change His mind… well… He doesn’t unless He already said He would change His mind because not changing His mind would be changing His mind anyway. I know, a little confusing.
Here’s some Scripture: In Jeremiah 18:8-9 the Most High, by the prophecy of Jeremiah, tells us that if a nation who He spoke blessings to turns and does evil, He will change His mind of the good that He thought to do them and vice versa. That’s exactly what He did to all that were destroyed in the flood and that why Genesis 6 reads “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth”.
Many of the parables of the Word explain the plan of God using agriculture. That’s exactly how this should be viewed. Adam was a seed planted and a plant made from the dust. Think of the flood as doing away with the non-edible parts of the plant while harvesting and replanting the parts that God wanted in Noah. Many times, in fact, the second destruction of the world (the first being the flood) is described as a harvest, in which the “good” are separated from the evil. The good are usually related to edible parts of a plant like in Matthew 3:12 which compares the wheat being gathered to saints of God and the evil (unrepentant sinners) are related to chaff (inedible parts) that is burned in the fire.
God didn’t cut any corners or skip to the end. In all His wisdom, He planted a seed that grew and produced many others seeds. He purged and filtered throughout history until the True Seed (His Son) was planted [John 12:24]. By His grace, some of us are seeds that will grow good fruit while others will not and in the end God will separate the two [Matthew 13:37-43].
So in summary what God said in Genesis was accurate because “we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”. Very good.
People lived to be 900 years old without the benefits of medicine. Why is it, today, we don’t live past 120 and we have the best medicine ever?
This question makes a few assumptions. One, that we have the best medicine ever. Two, that people described in the Word of God lived for longer periods of time without the benefits of medicine.
The Word doesn’t say that people before the flood who lived past 900 years did not use medicine. However, what we do see is after the flood the years began to rapidly digress to what we see as normal today. About 65 years ago the life expectancy was about 48 and increased to about 67 in 2010. Even though we have examples in the Word of people living past 120, according to a Psalm by Moses, the expectancy was 70 years of life and 80 years would be an exception [Psalm 90:10].
The Word doesn’t give specifics about why or how people lived longer which leaves a lot of room for speculation. One thing that should not be assumed is that there was no beneficial medicine in those days.
There’s a great article that points out the medical knowledge that can be found in the Word. It discusses the eighth day being the best day for circumcision due to blood clotting in newborns. Also, documents the medical benefits of biblical water purification, diet restrictions, leprosy management, and more. Even noting some of the practices were not discovered (or rediscovered) in modern times until fairly recently. So, it may not be wise to assume we have the best medicine ever:
Here are a few facts:
- Our medicine is great in a lot of respects but also has caused an “epidemic” according to the CDC
- “The unfortunate circumstance around so many prescription drug overdoses is that most victims never even knew they OD’d.” Read more.
- “Every day, 44 people in the U.S. die from overdose of prescription painkillers, and many more become addicted.” CDC
This tells us that a leading cause of death comes from medicine that is LEGALLY prescribed to us by our healthcare providers.
How could someone (Satan), made perfect, be imperfect all of a sudden?
If God created perfect and flawless angels how could one angel (Satan) turn on Him and become jealous? How could someone, made perfect, be imperfect all of a sudden?
Here’s the short answer: Angels (or celestial bodies) are not described as perfect, in fact, in some cases their imperfections are described in the Word explicitly [2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, Matthew 25:41]. Satan was never a “good angel” [John 8:44] who got jealous and wanted to be a god before he was kicked out by God and sent to earth. That, my friends, is a big myth. It comes from a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Satan had always had access to earth and was able to present himself before God [Job 1:6] and was only kicked out of heaven (and therefore, lost his access) after Yahushua (Jesus) went up to sit at the right hand of the Father [Revelation 12:5-10].
[bctt tweet=”Satan was never a “good angel” who got jealous & wanted to be a god before he was kicked out by God”]
How can we prove that?
Well, first let’s take a look at who Satan actually is. In the Revelation 12:9, Satan is identified as “the great dragon… that old serpent… the Devil, and Satan” but why was Lucifer left out? The reason why is, that isn’t and was never a name of Satan. Lucifer comes from a Hebrew word “Haylel” which describes the bringing of light. In Isaiah 14:12, there is a description of a light bringer who fell from the heavens. When that is coupled with Ezekiel 28:13-15 describing a perfect cherub (celestial body) that was in Eden and sinned against God, you get the bases of the Lucifer myth. The problem — and reason why this does not describe Satan — is, Yahushua Himself told us that Satan was never perfect in John 8:44 when He told us that He was a murderer from the beginning and never stood in the truth. Even Job is a second witness to the fact that Satan was created a liar when Job 26:13 tells us about creation and when God’s “hand hath formed the crooked serpent” in the beginning. Satan was a crooked liar from the beginning and as skilled as he is at deception, our God cannot be deceived and would have never seen something that He created “crooked” as perfect.
The begging question is now: Who was Isaiah and Ezekiel speaking about then? Well, that’s the easy question… Ezekiel 28:12, precisely one verse before the infamous “Lucifer story” begins, we are told that the following verses would be a lamentation for the King of Tyre. Ezekiel 28 has nothing to do with “Lucifer” or the Devil, it is simply a parable that explains the fall of the King of Tyre. This is typical of many chapters in Ezekiel. For example, Ezekiel 16 describes a young baby girl found in the land of Canaan born to an Amorite and Hittite couple that was nurtured and spoiled and when she was of age married until she cheated on her husband and in return all her lovers that she committed adultery with would eventually turn on her. Why haven’t we searched the Bible to find out the name of this “young girl” in the Bible? Maybe because it’s clear that Ezekiel 16 is a parable about Jerusalem just like Ezekiel 28 is a parable about the King of Tyre. The Word literally tells you in Isaiah 14:4 that the following verses are a proverb (parable) for the King of Babylon. Then Isaiah mentions Babylon again in Isaiah 14:22. If you examine the life of Nebedchenezzer (King of Babylon) closely you will see that the description of Isaiah 14 fits him perfectly. Again, it was a parable.
It is explained more in a Sabbath study that can be viewed on video at about the 57 minute 49 second mark.
How do you know Black People are Hebrew?
So-called Black/Negro/African-American people make up some of the descendants of the ancient Hebrews of Israel. The picture of “Jesus” that is commonly accepted is not accurate and is probably Caesar Bogoria (look it up). The Scriptures and Gospels do not teach Christianity, rather, Christianity mixes pagan traditions and worldly views with the Truth of the Word. Christians, Jewish people, and Muslims all had a hand in the slave trade and the oppression of Hebrews. Christians did the same thing that is done today, part of the Word is used to promote a specific idea and the rest is ignored, to justify and perpetuate slavery in America.
The Hebrews are scattered around the world but those brought to America in ships through the slave trade can be identified by plenty of evidence inside and outside the Word of God. The following will show evidence that the Jewish people are not descendants of the ancient Hebrews of Israel, that the Hebrew slaves are not African, that Hebrews were not Moors or Egyptians, and explain why God chose to do this to His chosen people.
A lot of this is discussed in this video of Sabbath study from 2014 at about 41 minutes into the video:
If you want to know more about specific evidence inside and out of the Bible, click here.