Podcasts about Literal translation

A @Christadelphians Video: A @Christadelphians Video: Description: Five short talks introduce the reader to the careful translation of the Bible into English from manuscripts in the original languages. Modern and earlier English Bible versions are briefly reviewed in terms of their availability in printed and electronic formats. The reader is reminded that the Bible message is more important than the means of its production. SummaryThis presentation provides an overview of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and its successors, highlighting the historical context, translation process, and the influence of this version on the English language.Highlights

Again, we find ourselves within the book of Proverbs. And again, Proverbs revealed to us biblical truth that should govern our life and rule our life. We see in our chapter today that God is giving us his perspective, so again, that we can act in this world wisely, that we can demonstrate our knowledge of God, that we can behave in a way that shows that we're not like the world, but that we have been brought out of this world and into his marvelous light, and that light should guide us, that light is a light of illumination so we see things differently and that we can choose wisely. To donate please visit us at: https://loveisrael.org/donate/ Checks may be sent to: LoveIsrael.org 6355 N Courtenay Parkway Merritt Island, FL 32953 Feel free to download our MyBibleStudy App on telephone https://get.theapp.co/yjjq we don't know how long we can post the teachings on YT https://www.instagram.com/mybiblestudyofficial/

Again, we find ourselves within the book of Proverbs. And again, Proverbs revealed to us biblical truth that should govern our life and rule our life. We see in our chapter today that God is giving us his perspective, so again, that we can act in this world wisely, that we can demonstrate our knowledge of God, that we can behave in a way that shows that we're not like the world, but that we have been brought out of this world and into his marvelous light, and that light should guide us, that light is a light of illumination so we see things differently and that we can choose wisely. To donate please visit us at: https://loveisrael.org/donate/ Checks may be sent to: LoveIsrael.org 6355 N Courtenay Parkway Merritt Island, FL 32953 Feel free to download our MyBibleStudy App on telephone https://get.theapp.co/yjjq we don't know how long we can post the teachings on YT https://www.instagram.com/mybiblestudyofficial/

PART 2 What if John 1:3 is translated as "all happened through him, and without him nothing happened. That which happened (came to be) in him was life, and the life was the light of men"? Compare the Literal Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation. Would you think John 1 was describing the Genesis creation? Probably not. Almost all deity-of-Christ and Arian readers of the Bible understand John 1:3-4 to be a statement about the involvement of the Logos of John 1:1 in the Genesis creation of the physical universe. The Logos of John 1:1 is taken to be a pre-incarnate divine person or being distinct from the God of John 1:1b, either one member of a co-equal “godhead” (Trinitarianism), or a subordinate god/angel (Arianism) who eventually became incarnated as Jesus. Some Biblical Unitarians also interpret John 1:3-4 in a Genesis creation context, but maintain that the Logos of John 1:1 is not a literal person, only a personification of God's Wisdom or Plan involved in the Genesis creation. In contrast, this presentation interprets the Prologue of John, focusing on verses 3-4, as introducing a new beginning in the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, and not directly describing the Genesis creation of the physical universe. For full text, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-non-genesis-creation-interpretation.html #john1 #biblicalunitarian #billschlegel #deityofchrist, #trinity --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/onegodreport-podcast/support

What if John 1:3 is translated as "all happened through him, and without him nothing happened" (compare the literal translations: the Literal Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation)? Would you think John 1 was describing the Genesis creation? Probably not. Almost all deity-of-Christ and Arian readers of the Bible understand John 1:3-4 to be a statement about the involvement of the Logos of John 1:1 in the Genesis creation of the physical universe. The Logos of John 1:1 is taken to be a pre-incarnate divine person or being distinct from the God of John 1:1b, either one member of a co-equal “godhead” (Trinitarianism), or a subordinate god/angel (Arianism) who eventually became incarnated as Jesus. Some Biblical Unitarians also interpret John 1:3-4 in a Genesis creation context, but maintain that the Logos of John 1:1 is not a literal person, only a personification of God's Wisdom or Plan involved in the Genesis creation. In contrast, this presentation interprets the Prologue of John, focusing on verses 3-4, as introducing a new beginning in the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, and not directly describing the Genesis creation of the physical universe. For full text, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-non-genesis-creation-interpretation.html #john1 #biblicalunitarian #billschlegel #deityofchrist, #trinity --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/onegodreport-podcast/support

(00:00) Grammatical Translation of Surah Al-Falaq:(Surah Al-Falaq ka grammar ke mutabiq tarjuma)(10:37) Literal Translation of Surah Al-Falaq:(Surah Al-Falaq ka lafzi tarjuma)(11:44) Grammatical Translation of Surah An-Nas:(Surah An-Nas ka grammar ke mutabiq tarjuma)(18:09) Literal Translation of Surah An-Nas:(Surah An-Nas ka lafzi tarjuma)(19:28) Context of Revelation for Surah Al-Falaq and Surah An-Nas:(Surah Al-Falaq aur Surah An-Nas ka shan-e-nuzool)(25:03) Tafseer of Surah Al-Falaq and Surah An-Nas:(Surah Al-Falaq aur Surah An-Nas ki tafseer) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

(00:00) Grammatical Translation of Surah Quraish:(Surah Quraish ka grammar ke mutabiq tarjuma)(14:07) Literal Translation of Surah Quraish:(Surah Quraish ka lafzi tarjuma)(15:40) Tafseer of Surah Quraish:(Surah Quraish ki tafseer)(21:10) Lessons from Surah Quraish:(Surah Quraish se milne wale asbaaq)(22:00) Importance of Trade:(Tijarat ki ehmiyat) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

(00:00) Grammatical Translation of Surah Feel:(Surah Feel ka grammar ke mutabiq tarjuma)(30:16) Literal Translation of Surah Feel:(Surah Feel ka lafzi tarjuma)(31:44) Context of Revelation for Surah Feel:(Surah Feel ka shan-e-nuzool)(36:45) Protection of the Kaaba:(Bait Ullah ki hifazat hamari zimmedari hai)(38:55) Lessons from Surah Feel:(Surah Feel se milne wale asbaaq) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we explore the intricate relationship between Jewish faith and tradition, focusing on the Aramaic translation of the Torah known as the “Targum Onkelos.” We will discuss how the rejection of the Septuagint by rabbis, due to its association with early Jewish followers of Yeshua, led to the development of the Aramaic translation of the Torah that incorporated rabbinic traditions. Want to go deeper? Check out more resources below: https://www.oneforisrael.org/answers/ Help us bring the Gospel back to Israel again. https://www.oneforisrael.org/arise-online/

OBIECȚII ÎMPOTRIVA MÂNTUIRII ETERNE (PARTEA VII)Matei 18:21–35 (Robul nemilostiv)Matei 18:21–35 (NTR)21 Atunci Petru s-a apropiat și L-a întrebat: ‒ Doamne, de câte ori să-l iert pe fratele meu când va păcătui față de mine? Până la șapte ori?22 Isus i-a zis: ‒ Eu nu-ți zic să-l ierți până la șapte ori, ci până la șaptezeci de ori câte șapte.23 De aceea Împărăția Cerurilor se aseamănă cu un împărat care a vrut să-și încheie socotelile cu sclavii săi.24 Când a început să facă socotelile, a fost adus la el unul care-i datora zece mii de talanți.25 Dar fiindcă nu avea cu ce să plătească, stăpânul a poruncit să fie vândut el, soția lui, copiii lui și tot ce avea, pentru a fi plătită datoria.26 Atunci sclavul, aruncându-se la pământ, i s-a închinat și a zis: „Mai ai răbdare cu mine și-ți voi plăti tot!“.27 Stăpânului acelui sclav i s-a făcut milă de el, așa că l-a lăsat și i-a iertat datoria.28 După ce a ieșit, sclavul acela l-a găsit pe unul dintre confrații lui care-i datora o sută de denari. El l-a înșfăcat și-l strângea de gât, zicând: „Plătește ce-mi datorezi!“.29 Atunci confratele său, aruncându-se la pământ, l-a rugat și a zis: „Mai ai răbdare cu mine și-ți voi plăti“.30 Dar el n-a vrut, ci s-a dus și l-a aruncat în închisoare până când avea să plătească datoria.31 Când confrații lui au văzut cele întâmplate, s-au întristat foarte tare. Ei s-au dus și i-au povestit stăpânului lor tot ce se întâmplase.32 Atunci stăpânul lui l-a chemat la el și i-a zis: „Sclav rău, eu ți-am iertat ție toată datoria aceea, pentru că m-ai rugat!33 Nu trebuia oare să ai și tu milă de confratele tău, așa cum am avut eu milă de tine?“.34 Stăpânul s-a mâniat și l-a dat pe mâna călăilor, până când avea să plătească toată datoria.35 Tot așa vă va face și Tatăl Meu ceresc, dacă fiecare dintre voi nu-l iartă din inimă pe fratele său.Un alt text biblic, chiar mai dur pe aceeași idee, este următorul din Matei 6:14–15:Matei 6:14–15 (NTR)14 Căci, dacă le iertați oamenilor nelegiuirile, vi le va ierta și vouă Tatăl vostru Cel ceresc,15 dar, dacă nu le iertați oamenilor nelegiuirile, nici Tatăl vostru nu vă va ierta nelegiuirile voastre.Obiecția adusă de unii credincioși pe baza acestor două pasaje este că, dacă tu, ca și copil al lui Dumnezeu, nu reușești să-i ierți pe alții așa cum ai fost și tu iertat, datoria inițială a păcatului tău va fi reinstituită și îți vei pierde mântuirea veșnică. La prima vedere, aceste pasaje par să ne spună că iertarea lui Dumnezeu, mântuirea noastră, este condiționată de cât iertăm noi altora și dacă nu facem asta,  Dumnezeu ne va restabili păcatele, chiar și după ce am fost iertați inițial.Trebuie să remarcăm faptul că ceea ce Matei 18:21–35 transmite este în contextul Legii iudaice. În acel moment, când Isus a dat pilda, El nu murise încă pe cruce și nimeni din audiența Sa nu fusese încă născut din nou. Din această cauză, trebuie să ne dăm seama că Isus, în timpul vieții Sale înainte de cruce, a făcut trecerea de la Legea lui Moise la Evanghelie. Cele mai multe dintre lucrurile pe care El le-a spus au fost în contextul vechiului legământ, pentru că publicul Său era familiarizat cu acesta, în timp ce câteva lucruri priveau înainte și vorbeau despre viitorul nou legământ. Natura condiționată a spuselor Lui din această pildă seamănă foarte mult cu Legea lui Moise. Isus, de-a lungul slujirii Sale pe pământ, a luat Legea lui Moise și a ridicat-o la cele mai stricte standarde. El a vorbit despre spiritul ei, despre intențiile și motivațiile inimii, nu doar despre faptele exterioare. Arătând extremele Legii, Isus îi pregătea pentru ceea ce urma: noul legământ al harului lui Dumnezeu prin Cristos. Isus l-a folosit pe apostolul Pavel pentru a învăța pe neamuri acel har. Predica de pe Munte (Matei 5–6) amplifică Legea lui Moise, iar această pildă merge pe aceeași idee.Astfel, ea nu spune că Dumnezeu poate revoca mântuirea pentru cei care sunt mântuiți și ale căror păcate au fost iertate prin ispășirea lui Isus Cristos. Acest lucru ar fi împotriva multor scripturi care arată că suntem în siguranță în Cristos din momentul mântuirii noastre. Aceasta ar contrazice chiar și multe din cuvintele lui Isus. Să aruncăm o privire mai atentă la această pildă.În primul rând, Isus nu spune nimic de genul că acei oameni neiertători vor fi aruncați în iad. În al doilea rând, modul în care slujitorul îi cere milă împăratului precum și cererea sa de a-i acorda mai mult timp pentru a plăti datoria arată că acest individ nu înțelege realitatea situației. El crede că poate să-și plătească datoria păcatului prin efort propriu, dar nimeni nu poate face aceasta. Numai Cristos a realizat această plată pentru păcatele oamenilor pe cruce. În al treilea rând, observați că nimeni nu a plătit pentru datoria acestui slujitor în această pildă, ci ea a fost iertată, adică a fost trecută cu vederea. Ca și copil al lui Dumnezeu, tu trebuie să înțelegi că nu ești doar iertat, ci ești și justificat! Când un soț și o soție se ceartă, s-ar putea să aducă în discuție, adesea, lucruri din trecut. În timp ce soțul și-a iertat soția (sau invers), în momentul în care vorbește din nou despre acel conflict din trecut, el dovedește că nu a justificat-o. Dumnezeu este cu totul diferit. El spune: „Nu-mi mai aduc aminte de păcatele voastre” (Evrei 8:12).Justificarea sau achitarea înseamnă ca nu ai păcătuit niciodată și că nu vei mai fi vreodată învinovățit de păcat.Ești ”incondamnabil”, iar acesta este un concept teologic fundamental.Dumnezeu nu te-a iertat doar în sensul că-ți trece cu vederea păcatele, El nu a oferit doar o ispășire sau o acoperire pentru păcatele tale. Acestea sunt conceptele vechiului legământ. Cineva a plătit cu sânge nevinovat pentru păcatele tale și pentru păcatele lumii întregi. Evrei 10 spune că „Isus ți-a luat păcatele” odată pentru totdeauna. Iertarea înseamnă a trece cu vederea greșelile fără a face nicio plată pentru ele, iar Dumnezeu ne-a iertat doar în sensul că nu noi am fost cei care am făcut plata pentru păcate. Însă, noi am fost îndreptățiți, ceea ce este dincolo de iertare, pentru că păcatul a fost și plătit complet, nu doar trecut cu vederea de Dumnezeu.Toate păcatele noastre au fost luate de Cristos. De aceea, înainte de cruce, trebuia să iertăm înainte de a fi iertați dar după lucrarea Lui, noi suntem înainte de toate, iertați complet și definitiv. Da, ar trebui să iertăm în continuare, dar nu ca o condiție a mântuirii.Credincioșii în Cristos nu mai sunt sub Legea lui Moise și nici mântuirea nu este sub condiția ascultării.Neiertarea este un păcat ca oricare altul. Apostolul Pavel scrie următoarele cuvinte despre iertare:Efeseni 4:32 (NTR)32 Dimpotrivă, fiți buni unii cu alții, plini de compasiune, și iertați-vă unii pe alții, așa cum v-a iertat și Dumnezeu pe voi, în Cristos.Coloseni 3:13 (NTR)13 îngăduindu-vă unii pe alții și iertându-vă unii pe alții dacă cineva are o plângere împotriva altcuiva. Așa cum v-a iertat Domnul, tot astfel să vă iertați și voi!Observă aici că Dumnezeu este Cel ce te-a iertat mai întâi.Apoi ești chemat să ierți, dar nu sub amenințarea de a-ți pierde iertarea proprie.Pasajele spun că ar trebui faci asta ca un rezultat natural a ceea ce a fost deja făcut pentru tine. Dacă ești în Cristos, ai fost iertat, deci, acum iartă și tu! Apostolul Pavel spune că adevărata iertare vine sub har pentru că știm cât de mult am fost noi înșine iertați. Conform Legii, ea curgea din teama de a nu fi pedepsit din nou, nu venea din inimă și se păstra o evidență a greșelilor. Înainte să vină Cristos, nu exista uitarea păcatelor celuilalt.Însă acum, când realizezi că Dumnezeu nici măcar nu ține o evidență a greșelilor tale, ci El a ales să uite fărădelegile tale, descoperi că iertarea curge din harul Său. Matei 12:31–32 (Păcatul de neiertat)Matei 12:31–32 (NTR)31 De aceea vă spun că orice păcat și orice blasfemie le vor fi iertate oamenilor, dar blasfemia împotriva Duhului Sfânt nu va fi iertată.32 Și, dacă cineva va spune vreun cuvânt împotriva Fiului Omului, i se va ierta. Însă, oricui va vorbi împotriva Duhului Sfânt, nu i se va ierta, nici în veacul acesta, nici în cel care vine.Relatarea lui Marcu este și mai aspră, vorbind clar despre pedeapsa veșnică în cazul celor care hulesc pe Duhul Sfânt:Marcu 3:29 (NTR)29 „dar cel ce blasfemiază împotriva Duhului Sfânt nu va avea parte de iertare în veci, ci este vinovat de un păcat veșnic“.Mulți credincioși adevărați au această teamă din când în când, că s-ar putea să fi comis păcatul de neiertat împotriva Duhului Sfânt și că și-au pierdut mântuirea. Acea frică provine dintr-o interpretare greșită a acestor pasaje, precum că oamenii născuți din nou pot comite acel păcat din greșeală într-un acces de mânie și pot fi supuși condamnării veșnice, chiar dacă apoi le pare rău.Cuvântul „hulă” înseamnă a vorbi de rău, a defăima sau a insulta. În context, Isus spune că blasfemia împotriva Duhului Sfânt atribuie Diavolului lucrarea Duhului Sfânt. Mulți oameni din Biblie au făcut asta, inclusiv Saul, care a devenit apostolul Pavel. Totuși, în 1 Timotei 1:13, Pavel spune că a primit milă cu privire la blasfemia sa, pentru că o făcuse în neștiință și în necredință.Prin urmare, blasfemia împotriva Duhului Sfânt despre care avertizează Isus aici, trebuie să fie o insultare intenționată a Duhului Sfânt, în deplină cunoștință de cauză a ceea ce se face.Când Isus menționează păcatul de neiertat în Matei 12:31–32, El le vorbește fariseilor, care știau că astfel de eliberări și minuni nu puteau fi făcute decât prin mâna lui Dumnezeu. Dar pentru că Îl  urau pe Isus, au atribuit lucrarea Lui prin Duhul Sfânt, Diavolului. Mai mult, ei L-au respins la fiecare pas și căutau modalități de a-L ucide. Păcatul de neiertat este comis atunci când o persoană îl respinge constant pe Isus, știind că El este Mesia.Cei care L-au acceptat pe Cristos nu sunt în pericol de a comite acest păcat după mântuire, motiv pentru care apostolul Pavel, care a scris două treimi din Noul Testament, nu a menționat niciodată păcatul de neiertat. În schimb, el îi asigură pe credincioși că toate păcatele lor au fost iertate datorită singurului sacrificiu al lui Isus la cruce (Evrei 10:12–14). În plus, Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu ne arată că, dacă cineva se află în acea stare ireversibilă, își pierde orice convingere de la Dumnezeu și nu-i pasă de aceasta (Romani 1:28).Prin urmare, oricine este convins și se pocăiește pentru faptul că poate a hulit pe Duhul Sfânt, nu a comis păcatul de neiertat.Simplul fapt că te întrebi despre asta înseamnă că nu l-ai făcut, indiferent dacă ești, sau nu, deja credincios. Oamenii regenerați nu pot huli niciodată pe Duhul Sfânt de bunăvoie, iar dacă o fac vreodată, înseamnă că nu au fost născuți din nou. Filipeni 2:12-13 (Ducerea mântuirii până la capăt)Filipeni 2:12–13 (VDC)12 Astfel dar, preaiubiților, după cum totdeauna ați fost ascultători, duceți până la capăt mântuirea voastră, cu frică și cutremur, nu numai când sunt eu de față, ci cu mult mai mult acum, în lipsa mea.13 Căci Dumnezeu este Acela care lucrează în voi și vă dă, după plăcerea Lui, și voința, și înfăptuirea.Aceasta este o scriptură minunată și plină de harul lui Dumnezeu, însă oamenii au transformat-o într-una foarte legalistă pentru a-i speria pe creștini să treacă la acțiune și să îi facă să trăiască cu teama continuă că-și vor pierde mântuirea dacă nu se sfințesc și nu au grijă cum trăiesc. Ei promovează ideea că trebuie să faci fapte bune pentru a-ți menține mântuirea, trebuie să trăiești mereu cu frică și cutremur ca nu cumva să sfârșești în iad. Un alt mod de a spune același lucru este: „Asigură-te că faci destule fapte bune în viața ta pentru a distrage atenția lui Dumnezeu de la tine și pentru a nu te trimite în iad. Dar nu vei putea ști niciodată dacă ești încă salvat sau în afara mântuirii. Așadar, adăugă și niște frică autentică și tremur pentru a te asigura că rămâi salvat, pentru că Dumnezeu va vedea așa-numita ta reverență și te va cruța”. Aceasta este o interpretare falsă.Înainte de toate, aș dori să menționez că fraza “duceți până la capăt mântuirea voastră” a fost tradusă puțin eronat în majoritatea traducerilor românești ale Bibliei, inclusiv în cea a lui Dumitru Cornilescu din 1924 (VDC). În forma aceasta, expresia sugerează că un creștin trebuie să facă tot ce îi stă în putință moral ca să nu Îl facă pe Dumnezeu să îi ia mântuirea înapoi și să îndure cu stoicism orice rău și orice suferință pe care Dumnezeu i-o trimite în calea lui (cu scopul de a-l maturiza și a-l învăța lucruri de viață) fără să argumenteze, chiar dacă nu înțelege de ce, și nici să nu renunțe prin propria voință la mântuire, orice s-ar întâmpla. Oare acesta este Dumnezeul pe care Isus L-a portretizat lumii în timpul vieții Lui? Nicidecum! Câteva traduceri mai aproape de adevăr ale acestei fraze sunt următoarele: ”lucrați cu frică și cutremur mântuirea voastră” (VDCL – traducerea literală a lui Cornilescu din 1931, ”lucrați cu propria voastră salvare, cu frică și cutremur” (BTF2015 – Biblie Traducerea Fidelă 2015), și ”exersați-vă (folosiți-vă de) salvarea voastră, cu frică și tremur” (în traducerile mai literale ale Bibliei în engleză, NKJV – New King James Version, KJV – King James Version, NASB – New American Standard Bible, LEB – The Lexham English Bible, YLT – Young's Literal Translation, ESV – English Standard Version, NRSV – The New Revised Standard Version, NIV – New International Version). De fapt, nu am găsit nici o traducere a Bibliei în limba engleză, în care această expresie să fie redată ca în cele mai multe Biblii în limba română. Probabil v-ați dat seama deja puțin ce diferență mare de înțeles este între cele două variante de interpretare. Acum, că am dat la o parte acest obstacol de traducere, să mergem mai departe cu explicația.Primul lucru de remarcat aici este că versetul nu spune „lucrați pentru mântuirea voastră”, ci „lucrați-vă mântuirea”. Aceasta reprezintă o mare diferență! Mulți oameni au schimbat complet sensul acestui verset și l-au făcut să însemne că trebuie să lucrezi pentru mântuirea ta sau pentru a o păstra. Și pe deasupra, trebuie să faci aceasta cu atâta teamă și tremur deoarece pur și simplu nu știi când ai putea să o pierzi și să mergi în iad! Însă textul spune să exersezi mântuirea ta, nu să lucrezi pentru ea. Pur și simplu ne învață cum să umblăm în Duhul, că Dumnezeu este Cel care lucrează în noi, iar noi răspundem prin a manifesta acea lucrare în exterior în viața noastră, prin a o scoate la lumină, având încredere în El și nu în firea noastră.În continuare, haideți să vedem din contextul imediat și din alte locuri din Biblie ce înseamnă „frica și tremurul”. Aceasta nu este o expresie menită să provoace frică și nesiguranță în inimile oamenilor. În Noul Testament, ori de câte ori întâlnești expresia „frică și tremur”, ea este asociată doar cu lucruri bune! Este asociată cu reverență și respect față de Dumnezeu și cu un sentiment de supunere față de măreția Sa. Este o încredere în Dumnezeu și o neîncredere în firea noastră.Când Pavel a predicat în Corint, el a spus că a făcut aceasta cu multă frică și cutremur, astfel încât încrederea lui să nu fie în predicarea sa, ci în puterea lui Dumnezeu! (1 Corinteni 2:3) Frica și tremurul lui au fost toate legate de a nu avea încredere în firea sa pământească, ci de a-și pune credința în Dumnezeu. Apoi, în 2 Corinteni 7:15, Pavel îi laudă pe corinteni pentru că l-au primit pe Tit cu frică și cutremur. Aceasta însemna bucurie, onoare și respect.Mai mult decât atât, în Marcu 5:33, femeia cu scurgere de sânge avea și ea frică și tremur, dar nu pentru că Isus o chemase și era speriată de consecințele faptului că era o femeie necurată printre bărbații evrei. Frica și tremurul ei au fost pentru că știa ce s-a întâmplat în corpul ei și că a fost vindecată! A fost uimire și admirație față de lucrarea puternică a lui Dumnezeu în trupul ei!Marcu 5:33 (NTR)33 Atunci femeia, știind ce i se întâmplase, a venit înfricoșată și tremurând și a căzut înaintea Lui, spunându-I tot adevărul.Oamenii care afirmă că trebuie să lucrăm pentru mântuirea noastră cu frică și cutremur par să uite sau să lase la o parte următorul verset 13 din Filipeni 2, unde spune: „Căci Dumnezeu este Acela care lucrează în voi și vă dă, după plăcerea Lui, și voința, și înfăptuirea”. Cei care pledează pentru această interpretare eronată ajung să învețe opusul a ceea ce încearcă să transmită acest verset. Ei sfârșesc prin a-i aduce pe oameni în fire, făcându-i să lucreze pentru mântuirea lor, când, de fapt, acest verset încearcă să ne învețe cum să umblăm în Duhul și să răspundem la lucrarea lui Dumnezeu în noi, astfel încât să poată fi manifestată glorios în viețile noastre! Observați că versetul 13 răspunde la întrebarea: „De ce ar trebui să ne exersăm mântuirea cu frică și cutremur?” Dacă ar fi fost din cauza iadului sau a pedepsei lui Dumnezeu, ar fi spus așa, însă, ne spune să ne lucrăm mântuirea cu admirație și onoare pentru că Dumnezeu este Cel care face totul, nu noi.Dumnezeu este Cel care lucrează, apoi noi scoatem la suprafață, manifestăm, ceea ce El a făcut în interiorul nostru. Dumnezeu și-a pus bunătatea Sa în noi și noi o lucrăm prin viața noastră. El și-a pus harul și mila Lui în noi și noi le practicăm. Și-a pus biruința și puterea în noi și noi le folosim. El și-a pus înțelepciunea Sa în noi și noi o lucrăm în exterior.Dumnezeu și-a așezat Împărăția în interiorul nostru și noi o arătăm prin viața noastră.Ce imagine glorioasă a parteneriatului cu Dumnezeu! Și modul prin care exersăm este pur și simplu prin a crede și a admite fiecare lucru bun pe care El l-a pus în noi în Cristos (Filimon 1:6).În concluzie, aș dori să parafrazez acest verset pentru a arăta exact cum trebuie citit și înțeles: „Exersați în, și prin viața voastră, toate lucrurile minunate pe care Dumnezeu le-a pus deja în voi, cu bucurie, anticipare, entuziasm și recunoștință”. Eclesiastul 7:1,8 (Sfârșitul unei persoane)Eclesiastul 7:1 (VDC)1 Mai mult face un nume bun decât untdelemnul mirositor, și ziua morții decât ziua nașterii.Eclesiastul 7:8 (VDC)8 Mai bun este sfârșitul unui lucru decât începutul lui; mai bine cel bun la suflet decât cel îngâmfat.Mulți predicatori folosesc această expresie cu referire la mântuirea veșnică, afirmând că sfârșitul unei persoane este ceea ce contează când vine vorba de salvare. În alte cuvinte, ei încearcă să spună că starea oamenilor la momentul morții decide destinul lor veșnic. Ceea ce afirmă ei cu adevărat este următorul lucru: „Creștinii născuți din nou pot avea tot felul de căderi păcătoase în timpul vieții lor, care ar putea să-i facă să-și piardă mântuirea dacă ar muri în acele momente, dar dacă reușesc să aibă un nume și o reputație bună în ochii oamenilor, la sfârșitul vieții, dacă au făcut destule fapte bune și toate păcatele lor le-au mărturisit când mor, atunci pot fi siguri că au fost mântuiți”. Aceasta implică faptul că mântuirea noastră veșnică fluctuează continuu și este întotdeauna în pericol de a fi pierdută, așa că trebuie să facem toate eforturile pentru a ne asigura că vom termina cu bine, orice ar însemna acest „bine”. Acum să vedem dacă acest lucru este adevărat. Singurele texte pe care le-am găsit în Biblie în proximitatea acestei idei sunt versetele 1 și 8 din Eclesiastul 7, pe care tocmai le-am citit.În primul rând, să observăm că nici unul din texte nu spune că sfârșitul unei persoane este ceea ce contează, ci că ziua morții este mai bună decât ziua nașterii, iar sfârșitul unui lucru este mai bun decât începutul lui. Este doar o comparație între începutul și sfârșitul unei persoane sau al unui lucru. În al doilea rând, versetele nu spun că doar sfârșitul unei persoane sau al unui lucru contează, ca și cum începutul nu ar fi important, ci spun că sfârșitul este pur și simplu mai bun. Totuși, începuturile au și ele valoarea lor.În al treilea rând, aceste pasaje din Vechiul Testament au fost scrise de regele Solomon înainte de cruce și înainte ca mântuirea să iasă la lumină. Mai mult, în contextul imediat al acestor versete – adică în întregul capitol 7, în versetele de dinainte și de după – nu există nicio indicație sau aluzie care să ne facă să credem că aceste texte pot fi aplicate mântuirii, în general, sau siguranței eterne, în sensul că faptele bune ale creștinilor adunate la sfârșitul vieții contează, pentru a fi siguri că au fost mântuiți. Cum poate cineva să măsoare faptele bune sau să știe dacă acestea sunt suficiente în fața lui Dumnezeu pentru a salva pe cineva, în afară de jertfa lui Isus?Aceste versete vorbesc despre perseverență și răbdare în toate lucrurile. Orice început în orice domeniu este plin de entuziasm și anticipare, dar este și mai dificil pentru că nu vezi imediat rezultate semnificative sau recompense. Cu toate acestea, dacă ai suficientă răbdare și treci peste toate obstacolele, cu perseverență, până la final, atunci sfârșitul acelui lucru îți va oferi mai multă satisfacție. De exemplu, Isus a putut îndura crucea și toată rușinea pentru că a privit la bucuria pe care o va avea la sfârșitul tuturor suferințelor Sale (Evrei 12:2). Chiar și în agricultură, timpul de semănat este mai greu și mai puțin satisfăcător decât recoltatul. Mai mult, atunci când mergi la școală și te pregătești pentru viață, școala nu este întotdeauna plăcută, dar dacă perseverezi și o termini, și apoi ai un loc de muncă cu un venit bun sau începi o afacere, ai mult mai multe satisfacții decât atunci când erai la cursuri și învățai. O altă ilustrație este construirea unei case. Una este când începi să o construiești și alta e când o termini. Și același principiu se aplică în orice domeniu sau lucru.A doua parte a versetului 8 ne spune că atunci când suntem la începutul unui lucru, și este greu, să privim cu răbdare la finalitatea lui, să ne încurajăm și să mergem înainte pentru că sfârșitul este mai bun decât începutul. Un alt lucru interesant este că dacă ne gândim la sfârșitul lui Isus Cristos Însuși aici pe pământ, la cruce, ca un criminal, a fost un final rușinos din punctul de vedere al ucenicilor și al oamenilor care trăiau în timpul Lui. Chiar și fiul meu, când avea patru ani, și i-am spus într-o seară că Isus a biruit întotdeauna, mi-a zis că El a pierdut într-un singur lucru când era pe pământ. L-am întrebat: „Unde a pierdut Isus?” El a răspuns: „El a pierdut când a murit pe cruce”. A trebuit să-i explic că Isus nu a pierdut, ci a câștigat cea mai mare bătălie din istoria omenirii. Ceea ce încerc să spun aici este că ceea ce considerăm din afară ca sfârșit al unei persoane (bun sau rău) poate fi foarte relativ pentru că numai Dumnezeu cunoaște inima omului.Și, după cum probabil știți deja până acum, mântuirea nu depinde de faptele bune sau de reputația credincioșilor, ci doar de sângele nevinovat al lui Isus.Mergând pe aceeași idee, mai există un pasaj care merită menționat aici, și acesta este Evrei 13:7, care spune următoarele:Evrei 13:7 (NTR)7 Aduceți-vă aminte de conducătorii voștri care v-au vestit Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu. Uitați-vă cu atenție la sfârșitul (rezultatul) felului lor de viață și urmați-le credința.În unele limbi, cum ar fi româna, de exemplu, fraza „uitați-vă cu atenție la sfârșitul felului lor de viață” este tradusă în așa fel încât majoritatea credincioșilor o înțeleg în modul următor: „uitați-vă cu atenție la felul de viață al acestor oameni pe care îl aveau la sfârșitul vieții lor”. Din cauza acestei traduceri greșite, mulți credincioși cred că starea lor comportamentală de la momentul când viața se termină este foarte importantă și decisivă în destinul lor etern. Însă, după cum arată toate traducerile în engleză, textul ne îndeamnă să evaluăm sfârșitul FELULUI lor de viață, adică rezultatul sau efectul bun al modului lor de viață în credință, și nu sfârșitul vieții lor.

After our trio of astronomy-themed episodes, we return to the squabbles and troubles of the Olympians. This week, we will see a reprehensible act from Zeus, a cameo from the poet Sappho, and Gaia getting up to her old prophecy-spouting tricks... Sources and extra information for this episode: Adler, E. (2008), Late Victorian and Edwardian Views of Rome and the Nature of “Defensive Imperialism”. International Journal of the Classical Tradition 15(2): 187-216. Casson, L. (1993), Ptolemy II and the Hunting of African Elephants. Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014) 123: 247-260. Coleridge, E. P. (1889), “The Argonautica” of Apollonius Rhodius. London: George Bell and Sons. Cooke. T. (1728), The Works of Hesiod, Translated from the Greek (Volume II). London: Printed by N. Blandford. Cyrino, M. S. (2012), Aphrodite. London: Routledge. Evelyn-White, H. G. (1943), Hesiod: The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. London: William Heinemann Ltd. Friedman, A. P. (1972), The Headache in History, Literature and Legend. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 48(4): 661-681. Frazer, J. G. (1921), Apollodorus: The Library (Volume I). London: William Heinemann. Gowers, W. (1947), The African Elephant in Warfare. African Affairs 46(182): 42-49. Guerber, H. A. (1929), The Myths of Greece & Rome: Their Stories Signification and Origin. London: George G. Harrap & Company Ltd. Haupt, P. (1922), Manna, Nectar and Ambrosia. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 61(3): 227-236. Marcovich, M. (1996), From Ishtar to Aphrodite. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 30(2): 43-59. Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J. (1872), Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Vol. XXIII: Origen Contra Celsum. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Wharton, H. T. (1895), Sappho: Memoir, Text, Selected Readings and a Literal Translation. London: John Lane. Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Metis (online) (Accessed 13/11/2023). Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Porus (mythology) (online) (Accessed 13/11/2023). Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Sappho (mythology) (online) (Accessed 13/11/2023).

Friday, 10 November 2023   He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them. And when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Acts 21:32   The words are more literally rendered, “Who, immediately, having taken soldiers and centurions, ran down upon them. And having seen the commander and the soldiers, stopped beating Paul” (CG).   In the previous verse, it noted the commander of the cohort heard that all of Jerusalem was in an uproar. Now, referring to this commander, it says, “Who, immediately.”   This man was responsible for keeping peace and security within his area of jurisdiction. If he failed to act with absolute alacrity, things could get out of hand within moments. If it did, there would be investigations and possibly being relieved of his rank and/or position. Therefore, without delay, he arose from whatever he was doing, “having taken soldiers and centurions.”   Without even bothering to go see what was occurring, the first thing he did was to instinctively get a number of men assigned under him. By the time he had gone to see the disturbance and then returned, it might be too late. Therefore, he grabbed an overwhelming force and headed out.   Centurions were leaders over one hundred men. Therefore, this gives the sense that many soldiers were immediately dispatched. If there was more than one centurion, as the plural implies, then there were at least two hundred soldiers, maybe more.   They were prepared for whatever could happen by bringing a large show of force. And it worked. It next says they “ran down upon them.”   The sense is lost with the NKJV, which says, “ran down to them.” First, Luke uses a word found only here, katatrechó. The word gives the sense of running down from a higher point to a lower point. As they were in the tower, they descended.   Second, the word epi, or upon, is used. It was as if the soldiers were poured from on high, descending upon the masses below, flooding them. With that, Luke next says, “And having seen the commander and the soldiers.”   Those who were the perpetrators of the confrontation realized that they were being flooded with soldiers who were well-ranked and set for battle. There was obviously only one thing they could do at this point. And so, they “stopped beating Paul.”   As soon as the folks pounding on Paul saw the overwhelming flood of soldiers descending upon them, they restrained their fists lest they be taken in for rioting and assault. Of this, Matthew Poole marvelously notes, “The fear of man caused them to forbear what the fear of God could not.”   With that, the commander would have to evaluate the situation and take the path that would lead the most quickly to restoration of peace.   Life application: It has previously been argued during this Acts commentary checking a variety of translations is profitable for finding out the true sense of what is being conveyed. In this verse, and speaking of the commander, it says, “Who, immediately, having taken soldiers and centurions.”   Here, the word exautés is used. It is derived from ek, from or out of, and autos, a word used for a third-person pronoun such as he, she, it, etc. In the case of exautés, the explanation of the second word is given by James Strong, saying it is “the genitive case singular feminine of autos (hora being understood).” The word hora that Strong's says is implied means a time period, such as an hour.   Why does this matter? It is because Smith's Literal Translation uniquely says, “Who having taken out of it the soldiers and centurions.” In other words, instead of “immediately,” he says, “out of it.” The obvious question is, “Out of what?” The answer is determined from the previous verse, “Out of the cohort.”   Why would Smith's say this? It is because the word translated as cohort is genitive, feminine, singular. This is exactly what the form of autos is in the word exautés. Hence, Smith's determined that Luke's reference is to the cohort and not to the amount of time in which the commander acted. Considering this, look at the two translations again –   “Who, immediately, having taken soldiers and centurions.” CG “Who having taken out of it [the cohort] the soldiers and centurions.” SLT   Which is correct? They are both possible, and just because Smith's is unique among translations, it does not mean he is wrong. As for the word exautés, it is used five other times in the New Testament. Each time it is used, it implies time. As such, the conservative view would be this is referring to time as well.   Hence, the CG translation followed this translation for consistency. However, this does not mean that this is what was on Luke's mind. It would have been foolish for the commander to do anything but act with promptness. But there have been many fools in the world. Maybe he was just scared to go alone and called men out of the cohort.   As you can see, there is a chance that the translation may be one thing or another. Translating this verse one way or another will make absolutely no change in theology. But it demonstrates to us that we should not be so bullheaded as to demand that the Bible we are using is correct and all others are to be tossed in the fire. Rather, let us consider this wonderfully precious word, giving it our attention and careful consideration all our days.   O God, You who have given us Your word, help us to be careful and meticulous in how we consider what You have given to us in the pages of Scripture. May we be studious and lovingly consider each word that comes forth to us as we read. What a precious and beautiful gift of love this word is! Thank You for Your superior word. Amen.  

Paul Krauss MA LPC and Jef Caine take on the heavy and controversial topics of religious trauma, healthy spirituality, and the psychology of deconstruction. In this 2.5 hour long-form episode, Paul and Jef discuss both the larger zeitgeist of religion and spirituality in the culture as well as their personal experiences with Christianity and other religions. Paul and Jef dive deep into the deconstruction of the Christian faith and theology and many other topics (listed below). This is an episode you are going to want to take time to listen to. Jef Caine, is a skeptic and a host of the podcast: The Forest and the Trees (A Pastor and a Skeptic Read the Bible Together. It's not as boring as it sounds.) Jef is also an amazing graphic designer and former megachurch employee and evangelical.   All Books, Resources, and Articles mentioned available here. Deconstruction: a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression. Also Discussed: Growing up with the Christian Faith, Deconstructing one's experience, Losing the Christian Faith, The Forest and the Trees Podcast, Sapiens (Book), Humans seek meaning, Reason & Logic, Age of Enlightenment, Scientific Method, History of the Christian Church, Violence, Sacred Texts, Reinterpretation of Texts, Biblical Literal-ism versus Metaphor, Creationism, Evolution, Monotheism, Homo-sapiens, Neanderthals, Anthropology, Storytelling, What is a Safe Community, What is Religious Trauma, Power, Control, Abuse of Power, Relationship Advice, Secular Therapy versus Christian “therapy”, Jesus' teaching, Christianity's opinions on divorce, marriage, Evangelicals, LGBTQIA issues and Christianity, How therapy works versus “telling people what to do”, a power stance from a religions, prayer rooms, Christian therapists, Deconstructionism, the big questions: Why are we here? What are we doing?, Joseph Campbell, Tribal rituals, Mythology, hedonism, what truly satisfies people, What is practicing Spirituality, Alcoholics Anonymous, Higher Power, Interfaith, What is Hell, Tribalism, Us versus Them, God is Love, Competing Religions, Nationalism, Cults, Dehumanizing others, God is an idea, Book Clubs, Historical Context, Hermeneutics, Spiritual Practice versus co-opting religion for power, cherry picking versus and issues, historical contexts of the Bible, King James Version, Concordant Version of the Bible, Cultural Context, Learning from the stories, David & Goliath, The Good Samaritan, “The one truth”, heretics, “lost souls”, Hell, Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, Jonathan Edwards, the religious right, yes we talk about Trump, inner work, Transcendental Meditation, Contemplative Prayer, rites of passage, ritual sacrifice, cultism, selling something, Spiritual Bypassing, Healthy Spirituality, Self Reflection, Colonization, St. Francis of Assisi, Healthy Spiritual Practices, Open-minded Interpretations, Introspection, Dogma, Critical Thinking, Synchronicity, Loving Others, and more!             --->Resources for further learning: Books:  Hope Beyond Hell  multiple FREE books and audio books by Gerry Beauchemin, Protestant Missionary. The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation by David Bentley Hart The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith David Bentley Hart Bitten By a Camel: Leaving Church, Finding God by Kent Dobson What is the Bible? By Rob Bell Love Wins by Rob Bell The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels  The Occult Book: A Chronological Journey from Alchemy to Wicca The Bible as a Dream by Murray Stein A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn 11 Books to Read If You're Deconstructing Your Faith Deceptions and Myths of the Bible The True Origins of the Stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, Moses and Mount Sinai, the Prophets, the Judges and Kings, and the Story of Christ Will Shock and Amaze the Faithful, Atheists, and Agnostics Alike! By Lloyd Graham Resources: The Power of Myth with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers (audio/ video program) What is Biblical Literalism? https://tentmaker.org/ --lists of books, some books free online, articles, good historical info about Christian universalism and other subjects.  concordant.org    -- lists of books, free online audio & books, articles, books for purchase, free study tools for Greek & Hebrew Young's Literal Translation of the Bible;  Rotherham's Emphasized Bible A documentary on the Gnostic Gospels Eternal Conscious Torment discussed by Emerson Green (lecture) Writers and Scholars Referenced: Joseph Campbell Joseph Campbell Foundation Matthew Fox Rainn Wilson Richard Rohr - The Center for Action and Contemplation Rob Bell  martinzender.com   --free video & audio, articles, books by MZ for purchase. Lesser known critic and Bible scholar. Articles Referenced:  Universalism was the dominant theology of the first 500 years The Crusades: The Complete History Context about “hell” quotes from Christian Leaders If Hell is Real?  Religious Trauma and Leaving the Church How do I know if I am in a cult?  Why Do People Believe in Hell? Hell has shaped modern thought Modeling the Future of Religion in America Lots of Americans Are Losing Their Religion. Have You? The Psychology Of Cults Understanding the basics of Cults Amount of Christian Denominations in The World Podcasts: The Forest and The Trees Podcast You Made it Weird with Pete Holmes Jef Recommends:  Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer   Get involved with the National Violence Prevention Hotline: 501(c)(3) Donate Share with your network Write your congressperson Sign our Petition Looking for excellent medical billing services? Check out Therapist Billing Services. A behavioral and mental health billing service developed by therapists for therapists. Preview an Online Video Course for the Parents of Young Adults (Parenting Issues) EMDR Training Solutions (For all your EMDR training needs!) Paul Krauss MA LPC is the Clinical Director of Health for Life Counseling Grand Rapids, home of The Trauma-Informed Counseling Center of Grand Rapids. Paul is also a Private Practice Psychotherapist, an Approved EMDRIA Consultant , host of the Intentional Clinician podcast, Behavioral Health Consultant, Clinical Trainer, and Counseling Supervisor. Paul is now offering consulting for a few individuals and organizations. Paul is the creator of the National Violence Prevention Hotline (in progress) as well as the Intentional Clinician Training Program for Counselors. Paul has been quoted in the Washington Post, NBC News, and Wired Magazine. Questions? Call the office at 616-200-4433.  If you are looking for EMDRIA consulting groups, Paul Krauss MA LPC is now hosting weekly online and in-person groups.  For details, click here. For general behavioral and mental health consulting for you or your organization. Follow Health for Life Counseling-- Grand Rapids: Instagram   |   Facebook     |     Youtube  Original Music: ”Alright" from the forthcoming album Mystic by PAWL (Spotify) "My Sweet Lord" from All Things Must Pass by George Harrison (Spotify) "Myth" from Bloom by Beach House (Spotify) "Satanist" from The Record by Boygenius (Spotify) "Gotta Serve Somebody" from San Francisco 1980 by Bob Dylan (Spotify) "Get Up, Stand Up" from Burnin' by Bob Marley and The Wailers (Spotify) "Pure Comedy" from Pure Comedy by Father John Misty (Spotify) "Chocolate Jesus" from Mule Variations by Tom Waits (Spotify) "Awaiting On You All" from All Things Must Pass by George Harrison (Spotify) "Whatever Happened to Paul Sand" from Reggae Film Star by Damian Jurado (Bandcamp) "Portrait of God" from Smalltown Stardust by King Tuff (Spotify) "Say God" from Say God by Daniel Higgs (Spotify)

Introduction - James 5 Today the Bible is going to talk to us about money and our attitude toward acquiring it. In every modern society there have always been three classes of people: The poor, The middle class, and The wealthy. And for as long as those classes have existed people have bemoaned the economic disparity between these classes. Now, interestingly the Bible doesn't comment very much about the systems which create the economic disparity. The Bible almost feels carelessly indifferent toward the harsh machinery that causes the massive wealth gaps. The Bible just seems to accept the fact that these classes will exist. The rich will exist. - Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Augustus Caesar died in 17 AD so Jesus grew up under this emperor. Did you know that Augustus Caesar was the richest man that ever lived. He personally owned 1/5 of the wealth of the Roman empire. That's like the equivalent of 4.6 trillion dollars. And Jesus just says, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. - "The poor you will always have." - To the Roman soldier he says, "Be content with your wages." - Paul says, "If you find yourself a slave, obey your master not only to the just but also to the unjust." - If you are a master, he says, "Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." Instead of commenting on the system that creates these economic disparities, he just gives commands on how to honor the Lord in your station of life, wherever you find yourself. Because, after all, most slaves complain. Most rich people are selfish. Most middle class people complain about their pay. So if you can be different, the light of Christ will shine brightly. Now that doesn't mean that the rich, middle class and poor are the same. These different classes will struggle differently. There are different temptations associated with those different social positions. So depending on where you are in the Bible, you will have different commands to different social classes. Today James wants to address the wealthy. He wants to address the rich. The rich are generally respected in the world, but James is reminding us that it is scary possible to be very wealthy and be very weak in faith or to have no faith at all. It is very common for those things to go together. And there's a reason they go together. Consider a natural habitat like a jungle. Every natural habitat has its own unique species of plants or animals that thrive in that habitat. A jungle is perfectly suited to grow giant trees, giant spiders, fruit, jaguars, wild boars, etc. Jungle conditions are required for these things to survive. Well, the habitat of wealth, the environment of wealth is very conducive to self-indulgence. It just breeds it. It just cultivates it. It's the perfect conditions for self-indulgence to thrive. And self-indulgence, 10 times out of 10, puts out the flame of faith. Now, wealth doesn't guarantee self-indulgence. There are plenty of wealthy people who are not self-indulgent. But talk to any one of those people and you will discover that to have wealth and not be self-indulgent takes constant weeding, constant maintenance, constant pruning to cut back that unwanted natural tendency. So let's see what James has to say about wealth. James, tell me what you really think. James is being quite direct. There are certain temptations associated with wealth and at the top of the list is self-indulgence. And James is warning you, if you succumb to that temptation, it will rot your soul. So what we are going to observe in the passage is four characteristics of this corrosive self-indulgence. To avoid self-indulgence, here are four things you are going to have to constantly prune and weed and cut back. Here's four characteristics of self-indulgence. The clear idea here in the first three verses is that this rich person whose core heart sin is self-indulgence has acquired more than he needed. At the end of verse 3 the ESV translates it, "you have laid up treasure in the last days." But I like the way the NIV does, "You have hoarded wealth." You have hoarded treasure. It's a better translation because hoarding is a negative term. So this becomes for us another test of genuine faith. Genuine faith does not hoard wealth. If your faith is weak, then you hoard. That's what weak faith does. Now HOW hoarding and faith are related is important to see and we can easily illustrate this from the OT. Do you remember the children of Israel when they were out in the wilderness, the Bible says that God would provide for them manna every day. But they were only supposed to gather a day's worth. They were not to gather any more than one day's worth of manna. What was the purpose of that exercise? It was to teach them to trust that God would provide for them. He said to them, "I don't want you to hoard. I only want you to gather what you need for that day. I don't want you to gather into the pantry a month's worth of food because then you are going to forget about me. You will trust in your pantry instead of in me." So he intentionally told them to trust in God BY NOT HOARDING. I will provide for your needs. Now very predictably we are told that some of them did not have faith. Well, I know God said this stuff will come tomorrow, but what if doesn't. There's plenty now and I don't want to be hungry. And so they hoarded. They took more than they needed for the day. And God made that food rot. Worms came pouring out of the manna. He graciously allowed the resource to fail them so that they would learn to trust not in the manna but in the God of the manna. To trust in Him instead of His gifts. Over time, as God proved himself faithful, again and again, every day there was the manna, they learned to trust and they stopped hoarding. So do you see how faith is related to hoarding? Genuine faith doesn't hoard. Genuine faith doesn't worry that it's up to me to provide for tomorrow and I've got to worry, worry, worry because right now it's pouring money and I've got to strike while the iron is hot, I've got to make hay while there's sun, and who knows how long this season of plenty is going to last, and I've got to fill my barns because the drought might come. I've got to live like Joseph in the 7 years of plenty because famine is coming. - I am in charge of my future security. - I need to fortify myself against danger. - I need to insulate myself with every conceivable financial advantage so that the unforeseen disasters of the world don't destroy me. That's faithless living folks. Genuine faith doesn't think like that. Now it's easy to get upset at this point, and perhaps you are upset right now, "What are you saying? Are you saying I'm not supposed to save? I'm not supposed to work hard? Should I just empty my 401k? Live paycheck to paycheck? Is that the idea? The easy way to answer that is by making a distinction between hoarding and saving. The Bible is pro-saving and anti-hoarding. In fact, there are plenty of places in the Bible where God rebukes those who do not save and do not work hard. God wants us to be like ants. Do you remember the Proverbs? Some people hear, live by faith and they think, "Sweet, I never liked work anyway. I'm going to trust God." That attitude is the attitude of the sluggard. Paul says, "You don't work; you don't eat." The sluggard never thinks about tomorrow. They are buried in debt, paycheck to paycheck, reckless spending. If you know a rent payment is coming, then don't go buy that new toy. Save for expenses you know will be present. Some day you will not be able to physically work so prepare. That's a basic concept that the Bible approves of. The Bible is not against saving; it's against hoarding. Now here's where this gets real. When we hear this, everybody says, "Okay, I hear what you are saying, but this is so unclear. Where does it turn from necessary spending to greedy self-indulgence?" How do I distinguish between a need, a want, a luxury? - If I buy a $5k car is that self-indulgence? What about $10k? What about $10,001? - Is it okay to buy a 40" TV, 50", 60" 70"?  See you are legalistic. All these decisions are so arbitrary. And in kicking up all this sand, in demanding precise answers to unanswerable questions, in demanding all this nuance, we nuance away the command. This is what is known in formal logic as the fallacy of the beard. The fallacy of the beard goes like this. How many hairs make a beard? Does one hair? No of course not. Does two? No. Does 10?  Some JH boys think so. And so the reasoning goes, if you can't tell me the exact number of hairs that make a beard, then I've caught you! Beards don't exist. Just because you can't name a number, doesn't mean that there isn't a point where it becomes a beard. And just because you can't easily define self-indulgence, just because you throw your hands up and say, "Well, who could possibly define that?" Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As soon as you start challenging the concept of self-indulgence, you are probably self-indulgent. The point is you need to draw a line. You better figure out between you and the Lord what that means in your life. If you haven't drawn those lines, you will become it. Where's the lifestyle cap? Where's the limit where enough is enough. The more money you make, the greater a distance there ought to be between the lifestyle you live and the lifestyle you're capable of living. No Christian should live as well as they're capable of. Nobody. Why? Because, Christ commands us to give some away. Do you have a way of answering the question, "What is a necessity and what is a luxury?" If you don't have a way to do that, then your lifestyle will eternally creep up with your income. If you have not created a cap, then there is no cap. At the peak of Rockefeller's wealth he had 1% of the wealth of the U.S. economy. He had in today's money the equivalent of around 300 billion dollars which makes our modern day billionaires look like paupers. When asked how much is enough, his answer was, "A little bit more." Corrosiveness of Wealth   Now why is James/God so concerned about acquiring too much? Is he trying to destroy our happiness? ON THE CONTRARY! He's trying to protect it. He says, if you hoard wealth, it will rot you from the inside out. Look at the imagery here. He talks about the gold, the silver standing in judgment against them. He talks about that hoarded wealth corroding. Let me ask you, when do things corrode? Things corrode when they are not in use. If you take a brand new car, purchase it, park it in your driveway and come back in 30 years, it won't start. It will be worthless. The engine will have seized up. And everybody will look at that purchase and say, "That was a waste!" Why? Can't you do what you want with your money? No, we all know that money needs to be applied to noble, worthwhile purposes. And you know what is a terrible purpose. Self-indulgence. Money spent on pampering self is a bad use of money. When that money just sits in the bank, unused for God's purposes, it just has a corrosive effect on your heart. If you are not taking your money and using it to awakening people's hearts to the glory of Christ, helping people, using it to undo the ugly effects of sin, helping the poor, if you're not putting your money into people, using it to make a difference in the lives of people, it's corroding. If you just take your talent and bury it in the ground, just sort of sit on it, the money will rot your soul like Gollum in the cave with his precious. But we can go even one step further. You know what that is really saying? It's not so much cause and effect. It's not so much, love money and it will cause your soul to rot. It's more a statement of fact. It's saying if you love money, I'm sorry to say, but your soul has already rotted. It's saying if you sit on piles of money and have no plans to use that money for God and his people, it's a sign your heart is dead. The only kind of flesh that rots is dead flesh. So if you see the vultures circling, there must be something dead. Here's a test that never lies: When all you have to live for is money, you know your soul has died. Cheating Others   So the first characteristic of the corrosive nature of self-indulgence is desiring more than we need. If you have wealth, that's something you are going to have to constantly prune in your life. There's a second thing he says here. Now notice what the text says here. When you love money, you have a tendency to take people for all they're worth. You have a tendency to step on people for your own financial gain. People are tools. You treat people like tools. People are like drills. How do you think about drills? You think about a drill like this: I don't want to use my precious fingernail to bore a hole into this beam. So I'll abuse my drill instead. You toss it on the ground when you aren't using it and let it get rained on. When you do need it: - you just run them at max RPM, - you ignore the horrible screeching sounds it's making and you plow them into your project, - you let them do all the hard work, - you burn them out, - and the poor thing is smoking hot, it's burnt wires and you throw them aside and say, "This piece of junk burnt out in 2 years. - They don't make 'em like they used to. - Oh well, there's more where that came from." James is saying, "If you think of people like that, that's criminal." That's the expression of self-indulgence. If you are boss, do you have a tendency to underpay people, to pay the minimum you can get away with. Or maybe the wage is fair, but you keep trying to extract more and more out of your employees. You under-appreciate. You demand more and more. Expectations for availability and response time increase. What is driving that? Is it, really at the end of the day, concern for self or is it concern for others? Is it concern for your bottom line and not theirs? That's the corrosive self-indulgence James warns against. The opposite of self-indulgence is others-indulgent. So to indulge your employees is to pay more than they would normally get. You are indulging them in greater benefits than the competition. You are indulging them with more time off than other comparable jobs. Instead of asking more of your existing employees you hire at your expense. So that's the second characteristic of self-indulgence that James points out. Here's the third. Now we see this at two points in the text. Back up in verse one there's this really interesting point. What's up with that phrase, "In the last days." You've stored up treasure "in the last days." It's a really intriguing phrase. We see another hint of it in verse 5. You have lived in luxury ON EARTH. You have fattened your hearts in 'A DAY OF SLAUGHTER.' What is this last day and the day of slaughter he is referencing? How is that related to hoarding wealth? The imagery all through here is imagery of judgment. Notice in verse 4 The Lord of hosts. In Hebrew the word host is literally the word for armies. And it's used to describe God as this powerful leader of both earthly and heavenly armies. So James is saying, "In the name of the Lord Almighty, in the name of the God of the armies of Israel whom you have defied, in the name of the Lord of the heavenly hosts who you have defied..." REPENT before the day of judgment falls. This is a call to repent. God is holy, powerful and determined to judge those who infringe his commandments. And one of his commands is to not love money. Here's the entire point James is making. People who have too much concern for money or whose lifestyle is so important they are willing to sacrifice others, their eschatology isn't straight. They are living for luxury ON EARTH. But that's all going to end in a blink of an eye. To be greedy IN THIS LIFE is to accumulate indictments and charges against yourself in the day of judgment. All the self-indulgence of this life will be evidence of your love of money rather than your love of the Lord. That wasteful spending on self, or that wasteful saving without any purpose, will come back as a witness against you in the "last days." James is making the point that the rich here, instead of acting to avoid that judgment, are, by their selfish indulgence, incurring greater guilt. They are like cattle being fattened for the kill. Think about the judgment day. Repent! Give, give, give it away. Many card games are set up like this. When the first person goes out, you count up your points. And all those cards left in your hand count against you. That's how God wants you to think about your wealth. Sure you need those high face cards to make purchases, buy a house and car, but you have more than you need so give, spend, go out giving. Have nothing left in your hand. That's the Bible's view of money. James is basically saying, "If you hoard wealth, - you've forgotten about the fact that Jesus Christ could come back any time and the curtain could come down. - You've forgotten all of your gold and all of your silver will rust. - You've forgotten those high face cards will be counted against you not for you. - You've forgotten the distinction between temporal value and eternal value." Don't be like the rich fool who spends his entire life investing in wealth to be stored. He put all his money in barns, realized he didn't have big enough barns, so he tore down his barns to build bigger ones and then he died. What good is his money now? Every Christian ought to believe in prosperity theology. It's just a question of timing. Do we prosper now or in heaven? Here's the problem with this last verse. The translators here have made a decision for you and you can't see it. So your understanding of the text is hijacked by a decision that a translator made for you. You didn't even know there was translation decision to be made. When you read this you assume that the rich person used his power and influence to murder the poor, right? But there's an alternate way of translating this text. Here's a little Bible study tip. If ever you want to know the most literal possible translation of the Bible, open up a translation called the Young's Literal Translation. Robert Young translated this in 1862 for this exact purpose. He was pretty frustrated at the number of translation decisions that translators made for you. What this guy did was just literally translate word for word without any attempt at readability. So if you don't know Greek, this is kind of the next best thing. It's helpful sometimes to see the kinds of decisions translators have made in order to make the text more readable. Here's YLT. Literally, in the Greek, this is what James says, "You have condemned and murdered the righteous One (singular) who does not oppose you. You have condemned and murdered the righteous One." The "righteous One" is what it says, literally. "who does not oppose you." You see, most of the translators say, "Well, in the context here, James must be talking about the rich person somehow killing the poor." First of all that would be pretty extreme behavior going on in the church. There's not really any evidence of this. But secondly, and more importantly, it doesn't say that. It says you murder the "righteous One." - It doesn't say you have murdered "the righteous ones." plural. - It doesn't say you have murdered "the righteous poor." - It says you have murdered "the righteous One." I would expect if he were talking about a poor man, it would say, you have murdered him and because he was poor he was not able to oppose you. But that's not what it says. It says, "you have murdered the righteous one who does not oppose you." It's saying that righteous one who was murdered could have opposed you but chose not to. He voluntarily did not oppose. I think this is a reference to Christ. So what is he saying? James says ultimately the reason - you're so concerned about money and the reason - you're grasping at it - you're abusing your employees like drills - you're stepping on people - you're fretting about money You know why? Because you have forgotten the RIGHTEOUS One who was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, but he didn't resist. He voluntarily died for you. You have forgotten what he has done for you. Your behavior in self-indulgence is the behavior that put Jesus on the cross. Have you forgotten that it was self-indulgence that put him there? The GREAT sin, the greatest sin, the sin of sins is loving self. It's indulging self. It's making the world about self. It's worship of self. You want to know what ultimately rots your soul? Loving yourself. Don't forget what Jesus has done. Jesus died to save you from loving self. This whole deal about money is just a symptom at the very top. Get to the root. The root issue is that God wants you to look at that man hanging on a cross and see him bleeding, see the thorns. Stare at them. Look at the spear in the side. Fix your eyes on it. Jesus died that death to save you from the sin of self-indulgence. From the sin of thinking that you are the center of the universe and that all the wealth and money and riches of the world ought to be funneled to you to make you happy. Jesus died to save you from thinking that God gave you money to elevate and deify self. That's what he died for. He died for self-worshipers. Let that sink in. That's why the bloodied Jesus hangs on the cross. Will you now, say "Thank you Lord for dying for my self-indulgence and then continue to use your money for self in a self-indulgent way?" Are we now just going to go about life thinking about how to pamper ourselves? Are we just going to lazily spend without a budget and not think about the RIGHTEOUS One who is worth more than all the gold and silver, who died and did not resist because he loves you. Take Responsibility I want to end with a call to be courageous. What is courage? Courage is the ability to do something that is frightening. Here's something that takes incredible courage. Stand up and speak the words, "I take full responsibility for my idolatrous heart. I am the self-indulgent sinner who nailed Christ to the cross. My credit card statements say so. My bank balances say so. Look at my receipts." We need to take full responsibility for how we think/believe and act. You and I are not robots forced to respond to the stimulus around us. We are free-standing moral agents. And as free standing moral agents we have been given the ability to love differently. - We have been given the ability to set our affections on things above, not on things that are on earth. - We have been given the ability to look not at the things which are seen but at the things which are unseen. - We have been given freedom to love the Lord our God with all our hearts all our souls and all our minds and love our neighbor as ourselves....to not indulge self. So, as Americans, most of us are wealthy. Most of us need to prune, prune, prune, weed, weed and weed these ugly self-indulgent attitudes out of the heart. Let's do that right now as we close.

Sunday, 22 January 2023   So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Acts 13:42   In the previous verse, Paul cited Habakkuk, equating the destruction of Israel, and the exile of the people during the Babylonian captivity, to what would come upon them because of their rejection of Jesus. That has ended the discourse of Paul to those in the synagogue. With that, Luke next records, “So when the Jews went out of the synagogue.”   The words are from a present participle and more closely read, “So when the Jews were going out of the synagogue.” Literally, what is said next will occur as this was taking place, showing the eagerness of those who will be mentioned.   Also, it should be noted that the inclusion of the words “the Jews” and “the Gentiles” is not in some texts. As such, the thought is briefer in those translations, saying, “As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath” (ESV). The idea remains basically unchanged. The time in the synagogue came to its end, and even while those inside were on their way out, it says that “the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them.”   The tense of the verb is imperfect. They asked and they continued to ask. One can see how excited they were by the news that had fallen on their ears. These people were proselytes of the gate, Gentiles who were curious about the religion of the Jews and they stood and listened while the synagogue was in session.   As long as they had attended, be it for one week or an extended period of time, they had heard that Moses was the key to salvation and that adherence to the law was necessary for that to come about. It meant that they had to do the work. No wonder they remained proselytes at the gate! There was no assurance of salvation. Instead, there was the constant yoke of bondage that the law imposed upon them. Now, Paul had said that was over and that a new path had been opened for any, be it Jews or Gentiles, to come to God. And it was God who had done the work in Christ. The news would have been the most wonderful burden-lifting thing they could imagine!   And more, it was the law and the prophets under this law that testified to this truth. It wasn't as if Paul was starting a new religion. He was saying that what he was proclaiming was an extension of, but also a new direction to, what the God of Israel had been doing. So excited were they that they asked to have him speak on “the next Sabbath.”   Here, there is scholarly (and some translational) debate as to the meaning of the words. Does this mean they wanted to gather on the next Sabbath or during the week leading up to the next Sabbath? For example, Smith's Literal Translation says, “to have these words spoken in the sabbath between.” This implies that they were hoping to hear it themselves before the Sabbath. If this is correct, it would mean they may have had many questions that could not be asked while the synagogue was in session.   Either way, there is great eagerness among the Gentiles concerning the news about the coming of Jesus Christ, Israel's Messiah.   Life application: When one is predisposed to law observance, the idea of a Savior that has done all the work is repugnant. Where is the glory for oneself! Simply trusting in the merits of another doesn't highlight how great a person may perceive he is. This is why so many people love to go back to the law and observe various aspects of it. It demonstrates a self-righteousness that stands worthy before God based on personal deeds.   But watch closely in whatever church you attend. Even if there is no return to the law of Moses, there are innumerable other ways where people and congregations show the world how supposedly holy and worthy they are.   There are those who hold to the social gospel, where taking care of others in one way or another elevates them to supposed holiness through good deeds. The grace of Christ is at best an afterthought and is often not even discussed. There are doctrines that say that “good works stem naturally from saving faith.”   In other words, if you are not doing good things, you are not saved. It is an after-the-fact imposition of someone else's laws, whatever they may be. The obvious problem with this is highlighted by the simple question, “What ‘works?'” Who chooses if a person is doing what proves salvation? The reason this is an obvious question to ask is that the Bible does not specify any works that would highlight this unbiblical and dangerous doctrine.   What God expects of us is what Paul has presented to those in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, which is to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After that, whatever we do is to be done in faith that we are saved and that we will receive our rewards based on that salvation. This is not to “prove” that we are saved. The Holy Spirit's sealing of us when we believed is all the proof we need of that. God has given it and He knows who He has given it to. The Bible says it is received when we believe, and we are to trust that it is so.   From beginning to end, and at all points in between, we are saved by grace, and we continue to be saved by that same grace. All glory belongs to God alone for what has been done.   Thank You, O God, for what You have done in and through Christ for us. We are the recipients of Your offer of grace through simple faith that You have done it all for us. What more could we add to the finished, full, final, and forever work of Jesus Christ our Lord? Nothing! And so, thank You for what You have done. Amen.  

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (11/15/22), Hank answers the following questions:What is the biblical view on conscientious objectors?What is the unpardonable sin? Can you commit this sin while you are still living?Could you explain Romans 11:25-32?Is Young's Literal Translation accurate? What translations would you recommend?Does Leviticus 19:28 apply to young people today who get tattoos and body piercings?

A new MP3 sermon from Trinitarian Bible Society is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Dynamic or Literal Translation? Lessons from the Spanish Bible Project Subtitle: Text & Translation Conference Speaker: Mr. William Greendyk Broadcaster: Trinitarian Bible Society Event: Conference Date: 9/15/2022 Bible: 2 Timothy 3:14-17 Length: 40 min.

God's promises of wellbeing (health, wealth and other areas of our lives) read from the Young's Literal Translation.

Acts 2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.The Wind from HeavenThe Verse describes a sound only, not actual wind.New Living Translation Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting.Young's Literal Translation. And there came suddenly out of the heaven a sound as of a bearing violent breath, and it filled all the house where they were sitting,John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.The power of WINDIn seconds, it can bring devastating destruction, but it also powers windmills that produce energy that generates electricity.  It keeps the air from becoming stagnant and it cools us down.  It propelled the first explorers across the ocean.Ezekiel 37:9-14 Then He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life.”'” So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army. Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.Wind can't be seen, but its effects sure can be felt and heardWhen God made Adam he was lifeless until GOD BREATHED into HimThe Action of the Holy SpiritThe word suddenly in the Greek, means just that, suddenly - they were taken off guard - it was a surprise - it was totally unexpectedThe word wind in the Greek text describes a wind SO LOUD that everyone instinctively covers their ears because the noise is so overpoweringThe house SHOOK. When The Holy Spirit comes, He pours out unmatched, undeniable power that SHAKES the house, that TRANSFORMS hearts both inside and outside the walls of a churchJohn 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit myeveningdevotional.substack.com

Vau 41 May your unfailing love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise; 42 then I will answer the one who taunts me, for I trust in your word. 43 Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws. 44 I will always obey your law, for ever and ever. 45 I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts. 46 I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, 47 for I delight in your commands because I love them. 48 I lift up my hands to  your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees. (Psalm 119:41-48) We are a quarter of the way through this series and it may be good to have a recap of what the Psalmist has said so far.  It's also a natural place to have a recap, because it is as if the Psalmist is also doing one.  The reason I say that, is because each verse starts with ‘and'. That isn't seen in our modern translations, but if you get a copy of Young's Literal Translation you will see it! In the previous sections, the Psalmist declares the amazing blessings of God, the faithful promises of God, the total obedience demanded by God, the reviving testimonies of God and then the glorious teachings of God!  God's Word is utterly amazing and shown to be a breath-taking adventure! And after all that adventure, its like this recap point is a love letter back to God!  And these 8 verses are a response to the love of God and His word. The Psalmist starts out by praising God, because God has promised him salvation!  God's promises are true, kind and unfailing!  God is mighty to save and saves mightily!  If God has said it, He will do it!  But how does God promise salvation? Through His unfailing love, kindness and tender mercy, which is why the Psalmist puts the cause before the effect!  Salvation can be attained by no other means, but only through God's mercy and grace - God's twin actions working in unison. Next, the Psalmist deals with those who disagree with God's plans and promises! What happens when scoffers come to taunt? Well, the Psalmist in verse 42 deals with them by replying that God's word is true, it is trustworthy and His word never disappoints or dismays!  Scoffers can come from within the Church as well as those outside! Doesn't matter a jot! God's word is still true! Not blindly trustworthy, but verifiably trustworthy! It can be verified evidentially and experientially! So enamoured is the Psalmist with all the facets of God's Word, that he never wants its truth to depart from him and he wants always to speak God's truth! WOW! His heart is full of desire of God and for God that he cannot help but talk about God and God's mercy and grace!  Due to salvation, the Psalmist's hope is in God alone and because of that hope; he will be obedient to God in all ways forever! From the obedience that is the outworking of his salvation, the Psalmist can walk through life safely and freely.  When troubles come to ensnare him, he will be able to deal with them effectively because his mind will be controlled and his demeanour, or manner, calm.  God will guide through the storms and harassment as the Psalmist studies and recalls God's words. Being in possession of God's wisdom in dealing with troubles, the Psalmist is again free to speak about them to anybody, even kings!  Not only against the scoffers will he speak but even to leaders - all people!  It is from the heart that he speaks without shame or embarrassment, of God's mercy and grace as revealed in God's word. And why does he do this? He does this because again, he loves to read and hear of God and God's commands (v47)!  This delight is an intense desire and actively expressed love. Verse 48 shows the Psalmist reaching out! He is holding his hands up and out in an act of reverence, prayer and worship!  This act springs forth from knowing that when he reads, studies, cogitates, meditates and thinks of all of God's word, he is getting to know His God and Saviour better, more intimately and deepening his relationship with Almighty God!  You can feel the exuding passion of the Psalmist!  There is a deep yearning from the Psalmist to see how God reveals Himself through the Scriptures, the Law, through His dealings with people. All this as a result of ‘and', as he looks back on what he has written previously! Now to us today! How are you doing with your Bible reading?  How are you letting what you read permeate every facet of your life as you allow the Holy Spirit to reveal God's commands and guidance to you?  What are you basing your salvation on?  Scripture says salvation is to be found only through God's grace and mercy exhibited by God the Son on the cross.  Do not be fooled by scoffers or the enemy, Satan, into thinking otherwise! Delight yourself in reading your Bible and showing your salvation by obeying what God says in it! Speak freely of God and His dealings with you without embarrassment or shame.  Know He is in charge and that He will help you, no matter what you are going through or circumstances you find yourself in.  Ask for help, and He will help! He has promised and He will do it! Right mouse click to save this Podcast as a MP3.

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Translated according to 'the letter and the idioms of the original languages.' Genre(s): Young's Literal Translation Young's Literal Translation Translated by Robert Young (1822 - 1888) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/3daudiobooks0/support

We learn a new usage of a new particle and focus in on the Super Literal Translation, which is extremely important for understanding how to use particles.

1 John 5d Jesus Above All Else. Chapter 5:18-21 IV. Jesus above all else. (18-21) Genesis 3:15 NKJV 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”[i] Luke 10:25-28 NKJV 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” 27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and ‘your neighbor as yourself.' ” for A. New birth and belief in Christ, moves believers to avoid sin. (18) Romans 7:15-25 NKJV 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.[ii] 1 John 5:18 NIV We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. 1 John 5:18 Youngs Literal Translation (YLT) 18 We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him;[iii] [i] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. [ii] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ro 7:15–25). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. [iii]Young, R. (1997). Young's Literal Translation (1 Jn 5:18). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Disciple Up # 219 Is a Literal Translation Always Better? By Louie Marsh, 7-14-2021   Article Read From: https://www.christianitytoday.com/partners/creative-studio/more-literal-than-thou.html   Legacy Standard Bible;  https://lsbible.org/   The Legacy Standard Bible has an app for both Apple and Android with as much of the Bible as they've completed available to read if you'd like to check that out go the store and type in “Legacy Bible app” and it should pop up.   The Literal Version: https://www.lsvbible.com/   My personal favorite translations:   ESV   The NIV and NASB are also good.   The NLT is good for people who don't read well.   Won't know about the LSB till it's all out and I have chance to check it out.   What about the KJV?   If you had the perfect translation and you have a poor reader who can't read it and so gives up. What good is it then?   What place should readability have in a translation?   Can you over do it on one translation?   As you read it in a different, because the word order is different, and different words are used, you're going to see things that you missed before.    

Welcome to the But What Does The Bible Say Podcast!  We're glad you joined us!  This week, Tim and Rodney discuss how we got the Bible translated into common languages and which version should a new believer use.****CORRECTION****When I said that the NLT was a paraphrase Bible, I was thinking of, "The Living Bible".  The New Living Translation (NLT) IS NOT a paraphrase.  The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible.  The New Testament was translated from both the UBS Greek New Testament and the NA Greek New Testament. Want to email us?  Click Here!Or if you're on a platform that doesn't allow hyperlinks:rebuse@butwhatdoesthebiblesay.comFor "But What Does The Bible Say?" merch, click here!Water's Edge Church Links:Water's Wedge Church (WEC)WEC CommunityWEC GivingCoffee Time Q&A At The Water's Edge

Disciple Up # 203 A Disciple's Identity, Pt. 6; A Singular Heart By Louie Marsh, 3-15-2021   Intro.  A quiet week – windy day as I record – sorry!   My YouTube Wargaming Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYGrYPesAp1eiXgGRjfxnQw   Other episodes in this series: Part 1: #185. Part 2: #188, Part 3: #193, Part 4: #197, Part 5: #199   8  “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8 (ESV)   Blessed are those whose thoughts are pure. They will see God. - GOD'S WORD Translation.   8 ‘Happy the clean in heart—because they shall see God. Young, R. (1997). Young's Literal Translation   1) What does it mean to be pure in heart?   Pure = SINGLENESS, ONE THING.   καθαρὸς τῇ καρδία - Greek Pure-  Katharos -  cathartic, cleansing,   “the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions” – Dictionary.com   Hebrew - bar lebab -  בַּר‎  לֵבָב‎   4  He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24:4 (ESV) Not being PERFECTor a goody-two-shoes, holier than thou, etc. The History of Little Goody Two-Shoes is a children's story published by John Newbery in London in 1765. The story popularized the phrase "goody two-shoes" as a descriptor for a person or do-gooder who constantly virtue signals. Goody Two-Shoes is a variation of the Cinderella story. The fable tells of Goody Two-Shoes, the nickname of a poor orphan girl named Margery Meanwell, who goes through life with only one shoe. When a rich gentleman gives her a complete pair, she is so happy that she tells everyone that she has "two shoes". Later, Margery becomes a teacher and marries a rich widower. This earning of wealth serves as proof that her virtue has been rewarded, a popular theme in children's literature of the era. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Little_Goody_Two-Shoes   Heart is the center or CORE OF MY BEING, the center of my soul.   Pure in heart = singleness of heart– living for an AUDIENCE OF ONE   http://www.parkerliveonline.com/2021/03/12/column-pastor-louie-gets-the-vaccine/   singleness of heart, the honesty which has no hidden motive, no selfish interest, and is true and open in all things “2looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2, ESV)   2) When & how do I see God?   When Christ returns or I die then I'll see Him.   2  Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 (ESV)   Being focused on Jesus I SEE HIMworking in my life.   27  Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. Philippians 2:27 (ESV)   8  For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. Galatians 2:8 (NIV)  

Green’s Literal Translation writes it this way; “[2] to speak evil of no one, not quarrelsome, but forbearing, having displayed all meekness to A – L – L men.”. We could sum those two statements in each verse this way, showing complete courtesy, meekness, to ALL people.Notice how verse three opens. It starts, “For we also once were…”. It is reminding the reader of what we have come from before we became saved in Christ. The verse then tells us what we, also, have come from. Here is the list: We who are saved!, once were…Please visit our Outreach Web site! ~ https://unchurched.site123.meVisit our Web site for all the updated links to 22 of our Pod-Cast Hosts!Introduction ~ About Us, Who We Are: https://is.gd/SdjAd9How-To Be Saved: https://is.gd/5TGw9uShort Links Provided by: https://is.gd“End Times” and “Benediction” A “Barking Squirrel Production” Copyright: 2018 ~ All Rights ReservedSeries: Easter and the Book of Titus Session: 2021-0307 Episode: 10 Copyright: 2021TAGS: #Gospel #Titus #All-men #Speak-evil #Quarrelsome #Complete-courtesy #Once-were~Pastor JohnThe Church of the Un-Churched Our Home Page! This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Today's Bible Translation Design and Photo: Steve Webb Bible translation used in today's episode: Ch. 4-5 GNT Support Please remember that this is a listener supported show. Your support of any amount is needed and very much appreciated. Find out how by clicking here. Thoughts Most of us who are serious about Bible study know that reading from more that one translation is a good thing, especially if we’re going to be teaching or preaching. Today’s reading is an excellent example of why this is a good idea. One Approach To Bible Study The translation we’re using this week is the Good News Translation (GNT). Chapter 4, verses 4 and 5 in the GNT says: “Each of you should know how to live with your wife in a holy and honorable way, 5not with a lustful desire, like the heathen who do not know God.” As I read that, it seemed just a little “off” to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with living “with your wife in a holy and honorable way”, but tying this thought with “not with a lustful desire, like the heathen” just didn’t sit right with me, because sexual desire between a husband and wife is a gift from God.  I decided that I should look at how other translations rendered this passage. Comparisons Here are some examples of verse 4: The English Standard Version says: "...that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor..." The NIV says: "...that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable..." And for good measure, the KJV says: "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour..." The ESV and the NIV agree on the translation the “body”. But as you heard, the KJV said “possess his vessel”. None of the three referred to the “wife”. I read this verse in several other translations: the NASB, Young’s Literal Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation. All of them agreed on the “body”.  The God’s Word translation, and Contemporary English Version used “wife” in one way or another. Digging Deeper So what to do? How should this verse be properly translated? We need to go to the original language. Thankfully, we don’t need to take a complete course in Greek, which is the language used in the New Testament. The first thing I do is consult what is called an Interlinear New Testament.  An interlinear New Testament shows the complete text of the New Testament in English, with the Greek words appearing either directly above or below the English words, so you can see which exact Greek word is used. That’s the first step. The next step, if you don’t know Greek, is to use either a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance or Young’s Analytical Concordance. Today, I used Young’s. Both Young’s and Strong’s use the KJV, so I looked up the word “vessel”.  I found that there are two Greek words used in the New Testament that are translated into the English word “vessel”. One of them is used only twice, in the book of Matthew. In this case, the word means “vessel, or utensil”. The other Greek word is used eighteen times and it means “vessel, utensil or instrument”, and this is the word in our reading today.  Conclusion In my opinion, the thought that Paul wanted to convey to us is this: our bodies are the vessel or instrument that contains our souls, and we should not allow our vessels to be controlled by lust, as do those who do not know God. There is no mention of husbands or wives in the original language, and I therefor do not think that it should be included in the text of the verse. In defense of the translations that do include it, the argument can be made that Paul implied the thought of husbands and or wives, because sexual desire is only proper in the context of marriage. Since he was teaching against what the KJV refers to as fornication, or what we would today call sexual immorality, he would be saying that sexual desire should only be for...

  "Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced in the law." (Galatians 3:13 NLT) The disobedient to God, His Word, and His commandments will live under this curse that came into the earth because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam and Eve one commandment, and it was the violation of that one commandment that allowed sin and death to enter the world. And of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'  (Genesis 2:17 YLT) The author of Young’s Hebrew and Greek Bible Concordance was also the author of the Young’s Literal Translation quoted above. Most translations say, "You will certainly die." In Hebrew mut t'mut (the phrase in question) is literally, "in dying you will die." It is death on every level and in every area of human existence. Nothing was left unaffected by the entrance of sin and death into this planet because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned. (Romans 5:12 NET) Betrayal of Adam opened the door for the entrance of sin and death. That sin and death was and is the curse that inhabits the earth. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. (Genesis 3:17 KJV) Genesis 3:17 is better translated in the God Speaks Today version: "The earth will be under curse because of you." The New English Translation (NET) says: “Thanks to you.” God was speaking to Adam here! In other words, “Adam, it’s YOUR fault the earth has come under a curse!” Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16 KJV) Genesis 3:16 does not say in Hebrew "I will greatly multiply your sorrow" as though it was God's fault, but almost all English and Spanish translations translate it that way or in a similar manner. That was NOT a translation, but an opinion injected by most translators. Only two translations that I found agree with the Hebrew text: Contemporary English Version: "You will suffer terribly when you give birth." The Living Bible- "You will give birth to your children with intense pain and suffering." In Hebrew transliteration and in translation it literally says: "ha-ishah amar" – to the woman said "har-bah ar-beh" - in (the) increase will increase "itz-bonech" - your pain So God was saying: To the woman (He) said. "Your pain will greatly increase..."  That is a better translation. There was no mention of God saying "I will increase your pain."  When one combines Genesis 2:17 and 3:17 you begin to see that God is calling this death that would affect all people and all the earth—THE CURSE. The word "curse" describes all the activity of death in all areas of human life. Everything on earth came under this devastating curse. The curse came through the fault of Adam. It was neither God’s fault nor His plan. Centuries later, we see how this truth was changed and it was no longer that the curse came because of what man did, but because God caused it and He was to blame for it! He named him Noah, saying, “This one will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that the Lord has cursed.” (Gen. 5:29 NET) The earth groans until the day this curse is removed (Romans 8:21, 22). When death and Hades are finally removed from all contact with human beings (Revelation 20:14) there will no longer be any more pain, weeping, or death (21:4), and no more curse (Revelation22:3). All of this brings us to some important conclusions: (1.) The curse cannot be God's will because, if it is His will, then why remove it? (2.) The curse cannot be God's will because Jesus Christ redeemed us from it. Jesus came not to redeem us from something God was doing but from something the devil was doing. (1 John 3:8, Hebrews 2:14). Death is the enemy of God, of the earth, and of us (1 Cor. 15:26, 27). That is why it will finally and for eternity be removed from all contact with the new heavens and new earth and human beings.  (3.) The curse was the direct result of disobedience to God's commandment. It is associated with sin, disobedience, and rebellion. It is not for the righteous or those who serve God. (4) This leads us to the conclusion that the curse cannot be God's work. The devil is the murderer from the beginning (John8:44). Death was under the devil’s rule. (Hebrews 2:14). He is THE THIEF (John10:10). The devil is the killer. These curses cannot be God. Hurting, killing, and destroying are the enemy's work. It cannot be God who robs or steals. That would be a violation of His own commandment: "Do not steal." The destroyer and the exterminator are not God. (Revelation 9:11, 6:8) Hell follows death VERY closely. They are part of each other. They are inseparable. If you say "death" you talk about the work of hell. If you say "hell" you talk about the work of death. ___________________ Has anyone ever told you that God loves you and that He has a wonderful plan for your life? I have a real quick, but important question to ask you. If you were to die this very second, do you know for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you would go to Heaven? Let me quickly share with you what the Holy Bible reads. It reads “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and “for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”. The Bible also reads, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”. And you’re a “whosoever” right? Of course you are; all of us are. I’m going to say a quick prayer for you. Lord, bless the person reading this and his/her family with long and healthy lives. Jesus, make Yourself real to him/her and do a quick work in his/her heart. If If you have not received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, I pray you will do so now. If you would like to receive the gift that God has for you today, say this after me with your heart and lips out loud. "Dear Lord Jesus, come into my heart. Forgive me of my sin. Wash me and cleanse me. Set me free. Jesus, thank You that You died for me. I believe that You are risen from the dead and that You’re coming back again for me. Fill me with the Holy Spirit. Give me a passion for the lost, a hunger for the things of God and a holy boldness to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m saved; I’m born again, I’m forgiven and I’m on my way to Heaven because I have Jesus in my heart." As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I tell you today that all of your sins are forgiven. Always remember to run to God and not from God because He loves you and has a great plan for your life. Contact me and let me know you received Jesus as Lord and Savior! _____________________   Part 2 podcast in this series follows:

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast, Hank invites listeners to imagine for a moment an empire that is invincible in power and majesty. Ruler over the rest of the nations of the world, but not just for a few hundred years, but for the better part of a millennium. For six hundred years the city of Rome towered above the nations. The invincibility of this empire was so certain that she actually bore a moniker—eternal. And then something unthinkable happened; Alaric and his Arian hordes breached the walls and sacked the immortal city. Pagan Romans looked on in utter disbelief as statues of ancient deities were pulled down. And then Christians began to wonder if indeed the end of the world was now at hand. When the Barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire in the West, it was the Christian Church that put together a new order called Europe. It was the Church that took the lead in rule by law, the pursuit of knowledge, and the expression of culture. And that is precisely what needs to happen in the modern epoch.Hank also answers the following questions:Why does the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” get a bad rap?Is Young's Literal Translation accurate? What translations would you recommend?Does Leviticus 19:28 apply to young people today who get tattoos and body piercings?

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (10/23/20), Hank answers the following questions:What is the biblical view on conscientious objectors?What is the unpardonable sin? Can you commit this sin while you are still living?Could you explain Romans 11:25-32?Is Young's Literal Translation accurate? What translations would you recommend?Does Leviticus 19:28 apply to young people today who get tattoos and body piercings?

Join Athrabeth's Discord!Tolkien CommunityThe Alliance of Ardahttps://allianceofarda.org/https://twitter.com/allianceofardaOxonmoot Onlinehttps://www.tolkiensociety.org/events/oxonmoot-online/CitationsMichael Martinez, "What is the Literal Translation of Úlairi?" dated 15 August 2014, middle-earth.xenite.orgH. Carpenter and C. Tolkien (Eds.), The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin (letters 26, 211, 214)J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, book 1 ch 3J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Treason of isengardShippey, Tom (2005) [1982]. The Road to Middle-Earth (Third ed.). HarperCollins. pp 242-243J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Unfinished TalesJ.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), The Silmarillion, "Akallabeth" 

Sappho: The Translations (Reprise) The Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 11 with Heather Rose Jones In this show we'll look at the legacy of Sappho from the Middle Ages up through the 19th century: the various images people had of her, how people used her as a symbol, the way those images affected how her poetry was translated into everyday languages, and how poets used her themes and imagery in their own work. In this episode we talk about: How much poetry did Sappho write, and how much survives? Why was it lost, and why were the bits we have preserved? What was the changing image of Sappho from the middle ages through the 19th century? How did people reconcile their admiration for Sappho's poetry and their disapproval of homosexuality? Who translated Sappho's works and how did their opinions of her affect those translations? The show will include recitations of the following poems: Ode to Aphrodite & Fragment #31: Jane McIntosh Snyder from Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho (20th century) “On a Lady Named Beloved” inspired by fragment #31: Anne de Rohan (1617), translated from the French Fragment #31: John Hall (1652) Fragment #31: Joseph Addison (1735) Ode to Aphrodite & Fragment #31: Abrose Philips (1748) “Eleanore” inspired by Fragment #31: Lord Tennyson (1832) Fragment #31 & “Imitation of Sappho” inspired by Fragment #31: Mary Hewitt (1845) Books used as source material Addison, Joseph. 1735. The Works of Anacreon, Translated into English Verse, with Notes Explanatory and Poetical. To which are added the Odes, Fragments, and Epigrams of Sappho. London. Castle, Terry (ed). 2003. The Literature of Lesbianism: A Historical Anthology from Ariosto to Stonewall. Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN 0-231-12510-0 Hall, John. 1652. Sappho's On the Sublime. Snyder, Jane. 1997. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press. Wharton, Henry Thornton. 1887. Sappho: Memoir, Text, Selected Renderings, and a Literal Translation. London. This topic is discussed in one or more entries of the Lesbian Historic Motif Project here: Sappho A transcript of this podcast is available here. Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online Website: http://alpennia.com/lhmp Blog: http://alpennia.com/blog RSS: http://alpennia.com/blog/feed/ Twitter: @LesbianMotif Discord: Contact Heather for an invitation to the Alpennia/LHMP Discord server The Lesbian Historic Motif Project Patreon Links to Heather Online Website: http://alpennia.com Email: Heather Rose Jones Twitter: @heatherosejones Facebook: Heather Rose Jones (author page)

Sappho: The Translations The Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 11 with Heather Rose Jones In this show we'll look at the legacy of Sappho from the Middle Ages up through the 19th century: the various images people had of her, how people used her as a symbol, the way those images affected how her poetry was translated into everyday languages, and how poets used her themes and imagery in their own work. In this episode we talk about: How much poetry did Sappho write, and how much survives? Why was it lost, and why were the bits we have preserved? What was the changing image of Sappho from the middle ages through the 19th century? How did people reconcile their admiration for Sappho's poetry and their disapproval of homosexuality? Who translated Sappho's works and how did their opinions of her affect those translations? The show will include recitations of the following poems: Ode to Aphrodite & Fragment #31: Jane McIntosh Snyder from Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho (20th century) “On a Lady Named Beloved” inspired by fragment #31: Anne de Rohan (1617), translated from the French Fragment #31: John Hall (1652) Fragment #31: Joseph Addison (1735) Ode to Aphrodite & Fragment #31: Abrose Philips (1748) “Eleanore” inspired by Fragment #31: Lord Tennyson (1832) Fragment #31 & “Imitation of Sappho” inspired by Fragment #31: Mary Hewitt (1845) Books used as source material Addison, Joseph. 1735. The Works of Anacreon, Translated into English Verse, with Notes Explanatory and Poetical. To which are added the Odes, Fragments, and Epigrams of Sappho. London. Castle, Terry (ed). 2003. The Literature of Lesbianism: A Historical Anthology from Ariosto to Stonewall. Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN 0-231-12510-0 Hall, John. 1652. Sappho's On the Sublime. Snyder, Jane. 1997. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press. Wharton, Henry Thornton. 1887. Sappho: Memoir, Text, Selected Renderings, and a Literal Translation. London. This topic is discussed in one or more entries of the Lesbian Historic Motif Project here: Sappho A transcript of this podcast is available here. Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online Website: http://alpennia.com/lhmp Blog: http://alpennia.com/blog RSS: http://alpennia.com/blog/feed/ Twitter: @LesbianMotif Discord: Contact Heather for an invitation to the Alpennia/LHMP Discord server The Lesbian Historic Motif Project Patreon Links to Heather Online Website: http://alpennia.com Email: Heather Rose Jones Twitter: @heatherosejones Facebook: Heather Rose Jones (author page)

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams broadcast RSR's quantum mechanics article with an introduction and comments. - Prerequisite 1: RSR's List of Things that are Not Physical - Prerequisite 2: Know the 2-slit experiment - Other RSR QM resources below - Version 1.0 of the article... Quantum Mechanics' Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality by Bob Enyart Three is exact. Always. To infinite precision and regardless of how often it is used, in counting and equations, as is true with all integers, three is always precisely exact. Protons are always exact as are, in our experience, all neutrons. Like those baryons, all electrons are exact and identical to particles of their same kind whether primordial or formed just now through decay. And as with electrons, all the other leptons too of the same kind appear to be identical with others of the same kind including electron neutrinos, muons, and tau neutrinos. Hundreds of thousands of experiments have confirmed the extraordinarily successful mathematics of quantum mechanics leading to the conclusion that all particles of the same kind are identical (Ford, 2005, The Quantum World, p. 100). Yet at 1,835 times the (rest) mass of an electron, the proton is relatively enormous yet always exactly the same as all others and the two particles always have the opposite, yet exactly equal, electrical charges. So fermions, including all the particles mentioned so far, along with the quarks, all appear to be identical with others of their same kinds. The creatively named up and down, strange and charm, bottom and top quarks each are identical to all others of the same kind. And all of the antiparticles, as expected, such as antilepton positrons, appear to be identical with all others of their same kinds. As an aside, positron diffraction had been demonstrated in 1980 but it took almost four decades more to perform the full two-slit experiment with antimatter demonstrating the expected wave-particle duality (Ariga, et al., 2018, arxiv.org). That interference result was first obtained with light in 1801 and then with (normal) matter beginning in 1927 with electrons, then neutrons in 1988, atoms in 1991, and molecules beginning in 1994 with the largest projectiles to date in 2013 using a synthetic carbon-based molecule of 810 atoms (Eibenberger, et al., 2013, arxiv.org). And likewise all bosons are identical with others of their same kind including the Z particle, the Higgs, and all photons as the ubiquitous and uniform force carrier of electromagnetism. (That is, all photons of the same energy levels are identical to all other similarly energized photons.) Manufacturing though, has taught mankind about unavoidable tolerances. So, how is it that all like particles, even those just now coming into existence, are apparently all absolutely identical? The exactness of repeatedly used numbers does not surprise scientists because, though materialists are known to deny this, numbers are not physical. Science itself cannot exist apart from numbers. And because numbers are not physical, scientific inquiry includes the non-physical. Numbers are a kind of information and, also often denied by materialists, information is not physical. Protons appear to be physical but certainly the statement and the concept that they are, is not physical. That statement, and any statement, as often observed, does not consist of the photons transmitting it to your eyes nor the molecules of ink on a page nor of the sound waves expressing it. Materialists may object but they disqualify themselves from being taken seriously. Rules of investigation, whether used by forensic criminologists or corporate accountants, should be valued to the extent that they help discover truth. The rules of the materialist, such as methodological naturalism, are the opposite. Materialism requires adherence to its rules of investigation especially if that means getting the most important answers completely wrong. Reviewing a Carl Sagan title, the famed Richard Lewontin (Jan. 9, 1997, New York Review of Books) admitted: We take the side of [materialist] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [and] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations... Materialists’ objections are discarded because they arise from the ultimate bias, which is insistence especially if wrong. Contrary to that lack of humility, the New Testament indicates that even Christianity itself is falsifiable. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is false (1 Cor. 15:14). Yet materialists cannot match such courage, covering themselves in a layer of non-falsifiable anti-science. So because there is no discovery, or scientific law, or technological advancement that requires or affirms atheism (Enyart, 2011, rsr.org/technology), the public posturing of materialism as more scientific than theism is dishonest. RSR at NYC's main public libraryFor decades, renowned physicists, many Christians, and others have interpreted quantum mechanics as providing evidence against the materialist worldview. And even more, the observer himself appears to have a special status. Might there be then a specifically Christian insight into quantum mechanics and matter's wave-particle duality? Physics, like biology, is increasingly seen as information based. Some physicists speak of an “information wave” (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4,  ref5, etc.) and even a primordial information wave. Quantum mechanics obeys some rules that seem almost grammatical. Subject and verb, for example, must agree in number. In organisms, it’s not the acids that encode it but the functional information that is the more fundamental substance. Human beings are body, soul, and spirit and the soul survives even if all atoms of our body are replaced over time and both soul and spirit survive even cremation, so our non-physical selves are of greater substance than our physical bodies. God exists in three persons from eternity past and created a form for the Son to indwell in which He walked in the garden, and in Nazareth, and in which He will continue to walk eternally including on the new Earth. God is Spirit through eternity past yet the Son has become flesh and taken humanity upon Himself and the Bible describes Him now as inhabiting a glorified body. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and now inhabiting a glorified body, the Son, these three are reflected in human beings as body, soul, and spirit. As God stamped the creation with His own triune image (see below), might elementary particles themselves bear that triunity? Rather than a wave-particle duality perhaps matter is a wave-particle-word triality. If so, then like with biology and even humanity, it is the non-physical information-based component behind matter that is the deeper substance, the more solid phenomenon, the harder reality. The exactness of fundamental particles is a bewildering phenomenon, so much so that asking why these are exact is a question either ignored or sufficient to drive the most brilliant men nearly insane. As Richard Feynman said in his Nobel lecture: I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron! Rather, consider that the exactness of particles is itself a quantum effect. Perhaps an electron is a mathematical expression. Likewise, perhaps a proton is a mathematical expression, or even a grammatical one, conditionally expressed as a particle or wave depending upon context and the grammatical rules of physics. Long realizing that atoms, and therefore, steel and diamonds, are mostly empty space, brings us to consider that perhaps the baryons and leptons of the atom are, in a way, less than empty space, that is, that they are non-physical. Information, being non-physical, would have no problem passing through either one or two slits, depending upon context. Regardless of how far it may extend through space a sentence requires agreement between subject and verb, just as entangled particles affect each other even over vast distances, seemingly violating the laws of classical physics but not the immaterial laws of math, information theory, and grammar. Quantum tunneling may seem impossible but what physical barrier can impede a probability, a sentence, or an equation? Of the 77 creation passages in Scripture, the two greatest parallel passages from the Old and New Testaments, Genesis 1 and John 1, both stress a literary, verbal creation. And interestingly, the great creation Psalm 19 does the same. (Note first though, that while "the" Word refers to God the Son who "became flesh and dwelt among us", this paper, not written by a pantheist, does not imply that matter is divine. We therefore use an uppercase "W" to refer to God as the Word and a lowercase "w" to refer to the wave-particle-word as information.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made through Him, and without [the Word] nothing was made that was made. Nothing. In Genesis, to perform a creative act, He spoke, including when God "said", Let there be light. The Holy Spirit could have inspired Moses to simply write that God made light or God created light, and so on for the next seven instances. But instead, God "said." The nineteenth psalm C.S. Lewis famously described as, "one of the greatest lyrics in the world." The "higher critics", such as those of the Documentary Hypothesis, opining otherwise, describe the chapter as a disjointed concatenation of two unrelated poems (1904, Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, p. 75; etc., etc.). However, they miss the structure whereby the first half describes the heavens in literary terms and the second half describes the Word of God in astronomical terms. Physical Heavens in Literary Terms: The heavens declare the glory of God And the firmament shows [Hb. tells] His handiwork Day unto day utters speech And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line [Sept., Rom. 10:18, voice] has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. Etc. The second part of Psalm 19 describes the Scriptures in terms not as evidently astronomical as the first half is literary, yet we can see it there. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul… The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes…" Then, "Who can understand his errors" (from Hb. shagah) wanderings, as with the wandering planets which the ancients did not understand. Then, of those errors, "Let them not have dominion over me", using the same Hebrew word as Genesis 1 where the "lights in the firmament of the heavens… rule over the day and over the night." Other expressions may suggest the same parallel. For God's Word is as "perfect" as is the Sun's annual "circuit" (v. 6) through the stars, which can "convert the soul", which is an especially unusual Hebrew expression, translated literally as, returning the soul, with this verb reminding us of the Sun which returns "from one end of heaven… to the other" (v. 6). To summarize, nothing was created apart from the Word. Logos, there referring to God the Son (Jn. 1:14), with that Greek word also meaning idea, reason. The creation week is characterized by God "saying", and the creation Psalm describes the heavens in terms of speech and knowledge. Rather than a wave-particle duality, perhaps more complete and leading to more scientific understanding is the description of matter as a wave-particle-word triality. And perhaps as with vegetation, animals, and people, the non-physical aspect of matter is, ironically, the greater substance. Plants have a body, animals have a body and soul (Gen. 1:24; Hb. nephesh), and human beings have a body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23; Heb. 4:12), yet the non-physical realm, which happens also to be the domain of information, is the greatest substance for all three; for plants, animals, and people. If normal metabolism happened to replace every atom in a favorite pet's body, as long as it had breath, still its identity, that is, its soul, would persist. For animals too then, and even aside from their immaterial biological information, the "physical" component is not the greater substance. For human beings, and known through general and special revelation that, as above, our spirits survive even cremation, our physical body is not remotely the greater substance of our existence. And the genetic molecule is not the deepest substance of broccoli. For just as with ink in a book, even with plants, amino acids are not the essence. And in some respects clearly a human being is "an epistle... written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh" (2 Cor. 3:3). Again, a plant's substance, its essence, is not it's DNA but the functional information the genetic molecule and other cellular systems carry. In the same way, if fundamental particles have a wave-particle-word triality, the information is the deeper substance, expressing matter as a wave, or a particle, depending upon the context, both mathematical and linguistic. All human beings, but especially Christian theologians and quantum physicists, can see a triune stamp on the cosmos. Electrons, physicists have discovered, are of one of the three "flavors" of leptons and one of the three groupings of quarks form protons and neutrons, with quarks existing in one of three "colors" and of multiples of one-third electrical charge. Exactly three generations of elementary particles underlie all matter. Physicist Richard Feynman in his book QED asked how many fundamental actions are there to account for nearly all phenomena in the universe regarding light and electricity to which he answered: "There are Three!" And in his Nobel prize lecture Feynman said, astoundingly, that there are three unique ways of "describing quantum mechanics". Further, unlike our arbitrary earth-based units of measurement, scientists so far have discovered "two natural units", Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c. A "still-unanswered question is whether a third natural unit awaits discovery", for such a triune "'all-natural' physics" would "form a basis of measurement as complete as, and much more satisfying than, the kilogram, the meter, and the second." Might there, though, be more, say, of the leptons? Overlooking the theologian, Kenneth Ford, retired director of the American Institute of Physics, wrote, "No one knows why there are three flavors of particles..." yet he concludes, "Surprisingly, physicists feel confident that the third flavor marks the end of the trail—no more lie ahead." The Christian theologian by the Scriptures knows that God exists as three persons in one Trinity. So, unsurprisingly, man has a triune nature. Christ was three days in the tomb, which Jonah’s three days foreshadowed, as did Abraham’s three days of thinking that he would sacrifice his own son on that same hill called Golgotha, the Skull, and Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22:14; 2 Chron. 3:1). Israel's three patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The priestly tribe of Levi is from Jacob's third child (Gen. 29:34) as Leviticus is the Bible's third book. The day the law was given the sons of Levi killed "about three thousand men' (Ex. 32:28), whereas the day the Spirit was given, "that day about three thousand souls" were saved (Acts 2:41; 2 Cor. 3:6), for the law kills but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:6-7). The Hebrew Scriptures comprise three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44), and the Bible names three archangels. The most noteworthy women are Eve, Sarah, and Mary. The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. Three persons (one being the Son) started their public service at thirty years of age: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), a deliverer of his people; David (2 Sam. 5:4) seated on the messianic throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13); and "Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23). God could have led Esther to fast for two days, or four; and He could have kept Jonah in the whale for one day, or a week, but three days and three nights prefigures God’s plan of salvation for Christ’s time in the grave. For Jesus "rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). Thus the triune Christian God, the mystery of the Trinity, three Persons in One God, is the only true God. And even theoretically, unlike the unitarian Allah and any of the alleged pagan idols, the God of the Bible is the only one whose testimony we would be able to trust, for His triunity answers both the philosophical problem of the one and the many and it answers Socrates' challenge against theism titled Euthyphro's Dilemma. For, how could God Himself know that He is good, and not evil? Allah could not know that [John 5:31]. But with the Triune God, the Son testifies that for eternity past, the Father has never wronged the Son, and the Father of the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Son, an eternal threefold testimony for by the testimony of two or three witnesses the matter is established (Deut. 19:15; Eccl. 4:12; Mat. 18:16; John 5:31-39; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Even the one who never heard a Bible verse can notice that the Creator has imprinted our world with a triune nature. Space exists in three dimensions, height, width, and length, as does time in past, present and future. The electromagnetic force operates in positive, negative, and neutral, and in light, red, green, and blue blend into the hues of the rainbow whereas in pigment the three primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. We human beings live on this third planet from the Sun; we're made of atoms built of "just three basic particles", protons, neutrons, and electrons; and we have trichromatic color vision. Mankind's first known states of matter were solid, liquid, and gas and his first known number system used the Sumerian term "man" for 1, "woman" for 2, and the word "plurality" for 3, with math itself happening in the realm of positive, negative, and zero. His strongest shape for building is the triangle. Writers often give three examples and artists group in threes as in interior design, sculpting, and even movie directing, as compared to trilogy (1, 2, 3) there is no commonly used word for any other number of films. Photographers use the rule of thirds. Logicians use the three laws of logic as genetic scientists learned that DNA uses only three-letter words. It's not that only the number three describes reality (see rsr.org/360 and rsr.org/300). Rather, as known by architects, authors, and composers, a theme is most appreciated in the context of greater variety. If well designed, the greater the variety, the more appreciated the theme. So we humans are body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23), made in the image of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. People live here, in heaven, and in hell. Those who love God cry, "Holy, holy, holy." Consider a hypothesis that is consistent with, well, just about everything, and that if true would help to answer many questions. Rather than a wave-particle duality, matter is a wave-particle-word triality, with "word" meaning information or, perhaps better, functional information. Quantum states are probabilistic and probability is conceptual, not physical. This may explain why, after a century of trying, currently there is no explanation for how a wave can physically collapse into a particle. No such explanation may exist. A survey of quantum physics instructors found that 30% "thought of the wave function as a physical matter wave, while nearly half preferred to view the wave function as containing information only..." A photon, like every other elementary particle, is primarily a functional information packet expressing itself, based on context and the rules of physical grammar, so to speak, as a particle or as a wave. (Experiment suggests even that a photon can exhibit aspects of both particle and wave simultaneously.) In quantum mechanics, a particle's probability is not based on a lack of information, as with a classical shell game with its one-third probability that the ball is under a particular cup. The probabilistic quantum state does not refer to a lack of knowledge about the state but to the state itself. Further, every particle, regardless of its state, is an expression of a quantum packet of information. So one consequence of the wave-particle-word triality hypothesis is that every particle is always in a quantum state. Of proton (and quark) manufacturing, so to speak, why are the tolerances exact? Why can't some protons (or their quarks), with the mass of more than 1,800 electrons, perhaps have only 99.7% or 100.1%, of the inverse charge of an electron? Why are all fundamental particles, even long after the Fall, apparently exactly identical to all others of the same kind? Elementary particles of the same kind are identical to one another because each is the expression of a mathematical and linguistic information packet, which packets are the essence of matter. A bottom quark is identical to all other bottom quarks almost in the way that the number 3 is exact and identical regardless of how many times it is expressed. Though it obeys a grammar and is fundamentally information, neither a particle nor a wave is an illusion. They are not non-physical in the sense that they only exist in one's perception. The wave does not occupy any abstract higher-dimensional Hilbert space (2016, The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions, John G. Cramer, Springer, p. 71; 2006, Cramer's transactional interpretation and causal loop problems, Synthese, Vo. 150, pp. 1-40). Instead, both the particle and the wave are actual expressions of the quantum information packet. (Should that be called a quip?) Why would a particle heading toward two slits transform itself into a wave? Why must a subject and verb agree in number? Why must the spin of a far-distant entangled particle equal zero with its entangled twin? Why grammatically is a singular subject typically paired with a plural verb when in a counterfactual subjunctive mood? These are the rules of language, human language and the language (punctuation, syntax even, grammar and composition) of physics. In both, context determines which expressions are appropriate. If we can't conceive of a particle going through two slits simultaneously, we also cannot conceive of any way that such a problem could challenge a non-physical entity. Information is not physical. It exists and flows in a non-physical dimension that is interfaced with our physical universe. Information can be generated by a man's spirit, which spirit itself is interfaced to his body. In some similarly bewildering manner, quantum information is interfaced to our physical cosmos. So, not aware of that functional information nor its role, in one camp the Copenhagen interpreters say "shut up and measure", arguing against even trying to understand. And another broad camp visualizes, in the place where the quip interfaces to the physical realm, either a multiverse or multiple non-existent physical dimensions, all because they are unwittingly trying to physicalize something that cannot be physicalized. When Newton described universal gravitation, he gave little thought to its mechanism, satisfying himself with describing what it does. Mankind has benefited ever since. Quantum physicists describe in precise detail what electrons do, for example, when they instantly jump between energy levels, but not why or how it is that they do this. (Participles, by the way, like adjectives, must agree with their substantives in case, gender, and number.) Likewise, we know the electric charge of a proton but why is it so? Maxwell's field equations addressed waves of electromagnetism a half century before Einstein spoke of individual quanta. So with the single photon's invariant zero mass we know that its velocity upon creation is light speed but why is it that speed? Following Newton's approach, if matter is a wave-particle-word triality, that gives us a clearer idea of what it is and what it is doing and even some insight into the why, even if we have no conception of the how. For example, the triality insight is supportive of the view of the particle as a mathematical equation, for, the quantum packet of functional information would include any such mathematical formulation. And this triality may help to better understand what is called the quantum conservation of weirdness. Particles can superimpose because their inherent mathematical expressions can superimpose, and the information packet containing those expressions also contain the grammatical rules to discern the proper contexts for such behavior. And a quantum state can be split because division is a valid operation on its mathematical expression. Particles can tunnel because experiment has shown that the rules of quantum syntax and grammar permit a flow of information such that these tiny physical barriers cannot prevent it. God thought E=mc2 and implemented that equality and many other beautiful mathematical equations in His creation. Likewise, design considerations and functional requirements led our inexhaustibly creative God to implement the quantum world. This provides a robust foundation for the macro world. And it also makes available these astounding microscopic capabilities to achieve otherwise impossible precision (as in navigation and smell) in biological organisms and for creative human inventors to exploit including by enabling information technology that could blur the distinction between easy and hard computational problems. Considering further this contrast between what and how, the spectacular discoveries of what the laws of science describe expose the physicist's ignorance of why and even of how they do it. The 2018 Oxford University Press text Conjuring the Universe: the origin of the laws of nature by Peter Atkins wears its author's atheism on its sleeve with the dust jacket claiming that the laws of nature leave "very little, if anything at all, for a Creator to do" and the Preface beginning, "The workings of the world have been ascribed by some to an astonishingly busybody but disembodied Creator… My gut recoils from this…" Yet right off, Chapter 1 makes it clear that the author (and by extension, all Oxford and the entire atheistic world) has no explanation for the ostensible topic of the book, the origin of laws. Two things are observed, however, about the nature of these laws, that they describe actions, and "that some are intrinsically mathematical and the others are adequately verbal" (p. 13). Thus many of nature's laws were discovered by thought experiments on such things as idealized gas, radiators, and spatial points (LaGrange), and even on things like trolleys and falling bodies. The hypothesis in this paper, that matter is fundamentally non-physical, has as a corollary, that the laws of quantum mechanics, like all laws, are themselves non-physical. The most fundamental of the laws of physics, found in the probabilistic quantum world, appear to be not only conceptual, but also declaratory. Thus an electron shall be offset by a proton; it may not decay (a prohibition); and its wave state will proceed until observed. Extrapolating from the quantum world, some of the classical laws seem to be declaratory rather than physical. For arguments sake, we can concede that methodological naturalism could possibly explain something like the inverse square law. Consider though, that classical objects shall attract each other; elements' properties shall recur in the periodic table; every action will produce a reaction. This paper's hypothesis suggests that no purely physical reason will ever be found to explain why or even how it could be that unlike the neutron, the charge of the proton and the electron are equal and opposite. Meanwhile, substantives like pronouns (current social insanity aside) are only masculine, feminine, or neutral. The corresponding electrical charge of various particles may exist because the respective quantum information packets of those particles are multi-field data records that have a sexagesimal value of plus or minus one unit in their respective electrical charge "fields", fields that is, not in the coulomb sense but in the data structure sense in information technology. So even with the inverse-square law, which has perhaps the most physicality of all the physical laws, as a particle is approached, force increases yet it does not reach infinity. Why not? Because its maximum value, is declared, not unlike when God said, "Let there be light", that is, as in computer programming, max value is set by definition. That definition is set either within the quantum information packet itself, or more likely it resides in a mathematical universal constant which is referenced by a pointer from within the packet, which provides part of the context within which that packet exists and can be expressed. Meanwhile, the non-physical is crashing down on the materialist from all sides. As though themselves glorious, numbers are not physical. Math is not physical. Information is not physical. Grammar is not physical. Logic is not physical. Reason is not physical. Ideas are not physical. Science is not physical. Concepts are not physical. Morality is not physical. Truth is not physical. Souls are not physical. Spirits are not physical. Codes are not physical. The square root of negative one is not physical (and so like everything else, by its use in the implementation of quantum mechanics, etc., therefore the √(−1) reveals the Creator). Infinity is not physical. Consciousness is not physical. Genomes are not physical. Pain is not physical. Your mind is not physical. Laws are not physical. And God is not physical. For ninety years now, various quantum physicists have even been arguing that particles themselves may not be physical! And they might be right. So the apparent exactness of all elementary particles may itself be evidence of their underlying non-physical numerical essence, with that exactness occurring by each particle's constant quantum expression of its value and worth in the eyes of the Beholder. So to the materialist, if it turns out that along with everything else, that matter itself is non-physical, well then, that's just piling on. For as Paul wrote to the Colossians, Christ "is the image of the invisible God… For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" and He Himself is Spirit and for whatever it means, "in Him all things hold together." ### This draft is unfinished as of 4/9/20. RSR notes toward finalizing this article reside in RSR's shared Google Docs folder Quantum Mechanics including RSR's List of Quantum Mechanics Rules. Members of the RSR Research Team meet online via a Google Hangouts video conference on Monday nights at 5 p.m. Mountain Time. To join and get access to that and scores of other private team resources, see rsr.org/research-team. And please, your comments may help Bob decide whether to submit this draft to a creation journal, so don't hesitate to send them along to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! RSR's Quantum Thoughts: - 2018: Quantum Biology Pt. 1: Doing what standard chemistry and physics can't - 2019: QB Pt. 2: Our seemingly impossible sense of smell - 2019: How Quantum Computers Do It: Finally, a Helpful Illustration - 2019: Google's Quantum Supremacy - 2019: Top Mathematicians: Ants & Bees, Mold & Amoebas - 2018: Coincidence or Determinism? Quantum theology and physics - 2015: An RSR preview show - 2020: Bob's rsr.org/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality (this page) aka rsr.org/quantum and rsr.org/triality.  

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams broadcast RSR's quantum mechanics article with an introduction and comments. - Prerequisite 1: RSR's List of Things that are Not Physical - Prerequisite 2: Know the 2-slit experiment - Other RSR QM resources below - Version 1.0 of the article... Quantum Mechanics' Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality by Bob Enyart Three is exact. Always. To infinite precision and regardless of how often it is used, in counting and equations, it never wears down. As is true with all integers, three is always precisely exact. Protons are always exact as are, in our experience, all neutrons. Like those baryons, all electrons are exact and identical to particles of their same kind whether primordial or formed just now through decay. And as with electrons, all the other leptons too of the same kind appear to be identical with others of the same kind including electron neutrinos, muons, and tau neutrinos. Hundreds of thousands of experiments have confirmed the extraordinarily successful mathematics of quantum mechanics leading to the conclusion that all particles of the same kind are identical (Ford, 2005, The Quantum World, p. 100). Yet at 1,835 times the (rest) mass of an electron, the proton is relatively enormous yet always exactly the same as all others and the two particles always have the opposite, yet exactly equal, electrical charges. So fermions, including all the particles mentioned so far, along with the quarks, all appear to be identical with others of their same kinds. The creatively named up and down, strange and charm, bottom and top quarks each are identical to all others of the same kind. And all of the antiparticles, as expected, such as antilepton positrons, appear to be identical with all others of their same kinds. As an aside, positron diffraction had been demonstrated in 1980 but it took almost four decades more to perform the full two-slit experiment with antimatter demonstrating the expected wave-particle duality (Ariga, et al., 2018, arxiv.org). That interference result was first obtained with light in 1801 and then with (normal) matter beginning in 1927 with electrons, then neutrons in 1988, atoms in 1991, and molecules beginning in 1994 with the largest projectiles to date in 2013 using a synthetic carbon-based molecule of 810 atoms (Eibenberger, et al., 2013, arxiv.org) and in 2019 with molecules of 2,000 atoms (Fein, et al., Nature Physics) weighing 25,000 to 40,000 AMU (atomic mass units). And likewise all bosons are identical with others of their same kind including the Z particle, the Higgs, and all photons as the ubiquitous and uniform force carrier of electromagnetism. (That is, all photons of the same energy levels are identical to all other similarly energized photons.) Manufacturing though, has taught mankind about unavoidable tolerances. So, how is it that all like particles, even those just now coming into existence, are apparently all absolutely identical? The exactness of repeatedly used numbers does not surprise scientists because, though materialists are known to deny this, numbers are not physical. Science itself cannot exist apart from numbers. And because numbers are not physical, scientific inquiry includes the non-physical. Numbers are a kind of information and, also often denied by materialists, information is not physical. Protons appear to be physical but certainly the statement and the concept that they are, is not physical. That statement, and any statement, as often observed, does not consist of the photons transmitting it to your eyes nor the molecules of ink on a page nor of the sound waves expressing it. Materialists may object but they disqualify themselves from being taken seriously. Rules of investigation, whether used by forensic criminologists or corporate accountants, should be valued to the extent that they help discover truth. The rules of the materialist, such as methodological naturalism, are the opposite. Materialism requires adherence to its rules of investigation especially if that means getting the most important answers completely wrong. Reviewing a Carl Sagan title, the famed Richard Lewontin (Jan. 9, 1997, New York Review of Books) admitted: We take the side of [materialist] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [and] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations... Materialists’ objections are discarded because they arise from the ultimate bias, which is insistence especially if wrong. Contrary to that lack of humility, the New Testament indicates that even Christianity itself is falsifiable. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is false (1 Cor. 15:14). Yet materialists cannot match such courage, covering themselves in a layer of non-falsifiable anti-science. So because there is no discovery, or scientific law, or technological advancement that requires or affirms atheism (Enyart, 2011, rsr.org/technology), the public posturing of materialism as more scientific than theism is dishonest. RSR at NYC's main public libraryFor decades, renowned physicists, many Christians, and others have interpreted quantum mechanics as providing evidence against the materialist worldview. And even more, the observer himself appears to have a special status. Might there be then a specifically Christian insight into quantum mechanics and matter's wave-particle duality? Physics, like biology, is increasingly seen as information based. Some physicists speak of an “information wave” (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4,  ref5, etc.) and even a primordial information wave. Quantum mechanics obeys some rules that seem almost grammatical. Subject and verb, for example, must agree in number. In organisms, it’s not the acids that encode it but the functional information that is the more fundamental substance. Human beings are body, soul, and spirit and the soul survives even if all atoms of our body are replaced over time and both soul and spirit survive even cremation, so our non-physical selves are of greater substance than our physical bodies. God exists in three persons from eternity past and created a form for the Son to indwell in which He walked in the garden, and in Nazareth, and in which He will continue to walk eternally including on the new Earth. God is Spirit through eternity past yet the Son has become flesh and taken humanity upon Himself and the Bible describes Him now as inhabiting a glorified body. The Father, the Holy Spirit, and now inhabiting a glorified body, the Son, these three are reflected in human beings as body, soul, and spirit. As God stamped the creation with His own triune image (see below), might elementary particles themselves bear that triunity? Rather than a wave-particle duality perhaps matter is a wave-particle-word triality. If so, then like with biology and even humanity, it is the non-physical information-based component behind matter that is the deeper substance, the more solid phenomenon, the harder reality. The exactness of fundamental particles is a bewildering phenomenon, so much so that asking why these are exact is a question either ignored or sufficient to drive the most brilliant men nearly insane. As Richard Feynman said in his Nobel lecture: I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!" That's similar to saying that the reason all threes are exactly the same is because they're all the same three! Consider though that the exactness of particles is itself a quantum effect. Perhaps an electron is a mathematical expression. Likewise, perhaps a proton is a mathematical expression, or even a grammatical one, conditionally expressed as a particle or wave depending upon context and the grammatical rules of physics. Long realizing that atoms, and therefore, steel and diamonds, are mostly empty space, brings us to consider that perhaps the baryons and leptons of the atom are, in a way, less than empty space, that is, that they are non-physical. Information, being non-physical, would have no problem passing through either one or two slits, depending upon context. Regardless of how far it may extend through space a sentence requires agreement between subject and verb, just as entangled particles affect each other even over vast distances, seemingly violating the laws of classical physics but not the immaterial laws of math, information theory, and grammar. Quantum tunneling may seem impossible but what physical barrier can impede a probability, a sentence, or an equation? Of the 77 creation passages in Scripture, the two greatest parallel passages from the Old and New Testaments, Genesis 1 and John 1, both stress a literary, verbal creation. And interestingly, the great creation Psalm 19 does the same. (Note first though, that while "the" Word refers to God the Son who "became flesh and dwelt among us", this paper, not written by a pantheist, does not imply that matter is divine. We therefore use an uppercase "W" to refer to God as the Word and a lowercase "w" to refer to the wave-particle-word as information.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made through Him, and without [the Word] nothing was made that was made. Nothing. In Genesis, to perform a creative act, He spoke, including when God "said", Let there be light. The Holy Spirit could have inspired Moses to simply write that God made light or God created light, and so on for the next seven instances. But instead, God "said." The nineteenth psalm C.S. Lewis famously described as, "one of the greatest lyrics in the world." The "higher critics", such as those of the Documentary Hypothesis, opining otherwise, describe the chapter as a disjointed concatenation of two unrelated poems (1904, Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, p. 75; etc., etc.). However, they miss the structure whereby the first half describes the physical heavens in literary terms and the second half describes the written or literary Word of God in astronomical terms. Physical Heavens in Literary Terms: The heavens declare the glory of God And the firmament shows [Hb. tells] His handiwork Day unto day utters speech And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line [Sept., Rom. 10:18, voice] has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. Etc. The second part of Psalm 19 describes the Scriptures in terms not as evidently astronomical as the first half is literary, yet we can see it there. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul… The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes…" Then, "Who can understand his errors" (from Hb. shagah) wanderings, as with the wandering planets which the ancients did not understand. Then, of those errors, "Let them not have dominion over me", using the same Hebrew word as Genesis 1 where the "lights in the firmament of the heavens… rule over the day and over the night." Other expressions may suggest the same parallel. For God's Word is as "perfect" as is the Sun's annual "circuit" (v. 6) through the stars, which can "convert the soul", which is an especially unusual Hebrew expression, translated literally as, returning the soul, with this verb reminding us of the Sun which returns "from one end of heaven… to the other" (v. 6). So nothing was created apart from the Word. Logos, there referring to God the Son (Jn. 1:14), with that Greek word also meaning idea, reason. The creation week is characterized by God "saying", and the creation Psalm describes the heavens in terms of speech and knowledge. As with all creation, God is the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15). Likewise with redemption He is the "Author" of salvation and of faith (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 12:2). Even then regarding the ongoing operation of the universe we see the same literary perspective with God, "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3). Rather than a wave-particle duality, perhaps more complete and leading to more scientific understanding is the description of matter as a wave-particle-word triality. And perhaps as with vegetation, animals, and people, the non-physical aspect of matter is, ironically, the greater substance. Plants have a body, animals have a body and soul (Gen. 1:24; Hb. nephesh), and human beings have a body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23; Heb. 4:12), yet the non-physical realm, which happens also to be the domain of information, is the greatest substance for all three; for plants, animals, and people. If normal metabolism happened to replace every atom in a favorite pet's body, as long as it had breath, still its identity, that is, its soul, would persist. For animals too then, and even aside from their immaterial biological information, the "physical" component is not the greater substance. For human beings, and known through general and special revelation that, as above, our spirits survive even cremation, our physical body is not remotely the greater substance of our existence. And the genetic molecule is not the deepest substance of broccoli. For just as with ink in a book, even with plants, amino acids are not the essence. And in some respects clearly a human being is "an epistle... written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh" (2 Cor. 3:3). Again, a plant's substance, its essence, is not it's DNA but the functional information the genetic molecule and other cellular systems carry. In the same way, if fundamental particles have a wave-particle-word triality, the information is the deeper substance, expressing matter as a wave, or a particle, depending upon the context, both mathematical and linguistic. All human beings, but especially Christian theologians and quantum physicists, can see a triune stamp on the cosmos. Electrons, physicists have discovered, are of one of the three "flavors" of leptons and one of the three groupings of quarks form protons and neutrons, with quarks existing in one of three "colors" and of multiples of one-third electrical charge. Exactly three generations of elementary particles underlie all matter. Physicist Richard Feynman in his book QED asked how many fundamental actions are there to account for nearly all phenomena in the universe regarding light and electricity to which he answered: "There are Three!" And in his Nobel prize lecture Feynman said, astoundingly, that there are three unique ways of "describing quantum mechanics". Further, unlike our arbitrary earth-based units of measurement, scientists so far have discovered "two natural units", Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c. A "still-unanswered question is whether a third natural unit awaits discovery", for such a triune "'all-natural' physics" would "form a basis of measurement as complete as, and much more satisfying than, the kilogram, the meter, and the second." Might there, though, be more, say, of the leptons? Overlooking the theologian, Kenneth Ford, retired director of the American Institute of Physics, wrote, "No one knows why there are three flavors of particles..." yet he concludes, "Surprisingly, physicists feel confident that the third flavor marks the end of the trail—no more lie ahead." The Christian theologian by the Scriptures knows that God exists as three persons in one Trinity. So, unsurprisingly, man has a triune nature. Christ was three days in the tomb, which Jonah’s three days foreshadowed, as did Abraham’s three days of thinking that he would sacrifice his own son on that same hill called Golgotha, the Skull, and Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22:14; 2 Chron. 3:1). Israel's three patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The priestly tribe of Levi is from Jacob's third child (Gen. 29:34) as Leviticus is the Bible's third book. The day the law was given the sons of Levi killed "about three thousand men' (Ex. 32:28), whereas the day the Spirit was given, "that day about three thousand souls" were saved (Acts 2:41; 2 Cor. 3:6), for the law kills but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:6-7). The Hebrew Scriptures comprise three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44), and the Bible names three archangels. The most noteworthy women are Eve, Sarah, and Mary. The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. Three persons (one being the Son) started their public service at thirty years of age: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), a deliverer of his people; David (2 Sam. 5:4) seated on the messianic throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13); and "Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23). God could have led Esther to fast for two days, or four; and He could have kept Jonah in the whale for one day, or a week, but three days and three nights prefigures God’s plan of salvation for Christ’s time in the grave. For Jesus "rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). Thus the triune Christian God, the mystery of the Trinity, three Persons in One God, is the only true God. And even theoretically, unlike the unitarian Allah and any of the alleged pagan idols, the God of the Bible is the only one whose testimony we would be able to trust, for His triunity answers both the philosophical problem of the one and the many and it answers Socrates' challenge against theism titled Euthyphro's Dilemma. For, how could God Himself know that He is good, and not evil? Allah could not know that [John 5:31]. But with the Triune God, the Son testifies that for eternity past, the Father has never wronged the Son, and the Father of the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Son, an eternal threefold testimony for by the testimony of two or three witnesses the matter is established (Deut. 19:15; Eccl. 4:12; Mat. 18:16; John 5:31-39; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Even the one who never heard a Bible verse can notice that the Creator has imprinted our world with a triune nature. Space exists in three dimensions, height, width, and length, as does time in past, present and future. The electromagnetic force operates in positive, negative, and neutral, and in light, red, green, and blue blend into the hues of the rainbow whereas in pigment the three primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. We human beings live on this third planet from the Sun; we're made of atoms built of "just three basic particles", protons, neutrons, and electrons; and we have trichromatic color vision. Mankind's first known states of matter were solid, liquid, and gas and his first known number system used the Sumerian term "man" for 1, "woman" for 2, and the word "plurality" for 3, with math itself happening in the realm of positive, negative, and zero. His strongest shape for building is the triangle. Writers often give three examples and artists group in threes as in interior design, sculpting, and even movie directing, as compared to trilogy (1, 2, 3) there is no commonly used word for any other number of films. Photographers use the rule of thirds. Logicians use the three laws of logic as genetic scientists learned that DNA uses only three-letter words. It's not that only the number three describes reality (see rsr.org/360 and rsr.org/300). Rather, as known by architects, authors, and composers, a theme is most appreciated in the context of greater variety. If well designed, the greater the variety, the more appreciated the theme. So we humans are body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23), made in the image of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. People live here, in heaven, and in hell. Those who love God cry, "Holy, holy, holy." Consider a hypothesis that is consistent with, well, just about everything, and that if true would help to answer many questions. Rather than a wave-particle duality, matter is a wave-particle-word triality, with "word" meaning information or, perhaps better, functional information. Quantum states are probabilistic and probability is conceptual, not physical. This may explain why, after a century of trying, currently there is no explanation for how a wave can physically collapse into a particle. No such explanation may exist. A survey of quantum physics instructors found that 30% "thought of the wave function as a physical matter wave, while nearly half preferred to view the wave function as containing information only..." A photon, like every other elementary particle, is primarily a functional information packet expressing itself, based on context and the rules of physical grammar, so to speak, as a particle or as a wave. (Experiment suggests even that a photon can exhibit aspects of both particle and wave simultaneously.) In quantum mechanics, a particle's probability is not based on a lack of information, as with a classical shell game with its one-third probability that the ball is under a particular cup. The probabilistic quantum state does not refer to a lack of knowledge about the state but to the state itself. Further, every particle, regardless of its state, is an expression of a quantum packet of information. So one consequence of the wave-particle-word triality hypothesis is that every particle is always in a quantum state. Of proton (and quark) manufacturing, so to speak, why are the tolerances exact? Why can't some protons (or their quarks), with the mass of more than 1,800 electrons, perhaps have only 99.7% or 100.1%, of the inverse charge of an electron? Why are all fundamental particles, even long after the Fall, apparently exactly identical to all others of the same kind? Elementary particles of the same kind are identical to one another because each is the expression of a mathematical and linguistic information packet, which packets are the essence of matter. A bottom quark is identical to all other bottom quarks in the way that the number 3 is exact and identical regardless of how many times it is expressed. Though it obeys a grammar and is fundamentally information, neither a particle nor a wave is an illusion. They are not non-physical in the sense that they only exist in one's perception. The wave does not occupy any abstract higher-dimensional Hilbert space (2016, The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions, John G. Cramer, Springer, p. 71; 2006, Cramer's transactional interpretation and causal loop problems, Synthese, Vo. 150, pp. 1-40). Instead, both the particle and the wave are actual expressions of the quantum information packet. (Should that be called a quip?) Why would a particle heading toward two slits transform itself into a wave? Why must a subject and verb agree in number? Why must the spin of a far-distant entangled particle equal zero with its entangled twin? Why grammatically is a singular subject typically paired with a plural verb when in a counterfactual subjunctive mood? These are the rules of language, human language and the language (punctuation, syntax even, grammar and composition) of physics. In both, context determines which expressions are appropriate. If we can't conceive of a particle going through two slits simultaneously, we also cannot conceive of any way that such a problem could challenge a non-physical entity. Information is not physical. It exists and flows in a non-physical dimension that is interfaced with our physical universe. Information can be generated by a man's spirit, which spirit itself is interfaced to his body. In some similarly bewildering manner, quantum information is interfaced to our physical cosmos. So, not aware of that functional information nor its role, in one camp the Copenhagen interpreters say "shut up and measure", arguing against even trying to understand. And another broad camp visualizes, in the place where the quip interfaces to the physical realm, either a multiverse or multiple non-existent physical dimensions, all because they are unwittingly trying to physicalize something that cannot be physicalized. When Newton described universal gravitation, he gave little thought to its mechanism, satisfying himself with describing what it does. Mankind has benefited ever since. Quantum physicists describe in precise detail what electrons do, for example, when they instantly jump between energy levels, but not why or how it is that they do this. (Participles, by the way, like adjectives, must agree with their substantives in case, gender, and number.) Likewise, we know the electric charge of a proton but why is it so? Maxwell's field equations addressed waves of electromagnetism a half century before Einstein spoke of individual quanta. So with the single photon's invariant zero mass we know that its velocity upon creation is light speed but why is it that speed? Following Newton's approach, if matter is a wave-particle-word triality, that gives us a clearer idea of what it is and what it is doing and even some insight into the why, even if we have no conception of the how. For example, the triality insight is supportive of the view of the particle as a mathematical equation, for, the quantum packet of functional information would include any such mathematical formulation. And this triality may help to better understand what is called the quantum conservation of weirdness. Particles can superimpose because their inherent mathematical expressions can superimpose, and the information packet containing those expressions also contain the grammatical rules to discern the proper contexts for such behavior. And a quantum state can be split because division is a valid operation on its mathematical expression. Particles can tunnel because experiment has shown that the rules of quantum syntax and grammar permit a flow of information such that these tiny physical barriers cannot prevent it. God thought E=mc2 and implemented that equality and many other beautiful mathematical equations in His creation. Likewise, design considerations and functional requirements led our inexhaustibly creative God to implement the quantum world. This provides a robust foundation for the macro world. And it also makes available these astounding microscopic capabilities to achieve otherwise impossible precision (as in navigation and smell) in biological organisms and for creative human inventors to exploit including by enabling information technology that could blur the distinction between easy and hard computational problems. Considering further this contrast between what and how, the spectacular discoveries of what the laws of science describe expose the physicist's ignorance of why and even of how they do it. The 2018 Oxford University Press text Conjuring the Universe: the origin of the laws of nature by Peter Atkins wears its author's atheism on its sleeve with the dust jacket claiming that the laws of nature leave "very little, if anything at all, for a Creator to do" and the Preface beginning, "The workings of the world have been ascribed by some to an astonishingly busybody but disembodied Creator… My gut recoils from this…" Yet right off, Chapter 1 makes it clear that the author (and by extension, all Oxford and the entire atheistic world) has no explanation for the ostensible topic of the book, the origin of laws. Two things are observed, however, about the nature of these laws, that they describe actions, and "that some are intrinsically mathematical and the others are adequately verbal" (p. 13). Thus many of nature's laws were discovered by thought experiments on such things as idealized gas, radiators, and spatial points (LaGrange), and even on things like trolleys and falling bodies. The hypothesis in this paper, that matter is fundamentally non-physical, has as a corollary, that the laws of quantum mechanics, like all laws, are themselves non-physical. The most fundamental of the laws of physics, found in the probabilistic quantum world, appear to be not only conceptual, but also declaratory. Thus an electron shall be offset by a proton; it may not decay (a prohibition); and its wave state will proceed until observed. Extrapolating from the quantum world, some of the classical laws seem to be declaratory rather than physical. For arguments sake, we can concede that methodological naturalism could possibly explain something like the inverse square law. Consider though, that classical objects shall attract each other; elements' properties shall recur in the periodic table; every action will produce a reaction. This paper's hypothesis suggests that no purely physical reason will ever be found to explain why or even how it could be that unlike the neutron, the charge of the proton and the electron are equal and opposite. Meanwhile, substantives like pronouns (current social insanity aside) are only masculine, feminine, or neutral. The corresponding electrical charge of various particles may exist because the respective quantum information packets of those particles are multi-field data records that have a sexagesimal value of plus or minus one unit in their respective electrical charge "fields", fields that is, not in the coulomb sense but in the data structure sense in information technology. So even with the inverse-square law, which has perhaps the most physicality of all the physical laws, as a particle is approached, force increases yet it does not reach infinity. Why not? Because its maximum value, is declared, not unlike when God said, "Let there be light", that is, as in computer programming, max value is set by definition. That definition is set either within the quantum information packet itself, or more likely it resides in a mathematical universal constant which is referenced by a pointer from within the packet, which provides part of the context within which that packet exists and can be expressed. Meanwhile, the non-physical is crashing down on the materialist from all sides. As though themselves glorious, numbers are not physical. Math is not physical. Information is not physical. Grammar is not physical. Logic is not physical. Reason is not physical. Ideas are not physical. Science is not physical. Concepts are not physical. Morality is not physical. Truth is not physical. Souls are not physical. Spirits are not physical. Codes are not physical. The square root of negative one is not physical (and so like everything else, by its use in the implementation of quantum mechanics, etc., therefore the √(−1) reveals the Creator). Infinity is not physical. Consciousness is not physical. Genomes are not physical. Pain is not physical. Your mind is not physical. Laws are not physical. And God is not physical. For ninety years now, various quantum physicists have even been arguing that particles themselves may not be physical! And they might be right. So the apparent exactness of all elementary particles may itself be evidence of their underlying non-physical numerical essence, with that exactness occurring by each particle's constant quantum expression of its value and worth in the eyes of the Beholder. So to the materialist, if it turns out that along with everything else, that matter itself is non-physical, well then, that's just piling on. For as Paul wrote to the Colossians, Christ "is the image of the invisible God… For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" and He Himself is Spirit and for whatever it means, "in Him all things hold together." ### This draft is unfinished as of 4/9/20. RSR notes toward finalizing this article reside in RSR's shared Google Docs folder Quantum Mechanics including RSR's List of Quantum Mechanics Rules. Members of the RSR Research Team meet online via a Google Hangouts video conference on Monday nights at 5 p.m. Mountain Time. To join and get access to that and scores of other private team resources, see rsr.org/research-team. And please, your comments may help Bob decide whether to submit this draft to a creation journal, so don't hesitate to send them along to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! RSR's Quantum Thoughts: - 2018: Quantum Biology: Doing what standard chemistry and physics can't - 2019: QB Pt. 2: Our seemingly impossible sense of smell - 2019: How Quantum Computers Do It: Finally, a Helpful Illustration - 2019: Google's Quantum Supremacy - 2019: Top Mathematicians: Ants & Bees, Mold & Amoebas - 2018: Coincidence or Determinism? Quantum theology and physics - 2015: An RSR preview show - 2020: Our rsr.org/wave-particle-duality-is-a-triality (this page) aka rsr.org/quantum and rsr.org/triality.  

Language enthusiast, composer, writer, and musician Matthew Leigh Embleton joins the podcast today to talk about his two latest books, Runes: Origins, Evolution, Mythology, Meanings, Divination, and Magic and The Vínland Sagas: Text, Literal Translation, and Word List . We discuss how Norse language was formed and how it evolved, and in several ways it was used within the norse culture. We also get into runes and their practical and magical purposes and much more.   Visit Matthews website here: http://www.matthewleighembleton.co.uk/ Click book titles above to purchase books or look up Matthews name on Amazon. Like Matthew on FB: https://www.facebook.com/MatthewLeighEmbletonMusic   Please help the show out and become a patron over at our Patreon! SUPPORT US ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/secretdoorpodcast PATREON SHOW WITH MATTHEW OCCULT SYMBOLS USED FOR PROPAGANDA:https://www.patreon.com/posts/37566329   PODCAST AVAILABLE ON THE FOLLOWING LINKS: YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/RYZKVBFSOUs iTUNES: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/secret-door-podcast/id1381461766 STITCHER: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/extrasensory-production/esp-drawing-out-the-spirits?refid=stpr GOOGLE PLAY: https://play.google.com/music/podcasts/portal/#p:id=playpodcast/series&a=521225174    WEBSITE: https://www.secretdoorpodcast.com/ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/secretdoorpodcast/ FB GROUP: https://www.facebook.com/groups/secretdoorpodcast/ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/secretdoorpodcast/   Podcast Theme Music: Psychosis By Equinox

As I started to learn English I would translate things word for word in my head before I dared to speak, then I began to realize that if I continued down that path I'd be making lots of mistakes; I found out that it was better to find equivalent phrases or sentences to communicate my ideas. Then I came across false cognates, which made me feel like I was walking on a field with many snare traps. 

Today we are reading through Genesis 24, Nehemiah 13, Matthew 23 and Acts 23. Yesterday's discussion topic included dung, and today's discussion topic is also a little questionable, but the prayer part is going to have some great encouragements from lots of people, including our old friend Charles Spurgeon, so stick around for that. Maybe tomorrow's reading won't have anything in it that would make my wife blush. You just never know about Genesis, though - there is always something interesting going on in Genesis! Speaking of...in today's Genesis chapter, we see Abraham preparing to die, and sending his servant out to find a wife for Isaac. Interestingly, Abraham makes his servant swear an oath in a most unusual (to us!) way. Then Nehemiah 13 sees our titular character go WWE style crazy on some of his fellow Israelites who have disobeyed God's commands. He beats them, curses them, and pulls out some of their hair. This is an interesting form of pastoral discipline that is rarely practiced today in most places. At least, I rarely practice it. (Though one time I picked up another pastor and threatened to power bomb him, but I think he deserved it. Or maybe not - it was all in good fun.) Matthew 23 shows Jesus as an emotional and passionate powerhouse, displaying all of the energy and vigor of Nehemiah, but doing it in a tender and broken-hearted way as He confronts the Scribes and Pharisees. Finally, Acts 23 sees Paul before the Sanhedrin - the Jewish ruling council - charged with disregarding the law of Moses and bringing a non Jewish person into the Temple. There is not a single chapter in the Bible that is not God's Word, nor devoid of application to the Believer, but these four chapters are even more full than normal - today is a day of rich Scriptures to meditate on and ponder throughout the day! Shoutouts to Todd Hitt from Arkansas for leaving an encouraging comment on the website, www.Biblereadingpodcast.com and to Pastor Brian Branam in Georgia for leaving a very kind review on iTunes! Thank you both so much. When you are doing a daily podcast, It is a great encouragement to hear from people, and I am very grateful for you. On to Genesis. So - question number 1: WHY did Abraham require his servant to swear an oath in such an unusual way? It is worth remembering here that modern Americans, at least, often swear an oath with uplifted hand, or a hand on the Bible, or a hand on our heart. It is also worth remembering that New Testament Christians are to be people of such absolute integrity that we don't swear oaths at all. When we give our word on something, it is as if we have sworn an oath - there is to be no flippant lack of integrity in followers of Christ! 12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “yes” mean “yes,” and your “no” mean “no,” so that you won't fall under judgment. James 5:12 It was different in Abraham's time - they were under the Old Covenant, and Abraham wasn't sinning by requiring this oath from his servant, nor was Jacob sinning when he required a similar oath - in the exact same 'hand under thigh' manner - with his son Joseph. So -what gives here? Well, the first thing you should know here (and this is mildly PG) is that it is very possible -perhaps even likely, that the word 'thigh' here is a euphemism for the reproductive organs. Consider this claim from Drs. Freeman and Chadwick: The word thigh—Hebrew, yarek—is a euphemism; that is, a mild or indirect word that is substituted for one that is considered too harsh, blunt, or offensive. Without question, the servant's hand was placed beneath Abraham's procreative organs (these words are also euphemisms). Whether the placement of the hand had to do with the act of circumcision instituted by God, and thus gave a covenant solemnity to the oath, is not known. It has been said by some that it had reference to the long-range effects that the servant's mission would have upon Abraham's descendants, or that it symbolized that even his yet unborn children would avenge any violation of the act. But neither of these explanations seem to fit Israel's request to his son Joseph to take his body out of Egypt and bury it where his fathers are buried, when the same manner of swearing an oath was used (see Genesis 47:29). James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), page 34 In elaborating on this viewpoint, the excellent website Gotquestions.org explains things a little further: "The thigh was considered the source of posterity in the ancient world. Or, more properly, the “loins” or the testicles. The phrase “under the thigh” could be a euphemism for “on the loins.” There are two reasons why someone would take an oath in this manner: 1) Abraham had been promised a “seed” by God, and this covenantal blessing was passed on to his son and grandson. Abraham made his trusted servant swear “on the seed of Abraham” that he would find a wife for Isaac. 2) Abraham had received circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:10). Our custom is to swear on a Bible; the Hebrew custom was to swear on circumcision, the mark of God's covenant. The idea of swearing on one's loins is found in other cultures, as well. The English word testify is directly related to the word testicles." https://www.gotquestions.org/hand-under-thigh.html So, this oath was made under delicate circumstances to say the least. We swear oaths on our hearts, or on our Bibles, and Abraham and His offspring, by doing this action, were swearing oaths on the promise/covenant of God to make Abraham into a great nation. One caveat: While Freeman and Chadwick seem overwhelmingly convinced that the Hebrew word for 'thigh' here is absolutely a reference to the loins/reproductive organs, I would just say that the grammatical evidence is not so convincing. While we certainly have passages were yarek is used for loins: 26 All the persons who are coming to Jacob to Egypt, coming out of his thigh, apart from the wives of Jacob's sons, all the persons [are] sixty and six. Genesis 46:26 Young's Literal Translation You'll note there that I had to go to Young's Literal Translation because almost every other modern translation - even the NASB - translates this passage as 'Jacob's descendent's rather than persons coming out of Jacob's yarek, which is the more word for word translation. Obviously here yarek doesn't denote 'thigh,' but rather loins/reproductive organs. But there are other Scriptures where yarek obviously does refer to the thigh, and not the reproductive organs: 21 Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and plunged it into Eglon's belly Judges 3:21 25 When the man saw that he could not defeat him, he struck Jacob's hip socket as they wrestled and dislocated his hip. Genesis 32:25 Ehud had his sword strapped to his yarek - obviously his thigh/hip and the Angel of the Lord dislocated Jacob's yarek or thigh/hip and not his reproductive organs, which wouldn't make sense in that context. So - we have some ambiguity here, and that's okay. We can't be definitive and say for 100 percent certain where Abraham's servant put his hand on Abraham, or what that meant exactly. What we do know, and what is the important part, is the fact that this was obviously an intimate and extremely important pledge that was made and honored by the servant. I'm glad we do it differently today! Of more importance to us spiritually, I invite you to notice what the servant did when God clearly and unmistakably answered his prayer: 26 Then the man knelt low, worshiped the Lord, 27 and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld his kindness and faithfulness from my master. As for me, the Lord has led me on the journey to the house of my master's relatives.” Genesis 24:26-27 This is a great reminder to me personally. Sometimes I have been guilty of praying hard for something and when God has answered my prayer abundantly - I don't always thank Him with the same vigor that I sought His favor. But Abraham's servant did. His response was not merely a thankful sentence or two uttered in haste, but a whole-body act of worship, submission and prayer! We talked about this passage tonight at our church's prayer meeting and was reminded of the time that Jesus healed 10 lepers in Luke 17. 9 of the lepers, upon discovering that they were healed miraculously, went on their merry way and lived their life, but the other leper sought Jesus ought and loudly thanked Him. We must be like the one Samaritan leper and Abraham's servant, who both gave of themselves to offer to God a real thanksgiving for His divine work on their behalf, and not like the ungrateful 9 lepers. Here's a few great quotes on thankfulness to help us:  “A sensible thanksgiving for mercies received is a mighty prayer in the Spirit of God. It prevails with Him unspeakably.” –John Bunyan 2. “Be thankful. God has commanded it—for our good and for His glory. God's command to be thankful is not the threatening demand of a tyrant. Rather, it is the invitation of a lifetime—the opportunity to draw near to Him at any moment of the day.” –Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth 3. “No duty is more urgent than that of returning thanks.” Ambrose of Milan 4. "If you search the world around, among all choice spices you shall scarcely meet with the frankincense of gratitude. It ought to be as common as the dew-drops that hang upon the hedges in the morning; but, alas, the world is dry of thankfulness to God!....I put it in another shape to you who are God's people—most of us pray more than we praise. You pray little enough, I fear; but praise, where is that? At our family altars we always pray, but seldom praise. In our closets we constantly pray, but do we frequently praise? Prayer is not so heavenly an exercise as praise; prayer is for time, but praise is for eternity. Praise therefore deserves the first and highest place; does it not? Let us commence the employment which occupies the celestials. Prayer is for a beggar; but methinks he is a poor beggar who does not also give praise when he receives an alms. Praise ought to follow naturally upon the heels of prayer, even when it does not, by divine grace, go before it. If you are afflicted, if you lose money, if you fall into poverty, if your child is ill, if chastisement visits you in any form, you begin to pray, and I do not blame you for it; but should it be all praying and no praising? Should our life have so much salt, and so little sweet in it? Should we get for ourselves so often a draught from the rock of blessing, and so seldom pour out a drink-offering unto the Lord Most High? Come, let us chide ourselves as we acknowledge that we offer so much more prayer than praise!" - Charles Spurgeon 5. “If there was ever a secret for unleashing God's powerful peace in a situation, it's developing a heart of true thanksgiving.” –Lysa Terkeurst Matthew 23 word for word as portrayed in the Matthew Video (The Visual Bible): https://youtu.be/PmK9Mvsyfqs?t=10913

Today we are reading through Genesis 24, Nehemiah 13, Matthew 23 and Acts 23. Yesterday's discussion topic included dung, and today's discussion topic is also a little questionable, but the prayer part is going to have some great encouragements from lots of people, including our old friend Charles Spurgeon, so stick around for that. Maybe tomorrow's reading won't have anything in it that would make my wife blush. You just never know about Genesis, though - there is always something interesting going on in Genesis! Speaking of...in today's Genesis chapter, we see Abraham preparing to die, and sending his servant out to find a wife for Isaac. Interestingly, Abraham makes his servant swear an oath in a most unusual (to us!) way. Then Nehemiah 13 sees our titular character go WWE style crazy on some of his fellow Israelites who have disobeyed God's commands. He beats them, curses them, and pulls out some of their hair. This is an interesting form of pastoral discipline that is rarely practiced today in most places. At least, I rarely practice it. (Though one time I picked up another pastor and threatened to power bomb him, but I think he deserved it. Or maybe not - it was all in good fun.) Matthew 23 shows Jesus as an emotional and passionate powerhouse, displaying all of the energy and vigor of Nehemiah, but doing it in a tender and broken-hearted way as He confronts the Scribes and Pharisees. Finally, Acts 23 sees Paul before the Sanhedrin - the Jewish ruling council - charged with disregarding the law of Moses and bringing a non Jewish person into the Temple. There is not a single chapter in the Bible that is not God's Word, nor devoid of application to the Believer, but these four chapters are even more full than normal - today is a day of rich Scriptures to meditate on and ponder throughout the day! Shoutouts to Todd Hitt from Arkansas for leaving an encouraging comment on the website, www.Biblereadingpodcast.com and to Pastor Brian Branam in Georgia for leaving a very kind review on iTunes! Thank you both so much. When you are doing a daily podcast, It is a great encouragement to hear from people, and I am very grateful for you. On to Genesis. So - question number 1: WHY did Abraham require his servant to swear an oath in such an unusual way? It is worth remembering here that modern Americans, at least, often swear an oath with uplifted hand, or a hand on the Bible, or a hand on our heart. It is also worth remembering that New Testament Christians are to be people of such absolute integrity that we don't swear oaths at all. When we give our word on something, it is as if we have sworn an oath - there is to be no flippant lack of integrity in followers of Christ! 12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “yes” mean “yes,” and your “no” mean “no,” so that you won't fall under judgment. James 5:12 It was different in Abraham's time - they were under the Old Covenant, and Abraham wasn't sinning by requiring this oath from his servant, nor was Jacob sinning when he required a similar oath - in the exact same 'hand under thigh' manner - with his son Joseph. So -what gives here? Well, the first thing you should know here (and this is mildly PG) is that it is very possible -perhaps even likely, that the word 'thigh' here is a euphemism for the reproductive organs. Consider this claim from Drs. Freeman and Chadwick: The word thigh—Hebrew, yarek—is a euphemism; that is, a mild or indirect word that is substituted for one that is considered too harsh, blunt, or offensive. Without question, the servant's hand was placed beneath Abraham's procreative organs (these words are also euphemisms). Whether the placement of the hand had to do with the act of circumcision instituted by God, and thus gave a covenant solemnity to the oath, is not known. It has been said by some that it had reference to the long-range effects that the servant's mission would have upon Abraham's descendants, or that it symbolized that even his yet unborn children would avenge any violation of the act. But neither of these explanations seem to fit Israel's request to his son Joseph to take his body out of Egypt and bury it where his fathers are buried, when the same manner of swearing an oath was used (see Genesis 47:29). James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), page 34 In elaborating on this viewpoint, the excellent website Gotquestions.org explains things a little further: "The thigh was considered the source of posterity in the ancient world. Or, more properly, the “loins” or the testicles. The phrase “under the thigh” could be a euphemism for “on the loins.” There are two reasons why someone would take an oath in this manner: 1) Abraham had been promised a “seed” by God, and this covenantal blessing was passed on to his son and grandson. Abraham made his trusted servant swear “on the seed of Abraham” that he would find a wife for Isaac. 2) Abraham had received circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:10). Our custom is to swear on a Bible; the Hebrew custom was to swear on circumcision, the mark of God's covenant. The idea of swearing on one's loins is found in other cultures, as well. The English word testify is directly related to the word testicles." https://www.gotquestions.org/hand-under-thigh.html So, this oath was made under delicate circumstances to say the least. We swear oaths on our hearts, or on our Bibles, and Abraham and His offspring, by doing this action, were swearing oaths on the promise/covenant of God to make Abraham into a great nation. One caveat: While Freeman and Chadwick seem overwhelmingly convinced that the Hebrew word for 'thigh' here is absolutely a reference to the loins/reproductive organs, I would just say that the grammatical evidence is not so convincing. While we certainly have passages were yarek is used for loins: 26 All the persons who are coming to Jacob to Egypt, coming out of his thigh, apart from the wives of Jacob's sons, all the persons [are] sixty and six. Genesis 46:26 Young's Literal Translation You'll note there that I had to go to Young's Literal Translation because almost every other modern translation - even the NASB - translates this passage as 'Jacob's descendent's rather than persons coming out of Jacob's yarek, which is the more word for word translation. Obviously here yarek doesn't denote 'thigh,' but rather loins/reproductive organs. But there are other Scriptures where yarek obviously does refer to the thigh, and not the reproductive organs: 21 Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and plunged it into Eglon's belly Judges 3:21 25 When the man saw that he could not defeat him, he struck Jacob's hip socket as they wrestled and dislocated his hip. Genesis 32:25 Ehud had his sword strapped to his yarek - obviously his thigh/hip and the Angel of the Lord dislocated Jacob's yarek or thigh/hip and not his reproductive organs, which wouldn't make sense in that context. So - we have some ambiguity here, and that's okay. We can't be definitive and say for 100 percent certain where Abraham's servant put his hand on Abraham, or what that meant exactly. What we do know, and what is the important part, is the fact that this was obviously an intimate and extremely important pledge that was made and honored by the servant. I'm glad we do it differently today! Of more importance to us spiritually, I invite you to notice what the servant did when God clearly and unmistakably answered his prayer: 26 Then the man knelt low, worshiped the Lord, 27 and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld his kindness and faithfulness from my master. As for me, the Lord has led me on the journey to the house of my master's relatives.” Genesis 24:26-27 This is a great reminder to me personally. Sometimes I have been guilty of praying hard for something and when God has answered my prayer abundantly - I don't always thank Him with the same vigor that I sought His favor. But Abraham's servant did. His response was not merely a thankful sentence or two uttered in haste, but a whole-body act of worship, submission and prayer! We talked about this passage tonight at our church's prayer meeting and was reminded of the time that Jesus healed 10 lepers in Luke 17. 9 of the lepers, upon discovering that they were healed miraculously, went on their merry way and lived their life, but the other leper sought Jesus ought and loudly thanked Him. We must be like the one Samaritan leper and Abraham's servant, who both gave of themselves to offer to God a real thanksgiving for His divine work on their behalf, and not like the ungrateful 9 lepers. Here's a few great quotes on thankfulness to help us:  “A sensible thanksgiving for mercies received is a mighty prayer in the Spirit of God. It prevails with Him unspeakably.” –John Bunyan 2. “Be thankful. God has commanded it—for our good and for His glory. God's command to be thankful is not the threatening demand of a tyrant. Rather, it is the invitation of a lifetime—the opportunity to draw near to Him at any moment of the day.” –Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth 3. “No duty is more urgent than that of returning thanks.” Ambrose of Milan 4. "If you search the world around, among all choice spices you shall scarcely meet with the frankincense of gratitude. It ought to be as common as the dew-drops that hang upon the hedges in the morning; but, alas, the world is dry of thankfulness to God!....I put it in another shape to you who are God's people—most of us pray more than we praise. You pray little enough, I fear; but praise, where is that? At our family altars we always pray, but seldom praise. In our closets we constantly pray, but do we frequently praise? Prayer is not so heavenly an exercise as praise; prayer is for time, but praise is for eternity. Praise therefore deserves the first and highest place; does it not? Let us commence the employment which occupies the celestials. Prayer is for a beggar; but methinks he is a poor beggar who does not also give praise when he receives an alms. Praise ought to follow naturally upon the heels of prayer, even when it does not, by divine grace, go before it. If you are afflicted, if you lose money, if you fall into poverty, if your child is ill, if chastisement visits you in any form, you begin to pray, and I do not blame you for it; but should it be all praying and no praising? Should our life have so much salt, and so little sweet in it? Should we get for ourselves so often a draught from the rock of blessing, and so seldom pour out a drink-offering unto the Lord Most High? Come, let us chide ourselves as we acknowledge that we offer so much more prayer than praise!" - Charles Spurgeon 5. “If there was ever a secret for unleashing God's powerful peace in a situation, it's developing a heart of true thanksgiving.” –Lysa Terkeurst Matthew 23 word for word as portrayed in the Matthew Video (The Visual Bible): https://youtu.be/PmK9Mvsyfqs?t=10913

In this episode, we discuss the sign Jesus said would indicate that it was time to depart from Judæa—the abomination of desolation, according to Matthew and Mark, and the surrounding of Jerusalem, according to Luke. Under a Danielic construct, the abomination of desolation can be shown to have been erected in a holy place where it ought not be in 41 AD, when the Statue of Jupiter was placed in the synagogue of Doris. But the commentaries largely agree that Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD. How could the gospels give two different signs 29 years apart, both being the indication that it was time to leave Judæa? The problem is that historically, eschatologists of every stripe have largely ignored what the Scriptures indicate about the identification of the abomination, and instead assumed that Luke was referring to the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and used that assumption to determine the identity of the abomination of desolation. Based on Luke’s account, the abomination described in Matthew and Mark is taken to refer to something that occurred during or shortly after the Roman siege of Jerusalem in September of 70 AD. We propose, instead, that we should take our understanding of the abomination of desolation from the scriptural accounts of it, and then use the accounts of Matthew and Mark to understand what Jesus meant in Luke 21.Show Notes:Wesley’s Commentary on Matthew 24What is the Abomination of Desolation?, by Daniel Doriani, September 4, 2014 (The Gospel Coalition)Josephus, Antiquities of the JewsJosephus, Wars of the JewsTacitus, HistoriesLuke 21, Young’s Literal TranslationJeremiah 31, Young’s Literal Translation

Épisode 1 Notes:Expressions discusses:Colloquial Expression in French: Revenons à nos moutons! Literal Translation from French: Let's get back to our sheepEquivalent Translation in English: Let's get back to the subjectColloquial Expression in Spanish: Ir al grano. Literal Translation from Spanish: To go to the corn (kernel)Equivalent Translation in English: Volviendo al temaExpression in French: Voyons voir ! (let's see) Expression in Spanish: Vamos a ver (we're going to see)Colloquial Expression in French: Quand les poules auront des dentsLiteral Translation from French: When hens will have teeth Equivalent Translation in English: When pigs flyColloquial Expression in Spanish: Cuando las ranas crien peloLiteral Translation from Spanish: When the frogs grow hairColloquial Expression in French: Tourner autour du potLiteral Translation from French: To Spin around the pot Equivalent Translation in English: To beat around the bushColloquial Expression in Spanish: Andarse por las ramasLiteral Translation from Spanish: To go on the branchesSuper! Alors, on y va !Super! Bien, vamos!À la prochaine !Hasta la proxima!Like us on Facebook!https://www.facebook.com/French4Spanish/Follow us on Twitter and Instagram!https://twitter.com/french4spanishhttps://www.instagram.com/speakfrenchandspanish/

Show Notes This week, we recap, review, and analyze Mobile Suit Gundam episode 42/41 “Space Fortress A Baoa Qu” (宇宙要塞ア·バオア·クー) and 43/42 “Escape” (脱出), discuss our first impressions, and provide commentary and research on: some Japanese vocab, what the heck is an A Bao A Qu?, the Kyūjō Incident, and how Kai made Thom think of the Illiad. - Myou/みょう/妙 definition from Jisho.- Me/め/奴 definition from Jisho.- Two Tofugu articles explaining keigo (and Thom was right, both honorific language and humble language fall under the umbrella of keigo).- The specific translation of 1001 Arabian Nights that Borges cited:"A Plain and Literal Translation of the Arabian Nights' Entertainments, Now Entituled: The Book of The Thousand Nights and a Night. With Introduction Explanatory Notes on the Manners and Customs of Moslem Men and a Terminal Essay upon the History of the Nights.Translated and edited by Richard Francis Burton." - Review of a new translation that mentions the debate around the A Bao A Qu citation.- The connection between Final Fantasy and Borges.- Japanese edition of 幻獣辞典 (Genjyuu Jiten).- Borges and Japan, article by Koichi Hagimoto, published in journal Chasqui, Vol. 44, No. 2, November 2015.- Wikipedia and Britannica articles about Jorge Luis Borges.- Citation for the book itself: The Book of Imaginary Beings, Jorge Luis Borges, 1957 (trans. 1969 by Norman Thomas di Giovanni, 2006 by Andrew Hurley) published by Dutton in 1969 and Penguin in 2006.- Wikipedia page on the Kyūjō incident.- Japan Times and Medium articles about the Kyūjō incident.- Wikipedia explanation of Kokutai and it's shifting definition through time.- Book that provides great detail on the politics of the end of WWII in Japan:Toland, John. Rising Sun. Pen & Sword Military Classics, 2005.- Section from Hyginus' Fabulae about Protesilaus. - Another section from the Fabulae, listing the suitors of Helen.- A chronicle of the Trojan war from Dictys of Crete and Dares of Phrygia, includes Protesilaus in the Chronicle of Ships.- From the Library by Apollodorus, a brief version of the Protesilaus story.- English summary of some sections from the Epic Cycle (the series of poems that cover the whole of the Trojan war, of which the Iliad and Odyssey are the main surviving texts).- Summary of Protesilaus' story.- Relevant Wikipedia pages: Protesilaus, Laodamia of Phylace, Suitors of Helen, Cypria. - The memorial poem: Alexander Posey's "The Conquerors."- Song that plays under the memorial poem: "Parisian" by Kevin MacLeod. You can subscribe to the Mobile Suit Breakdown for free! on fine Podcast services everywhere and on YouTube, follow us on twitter @gundampodcast, check us out at gundampodcast.com, email your questions, comments, and complaints to gundampodcast@gmail.com.Mobile Suit Breakdown wouldn't exist without the support of our fans and Patrons! You can join our Patreon to support the podcast and enjoy bonus episodes, extra out-takes, behind-the-scenes photo and video, MSB gear, and much more!The intro music is WASP by Misha Dioxin, and the outro is Long Way Home by Spinning Ratio, both licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. Both have been edited for length. Mobile Suit Breakdown provides critical commentary and is protected by the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright law. All Gundam content is copyright and/or trademark of Sunrise Inc., Bandai, or its original creator. Mobile Suit Breakdown is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Sunrise Inc. or Bandai or any of its subsidiaries, employees, or associates and makes no claim to own Gundam or any of the copyrights or trademarks related to it. Copyrighted content used in Mobile Suit Breakdown is used in accordance with the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright law. Any queries should be directed to gundampodcast@gmail.comFind out more at http://gundampodcast.com

Show Notes This week, we recap, review, and analyze Mobile Suit Gundam episode 42/41 “Space Fortress A Baoa Qu” (宇宙要塞ア·バオア·クー) and 43/42 “Escape” (脱出), discuss our first impressions, and provide commentary and research on: some Japanese vocab, what the heck is an A Bao A Qu?, the Kyūjō Incident, and how Kai made Thom think of the Illiad. - Myou/みょう/妙 definition from Jisho.- Me/め/奴 definition from Jisho.- Two Tofugu articles explaining keigo (and Thom was right, both honorific language and humble language fall under the umbrella of keigo).- The specific translation of 1001 Arabian Nights that Borges cited:"A Plain and Literal Translation of the Arabian Nights' Entertainments, Now Entituled: The Book of The Thousand Nights and a Night. With Introduction Explanatory Notes on the Manners and Customs of Moslem Men and a Terminal Essay upon the History of the Nights.Translated and edited by Richard Francis Burton." - Review of a new translation that mentions the debate around the A Bao A Qu citation.- The connection between Final Fantasy and Borges.- Japanese edition of 幻獣辞典 (Genjyuu Jiten).- Borges and Japan, article by Koichi Hagimoto, published in journal Chasqui, Vol. 44, No. 2, November 2015.- Wikipedia and Britannica articles about Jorge Luis Borges.- Citation for the book itself: The Book of Imaginary Beings, Jorge Luis Borges, 1957 (trans. 1969 by Norman Thomas di Giovanni, 2006 by Andrew Hurley) published by Dutton in 1969 and Penguin in 2006.- Wikipedia page on the Kyūjō incident.- Japan Times and Medium articles about the Kyūjō incident.- Wikipedia explanation of Kokutai and it's shifting definition through time.- Book that provides great detail on the politics of the end of WWII in Japan:Toland, John. Rising Sun. Pen & Sword Military Classics, 2005.- Section from Hyginus' Fabulae about Protesilaus. - Another section from the Fabulae, listing the suitors of Helen.- A chronicle of the Trojan war from Dictys of Crete and Dares of Phrygia, includes Protesilaus in the Chronicle of Ships.- From the Library by Apollodorus, a brief version of the Protesilaus story.- English summary of some sections from the Epic Cycle (the series of poems that cover the whole of the Trojan war, of which the Iliad and Odyssey are the main surviving texts).- Summary of Protesilaus' story.- Relevant Wikipedia pages: Protesilaus, Laodamia of Phylace, Suitors of Helen, Cypria. - The memorial poem: Alexander Posey's "The Conquerors."- Song that plays under the memorial poem: "Parisian" by Kevin MacLeod. You can subscribe to the Mobile Suit Breakdown for free! on fine Podcast services everywhere and on YouTube, follow us on twitter @gundampodcast, check us out at gundampodcast.com, email your questions, comments, and complaints to gundampodcast@gmail.com.Mobile Suit Breakdown wouldn't exist without the support of our fans and Patrons! You can join our Patreon to support the podcast and enjoy bonus episodes, extra out-takes, behind-the-scenes photo and video, MSB gear, and much more!The intro music is WASP by Misha Dioxin, and the outro is Long Way Home by Spinning Ratio, both licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. Both have been edited for length. Mobile Suit Breakdown provides critical commentary and is protected by the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright law. All Gundam content is copyright and/or trademark of Sunrise Inc., Bandai, or its original creator. Mobile Suit Breakdown is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Sunrise Inc. or Bandai or any of its subsidiaries, employees, or associates and makes no claim to own Gundam or any of the copyrights or trademarks related to it. Copyrighted content used in Mobile Suit Breakdown is used in accordance with the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright law. Any queries should be directed to gundampodcast@gmail.comFind out more at http://gundampodcast.com

Romans 5:1-2 ‘Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ I awoke last Monday with this extraordinary truth from Romans 5 going around and around in my mind—‘We have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.’ The emphasis was ‘in which we stand.’ It was a word in season—and, being who I am, I felt like preaching it! Well, what do you know? Now, when we see a ‘therefore’ in scripture we must ask, “what is the ‘therefore’ there for?” Here, Paul has just concluding a long argument about Abraham being put in right standing with God, not by Law, but because he believed what God told him. His concluding word before this ‘therefore’, is about Jesus, ‘…who was delivered up for our offences and was raised for our justification’ (Rom. 4:25. Our justification took place when the Father showed his acceptance of Jesus’ death by raising him up). So Paul writes, ‘THEREFORE, having been justified.’ What Paul is leading to is our qualifications in Jesus. In him, you qualify for Peace: you qualify to be established and you qualify to hold your head high—even to boast! I want to unpack these. My question is: Are you standing in all the benefit for which he has already qualified you? Advancing in this temporal world’s terms is usually about qualifications. Do you have the HSC? Have you a University degree or Diploma? Do you have a Master’s or a PhD? Where did you do your training? How much experience have you had? What qualifies you for this job? All of these qualifications require effort on your part. They are qualifications based on your works. But what about the satisfaction of a qualification that comes, not by your work but by that of someone else? It would be counted ridiculous if someone applied for a job requiring an MBA and the applicant said, “Look, I don’t have one, but my older brother said I could use his.” That’s how it is for us! Just as earthly, earned qualifications open doors, so do these ‘graced’ qualifications. An earned qualification carries certain rights and benefits—not to mention authority to carry out its requirements within a discipline or task. The employer puts at the disposal of the qualified person, all that is necessary to perform the brief, and certain privileges also apply. In our case, we have been qualified by grace, and some, not understanding that, continue to act as though unworthy and so try to earn what they’ve been given! This passage could read like this, “having been already honoured with your qualification of right standing with God, you are free to go ahead by faith and enjoy his peace of integration (as distinct from disintegration) and to access your entitlements to stand erect and be established in all that accrues as a result of your new position, including head-held-high confidence in it!” (This is the meaning of the Greek words used by Paul). The verb ‘justified’ is Aorist, Passive, meaning it happened at a moment in time—and you weren’t active in its occurrence, it happened to you. You were passive! Because it happened at the Resurrection 2000 years ago! I was put into right standing with God 2000 years ago with (and in) the resurrection of Jesus! I was there! You were there! In him! I’m suggesting that (without forcing scripture), the text of Romans 5:1 be read this way with the comma after ‘justified’ thus— “…having been justified,…. by faith (let us) have peace with God…” Note this: the weight of manuscript evidence actually says, ‘let us have peace with God.’ (Young’s Literal Translation allows this). YOU’VE BEEN QUALIFIED FOR PEACE: Listen again ‘… by faith we have peace with God…” Peace here is eirene, the Greek NT equivalent of Hebrew shalom—satisfaction, completion, fullness. I’ve shared before that biblically, ‘peace’ means fullness or satisfaction in the sense of completing something (shalom=completeness, wholeness, as in the satisfaction of a debt—bringing it to peace). The completion, by effort, of a course of study or training, brings satisfaction and ‘peace’ and people say, “well done… having completed your degree, you now qualify for this job, or this pay level, or this responsibility.” But in our case, we’ve been made qualified by Another! Peace with God has been secured. It is now ours to enjoy….by faith! Let me ask this: are you there today…now? Or is there a foment of anxiety and stress and thoughts of ‘what if this’ or ‘what if that’? or ‘why not that?’ He is saying today— “By faith we have peace”: “by faith we have peace”: “by faith we have peace”. We’ve been qualified for it. He has already secured it for us and we must enter it—or throw back at him all that he did on the cross and in the resurrection (See John 14:1 and 27 etc). YOU’VE BEEN QUALIFIED TO STAND—ERECT: (Rom. 5:2) ‘Through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.’ Stand here is HISTEMI, to take a stand, to be established! Listen—we once were fallen, but now we stand! Now we are, by faith, being established…in Grace! (Remember Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones that were, at the word of the Lord, given flesh and sinews and breath—and stood as a great army!?) We are very different people with vastly different personalities, natures, thought processes, cultures (macro and micro) as well as widely differing gifts and callings. However, the thing we share in common as believers, is that we have been qualified to STAND, by faith in our full personhood in him. That’s why I can be me and you can be you—in Christ. We need not ever say, ‘why can’t I be like her?’—unless in a matter of sanctification or likeness to Jesus. He did not make you to be like her or him: he made you to be the sanctified, fully-operative ‘you’! Unique…and that’s the journey of this life, the journey he has you taking, into the fullness of you in Him. (His desire is ‘to present you, faultless’! Jude 1:24). My task today is to encourage you in that journey into ‘you-hood’ in Christ! The YOU, you may have been waiting to meet. The ever-emerging You, being transformed day-to-day by the activity of Christ in you (the hope of glory). Accessing by faith the grace in which you have been qualified to stand! YOU’VE BEEN QUALIFIED TO HOLD YOUR HEAD HIGH & EXULT: Yes, that’s right! “…we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand AND confidently exult in hope of the glory of God.’ Unashamedly rejoice. This is also by faith—Paul is just continuing the sentence! This is another ‘by faith’ blessing for which we’ve been qualified! Some translations have ‘boast’; some have ‘exult.’ The Greek verb (kauchaomai) means to have our ‘head held high’ and even ‘to boast’, to live with God-given confidence! Remember how Paul said, ‘most gladly will I boast in my infirmities.’ That’s the same word. Not only have we been qualified to stand, but to do so with head held high, unabashed confidence (not diffidence or apology), glorifying Jesus—unashamedly rejoicing in him. Jesus, 2000 years ago qualified you to have PEACE; to BE ESTABLSHED; TO HOLD YOUR HEAD HIGH, UNABASHED! BY FAITH! Ian Heard, 13/01/19 www.until-we-see.com

Sappho: The Translations (reprised) The Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 27c Due to scheduling issues, I’m reprising a pair of shows I aired two years ago about Sappho and her poetry. I hope you enjoy either revisiting this material or discovering it for the first time. In this episode we talk about How much poetry did Sappho write, and how much survives? Why was it lost, and why were the bits we have preserved? What was the changing image of Sappho from the middle ages through the 19th century? How did people reconcile their admiration for Sappho’s poetry and their disapproval of homosexuality? Who translated Sappho’s works and how did their opinions of her affect those translations? The show will include recitations of the following poems: Ode to Aphrodite & Fragment #31: Jane McIntosh Snyder from Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho (20th century) “On a Lady Named Beloved” inspired by fragment #31: Anne de Rohan (1617), translated from the French Fragment #31: John Hall (1652) Fragment #31: Joseph Addison (1735) Ode to Aphrodite & Fragment #31: Abrose Philips (1748) “Eleanore” inspired by Fragment #31: Lord Tennyson (1832) Fragment #31 & “Imitation of Sappho” inspired by Fragment #31: Mary Hewitt (1845) More info The Lesbian Historic Motif Project lives at: http://alpennia.com/lhmp You can follow the blog on my website (http://alpennia.com/blog) or subscribe to the RSS feed (http://alpennia.com/blog/feed/) The poetic texts are from the following publications: Addison, Joseph. 1735. The Works of Anacreon, Translated into English Verse, with Notes Explanatory and Poetical. To which are added the Odes, Fragments, and Epigrams of Sappho. London. Castle, Terry (ed). 2003. The Literature of Lesbianism: A Historical Anthology from Ariosto to Stonewall. Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN 0-231-12510-0 Hall, John. 1652. Sappho’s On the Sublime. Snyder, Jane. 1997. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press. Wharton, Henry Thornton. 1887. Sappho: Memoir, Text, Selected Renderings, and a Literal Translation. London. This topic is discussed in one or more entries of the Lesbian Historic Motif Project here: http://alpennia.com/lhmp/lhmp-event-person/sappho If you have questions or comments about the LHMP or these podcasts, send them to: contact@alpennia.com A transcript of this podcast is available here. If you enjoy this podcast and others at The Lesbian Talk Show, please consider supporting the show through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheLesbianTalkShow

Sto lat! Jeszcze stówę!English Phonemes: “stoh laht YEH[SZ]-[cz]eh STOO-veh”Literal Translation: 100 years! Another 100!English Equivalent: Bless you!This is the way we say “gezundheit” or “bless you” after anyone sneezes. The meaning behind it is that you’re wishing the person healthy life for 100 years, and with each subsequent sneeze, you’re adding another 100 to that tally. This is more informal than formal, but even with long-time formal acquaintances, you could get away with using this. (We might talk about the more formal way in another show.) sto = 100 [subject form] lat = yearsjeszcze = another, morestówę = 100 [object form]Questions? Comments? Show ideas? Email mailbag@howyousay.fmVisit the website! www.howyousay.fmCheck out our new Videos section! www.howyousay.fm/videosTweet us! @HowYouSayFMRate us on Apple Podcasts!***New YouTube video!***"The Duck Face" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhDzV56mkYQ)

  “…When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8b NET) Evidently, real, vibrant, Bible faith will be in comparatively short supply when Jesus returns. Will we have the genuine kind of faith He is looking for? (See 1st Peter 1:7 in the NKJV.) I pray that we do. That is the purpose of these articles, to examine our faith as Paul stated in 2nd Corinthians 13:5. I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:3 NET). We are contending earnestly for the faith once for all entrusted to the saints in these articles! Grandma, grandpa, your mother or father, or your denomination probably never taught faith quite like you will read in these articles. “Well, I was taught that faith is just believing God, and that is all there is to it.” Have you ever heard that? Many believe firmly that their particular Church doctrinal statements are their faith. Then, you have a multitude of people that ask, “What is your faith? To what faith do you subscribe?” Of course, they are asking you about the particular Christian group you associate with or belong to. Others take faith into the realms of believing and trusting, full persuasion of God’s promises, speaking the Word, or believing (trusting) that you receive your answer to prayer. There are sound Biblical truths to be studied in those areas, but faith is much broader in scope in Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament than these definitions alone. Did you know that obedience is an intimate part of faith? How often do you hear from today’s pulpits that obedience is an integral part of faith? Paul connected them forever. Through Him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name… and through the prophetic scriptures has been made known to all the nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5, 16:26 NET). Did you know that there are teachers today that reject the idea that obedience to God and His Word are essential parts of your faith in Christ? Can they read? Paul began and finished his great epistle to the Romans with the principle of obedience of faith. Obeying the Lord is not an option in Scripture in the Old and New Testaments, that is, IF we want God and the Lord Jesus by His Spirit working in our lives (John 14:21-26; 1 John 2:3-6 NET). These articles will tear down some traditional interpretations, but they should not be construed as a denial of other areas of faith not covered in them. Faith is a BIG subject! For that very reason, I am adding audio messages to these articles that give you some other sides of Biblical faith. I hope you listened to the audio message, “Only Believe” with Part 1 of this series of articles. I suggest you listen to all the 37 audio messages in the series, “Removing Doubt from the Heart.” Only Believe was #28 from this series. Bible faith as Paul understood it, was solidly based on the Old Testament or the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:14-17). He also based his understanding of faith on the words and example of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus was the Word of God made flesh, so He and the written Word must agree (John 1:1-3, 14). That must be included in any assessment of Paul’s view of faith. As we saw in the first article, Paul used the Scripture profusely in his epistles, either by direct quotations or by allusions. By allusions, I mean that he was constantly hinting at Scripture even though he was not necessarily quoting verses or naming the books where they were found. Here is an oft-quoted verse used to establish Paul’s teaching on faith. There is no guessing game here! For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17 NKJV) “The just shall live by faith” is a quotation of the second part of Habakkuk 2:4.[1]   Where did Paul’s definition of faith come from? Was it from some special revelation only given to him? Paul’s definition of faith was confirmed by his choice of a proof text from the Old Testament, written almost seven centuries before he wrote Romans 1:17. Paul almost exclusively used the Septuagint (LXX) Greek when quoting the Old Testament. The Septuagint was an ancient Jewish translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. The language was analyzed and the conclusion is that the Pentateuch was translated near the middle of the 3rd century B.C., and the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century B. C.[2] The Greek of the New Testament reflects the Septuagint in hundreds of places.[3] Gustav A. Deissmann (1866–1937), the renowned German Protestant theologian, said it like this:   "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary… Every reader of the Septuagint who knows his Greek (New) Testament will after a few days’ study come to see with astonishment what hundreds of threads there are uniting the Old and the New."[4] Follow me in this. I am not splitting hairs here. It’s information every single believer should have. Paul quoted Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 by using the Greek word for faith (pistis) as it came to him from the Septuagint, but that was not its origin. The Hebrew original text was standing behind the Greek Septuagint and Paul’s usage. Hebrew has to be the place to look for the original meaning. That makes perfect sense to me, yet many prefer to see only the Greek, and do their best to dismiss the Hebrew standing behind it. That, my friends, is a huge lack in judgment! Going back to the original Hebrew that stands behind the Greek is not only necessary, but it is doing an honest word study, whether you are a scholar, preacher, teacher, or a student of the Word. If one refuses to admit or rejects the Hebrew that stands behind all Greek Septuagint quotations (and word usage) in the New Testament, then one subscribes to a dishonest form of Biblical study. I don’t think any of us want to be accused of dishonesty. What is the Hebrew word translated faith in Habakkuk 2:4, quoted by Paul in Romans 1:17 and in Galatians 3:11? Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) is relevant today, even though newer dictionaries are in circulation. The Hebrew word that is generally translated faith in Habakkuk 2:4 is emunah, and BDB states that it means: firmness, fidelity, steadfastness, and steadiness. (See H530, 53b.) Those definitions are the ones found in the summarized version of the BDB on the Bible software on my cell phone. When looking at the definition of emunah (H530, 53b) in the full BDB, [5] we see that faithfulness and trust are added to the definition. On page 53, column b, under entry #530, around the center of the page, we come to the BDB translation of Habakkuk 2:4: “a righteous man by his faithfulness liveth.” Pay close attention to the code right after the translation: (>faith LUTH AV RV). The list of abbreviations at the front of the dictionary is the place to decode it. The parenthesis means that the preceding translation of emunah as faithfulness is preferred to how Luther, the Authorized KJV, and the Revised Version translated it as faith! Luther, the KJV and the AV (among others) did not translate emunah. They injected into Habakkuk 2:4 their translation from the Greek New Testament back into the Old. That is backwards! I am suggesting that we do the exact opposite, take the Hebrew definitions and inject them into the New! Faithfulness is not “by faith alone” or “believing alone”. Not even close! Oops! That is contrary to centuries of protestant theology that began with Luther emphasizing “by faith alone”, one perpetuated by the KJV, RV, and the majority of versions. Look back at these definitions of emunah. The words faith and believe are completely lacking in the Hebrew definition. “By faith alone” is missing in the BDB translation of Habakkuk 2:4. Look at the NKJV translation of Habakkuk 2:4, one basically in agreement with the KJV and RV: “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith.” (NKJV) Translations like the NKJV are simply bringing into the Hebrew original text a translation of the verse according to the Greek New Testament that came from the Septuagint. They paid NO attention to the original Hebrew text! Now, watch what happens when you don’t take the Greek as the final word or inject it back into the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The Hebrew original text of Habakkuk 2:4 gives us a completely different picture. “Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness” (NET). A few other translations have the better word faithfulness: God’s Word, Good News Translation, Lexham English Bible, New International Revised Version, NIV, New Living Testament, Voice. Young’s Literal Translation has steadfastness. The Common English Bible has live honestly. The Complete Jewish Bible has trusting faithfulness. The Message has loyal and steady believing. All of these are much better than the word faith. The New English Translation in Habakkuk 2:4, under note 15 says about the traditional translation of emunah as faith that it “nowhere else refers to ‘belief’ as such.” “Honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness” define emunah when used in reference to human conduct and character, as in this verse.[6] Belief, faith, and believing are not even in the equation! Here’s where it really gets messy. Even though the NET gets it right in Habakkuk 2:4, they ignore the Hebrew background in Romans 1:17. They honestly believe it is the best scholarship to translate the text from the Greek and let it stay that way without elucidating the Hebrew behind it. They missed the point of Habakkuk 2:4 in Paul’s reference. Don’t misunderstand me. Translators are working with the texts in front of them to the best of their abilities. They translate a word, generally, looking for a word or words that convey the meaning clearly into their target language. I believe translators are doing an excellent job, as far as word-for-word translations go, especially in the newer translations like the New English Translation and others. The issue I am referring to is in the realm of looking at the original language behind the Greek when Old Testament verses and allusions are found in the New Testament. When the original emunah is translated from the Greek pistis as faith in the New Testament, without further explanation, it is misleading and woefully incomplete. It has to be elucidated based on Habakkuk 2:4, and other Old Testament verses we will get to. That is especially true if the verses are quoted in the New Testament! Translators could include a footnote next to the word faith (and many others) in the New Testament. There should be a fuller explanation and definition based on the Hebrew original, but these are nowhere to be found! It’s better to translate faith (and believe) as a phrase based on the Hebrew definition. My God! That would have enhanced richly our faith in Christ in so many ways, and kept the church out of many strange and unfruitful interpretations.  If I had known that Bible faith was, and is, correctly defined by faithfulness, steadfastness, loyalty, obedience, and trust, it would have made a huge difference in so many ways. Fidelity, firmness, and steadiness are not primarily (nor secondarily or even thirdly) your beliefs, but your Covenant relationship-fellowship with Him, your lifestyle, and actions according to His Word. Glory to God! I learned some powerful lessons in the realm of faith from 1974 until 1986 (and I am still learning), such as trusting in the promises of God, speaking to the mountain to be removed, speaking of things that are not as though they were, getting your words to agree with God's Word, and so on (Romans 4:17-22; Mark 11:22-26).  When I first learned some of the things I am sharing in these articles, sadly, I started to discard many of the things I learned earlier. I did not realize that what I was learning was not to take away from my faith, but to tweak and adjust me in it. God’s purpose was to take me further into the realm of faith than I had ever been. I threw out the baby with the bathwater! That was not a good idea!  Now in 2017, I can look back, grin, and laugh at how ignorant I was, but it was no laughing matter then. It was havoc and sheer hell! That is one story that I will spare you from. I stepped away from the Lord and His Word over my errors (and sins) from 1989-1999, but (PTL) I came back to Him through repentance and renewal in April of 1999. Looking back, since my initial commitment to Jesus in early 1974 (under the big tent of R. W. Schambach, Tampa Florida), I can truthfully say, that I am finally getting a clue! As I continue to study, finally, I am receiving from the Lord some understanding on how all these areas of faith complement each other and work together. They are not contrary to one another.   I trust that these messages will take you much further in Him, and in faith, than I have ever been. I also trust that it will happen for you in a whole lot less time.  Be mightily blessed!    NOTES: [1] Galatians 3:11 and Hebrews 10:38 also repeat, “the just shall live by faith.” [2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint [3] An interesting question is, which Hebrew text stands behind the Septuagint (LXX)? According to the evidence of the Dead Scrolls, there were a few Hebrew manuscript traditions. One agreed more with the MT, one was like the LXX, and another like the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch. Then, there was the one that was different than those, like the one reflected in the great Isaiah Scroll, and there were more. This is important because scholars believed, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and examined, that the LXX had many Christian additions. The DSS proved that assumption wrong because they were pre-Christian! They found clear evidence of a textual tradition similar to the Septuagint. See Ostling, Richard N., “Dead Sea Scrolls” yield “major questions” in Old Testament understanding, (University of Notre Dame; https://news.nd.edu/news/dead-sea-scrolls-yield-major-questions-in-old-testament-understanding/, accessed 10-26-17); Tov, Emanuel; Searching for the “Original” Bible, (https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/40/4/10, accessed 10-26-17), and Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd Rev. Ed. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 2001, 114-117; where he states that Qumran-specific texts were 20%, Proto-Masoretic texts – 35%, Proto-Samaritan texts – 5%, Proto-Septuagint texts – 5%, Non-Aligned texts – 35%.  [4] Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible, its Present and Future, (1908, Hodder and Stoughton, London), pp. 12, 13. [5] The BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Hendickson Publishers, Massachussetts, 1996) coded to Strong’s numbers. Reprinted from the 1906 ed. [6] The Lumina NET at Bible.org, translation note 15 in Habakkuk 2:4, https://lumina.bible.org/bible/Habakkuk+2 (accessed October 17, 2017)   ________________   The audio message that follows is #29 from the series, “Removing Doubt from the Heart.” The name of the message is: Light Burden vs. the Devil's Heavy Weights. Messages 1-28 are already published on our website.  

I Corinthians 6:1-12 I Corinthians 6:1-8 – The “judging” discussed here does not refer to legal action. Young's Literal Translation seems to…

Welcome to our digital service. We hope you enjoy Pastor's teaching of God's Word and will take the opportunity to stop in for a live service on Sunday mornings or even for evening service. Details on when and where are at www.dhbchurch.org

Life Group Greek: Lesson 14 – The Genitive Case and the Faith of Christ The genitive case, as it is called, generally operates to limit a noun. This is the ending that is typically translated as “of”. The phrase, “the love of Christ,” which could either mean our faith in Christ, or, the faith that Christ has, is evaluated from all aspects of the genitive case citing various verses, such as: Rom. 3:22; Rm. 3:26; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 3:22; Phil. 3:9. Comparisons of syntax, context and theology are discussed. Key Words Genitive case, nouns, “the love of Christ”, Christ’s love for us, “faith of Jesus”, “objective genitive”, “subjective genitive”, faithfulness, syntax, context, righteousness, “faith alone”, sola fide, orthodoxy, Robert D. Brinsmead, “saving faith”, perfect faith of Christ, “Young’s Literal Translation

What is Young's Literal Translation (YLT)? Is Young's Literal Translation a good and accurate translation of the Bible?

Dennis discusses the literal nature of the subconscious to our personal self-talk and the statements we make, mostly unaware, of the significant effect such comments have on our mental, emotional, and physical being, as well as the maladaptive behaviors being generated. Become a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist by attending Online Certified Hypnotherapy Training School.   Hypnotherapy sessions are accomplished on SKYPE, as … Read more about this episode...

APOSTLE TALK - Future News Now! WWW.REALMIRACLES.COM with Prince Handley DELETING NEGATIVE ANCESTRAL INHERITANCE GOD’S INVASIONARY STRATEGY Click the center of the pod circle ... give it 30 seconds to load.Listen now  ... or download for later.A WORD FOR YOU TODAY:God has interrupted your past, even that received as a result of your birth line. Just as He has fulfilled His prophecies pertaining to Israel, so He has suspended the previously inherited influences of your birth line, and is telling you TODAY that NEW THINGS He has decreed for you are coming to pass. He is doing this so that you may discern and KNOW the fresh new things are a surety, and realize once again that He is Jahweh, God of Israel.DELETING NEGATIVE ANCESTRAL INHERITANCEGOD’S INVASIONARY STRATEGYIn this study, I want to present to you an aspect of NEW INHERITANCE that not only encompasses ancestral inheritance, but also is INVASIONARY STRATEGY used by God to catapult you, your loved ones, your ministry . . . and sometimes your nation . . . into great quantum leaps of advancement.There has been much teaching in the past few years on generational curses, and ancestral bondage. The main thing to understand is that as a member of the Royal Family, as a born again Christian, you have the bloodline of the Lord Jesus Christ. Your part is to lay hold on this by faith and God’s promises, overcoming any inherit or manifest symptoms of the ancestral inheritance.Such symptoms could be:•    Fear;•    Failure;•    Poverty,•    Sickness;•    Sins of the flesh;•    Low self esteem;•    Lack of confidence;•    Negative relationships; •    Self-defeating mentality;•    Lack of a visionary future.In some cases, deliverance is necessary; however, most people overcome all of the above simply by learning WHO they are and WHAT they have as a Christian. These are learned by daily study of the Word of God and by instruction from anointed teachers of the Word. This is another reason we need to be diligent in discipling new believers: to guide them into all the resources available to them in their NEW inheritance.I suggest, if you haven’t already, that you go to the Archives of The Apostles Group at www.realmiracles.injesus.com and study the following newsletters:The Blessing (dated June 22, 2003)The Covering (dated June 15, 2003)As mentioned in the Forward above, I want to present to you an aspect of NEW INHERITANCE that not only encompasses ancestral inheritance, but also is INVASIONARY STRATEGY used by God to catapult you, your loved ones, your ministry . . . and sometimes your nation . . . into great quantum leaps of advancement.This is an aspect of divine military strategy that is mostly overlooked by theologians, and sadly to say, by most Christian teachers. Our groundwork in this study will be the following Scripture:“Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.?  (Isaiah 42:9)              Let’s examine what this passage is really showing us in the original Hebrew in which it was written. Let’s look at the following words:FORMER THINGSFrom the Hebrew rishon meaning first (in place, time, or rank); ancestor, the ones before (in time); former.PASSFrom a primitive root in the Hebrew bo meaning to go or come; depart; fallen.NEW THINGSChadash in the Hebrew means fresh, or new thing.I I, here used in Hebrew ani, means not only I, but I, myself, or I who.DECLAREThe Hebrew word nagad means to stand boldly out opposite; to manifest; to announce to one present.BEFORETehrem means to interrupt or suspend or to make something or someone a non-occurrence.SPRING FORTHThe word used in the original, tsamach means to sprout, bud, (cause to) spring up or grow.TELLA primitive root in the Hebrew shama meaning to hear intelligently, discern, or understand, implying telling with the purpose of causing to obey or pay attention.Let’s look at what some of the commentaries and other Bible versions speak of this passage.Hebrew Names Version     Behold, the former things have happened, and I declare new things. I tell you about them before they come up. Young’s Literal Translation     The former things, lo, have come, and new things I am declaring. Before they spring up I cause you to hear.Jamieson-Fausett-Brown Commentary         Former things – Former predictions of God, which were now fulfilled, are here adduced as proof that they ought to trust in Him alone as God; namely, the predictions as to Israel's restoration from Babylon.      New – Namely, predictions as to Messiah, who is to bring all nations to the worship of Jehovah (Isa 42:1,4,6).      Spring forth – The same image from plants just beginning to germinate occurs in Isa 43:19; 58:8. Before there is the slightest indication to enable a sagacious observer to infer the coming event, God foretells it.1599 Geneva Bible Notes    As in time past I have been true in my promises, so will I be in time to come.John Wesley’s Notes on the Old and New Testaments    I tell you, so that when they come to pass, you may know that I am God, and that this is my work.Apostle Handley’s Inclusive Paraphrase    Listen, previous things from the past, prophecies and even those things concerning your ancestors, are fallen, and fresh new things, I, myself, will announce boldly; I, myself, will interrupt the past; I will suspend the previous with this announcement before the new things begin to spring forth and to grow. I do this so that you may intelligently discern and understand the new.?  Extra note: “ ... and realize once again that I am God.SUMMARY    God has interrupted your past, even that received as a result of your birth line. Just as He has fulfilled His prophecies pertaining to Israel, so He has suspended the previously inherited influences of your birth line, and is telling you TODAY that NEW THINGS He has decreed for you are coming to pass. He is doing this so that you may DISCERN and KNOW the fresh new things are a SURETY, and realize once again that He is Jahweh, God of Israel.Podcast time: 11 minutes, 22 seconds (with music)Podcast size:  10.4 MBIf you have been helped or received a miracle as a result of this study, email us and let us know what God has done for you. You may contact us by email at: PrinceHandley@gmail.comYou may contact us by postal mail at:Prince Handley - P.O. Box 'A' - Downey, CA 90241 USARemember to tell your friends about Apostle Talk podcast.You can subscribe to Apostle Talk podcast and receive previous shows and all new ones automatically downloaded for you. Click here for instructions:  SUBSCRIBEYou can download Apostle Talk podcasts on your iPhone at Blubrry. Note the spelling of “Blubrry.? www.blubrry.com/prophecy/For free literature to distribute, write to:WORLD SERVICES PO Box ADowney, CA 90241 USAFor rabbinical studies, go to: www.realmiracles.com/rabbinical.htmMy Odeo Channel (odeo/413398b7070f1daa) My Podcast Alley feed! {pca-c19edb0fd3f59f4f8c59be3fa8551f50}