xjwsforChrist

LOZ SAID

Lars these verses in Colossians 1 tell us an awful lot about early relationships. Note the word FOR at the end of v 16. (All caps are mine)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the one who is first over all creation,
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and FOR him.

Here in Hebrews 1 it is clarified further


2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the HEIR of all things, through whom also he created the world.

This shows us clearly that the whole creation was done FOR Christ, he is the HEIR. It also highlights the reasons for jealousy.

Loz x

CHARIKLO SAID

Yes.

Also very relevant in this thread is Colossians 1:17;

"Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity."

This brings us back nicely (in the old sense of precisely) to the subject of the thread, marriage/two one flesh.

AGUEST SAID

Good morning and peace to you all! You are quite welcome, dear Lar (peace to you!)... and I am grateful that you called it a "reflection." Because truly, that is what it is: me sharing with you what I received, reflecting, if you will, the truth that I was given.

In that light, I want to share with all of you more understanding (reflection, if you will) as to some of things stated here and ask that if you do not have the same understanding... yet... or have concerns about what I'm sharing here, that perhaps you will go to our dear Lord and ask for yourselves. Because it truly is NOT my desire to argue/debate/contend, but to only share the truth. To help you know WHAT to ask ABOUT, I am going to include verses so that you can see there is a "witness" to what I am sharing, that this is not mine, but what I received.

I have to start with dear Lar's signature line. While a very nice one, it is not entirely accurate. Because the Bible is not the truth, dear one. It can't be, primarily because it contains error. It itself states that: in prophesy by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 8:8) and when our dear Lord condemned the works of the "scribes" (Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, 34).

In the verse at Jeremiah 8:8, the Prophet stated:

"How do you say [you have] the Law of JaHVEH? Certainly it is vain [because] the pen of the secretary/scribe is in vain."

And in the verses in Matthew 23 our Lord condemned the works of hte Sanhedrin which, along with the works of the corrupt priests and Pharisaical religious leaders, included the works of the scribes ("Woe to you... hypocrites!").

And it is the problem with Bible translations that lend to this. For example, some would never know that it WAS the work of the scribes that he condemned because, for example, some Bible versions use the term "Teachers of Law." While that is a somewhat correct term, it is not completely accurate. The Greek word used is grammateus, which comes from the root word gramma, which means:

"1) a letter
2) any writing, a document or record
a) a note of hand, bill, bond, account, written acknowledgement of a debt
b) a letter, an epistle
c) the sacred writings (of the OT)
3) letters, i.e. learning
a) of sacred learning

Hence, a grammateus, was:

"1) a clerk, scribe, esp.a public servant, secretary, recorder, whose office and influence differed in different states

2) in the Bible, a man learned in the Mosaic law and in the sacred writings, an interpreter, teacher. Scribes examined the more difficult and subtle questions of the law; added to the Mosaic law decisions of various kinds thought to elucidate its meaning and scope, and did this to the detriment of religion. Since the advice of men skilled in the law was needed in the examination in the causes and the solution of the difficult questions, they were enrolled in the Sanhedrin; and are mentioned in connection with the priests and elders of the people. See a Bible Dictionary for more information on the scribes.

3) a religious teacher: so instructed that from his learning and ability to teach advantage may rebound to the kingdom of heaven"

As you can see, some version choose the last meaning. As with the second meaning, however, it is to the detriment of religion that such is done because it renders the actuality of who was meant (those who undertook to interpret and then write, often with great error) null and void.

What "works" of the secretaries/scribes did our Lord condemn? The Septuagint (LXX), which was the "Bible" version that existed when he was on the earth in the flesh. And that is the version that virtually all modern-day Bibles hail from. From its successor, the Latin Vulgate, to the King James Version... to the plethora of "modern" versions we have today.

And history confirms the issues many had with the LXX, particularly the Masoretes, who undertook to correct those errors to some degree; however, rather than literally rewrite the LXX, they took it and wrote "correcting" notes in the margins throughout. The results of that effort is called the "Masoretic Text."

Even so... that document contains errors as well, as do ALL of the written copies/versions... because NONE were written/copied while the author was in spirit or guided by our Lord, the Holy Spirit! (2 Corinthians 3:17) So how does one KNOW what is true in the writings, and what is NOT... which version is "best" and which is worst? There is only ONE way to know the TRUTH... about these and ALL things related to God, dear ones: go TO the Truth... and ASK! (John 5:39, 40; 8:37, 38; 14:6; Matthew 7:7-11)

So, the reality is that while the Bible contains [some] truth, yes, it is not THE truth, nor is all that it contains completely true. Only ONE is the truth: the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH. He is the One who "came to bear witness TO the truth" about God... and therefore, the ONLY One through Whom we can SEE God... and such truth. (John 18:37; 14:6-11)

Now, some, including you, might ask, "Well, wait, how do we know that what YOU share from the Bible is true?" I would say you DON'T... and shouldn't put your trust in ME anyway. Like you, I am "earthling man"... and we should know by now not to put our trust in earthling man. Instead, again, you should go the One who DOES know... and ask HIM. To do that, though... you must have faith, if only the size of a mustard seed... in order to HEAR HIM... when HE tells you whether these things are true or not. Although it CAN be (Acts 9:4), it will usually not be a loud, audible physical voice that he uses to speak to you (Proverbs 8:7-9), but "low tones." A voice that resonates in your blood, your bones, your marrow... your heart.

As to the second part of your signature line, dear Lar... God is DEFINITELY alive - He does not die, death has NO hold on Him; however, what is more important for US is that... HIS SON, THE WORD OF GOD, IS ALIVE! That one DID die... and ROSE... FROM THE DEAD... FOR US! HE is alive... and that is the major truth that most of the world who professes a belief in that One miss: a dead man does not speak! But one who is LIVING... can and does! So many say they believe Christ lives, yes, but when faced with the thought of him SPEAKING... omg... no, nope. He doesn't, as far as they are concerned. Demons do, yes, even Satan. But NOT the Holy Spirit and Holy One of Israel, the Son of God and His Christ, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah).

If those who professed to "believe" in Christ actually understood this TRUTH... that not only is he alive but ACTIVE... and SPEAKING... sigh... how different "christianity" would be! It would be as our dear Father stated, through Jeremiah (recorded at Jeremiah 31:34):

"No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”

No one will have to look to ANY other [man] for understanding; each will HAVE it... WITHIN THEMSELVES... by means of having God's Law written on their OWN hearts... by His APPROVED "scribe"... the Lamb... who proved himself WORTHY of the task!

I must stop here, unfortunately, as dear hubby has "plans" for the day which are about to start. I have not forgotten your request, though, dear Char, as to the term "arkangel," and will address that when I return. In the meantime, something to ponder:

When Genesis states, "in the beginning God created," it is NOT speaking of "at the start." It is speaking of a PLACE... "IN" something. That something... was the heavenly "ark." The true transliteration of Genesis 1:1, then, is... "In the ARK God created...".

I leave you all with that thought... and will pick it back up when I return. In the meantime, may JAH bless... you and your dear households... and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and fellow slave of Christ,

SA

CHARIKLO SAID

Yes, Shelby, I'm comfortable with all you say here. In responding to Larsinger's signature line by saying that the Bible is true, I was not saying, and do not think, that every word is literally true. More that the basic substance is.

To my mind, those who go down the road of saying it is literally true can then give themselves the liberty of interpreting it according to their own thinking, and the Watchtower is just one example of where that kind of thing can lead you!

I see that you and I are of the same mind in respect of God being alive!

LARSINGER SAID



Right. Many here are strong in their convictions but already I've learned a lot from you, if only to look at what I know from a different perspective. So thanks.



Okay. I see where you are coming from. But my reference was to the general and major things in the Bible that has survived and rise above the technical translation issues. The Bible itself addresses this, I believe, by not being such a word-oriented text. Case in point, Christ often spoke with parables and stories. If you tell a story, such as that of the prodigal son or the lost sheep, then the concept and idea can be understood universally; there is little play on words. So while I acknowledge the translation issues, clearly, the fundamental truth was there in the beginning and is only dulled slightly by the problem of translation and interpretation. Let me give you some examples:

For one, the Books of Esther, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiates in our common Bible translations, including the NWT, should be marked as not inspired, because they are not. So see? I agree. If you include those books in the Bible, then I would say we have to say that sometimes the Bible is not true.

But now, how far do we take this? Thus I will ask you a favor. Excluding the above books, can you just show m TWO examples you find in the Bible that you would say have become blatantly untrue and false? Your position sounds that there are lots of things consistently in the Bible that are not true that we have to step past to find the truth, so just giving me two examples to focus on of things you consider that are untrue in the Bible would help me see your position.

Now, many things in the Bible are considered contradictory that are not because of the lack of understanding and expertise of modern translators and interpreters. Case in point, the WTS and many others do not realize that the Jews followed Egyptian custom in changing the date at midnight. Most think the date changes at sundown for the Jewish day, but it doesn't. The sabbath day begins at sunset but the DATE does not change until midnight. Thus for the time of passover, it did become the sabbath in the evening of Nisan 14, but the date did not change until midnight, when it became the 15th. Thus the celebration later that day is held on the 15th. The Jews left Egypt on the 15th. Now some looking at this and changing the date at sunset would say, "see? The Bible is inaccurate. It is false." But in reality, it is the lack of expertise out there, superimposing false concepts that make it seem the Bible is contradictory when it is not.

And, yes!, sometimes it is a matter of interpretation. Case in point, John 19:14 where it notes that Jesus' trial was at noon on the day of "preparation for passover." This is mistranslated because the Greek word "de/but" is used just before "preparation" which means it should be translated as "just before preparation." So the false translation makes it seem the Bible is not true. That is, it is clear if the trial was at noon and Christ was impaled at the "third hour", which was 9 pm that night, that at noon the following day is when it got dark for the last three hours before Christ's death. Thus the trial must have been one day before Christ's death, rather than the same day of his death. When you translate John 19:14 inefficiently claiming "it was preparattion" rather than "it was just before preparation" then it seems the Bible is inaccurate, when it is not, it is the incompetent translators.

So, ending with those few examples, I'm anxious to see just what you consider some comon "innaccuracy" examples in the Bible that would force us to say that the Bible is not true. There must be at least a couple of blatant examples you have in mind of gross false teachings in Scripture that we can look at. Of course, I'm thinking these might be examples as above of either false books like Esther, SOS and Ecclesiates or some mistranslation, which technically cannot be blamed on the Bible, right?

Thanks so much!
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

LARSINGER SAID

You know, now that we are speaking of these technicalities, there are many things in the Bible currently translated that I found not accurate or not true which I have personally corrected to improve the truth. For instance:

1. As I noted in an above post, the books of SOS, Ecclesiates and Esther are not inspired. They are not quoted from by the NT Bible writers, so there is no problem with those writers being deceived by these books. The historical context also shows these were late-comers to the canon and were not in the canon in the early 2nd Century CE when Josephus reflected on the sacred books of the canon. So I exclude those books as "inspired."

2. In Matthew where it says there will be "earthquakes in one place after the other", the word here used, seimos can refer to other types of "agitation" or "unrest" and is translated as a "tempest" [at sea] where it is clear an earthquake is not applicable. The context of Matthew deals with social issues, such as pestilence and food shortages, and so in that context, I believe this should be translated as "social unrest" or "social agitations" in one place after the other. That fits the context of the post WWI era leading up to the Holocaust. To see as one of the signs of the last generation an increase in "earthquakes" requires a bit more of a stretch and has been criticized as not coming true. Well, I would have to agree, but the context doesn't really refer to "earthquakes" but social problems and instability in various places, which was the context of post WWI leading into WWII. So you see? I've found my own "truth" by intepretation.

3. Also as noted above, John 19:14 is mistranslated along with several other verses that use the Greek word "de/but" in front of the time of the day. When used, it should indicate "just before." When absent it means "during." For example, at John 19:14 we see "de parasqeue" which should be translated as "just before preparation", but at all the places that refer to the day of preparation when Jesus was being put into the tomb, "de/but" is not used before "parasqeue/preparation." So when the "de/but" is absent, it is a reference to DURING that day; when the "de/but" occurs before that term, it means "just before" that day. So Jesus' trial at noon, before his impalement at the "third hour", 9 pm that night, had to be "before preparation" since he dies on preparation. It gets dark at noon (sixth hour) just before his death, so that has to be the next day. You have two noon-time events separated by a "third hour" (9 pm/am) event! Two different days. As translated, Jesus' trial on the day of preparation being the same day as he dies doesn't work. So one could say the Bible in this case is certainly inaccurate. But it's not; it's the incompetent or I should say, less than insightful translators that make it seem there is a contradiction, when there is not.

Even so, these things must be way less than 1% of the entire Bible, which is certainly true.

So when someone says the Bible is not true, I need a clarification. If they come up with "There was no evidence of an Exodus, thus the Bible is not true" then it's time for a discussion. The Exodus did happen and it has to be dated to 1386 BCE. Period. When we do, we have evidence of the 10 plagues since that pharaoh ruling at that time, Akhenaten, changed his entire religious focus and became a "monotheist" and is even considered to be Moses himself by some! So sometimes "truth" has to do with the correct dating.

If someone else says the Bible is not true since Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE, I just laugh. Jerusalem per the Bible falls in 529 BCE and we now have the secular evidence surviving that directly confirms that. So "truth" is also a matter of not only accuracy, but how well informed you are about the evidence.

SO, PLEASE, SOMEONE, GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE BLATANT NON-TRUTHS IN THE BIBLE, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING OF.

Thanks.
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

LARSINGER SAID

Getting back to marriage.

My position is that as far as preferences go, it is better to be single in the Christian era. thus one can pursue their spirituality 100% without distraction.

For those who cannot handle being single, then marriage is recommended.

Even so, back in that Middle Eastern culture, polygamy was accepted. Positions of service in the congregation excluded those with multiple wives, not because it was sinful, but because they clearly didn't have the extra time, and typically, those households were known to be contentious. Positions of service in the congregation went to those who had their households in order and who actually had the TIME to provide this service. Did that mean that now God forbids polygamy? Clearly some in good standing in the congregation had more than one wife.

Requiring ministerial servants and elders to be husbands of one wife (or single) was not different that seeing the practicality of modern missionaries being married with no children. Single missionaries rise issues and missionaries with children rises issues. So those wanting to go into the missionary work are required to be married with no children. Does that mean the rest of us should get rid of our children, put them up for adoption and go be a missionary? No. Likewise, in no way were those with multiple wives required to divorce them, which is directly against God's law of divorce except on the grounds of fornication.

In other words, God recognized those secondary wives! So when you go to a country that permits polygamy and tell those men with many wives to divorce all of them except the firsts, or you can't come into the congregation, you are actually breaking God's law. That is one of the BIG SINS of the WTS! They have superimposed their cultural bias in this issue in thinking polygamy is wrong. It is not!

God doesn't care if you love and have sex with more than one person, as long as you are married to them.

When the Bible speaks of some in late times coming up and "forbidding marriage and certain foods" (1 Tim. 4:3) it is talking about the WTS forbidding polygamy where it is legal and making blood and tobacco diretary sins.
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

AGUEST SAID

Good MORNING... and peace to you all! And it's alreayd a great morning! Raining "cats and dogs" here, so took the puppies out in their yellow slickers for a brisk walk around the 'hood. The two little got cold so I had to carry them half way, but my "big girl" (10 lb. Liyah) was ECSTATIC to be outside! She ran and jumped and skipped and hopped the whole way! (I don't leash them on this particular walk as they are very familiar, know to stop and check for cars before crossing the streets, etc. And due to the rain... and it being Sunday... there were virtually no cars out this morning!).

Dear Lars and Char (peace to you!)... I promise that I WILL get back to ALL of your questions to me, perhaps this evening, but certainly tomorrow. Hubby has plans for today as well, and since I try to give my time/attention on the weekends to him when he asks for it I am "otherwise occupied" today (yesterday went to breakfast, then to see "Lincoln" - VERY good, BTW; Daniel Day Lewis and Sally Field were phenomenal! - then out to the "country" for a wonderful crab dinner with family). Today it's breakfast and "Anna Karenina" with stepson, then whatever... dinner out probably. My husband is that kind of guy. So while I HATE to "neglect" this thread, I simply must do so for now...

BUT... I ain't cryin' about it 'cause I know you all understand - LOLOLOL!

So.. peace to you ALL... stay dry (if it's wet where you are!)... have a WONDERFUL day... and "see" you all back here again in a bit!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

CHARIKLO SAID

We're obviously having a cinematic time, AGuest!

Yesterday, I went to see Great Epectations, and that too was very good, very atmospheric, Ralph Fiennes great as Magwitch, Helena Bonham Carter a suitably crazy and cruel Miss Havisham, and Victorian London portrayed in great, if gory detail.

Now I am just marking time for The Hobbit, which I shall see at least twice, with grandchildren etc! I can't wait!

GLADIATOR SAID

AGuest, Why do I get the feeling that Larsinger58 is going to keep you busy unavailing his extraordinary claims? It may come down to who can type the fastest.

LARSINGER SAID

gladiator wrote:


Um, I'm a retired medical transcriptionist. Over the years my typing speed has gotten up to as high as 120 wpm.

BUT, "unavailing" my claims is a secondary issue. A more important issue is understanding the dating and nature of the 2nd coming, which would be my first challenge. I have to first establish the Bible actually prophesies Christ would be in a black gay male's body at the second coming. Once that is in place, or at least the scriptures interpreted to support that, then it doesn't matter much whether I'm that gay black male or not -- what is important is that we understand the scriptures behind the idea that Christ would be in the bod of a gay black male at the second coming occurring in 1992. If you reject my claim, then fine. But if you're not looking for some other gay black male ex-prostitute JW messiah, then you're not looking for the Biblical messiah and so it doesn't matter anyway.

So lets discuss the 2nd coming and what to expect and when first. Establish as much detail in that regard, and then decide whether or not I'm it.

But really, at this point, I'm sort of the only candidate. Remember when Christ arrives he "strikes the nations with the long sword of his mouth" and he shepherds the nations with an iron rod. Meaning? Meaning, and very much in line with a physical appearance, he must preach and teach to the world in some venue. The Bible indicates that many would find him friendly and maybe interesting, but not take his messiah claims seriously until the last minute when it is too late. He is said to preach in the "broadways" while others "eat and drink" in front of him. (Luke 13:26). So Christ doesn't just arrive, he teaches and overturns lots of false teachings! As it turns out, the context in which he does this, that is, in the "broad ways" of apostates, are via these public XJW discussion boards!

So after going through all the details and comparisons, where I might fall short, whoever is the Christ is not hidden somewhere but must have a record of teaching in some of these internet discussion boards. Right now, I think I'm the only one doing that right now. That is, someone else should have claimed to be the messiah besides me in the JW discussion boards, but who is also black and gay and an ex-prostitute, plus having to be someone claiming they became the messiah between November 30, 1992 and April 6 (passover) 1993. If you have no other candidates, then you are sort of stuck with me (sorry).

So let's forget about my personal claim for now and lets get the Bible out and see what scriptures support the messiah's arrival this way! Figure out what the Bible leads us to expect and then compare THAT to my claim. Of course, in passing, I think it is important to note that the WTS had already understood this because they know the scriptures and knew many of the anointed were seeing this "sign of the son of man", the face of a sleeping black child in the clouds. This is proven because they included it in their cryptic artwork in the Revelation Book in 1998 as you can see by my avatar.

Now remember, the UN (i.e. "scarlet-colored wild beast") tries to prevent the 2nd coming, killing the witnessing of the "two witnesses" for 3.5 days, which is permitted by Jehovah. So the WTS, who was part of the UN, already takes me seriously. That is, they were expecting the messiah in the body of a gay black JW as early as 1988. Also, by the time the messiah is revealed to the world, all of his elect have been gathered and so he already has all his secret followers sealed. So my revelation at some point will not save anyone even though they are forced to know I'm the true messiah at one point. So I'm not starting to try to convince people of who I am. I have many followers already, many of whom are still active witnesses. They surround me and assist me.
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

GLADIATOR SAID



It has always been my hope that Christ will return as a gladiator and vanquish his enemies. I am not the Christ and my allegiance is to Caesar. Do you er, like gladiators?

CHARIKLO SAID

Nice, gladiator!

Q

Lars, only the Watctower, thinks the UN is the scarlet colourd wild beast. For myself, I have nothing to do with WT interpretations of the Bible. They don't talk about what the Bible says, but what the WT SAYS the Bible says.

That's a very different thing.

LARSINGER SAID



I AM, indeed a gladiator, but a spiritual one. I come on a white horse with a long sword and I conquer at the spiritual level. That is, I provide the truth and overturn and destroy false teachings!

I'm the "king of king" and "lord of lords" and my name is written on my "thigh" (i.e. my penis). I hope that's gladiator enough for you!

So yes, at the second coming Christ comes to destroy, definitely a soldier! I come this time not to bring peace, but a sword, remember?
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

AGUEST SAID

Good MORNING... and peace to you all! (And I have GOT to remember to say "good night" on dear tec's thread - peace to you, girl!). Since I overlooked you last time, dear Char (peace to you, as well!), I will address your comments first. Note, I will not include scriptures/verses at this time... unless you ask me to (in which case I certainly will!). Rather, I would like to ask you to do this - if you cannot put faith in what I share, go to our Lord himself and ask him about it. Then, let HIM show you where it is "written", not me. Because that way, HE is "guiding you into all truth," not me. If that works for you, then let's continue (again, if you need me to, though, I will share the verses):



Actually, your next comment opens the way for me to respond this, dear one, because the temple and its features... the "most" holy, the "holy"... and the ARK (and it's features) are a very important part to understand what is to come... and where it all came FROM! Hence, you stated:



Just as understanding the temple, what it is truly made of (people... beings... starting with Christ, the foundation cornerstone, the prophets and apostles as the foundation, the apostles as the gates, then others as pillars and stones)... and its construct (the MOST Holy representing JAH Himself, and the Holy, His Son and Christ, JAHESHUA, His Chosen One)... helps us to "see" what is being "built"... "a place for God to INHABIT... by SPIRIT" (Ephesians 2:19-21)... understanding what the features and "utensils", etc., are also help paint that picture.

And so, understanding what the Ark (of the Covenant) SPIRITUALLY represented and still represents... can also help one "see" what is to come, as well as where all things came FROM:

The ark itself represents the "womb" of the Woman - "Sarah", who is "Jerusalem Above", the "mother" of Christ and his spirit brothers - but not the angels, because angels are created, not BORN... and created to SERVE the sons, not BE sons. Christ WAS born, however, OF this Woman... as will be her "seed," his "brothers". These are "the seed of the Woman," with whom JAH put enmity with the Adversary and HIS seed (which enmity started with our Lord, then has come down to our day (and maybe past it), through the Cain/Abel enmity).

Who is she? She is the spirit realm. The "free wife" of God (as Sarah was the free wife of Abraham)... whose sons are born FREE. This is why those who belong to Christ must be born... AGAIN... and put ON the body that is free, the "white robe" that is the SPIRIT body. The Ark... is her "womb"... the most sacred part of a "woman"... from which life comes forth. Like Abraham, the Most Holy One of Israel also has a slave "wife"... Hagar... or the "earth". This is the PHYSICAL realm, from which we are all born FIRST... in the likeness of Adham, the likeness of the man of FLESH... "terrestrial." The next time, we will be born in the SPIRIT... "celestial"... in the likeness of Christ himself. We now bear the image of Adham; then, we will bear the image of Christ, a spirit!

Thus, when Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 state "in the beginning"... the true translation is "in the Ark." In the ARK God created... and in the ARK was the Word. All things came forth FROM within the Ark, the most sacred place of the spirit realm... including Christ... the FIRST-born! Not just the firstborn from the dead... but the firstBORN... of the creation.

When you read John 1:1, the Greek states:

"[En] arche [en] logos kai logos [en] pros theos kai logos [en] theos."

Two errors occur here. First, the mistransliteration of the word "arche" (well, actually, the use of the word, which I will explain in a sec)... and the mistranslation that the Word "was" god. If you notice, when the copyists translated the word "en"... they used "in" in the first instance, then "was" in the second, then "with" in the third, and then "was" again, in the fourth:

"[In] arche [was] logos and logos [was] with theos and logos [was] theos."

The question is, why did they do this? The Greek word "en" means the past tense of the word "am". As in "was", "had been", etc. So, if they were to keep TRUE to the Greek wording, the verse SHOULD read:

"Was arche was logos and logos was with theos and logos was theos."

(And note, "theos" is not accurate, either, but I'll get to THAT in a sec, too.)

The reason for the errors is the same in the Greek NT as in the Hebrew OT (which is a translation back FROM Greek, than was translated from Hebrew): because the Hebrew/Aramaic language (which "John" was initially written in)... is a PHONETIC language. It is based on SOUND... and so the symbols used to denote those sounds were often... VERY often... misunderstand/mistransliterated. For three reasons: (1) there were not vowels and so, when translating the vowels had to be best guestimations; (2) sometimes there was no corresponding Greek WORD; and (3) the translators had no idea what was intended and so either guessed... or put what they or whoever hired them WANTED it to say.

And so, the statement, "In the arche" (for both John 1:1 AND Genesis 1:1, because, again, the latter is a translation from GREEK)... was an error based on a misunderstanding of the phonetics, sound, and MEANING of the word and what was intended: neither writer intended a statement of "in the beginning" or "in/at the start"... but were relating a PLACE... the "where" of what they were writing about: in the ARK.

Christ, was born... of a "woman". Twice. First, of Sarah, "Jerusalem Above"... as spirit being. In this way, he is the only-begotten son of God. NOT because he was the only son of God (he wasn't; Adham was also a son) and NOT because God made him alone. He is the "only-begotten" because he is only son... BY this Woman, God's FREE wife, Jerusalem... ABOVE. Just as Isaac, while not the only son of Abraham, was Abraham's "only-begotten son"... by his free wife, Sarah - he had other sons, including a son by his slave wife, Hagar (Ishmael). The Most Holy One of Israel, too, had a son by HIS "slave wife"... the physical realm... Adham. Isaac depicts Christ; Ishmael... Adham.

He, Christ, is the son... OF GOD'S LOVE... FOR this "Woman"... the physical realm. And he came... from her womb... the Ark... just as all of her seed does (which is why the Ark was created and included a covenant - the first covenant representing God's "marriage" to Hagar (the physical realm and HER womb - the place from where HER "sons" come forth)... and thus His contract with her/her "sons" to care for HER "sons"... and the second, NEW, covenant... representing God's "marriage" to SARAH (the spirit realm and HER womb - the place from where HER "sons" come forth... and thus His contract wit HER/HER "sons" to care for HER "sons."

Now, the physical Ark:

As a physical representation of the Woman's womb, the Ark was the most precious possession of the Israelite nation. It's presence with them mean that GOD was with them. Why? Because it was from above that VESSEL that the Most Holy One of Israel would speak TO Israel. That vessel was a box that had a cover and two cherubs ON that cover. But those were not just any cover or cherubs: they were literal depictions of the spiritual:

The Ark = "Sarah's" womb, where unborn seed (children) are protected

The Cover (Propitiatory; Mercy Seat) = Christ, the Propitiatory Sacrifice, and thus COVER (or PROTECTOR) for the seed inside

The Cherubs = Mischa'El (Michael) and BeliJah'El (Belial; "Satan"), whose were "set" ON the "Cover"... to protect HIM. To keep any who would attempt to "enter" THROUGH that Cover and access the seed... OUT. Michael did and always has held "fast" to that assignment, "standing ON the truth", that truth BEING the Cover, Christ; the other cherub, however, did NOT "stand fast" on/in the truth (Christ), but turned HIS head away. He did so... in order to gaze at his own beauty (and these two are THE most aesthetically beautiful of all of JAH's creation!)... rather than continuing to gaze at the life-giving "beauty" of the Cover (which was/is NOT as glorious in aesthetic beauty... because it is not what's on the OUTSIDE but what's on the INSIDE that matters! And "INSIDE" the COVER... is what's beautiful: what's in HIM... what's inside the "thing" he protects: us).

These two, these "cherubs that [were] covering" the Cover... are the angels of Ark... or... arkangels. While there are several CHERUBS, there truly are only two arkangels: Mischa'El... and BeliJah'El. THEY are "brothers", twins... and have been at war with each other almost from the beginning. Which is why MICHAEL and HIS angels... battle with BELIAL and HIS angels. NOT Christ. Indeed, Christ said that he had no one BUT Michael... the "prince" of Israel... to come to his assistance.

Both Michael and Belial were "foremost princes." Unlike arkangels (of which there are only two), but like cherubs (of which there are several; for instance, the two who guarded the entrance to the garden; there are many "princes" (for example, the seven he spoke to in the Revelation; Gabriel, who protected Daniel and Hebrew boys, etc.).

Unlike in the human realm, where princes are rulers, in the spirit realm princes are merely those assigned to "principalities". Assigned to certain territories to protect the belongings of God IN those principalities. Hence, Belial was assigned to Persia... where the garden (in Eden) existed. Michael was assigned to Israel (Judea). Others were assigned to other places in the earth (for example, the Nephilim - these were here by permission, to guard their assigned "principalities"). Christ... is the PRINCE of princes. Just as these "princes" have assigned territories, he has authority over ALL territories... in both the spirit AND physical realms.

The ERROR came in when the scribes not only mistook their roles as "princes" to mean rulers... and "chiefs" (which they are among spirit beings)... but to be same as being an "archangel" or "chief angel". That is NOT what is mean by "arkangel," however, not at all. It's the same as those who have mistaken the angels as being "sons" of God... due to misunderstanding what they truly are and/or the words used to describe them.

Angels are not sons - they are servants OF the sons (and, of course, the Father, first and foremost; His Son, Christ, second, then those who ares sons by means of an adoption, conception, and possession of God's blood in THEM, holy spirit). Nor is Christ an angel (although he is "like" the angels, as some of mankind will one day be, as well). The word "angel" is not with regard to what they ARE... but what they DO. As are the words "cherub," "arkangel," etc. The word that describes what they ARE... are "seraphs"... flying fiery serpents (NOT snakes)... and they are all seraphs, even the Most Holy One Himself.

Serpahs, however, consist of:

- The Father, who is neither a son nor an angel

- The Son, who is not an angel

- Angels, two of which are arkangels, some of which are cherubs (which denotes exaltation to positions of specific responsibility, such as guarding an entrance, protecting a specific person, guiding JAH's "chariot", etc.), some of which are princes (which denotes conferred responsibility as to a certain group of humans)... but none of whom are sons. They are not sons... because they were not BORN, but created.

We, too, are created; however, we have the future privilege of BEING born... AGAIN. But this time, in the SPIRIT... versus in the flesh! And so, while we will be "like [the] angels" in that we will have the same kind of bodies (that do not die, sleep, etc.), we will be different in that we will be SONS.

And THAT is the underlying basis for the conflict BETWEEN man and the Adversary, the reason he is SEEKING to wage war with us: because he and other spirits believe we are UNWORTHY of that privilege... that we are miserable (we are) and pitiable (we are) and blind (we are) and deaf (we are) and naked (we are)... and that if God removed His "hedge", we WOULD curst Him to His face (which we, mankind, do, for the most part!)... and so the privilege of being SONS... should have gone to them!

It is upon us, then, individually, to prove them wrong, prove their leader, our Adversary, the one called "Devil"... WRONG... as to us! We will only be a few (out of all of mankind)... but we will be ENOUGH. Because it will only take... what, five? Will number many more than five, of course, but it would take five for us to be preserved alive. Praise JAH... there was ONE... FIRST... to open the Way... into the MOST Holy... for the rest of us!

So, that's it. Again, I will post scriptures/verses, if you need me to, but I think the more prudent thing would be for you to let HIM show you. Because if HE does it, you will have no doubt as to their trust. Because your spirit will bear witness directly with HIS spirit... usually because you will HEAR him as he shows you where [it is written]... even reading it to you AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT AND STATED... and not as either your own eyes... or the memory of what you've been taught by man... might lead you.

Please, then, ponder over these things, if you need to. Even take some time, indeed, do... enough time to go to him and give him time to show you.

But I hope it helps, truly, not only to understand these things... but to understand how man, who leans on his own understanding and NOT on his faith and trust in the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... and His Son and Christ, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH. It is for this reason, this lack of faith... and lack of holy spirit... that has led to all of the cults, sects, heresies, misleadings, misguiding, false teachings, false prophesies... indeed, false christs... that have existed in the world. You can choose to stop it at you, though.

All you have to do... WANT to know the TRUTH... FROM... by means OF wanting to know the One who IS the Truth... even if such knowledge does not comport with what you thought you already knew... and have been led to believe thus far.

Again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and fellow slave of Christ,

SA