How to Test Claims that Something is a Sin

When trying to determine whether something that is claimed to be a sin actually is a sin, you only need to ask these three questions:

1. Does Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) have a direct command against it?
2. Does Torah list items that are permitted (or required) in a category that the item in question is in but is not on the list?
3. Is there a penalty associated with it, but without a direct or indirect command against it?

It really is that simple, as Torah alone defines what is right and wrong.  Whatever is contrary to Torah is sin and whatever is not contrary to Torah is not sin.  The Prophets do not define sin.  Jesus does not define sin.  The Apostles do not define sin.  Only the Law of Yahweh defines sin.  And for those who would say that Yeshua does define sin because he is God, let me remind you that if he is to live a sinless life as a human being, he must abide by the same Law that everyone else is expected to abide by.  If he were to teach what is contrary to Torah, then he would have sinned and his death on the cross would be useless for our salvation.  Therefore Yeshua does not define sin.

Also, I originally listed just the first two questions, and would have considered things that meet the criteria of the third question as things that God hates but does not forbid.  But while writing this post, I changed my mind, hence the third question.

Jesus said to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).  And you're not living on it if you are adding to it or subtracting from it.  For the Law says in multiple places, such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 to not add to or subtract from God's commandments.  This means that once written, the Law of God is read only.  Nobody after that can in any way change the Law, not even Jesus after he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  The Apostle Paul said multiple times that Torah defines sin, such as Romans 3:20 and 7:7.  The Law itself defines sin in multiple places as transgressing the Law.

For any given thing that is claimed to be sinful, answering "yes" to one of the above questions proves the thing in question to be sinful.  If the answer to both questions is "no", then the thing in question is not sinful even if it is detrimental or believed to be detrimental.

The first question should be self-explanatory.  If God's Law has a direct command against something, then that something in question is a sin.  Theft, adultery, lying, murder, and slander are all sinful because the Law has a direct command against each of these.  The same for eating animals like pigs [Leviticus 11:7-8].  And if you think of twisting 1 Timothy 4:1 to claim that I'm teaching "doctrines of demons" (as some have done), then you would be calling God a demon, for God himself gave that command.

The second question is a bit more complex than the first.  There are some places in God's Law that list of a number of things in a category that are either allowed or required.  In these instances, whatever is in that same category that does not make the list is forbidden.  A good example of this is the list of holy days in Leviticus 23 that we are to use to honor God.  So even if it could be proven that Christmas and Easter did originate within Christianity, it wouldn't change the fact that those days are not on the list of holy days for honoring God, and are therefore sinful to partake in.  We may see those days as serving God, but that's not how God sees them.

There are some things that do not have a direct command against them (answer to question 1 is "no") or an indirect command against them (answer to question 2 is also "no").  This is where the third and final question comes in:  If God's Law also does not list a penalty for doing something (answer to question 3 is "no"), then the item in question is not a sin.  But if there is a penalty listed for doing something, then the item in question is a sin.  Otherwise, there would not be a penalty.

A good example of something that has a penalty listed, but no direct or indirect command against it is extramarital sex.  In Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if an unmarried couple are caught having sexual relationships, then the man is required to pay the bride price to the woman's father, the two are required to marry (unless the father forbids it), and they are never allowed to divorce.  The bride price, can be multiple years worth of wages.  And if a woman had this type of sexual relationship, then presented herself as a virgin to another man and her deception was discovered, then the woman could die (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

In any case where the answer to all three of these questions is "no", then the thing in question is permissible.  In fact, since Torah is described as "the Law of Liberty" in James 1:25, then we should approach things in a "freedom by default" manner.  That is, unless we can prove it goes against God's Law, we should allow it.  Some examples of things that are not against God's Law include dancing, games and sports, and gender-neutral bathrooms, lockers, etc.

There are some things that Yahweh technically allows, but also hates.  These things are often identified by whether God's Law has a provision for them, but also a lot of restrictions.  One example is divorce, where as I explained in a previous post, is intended to be done only in cases of unfaithfulness in marriage.  We also know that Yahweh hates divorce because of Malachi 2:16, where Yahweh explicitly states as much when speaking through one of his prophets.

To summarize:  If you cannot prove that something is contrary to God's Law either by (1) a direct command, (2) by not making a list of items allowed or required that are in the same category as the item in question, or (3) by not having any penalty for doing something, then regardless of how sinful you believe it to be or how much you object to it, that thing is not, I repeat, not, a sin.

I'll leave you with this exercise:  Exodus 20:26 says, "Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it."  So what is the sin here?  Is it to build steps up to an altar, to approach the altar naked, or both?  Don't forget to prove your answer.

Theistic Evolutionists vs Deuteronomy 13

I have used the phrase "Deuteronomy 13 Test" 9 times in previous posts so far, and have made at least one reference to 22 times in one way or another.  It is the number one most important test for detecting false teachers.  If you fail this test, then nothing else matters!  Why?  The premise of the Deuteronomy 13 Test is quite simple:  Obedience to Torah (aka: God's Law, aka: the Law of Moses) is the definition of loving and serving God and listening to his voice, while the rejection of his Law is the definition of idolatry (aka: following other gods).  Here, read Deuteronomy 13 for yourself!

Did you also catch that Deuteronomy 13 is as much God testing his people as it is his people testing the teachers/prophets?  If not, go read it again!  As those who love God and keep his commandments (the one who does not keep his commandments by definition does not love God), we are tested with false teachers and false prophets to see if we love God with all of our hearts.  If we listen to the false teacher or prophet, then we have failed the test.  And here are the most commonly-known ways for a false teacher or prophet to fail this test.

1. Openly lead people to serve other gods.
2. Teach people to reject keeping God's Law.

There are a couple of other ways that people are led to follow other gods that actually fall under the category of failing the Deuteronomy 13 test.  (Remember, Deuteronomy 18 is about when a prophet gets things wrong while speaking in the name of Yahweh, or prophecies in the name of another god.  For the Deuteronomy 13 Test, the prophet does not have to speak in the name of another god.)  One of which is to speak in the name of another god while simultaneously saying that it's Yahweh, but by a different name.  Either by butchering God's name, or by using the actual name of a false god as if it's one of God's names.  New-Agers are good at failing it that way, but that's a topic for another post.

The other way to fail the Deuteronomy 13 Test that's overlooked is to discredit God's Law by discrediting Genesis.  How does this fail the Deuteronomy 13 Test?  By causing people to not trust Genesis, you also cause them to not trust the rest of Torah (and also the rest of the Bible)?  And this is exactly what theistic evolutionists do.  And most probably know exactly what they are doing (in terms of getting people to not trust the Bible as a whole).  Remember:  Satan's goal is to keep people away from God and keep them from receiving the promise of eternal life (and to wipe-out humanity, which he cannot do directly, so he has fools in high places knowingly try to do that for him).  Part of keeping people away from God is to keep them from following God's Law.  The other part is by keeping people away from Jesus, which theistic evolution does quite nicely.  Keeping people from receiving God's promise of eternal life is accomplished by keeping people from having a Biblical faith in Jesus, which includes believing that Jesus, and the one who sent him are trustworthy, and which lease to obedience to the one whom they believe in.

Would it surprise you if I said that the "New Testament" is worthless if Genesis is not the historical account it claims to be or is not in any way an accurate historical account?  Well, the "New Testament" is indeed worthless if Genesis is not the historical account that it claims to be.  In fact, the "New Testament" is worthless unless Genesis is (a) the historical account it claims to be, and (b) is an accurate account of the beginnings of Creation.

Guess what:  The "New Testament" is also worthless if the rest of Torah is not to be trusted.  Most conservative denominations teach distrust of God's Law through the typical "Jesus fulfilled the law so we don't have to" type of claims, but theistic evolutionists do this by deceiving people into not trusting Genesis.  If we cannot trust Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as containing the eternal commands of God, then all of the moral teachings in the "New Testament" completely collapse, for these teachings come directly from the Law of God.  And the Law of God (which includes Genesis) is completely dependent on Genesis being the truthful account of the origins of Creation.  By the way, Torah alone is the sole authority on right and wrong.  Every instruction in the Bible that comes after Torah ultimately either (a) comes from God's Law or (b) provides the correct interpretation of Torah.

To close, here's how you can identify the theistic evolutionists who know exactly what they are doing:  Anyone who says "we should reinterpret Scripture to fit the science", then goes about doing exactly that knows exactly what they are doing.  But do not assume that those who do not say that are ignorant of the issue at hand.  More than likely, they too know what they are doing.

Scripture is Not a Script

Have you ever heard the claim that the Bible is a script?  As in, like a script for a movie or play?  The reasoning for this claim has to do with the fact that the Bible is also called "scripture".  And "scripture" minus "ure" is "script".  Those making the claim either (a) didn't do their research into the origin of the word "scripture" or (b) are deliberately making false claims in order to discredit the Bible.  Because the word "scripture" is derived from the Latin word "scriptura", which literally means "writing".  The word "scripture" has nothing to do with scripts.

There is a globalist plot to replace Christianity with Atheism, so we can't be so naive to say that these people simply didn't do their research.  And this type of claim has all of the signatures of being a coordinated deception campaign or a part of a larger coordinated deception campaign.  Such campaigns by the way, are why the scientifically bankrupt fairy tale of evolutionism is still taught as scientific fact, among other things.  Such campaigns are also much, much older than the Biden admin.  Biden just made it obvious that it exists.

So anyone with internet can look up the origins of words for themselves and see that the word "scripture" comes from the Latin word for "writing".  But what if we actually read the Bible and use our God-given critical thinking skills to see what the Bible actually is?  A careful readthrough of just Genesis will reveal that the Bible is a historical account.  Genesis itself starts with a historical account of the origins of the Earth, and everything in, on, and around it; and the origin of all living things including mankind.  In fact, Genesis through 2nd Chronicles is all historical documentation.  And Matthew through Acts is also historical documentation.  There are also other books in the Bible that are historical in nature, such as Jonah and Esther.

We will also find songs and poetry in the Bible in various books.  The most notable place for these is in the book of Psalms.  There's also numerous books containing wisdom, such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the epistles of the Apostles.  There are also the books of the prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jonah counts too, but is more historical in nature).  These prophecies have a 100% fulfillment rate, which is unmatched by any other document.  All prophecies in the Bible (often made hundreds or thousands of years before their fulfillment) have been fulfilled at their appointed time exactly as they have been prophesied!

The globalists don't want you reading the Bible, so they will make up anything to discourage you from reading it.  This includes the claim that the Bible is a script.  If you read the Bible, you will find all the above things that I mentioned to be true, and more.  Because the Bible is also the written record of what Yahweh, the creator of all things, has said.

Bathsheba Tempted Nobody!

I'm sure you've heard the story about how Bathsheba was bathing on her roof, was seen by King David, and because of that she and David had an adulterous relationship, and Uriah (Bathsheba's wife) was murdered as part of a cover up.  And had Bathsheba not been bathing on the roof, David would have never seen her naked and never would have lusted after her and acted on that lust.  It's the classic story of what happens when a woman doesn't sufficiently cover herself.

Except that's not what happened.  And the interpretation of the events is completely wrong!  First off, Bathsheba was not bathing on her roof.  It was King David who was on his roof!  Bathsheba was likely bathing in a river, which would be the normal place to find someone bathing back then.  And it wouldn't matter even if she was bathing on the roof, because she is not the one who sinned!  Read 2 Samuel 12:1-4 very carefully.  Bathsheba is likened to an innocent lamb that was needlessly slaughtered.  This goes well with Deuteronomy 22:25-27, where God likens raping another man's wife to murder.  In other words, Bathsheba wasn't willing.  She was forced!  And all of the blame goes squarely on King David, who forced her, and then murdered her husband.

So, what if Bathsheba was bathing on the roof?  Why doesn't she get blamed for anything?  Because that's not how lust works!  Ignoring the fact that a river (the typical place to bathe back then) is a public area where many people could be bathing together at the same time without any gender or age segregation, lust is simply desiring to have something (or someone) that does not belong to you.  It is on each person to control their own desires.  And "immodesty" does not cause lust, as demonstrated by the numerous examples in the Bible of men getting into trouble concerning women without the woman's clothing (or lack thereof) ever being brought up.  For example, in Genesis 34.  But why let facts get in the way of doctrine?

You might object, saying "didn't David commit adultery with Bathsheba because he saw that she was beautiful to look at?"  Obviously the answer is yes, but her lack of clothing in this one instance still changes nothing.  And the fact that both men and women were made in the Image of God, without any clothing whatsoever (Genesis 2:25), and that God called everything he made "very good" (Genesis 1:31), it's pretty clear that women are designed to be beautiful in the eyes of men, regardless of their clothing or lack thereof.  Likewise, God designed men to find women beautiful to look at, with or without clothing.  So it is not sinful for a man to look upon a woman and find her beautiful, even if she has no clothes on.  What is sinful however, is for the man to desire to have his neighbor's wife as his own wife, or to desire to have sexual relationships with his neighbor's wife.  It's also sinful for a man to actually have sexual relationships with his neighbor's wife.  And it is sinful for the woman to be willing to have the adulterous relationship.

What about the issue of temptation then?  If Genesis 3 is anything to go by, it is wrong to deliberately cause someone to sin.  But temptation to commit sexual sin at the mere sight of an unclothed female body is a modern day conditioning of society, as already pointed out here and elsewhere.  And it all starts with the incorrect view of the human body, which is the view that the human body is obscene and not fit to be looked at.  It ends with a realistic, Biblical view of the human body, that it is the very good image of God, which is designed to be seen.

Examining Acts 15

In a previous post, I refuted the claim that obedience is by definition, salvation by works.  Acts 15 is one example of this false claim influencing the interpretation of Scripture.  For example:

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." [Acts 15:1; NKJV]

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." [Acts 15:5; NKJV]

Here we have two parties making claims about what the believing gentiles must do.  The circumcision party said that they must be circumcised to be saved.  The Pharisees said it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses, but said nothing about that being necessary for salvation.  This is an important distinction that most will not catch.  Also, if you read verse 5 carefully, you will notice that the Pharisees who said this were believers in Yeshua.  Another important detail that is often overlooked, especially in light of the fact that the other group is not referred to as believers.

The reason that these key details are overlooked is (as mentioned earlier) the false doctrine that the teaching of obedience is, by definition, salvation by works.  But if you read the three verses between 1 and 5, and the 2 verses immediately following 5, you'll notice that there is a 3-way dispute on what the gentiles need to do and for what purpose.

The fact that the circumcision party is not described as believers, and says that circumcision is necessary for salvation tells you everything you need to know about them:  They rely on their own works to be saved, rather than the Work of Yeshua on the cross.  It's also telling that they used the word "custom" instead of "law" or "command" when describing circumcision.  Is this a subtle admission that the Law of God does not require foreigners who join with the house of Israel to be circumcised?  And that this is a human tradition?

What about the believing Pharisees, who have the entirety of the Law of Yahweh memorized from early childhood?  They seem to have made a distinction between circumcision and keeping God's Law.  Is this another hint that God's commands concerning circumcision are not what we think they are?  Also, you may have noticed at the end of my post on Good Friday vs Passover that I said it's okay if you don't want to keep the Passover because of it's requirements.  But how can I say that and pass the Deuteronomy 13 Test unless the Law of Yahweh does not say what you think it says?  Let's examine what the Law says concerning circumcision, starting in Genesis!

9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." [Genesis 17:9-14; NKJV]

Anyone descended from Abraham, and those living in the house of someone descended from Abraham, whether born into said house or bought with money from a foreigner, is to be circumcised.  But what about the foreigner that is not living in the house of a descendent of Abraham?  That person does not have to be circumcised according to this passage.  But what about the other commandments?

43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." [Exodus 12:43-49; NKJV]

Any woman living by herself may eat the Passover, since there are, by definition, no males in that house that need to be circumcised (at least, I don't remember reading anything that says otherwise).  But if any house has any males in it, then all the males in that house must be circumcised before anyone in that house is allowed to eat the Passover.  And eating the Passover without all the males in the house being circumcised is wickedness.  Let's see what other rules there are concerning circumcision.

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'" [Leviticus 12:1-3; NKJV]

This is basically re-affirming Genesis 17:12.  So not much extra information here.  We see another command to be circumcised in Deuteronomy 10:16, but this time, it's a circumcision of the heart.  And again in Deuteronomy 30:6.  Where have we heard of circumcision of the heart before?  That's right, Jeremiah 4:4!  Oh, you were thinking of "New Testament" passages?  Well, I just happened to find this one in Jeremiah and couldn't resist the bait and switch!  Romans 2:29 talks about circumcision of the heart.

Anyways, circumcision is a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and the physical descendants of Israel.  And only the physical descendants of Israel, along with anyone who is living in the house of a physical descendant of Israel, must be circumcised, along with all of their descendants after them forever.  This may be one of the reasons why the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:1-3.  The only exception to this rule is for the foreigner who wants to celebrate the Passover.  And of course, there is nothing stopping someone who is not a descendant of Israel from joining into the same covenant as Israel.  And concerning the New Covenant, there is no indication whatsoever of a gentile being required to be circumcised to be a part of the New Covenant.  At least, none that I can remember.

So, both the circumcision party and the Pharisees acknowledge that circumcision of the gentiles is not part of God's Law.  And when Peter testified in Acts 15:6-9 what happened to the gentiles that believed, that they received the Holy Spirit, though they had not been circumcised, and after Barnabas and Paul testified concerning the believing gentiles in Acts 15:12, and after James gave his testimony concerning what the prophets said in Acts 15:13-17, it was agreed by the entire assembly that the gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be a part of the New Covenant.  Literally the only reason a believer from among the gentiles has to become circumcised is be able to keep the Passover without becoming guilty of sin!

So what about the keeping of the Law?  Well, here's what the Apostle James said:

19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. [Acts 15:19-21; NKJV]

Now here's where things get interesting.  There are four rules listed here.  Abstain from sexual immorality, and from eating blood, strangled meat, or foods polluted by idols.  The word translated as "sexual immorality" is the Greek word "porneia", which literally means prostitution, and is sometimes used to refer to sexual immorality in general.  The KJV translates this word as "fornication", which at the time that the KJV was written, also meant prostitution, but now means premarital sex.

So, does that mean that lying is now okay?  How about stealing or murder?  Some people, without thinking about the implications of what they say, interpret Acts 15:20 to mean we only have to follow the 4 rules mentioned in that verse.  Do you see the problem with that interpretation?  Also, who decides what is or is not sexually immoral?  Do we really want to leave that up to man to decide?  Of course not.  And if we translate the passage as saying "abstain from prostitution", then what about fornication, or adultery.  If we translate it as saying "abstain from fornication", then that also takes care of prostitution, but what about adultery, incest, or sodomy?  And although the rules are to abstain from eating foods polluted by idols, it doesn't say anything about not worshiping the idols!  Or using them to worship Yeshua.  Well, that's where verse 21 comes in.  The gentile believers are expected to attend the synagogues every Sabbath.  Either that or everyone in that assembly just failed the Deuteronomy 13 Test and are guilty of teaching idolatry.

As it turns out, in those days, the gentiles regularly met in the synagogues with the Jews.  For example, in Acts 13:42, there were clearly gentiles in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Saturday) eager to hear what Paul had to say from one Sabbath to the next.  Go ahead and read it and the verses after it.  Acts 14:1 is another example where the gentiles are clearly attending the synagogues every Sabbath.  And again in Acts 17:1-4, and Acts 17:10-12.  There are even more examples after that.  So it is expected of the gentile believers to attend the synagogues every Saturday to learn the Law of Yahweh, to keep it.

Notice that these believing gentiles are saved, though they do not know the law.  And as they learn the law, they are still saved though they now keep it.  These believers want to do what is right in the eyes of God.  And keeping God's Law is right in the eyes of God.  Like I've said before:  We don't keep the Law to be saved, we keep the Law because we're saved.

Remember, in Acts 15:1, these gentile were told that they must be circumcised to be saved.  In Acts 15:24, somebody added "saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'—to whom we gave no such commandment—".  There's a good way to lead people into idolatry.  How do we know it was added?  Simple:  The gentiles were told "you must be circumcised to be saved" (Acts 15:1), not "you must be circumcised and keep the law".  Plus, not all manuscripts have the part that I just quoted.  Not to mention the Deuteronomy 13 Test that I mentioned earlier.  Notice that the believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5 did not tell the gentiles "you must be circumcised and keep the Law", but took up their petition with the Apostles concerning the gentile believers.  And they didn't dare say it was to be saved because they knew salvation was by faith!

We also know that the last part of Acts was added to because of the vast amount of evidence that that the gentiles were in the synagogues every Sabbath learning the Law of God, and that Acts 15:21 expects this norm to continue, thereby satisfying the believing Pharisees' beliefs that it is necessary to teach the gentiles to keep God's Law.

Now the Law is broken-up into large portions, which are called "portions" (but with the Hebrew word for "portions").  Over the course of a year, the Torah is read, one portion each week, until the entire Torah has been read.  Then they start over at the beginning once they have finished reading through the entire Torah.  So the gentiles will learn a small portion of Torah at a time rather than being required to learn it all at once and be overwhelmed by it.  The Apostles' letter to the gentiles addressed the four most important issues of the time as simply the starting point.  Notice that their letter said nothing about not having to stop attending synagogue, which they were already doing.

Spirits Are Not What You Think!

Spirits are typically thought of as immaterial, supernatural beings that are capable of influencing the material world.  And while it's true that some types of spirits are exactly this, the word for spirit is so incredibly broad that it can refer to even that which can only exist if it has a material host and is bound strictly by the capabilities of said host.  In these cases, if the material host is destroyed, then the spirit also is destroyed, and ceases to exist.  The word in Hebrew is "ruach", and in Greek is "pneuma".  These words literally mean "wind".

Wind refers to the physical movement of air.  You cannot see the wind, but you can see the effects that it has on some of the things that it interacts with.  When the Bible uses the word "wind" to refer to something other than moving air, it can be referring to anything that cannot be seen, but the effects of which can be seen.  By this definition, the software that you are using to read this article is also classified as a "spirit" or "wind".  Because you cannot see the software, but you can see its effects when it interacts with your monitor.

This word is translated as "breath" in places like Genesis 6:17, where the context is in a creature's ability to breathe.  This same word is also found in Genesis 7:22, but some translations skip translating it, since the word "neshema" (literally means "breath") is translated instead.  Other translations use "of the spirit" instead.  However, since the context is in the creature's ability to breathe, translating this word as "spirit" instead of "wind" or "breath" is actually incorrect.  Another example of the word being used in the context of a creature's ability to breathe is Job 34:14-15.  Specifically, the context is a person's ability to breathe, and what would happen if this ability was taken away.  In this passage, "ruach" is typically translated as "spirit" instead of "wind" or "breath".  This may be because the passage describes it as belonging to God.

There are some instances, the word is used to describe someone's state of mind, or their emotional state.  For example, Genesis 26:35, where the word is translated as "mind".  In Judges 8:3, the word is translated as "anger".  And in Genesis 41:8 and 45:27, it's translated as "spirit".  In fact, this seems to be the case in a great number of passages where the word is translated as "spirit" when dealing with human "spirits".  Just goes to show that you cannot always rely on the translation of Scripture to give you an accurate picture of what's going on.

Along similar lines, in Judges 9:23, Yahweh sends a "spirit of ill" between two groups of people, resulting in a civil war which destroyed both parties, which dealt treacherously with those who had previously rescued them from the Midianites.  This "spirit of ill" refers to how the group's relationship with each other went from one of friendship to one of hatred.  And in the case of 1 Samuel 16:4, the "distressing spirit" from Yahweh refers to Yahweh turning King Saul into a madman.  The "spirit" in this case is referring to the person's character.  The word can also refer to someone's motivation or lack thereof.  By the way, it is entirely possible that the "Spirit of God" can often refer to God's character, motivation, emotion, etc., and not what is typically thought of as the Spirit of God.

As far as I can tell, the first instance where a spirit is described as being a personal being is 2 Chronicles 18:18-22.  This does not by any means, mean that all spirits are personal beings, but this is the first indication that some of them are.  Though just because something is personified, does not mean that it's a personal being either.  For example, wisdom is personified in Proverbs 1:20 and elsewhere.  Also, I'm not counting 1 Samuel 28:13 (King Saul consulting a medium) because the word translated as "spirit" is the Hebrew word "elohim", which literally means "mighty ones", and typically refers to God, or one or more false gods (should be a hint as to what is actually going on in that passage), or a human being who is a ruler or has great influence, strength, or wealth.

When referring to human beings, I cannot find one instance where the spirit is described as an immaterial being controlling a material body.  On the contrary, we are described as having spirits, but none of those spirits are described as being "us".  Our "spirits" are part of who we are, but can be entirely removed from us and replaced with an entirely different "spirit" (eg: Ezekiel 36:26).  These "spirits" represent our character, or the desires of our heart (and yes, the heart is capable of having thoughts and desires).  There are very few instances where these spirits are even implied to be immaterial beings.

By the way, that's just the "Old Testament".  It's not really until the "New Testament" that we see spirits that are unmistakably described as immaterial beings.  That doesn't mean that they didn't exist until the "New Testament" era.  We just don't hear of them before then.  This in no way means that the nature of human spirits has changed.  In fact, the "New Testament" uses the word for spirit in the same way as the "Old Testament" in many places.  For example, Mark 2:8, where it refers to Yeshua's state of mind.  Or in Luke 8:55, where the intended usage is probably like that of Genesis 6:17, or Job 34:14-15.  That is to say, that the girl that Yeshua raised started breathing again.  In certain instances, like in Luke 13:11-13, it appears that the "spirit" may be referring to an unseen medical condition that the doctors of the day couldn't figure out, rather than an immaterial being.  Actually, the passage outright says it was a sickness, so the "spirit" likely refers to an unseen material cause of the sickness.  And it's also the case that it never states in this instance that Yeshua drove anything out.

What about places like John 19:30 or Acts 7:59?  The former is using the word like Genesis 6:17, and is likely a newer version of the idiom "he breathed his last" (Genesis 25:8).  The latter is probably a reference to Ecclesiastes 12:7, which states that the spirit (referring to the person's breath) returns to God while the person returns to dust.  It does not say that the spirit of the righteous returns to God.  It says the spirit returns to God, regardless of the righteousness or wickedness of the person.  The person who had it returns to dust.

There are two remaining issues concerning the topic of spirits:  (1) What is the nature of the Holy Spirit.  And (2) can spirits have a physical or defined form (material or otherwise)?  Let's start with the second question first, then we'll address the first question.

As mentioned at the beginning of the post, the word translated as "spirit" simply means "wind".  And a wind is something that cannot be seen, but has effects that can be seen.  So there is no reason, from this definition, that a spirit cannot have a physical (material or otherwise) form.  Some will object to this and quote a passage like John 4:24 ("God is a spirit") with Luke 24:39 ("spirits do not have flesh and bones"), asserting that no spirits have any physical form.  I touched on this in my post about the Image of God, but didn't go into detail.  So let's do exactly that.

A similar instance to Luke 24:39, where the disciples are frightened when they see Yeshua are Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49 (Yeshua walking on the water).  Now, Matthew and Mark do not use the word "pneuma" to describe what the Disciples thought they saw.  They use the word "phantasma", which is where we get the word "phantom" from.  "Phantasma" is used to describe a specific type of spirit.  In other words:  The Disciples thought that they saw a ghost.  Luke however, doesn't care about being specific about the type of spirit, though the situation is the same, but in a different setting.  So he uses the vague word, "wind", instead.  The vagueness of Luke should not be used to nullify the specificity of Matthew and Mark.  By the way, the word "phantasma" literally means "to blow".  Ghosts also do not exist.  Because of this, one cannot say, "the Image of God cannot be literal" just because God is a spirit.

Now, about the nature of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God.  The Bible is actually very vague about this.  For example, it never says that the Holy Spirit is God, nor does it ever require you to believe that it is.  It also never says that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, though some Scriptures imply that it is while others imply that it is not.  Nor does Scripture require us to believe either way concerning that.  But there are some places where the "spirit of God" is clearly referring to God's character, desires, or state of mind or emotion.  Other than that, it would seem as if God never intended for us to know the nature of his Spirit, and that's assuming that we can even understand it.  In fact, 1 Corinthians 2:11 states that we do not know the things of God, implying that we cannot know these things.

To summarize:  A human spirit can refer to the person's breath, or the wind of a person's breath.  Or it can refer to a person's character, desires, state of emotion, or state of mind.  A person is not a spirit, and a person's spirit is not an immaterial being inhabiting a material body.  When a person dies (regardless of whether that person is righteous or wicked), the spirit returns to God while the person returns to dust (this is why a bodily resurrection is necessary for Judgement Day or to fulfill the promise of eternal life).

One more thing:  Do not conflate "spirits" with "souls".  The former is described as something that we have while the latter is described as something that we are (Genesis 2:7).  That's a topic for another post.

Resurrection Contradiction?

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" [John 11:25-26; NKJV]

The above passage is one of several passages where Yeshua references the resurrection and promises eternal life.  The reason I bring up this passage is the apparent contradiction between Yeshua saying, "the one who believes in me shall live even though he dies" and him also saying, "the one who believes in me shall never die".  So how is this alleged contradiction resolved?  First, the passage is in the context of the resurrection.  Yeshua even states that much right before he said what he did.  Therefore, the rest of the passage shall be interpreted as if it is a statement of what will happen at the resurrection of the righteous.  Note that the one who does not believe in Yeshua will perish.

If the one who believes in Yeshua shall live even though he dies, then that is clearly a promise that the believer who dies shall be raised back to life.  I used to interpret verse 26 to mean that the soul leaves the body just before death, I have since learned (through some people pointing it out) that (a) souls are something that we are (Genesis 2:7), not something that we have.  And (b) the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)!  So that interpretation is ruled-out.  But again, Yeshua made it clear that what he is saying concerns the resurrection of the righteous, those who believe in him.  So the correct interpretation is that once you are raised at the resurrection of the righteous, you will never die again.

One interesting thing to note is that Yeshua counted the living among the dead and the dead among the living.  For example, in Mathew 8:22, he spoke of living people as if they were already dead.  And in Matthew 22:32, he spoke of dead people as if they were still living.  Matthew 22:32 is another passage who's context concerns the resurrection.  There are probably other passages like this.  So what's the idea behind counting the living as being dead and the dead as being alive?  If you answer the following question, you will have your answer:  What is the end result?  Those who are raised at the resurrection of the righteous will live forever.  Those who are not raised at the resurrection of the righteous will perish!

But there is not one resurrection, but two!  The resurrection of the righteous, which is the one that happens first (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and the resurrection of the wicked, which happens later.  At the second resurrection, there will be many people who will wish that they were not raised because of what will happen to them!

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and [the Grave] delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and [the Grave] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. [Revelation 22:11-15; NKJV] [see note at end of post]

This is what will happen at the second resurrection, the resurrection of the wicked.  They will be required to give an account of everything that they have done.  And because they do not have any atonement for their sins, they themselves will pay the penalty for their sins by burning up in the lake of fire!  All who transgress the Law of Yahweh and have not had their sins atoned for by the blood of Yeshua will perish in the lake of fire as punishment for their innumerable transgressions.  The same will happen to anyone who uses this atonement as a license to sin, and willfully do that which they know is contrary to the commands of Yahweh.  The atonement for sin comes from the blood of Yeshua by believing in Yeshua, the one who died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Note:
The Greek word "Hades" is a substitute for the Hebrew word "sheol", which literally means "grave".  The definition of the Hebrew equivalent is prioritized, because the New Testament (with the exception of Hebrews) was written in Hebrew.  One of the definitions of "Hades" is also "grave", but usually refers to either a false god or the realm of said false god which has the same name.  This pagan association is also why I'm prioritizing the definition of the Hebrew equivalent.

Ham's Sin is Not What You Think!

What's your interpretation of Genesis 9:18-27?  It's probably that Ham was punished for seeing his father naked.  Or that Canaan was punished for Ham seeing his father naked.  Or that Ham not only saw his father naked, but that he also mocked him for it in front of his brothers.  Well, all of these interpretations are wrong.  First, let's see what the passage says, then we'll analyze some passages that share similarities to this one.

18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said: "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren." 26 And he said: "Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant." [Genesis 9:18-27; NKJV]

Here's a question:  Why is it that Canaan, the son of Ham, is the one receiving the curse?  Shouldn't it be Ham receiving the curse since it's Ham that sinned?  Also, how does Canaan fit into this event other than being the one receiving the curse?  Genesis goes out of its way to point-out the fact that Canaan is the father of Ham.  Why?

Here are some similar passages.  First thing to note about the following passages is their link to sexual relationships.

If a man takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. [Leviticus 20:17; NKJV]

Jerusalem has sinned gravely, Therefore she has become vile.  All who honored her despise her Because they have seen her nakedness; Yes, she sighs and turns away. [Lamentations 1:8; NKJV]

35 'Now then, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord! 36 Thus says the Lord God: "Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, 37 surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who break wedlock or shed blood are judged; I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy. 39 I will also give you into their hand, and they shall throw down your shrines and break down your high places. They shall also strip you of your clothes, take your beautiful jewelry, and leave you naked and bare. [Ezekiel 16:35-39; NKJV]

In these passages, "seeing someone's nakedness" is in the context of sexual relationships.  Compare that to passages about providing for those in need:

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; When you see the naked, that you cover him, And not hide yourself from your own flesh? [Isaiah 58:7; NKJV]

"When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?" [Matthew 25:38; NKJV]

To "see someone naked" means to see that a person has no physical clothing on their bodies.  But to "see someone's nakedness" means to have sexual relationships with that person (always a male to female relationship).  Note that when Joseph was testing his brothers, he used the phrase "see the nakedness of the land" in the context of a vulnerability (Genesis 42:9-12) in a nation's defensive capabilities.

We should also note the link between "seeing" and "uncovering" someone's nakedness, like in Leviticus 20:17.  They mean the same thing.  And Leviticus 18:7-8 makes it clear what "uncovering someone's nakedness" really means:

7 The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness. [Leviticus 18:7-8; NKJV]

Again, these are Hebrew idioms that have to do with male to female sexual relationships, not whether the person is physically naked.  For some reason, the Old Testament uses only idioms when it comes to discussing sexual relationships.

This means that what Ham actually did not only involved seeing his father physically naked, but also having sexual relationships with his mother!  And that's where Canaan fits into the picture.  Canaan's mother is Noah's wife!  So it's no wonder that Canaan receives the curse instead of Ham.  Note that none of the rest of Ham's sons are cursed.  In fact, one of his sons, Egypt, is actually favored by God.

Now, what about seeing someone naked?  That is not a sin at all.  And, until recently, was considered a normal part of every day life.  I leave you with this poem from the YouTube channel "Renewed Mind".

Valentine's Day's Pagan Origins

Today, Valentine's Day looks like an innocent celebration of love, but it originated from an ancient pagan fertility ritual, which was then later "Christianized" by the Roman Catholic Church.  The mere fact that this is a pagan holiday means that it is forbidden by Deuteronomy 12.  For God commanded us not to mimic the ways of the pagans.  Also, since the Catholic Church is pagan, anyone who tries to assert that this day isn't pagan because it was created by the Catholic Church is actually proving the day to be pagan.

This fertility ritual would start with the sacrifice of a goat and a dog.  Then they would make strips of goat skin, drip them in blood, and slap their crops and young women with those strips.  And the women, believing that this would make them more fertile, would line up to slapped with these strips of goat skin.  Now, since this was a pagan fertility ritual, it was of course done in worship of a pagan god.  This "god" is Cupid, who is depicted as a naked baby with angel-like wings, and equipped with a bow and arrow.  Whoever got shot by this arrow would fall in love with someone.  Modern depictions of this false god have it covered with some sort of cloth for "modesty".  Anyone claiming to be Christian that celebrates Valentine's Day worships Cupid, not Yeshua.

Of course, this isn't the only thing that was done in the middle of the second month.  I like to refer to Valentine's Day as "adultery feast".  Why?  Because as part of this pagan fertility ritual, the young women would put their names inside a large urn, and the young men would take a card out of the urn, and whoever's name was on that card got to be his partner in sex for the year.  Sometimes, this would end in marriage.  The "adultery" refers to what would happen if it didn't result in marriage.  Though, technically speaking, adultery is when a man has sexual relations with another man's wife, not with an unmarried woman, as would be the case here.

By the way, have you noticed that this ancient ritual is a perversion of something that Yahweh called "very good"?  Yahweh created mankind to be fertile, along with everything required to produce offspring.  He created man to love women and women to love men.  And he calls this "very good" (Genesis 1:31).  The pagans somehow got the idea that there needed to be a ritual involving animal sacrifices to a god in order to increase women's fertility.  Fertility that is already there by design!  They also pervert that which Yahweh intended to lead to marriage into something sexually impure; into a ritual that results in a type of relationship that Yahweh requires to end in marriage.  And finally, they turned an attribute of Yahweh into a god who's very character is hostile to the ways of Yahweh!

Ministries Do Not Believe Their Own Doctrines

Most mainstream "Christian" ministries list certain doctrines that you must believe in order for them to acknowledge you as a "real Christian".  And this list is basically identical between ministries.  These doctrines are said to be very important for the faith.  However, there are other doctrines that these same ministries hold to that, if true, completely undermine the credibility of the "important" doctrines that you "must believe" in order to be a "real Christian".

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [2 Timothy 3:16; NKJV]

Some ministries point out that the above verse literally says "all Scripture is God-breathed", then assert that this means that every word that is in the Bible comes directly from the mouth of God, and that the Bible is therefore inerrant.  By the way, if you really want to be literal, then the verse should say "all writings are God-breathed".  For the word translated as "Scripture" is the Greek word "graphe", which literally means "writing" or "document".  Have fun explaining that one away.  But they are right about it saying that it's "God-breathed".

These ministries that hold to the inerrancy doctrine because of their interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 typically invoke the slippery slope for anyone who does not accept their doctrine.  They may also say that if you don't believe it, then you're not a "real Christian".  In fact, some don't even allow you to challenge the interpretation given.  So, how do these ministries show that they don't believe the doctrine that the entire Bible is the direct word of God?  There are a few ways in which they do this.  One of those ways is by ignoring the front of the book completely (with the exception being Genesis for some of these ministries).  Here's another way.

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. [1 Timothy 4:1-3; NKJV]

What would happen, say, if someone pointed out that God himself commanded us not to eat the flesh of pigs (Leviticus 11:7-8)?  Well, these ministries will all quote 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and assert that such people are teaching doctrines of demons.  That's right, those who claim that the Bible is inerrant call a command of God "doctrines of demons" without any hesitation!  Of course, if they call a command of God "doctrines of demons", then that also means that they are calling God himself a demon.  This same God that they are calling a demon gave us Jesus, which also means they have completely undermined the Gospel!  By the way, anyone who calls even one command of God "doctrines of demons" calls all of God's commands "doctrines of demons", for the same God gave all of the commandments found in Torah.  Also, if their interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is correct, then the Bible is not inerrant and they really should not be listening to Paul.  By the way, it's God's Law that determines what is or is not food.  And the definition of "food" that Paul is using in that passage is that which is found in God's Law.  And God says that pigs are not food.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. [Hebrews 7:12; NKJV]

Here's a passage that many of these ministries will use to justify not keeping God's Law.  The Greek words translated as "change" in this passage is "metatithemi" and "metathesis" respectively.  These words literally mean "to transfer".  Also, Psalm 119:160 says that all of God's judgements are eternal.  The Law of God is a list of God's judgements concerning what is right and wrong.  Some of these ministries, when confronted with the question of "who created God", will rightly point-out that God is eternal and does not change.  If that which is eternal does not change, then that means God's Law also does not change, for it is said to be eternal.  So if their interpretation of Hebrews 7:12 is correct, that means that Psalm 119 is wrong, which means that the Bible is not inerrant.

Here's another point:  If the Law needs to be changed, then that proves the Law to be in error.  But if the Law is in error, then the Bible is not inerrant.  And if their interpretation of Hebrews 7:12 is correct, yet the Law is not changed, then it means that Hebrews 7:12 is in error, and the Bible is not inerrant.  There are more ways that they undermine this doctrine, but it's time to move on to the next doctrine that they undermine.

That doctrine, or rather, doctrines, would be the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus.  While some ministries make it their job to prove the inerrancy doctrine to those who don't believe it, no ministry in mainstream Christianity allows you to challenge the Trinity.  And most don't allow you to challenge the Deity of Jesus, though all of them show that the latter is able to easily withstand scrutiny.  Now, whether the Trinity is right or wrong is beyond the scope of this post.  This post will simply cover how these ministries undermine the credibility of the Trinity (and the Deity of Jesus).

In one of the excuses that these ministries use to rebel against God's Law, they will assert that the Law is impossible to keep, or that it's somehow burdensome, and that Jesus freed us from God's Law.  Are you noticing a pattern in how these "most important doctrines" are being undermined?  One aspect of the Trinity is that Jesus is the same God that gave us the Law of God.  But when it comes to God's Law, the God of the "Old Testament" is portrayed as an oppressive being while Jesus is portrayed as having freed us from said "oppressive" being.  That means that Jesus is a different god than the one that gave us his law.

By the way, remember how I pointed-out that these ministries will call certain commands of God "doctrines of demons" without hesitation?  Well, if Jesus is God, but what we call the Law of God is really "doctrines of demons", then that also means that Jesus is not the same God who gave us his law.  Yet if you insist that he is and hold that some of his commands are "doctrines of demons", then you're believing in the wrong god, and the wrong trinity!  Oh, by the way:

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. [1 Corinthians 9:20-21; NIV]

This passage is often quoted like this:

In 1 Corinthians 9:20, it says that we are not under [or "we are free from"] God's Law.  In verse 21, it says that we are under Christ's Law. 

See what happened?  They misquoted 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 to make God's Law be in direct opposition to Christ's Law.  "We are not under God's Law, we are under Christ's Law."  But if this is true, then that means that Jesus is not the same God that gave us his law.  Also note that in all of these examples, the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus is also thrown away for the sake of rebelling against God's Law.  Oh, and remember back to the post exposing the serpent's deception in Genesis 3?  The very first deception was making God's Law look oppressive!  In fact, the occult teaches that a serpent freed us from an oppressive god through knowledge.  If you replace "serpent" with "Jesus", and replace "knowledge" with "the cross", you have Church doctrine!

All this goes to show you which doctrines are actually important to these ministries.  They'll be quick to say "if you don't believe the Trinity, you're not a real Christian", yet they will just throw that doctrine to the side if it means they don't have to obey God's commandments.  Some will also say "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God", and "rejecting Biblical inerrancy is dangerous to your faith", but have no problem portraying the front of the book as being in error for the sake of their idolatry (rebellion against God's commands), so long as nobody catches onto the fact that they're doing just that.  Remember, you can either do things God's way, or make for yourself golden calves.  If you refuse the former, you are doing the latter by definition.

And if you think that things couldn't get any worse.  Well, it's about to get even worse.  Revelation 13:11-18 describes a one world religion and a mark that everyone must take if they want to live.  This mark is known as "the mark of the beast".  Now, nobody seems to know what exactly this mark is.  But there are a lot of claims about what this mark is, and even claims about it's precursors.  Which of these claims is correct is beyond the scope of this post.  But some ministries will dismiss the mark of the beast as mere "conspiracy theory".  This tells you all you need to know about such ministries.  Such ministries are part of the system that will bring about the mark of the beast.  And they want to make sure that you cannot identify it as such, so that when it comes, you willingly take it, unaware of what it really is.  In this case, they have sacrificed the inerrancy doctrine by calling Revelation false prophecies, because they are part of a (probably global) propaganda campaign designed to trick you into getting the mark of the beast!

The Truth About the Image of God

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  You've probably been told that it means we have some of God's qualities and attributes.  But if you recall what Genesis 1:26 says, you will notice that we are made in the image and likeness of God.  What you've been told is God's image is actually the definition for God's likeness.  You've also probably been told that because of the fall, the image of God was lost (or marred).  And that because of Jesus, the image of God has been restored.  The verse used to support the teaching that we lost the image of God at the fall is Genesis 5:1-3, where it once again says that man was made in the likeness of God.  But that passage also says that Adam had a son in his own image and likeness.  Of course, there are no other passages that support this doctrine, nor are there any passages that support the doctrine that the image of God was restored through the Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus).  Also, Genesis 1 states ten times that living things were made to reproduce after their kind!  Genesis 5 makes it pretty clear that man is reproducing after his kind, just like all the other creatures.  Yet you are told that the description of Adam having a son in his own image and likeness "proves" that the image of God was lost.

So if the image of God is conflated with the likeness of God, what does it really mean to be made in the image of God?  The Hebrew word for "image" is "selem", which is invariably used to describe a physical object made to look like something else.  The reason given for the exception when it comes to the image of God is that "God is a spirit" [John 4:24] and "spirits don't have flesh" [Luke 24:39].  Without going too far off topic, the Greek word translated as "spirit" is "pneuma", which literally means "wind".  In Hebrew culture (which is the culture that wrote the Gospels), things are often described by their function.  The function of wind is that it is not seen, but the effects of wind are seen.  And a closer study of Scripture will reveal that there are different types of "spirits" (winds).  Some types of "spirits" have physical form, others do not.  Ironically, some of the same teachers that use this to say that the image of God cannot be literal will acknowledge elsewhere how broad the use of the word "spirit" is in the Bible.  If you really want to be literal, then John 4:24 should be translated to "God is a wind".  Have fun trying to explain that away!

Is there any other evidence in Scripture that the image of God should not be taken literally?  No.  With the exception of a couple of out-of-context verses, there is no verse in Scripture that, in context, states or implies that the image of God is anything but literal.  Remember, the Bible says that we are made in both the image and likeness of God.  The likeness of God means that we share some of God's qualities and attributes.  The image of God means that we look like God.  The two should not be conflated.

The Bible reiterates man being made in God's image in Genesis 9:6, where it is given as the reason murderers are to be put to death.  When Paul was addressing the issue of head coverings, he used the fact that man is the image of God as the reason for saying that men should not wear them (1 Corinthians 11:7).  There is no indication anywhere that this is anything but literal.  A few other things to point out:  in John 14:9, Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the father".  And in Colossians 1:15, Paul described Jesus as "the image of the invisible God".  He also describes Jesus as the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4.  God being described as a wind in John 4:24 has nothing to do with whether God has a physical form.  And if God did not have a physical form, Jesus would not be able to say "if you have seen me, you have seen the father".  And Paul would also not be able to describe Jesus as being the image of that which is invisible.

Let's reiterate what Genesis says about human beings:

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. [Genesis 1:26-27; NKJV]

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. [Genesis 5:1; NKJV]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. [Genesis 2:25; NKJV]

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Genesis 1:31; NKJV]

Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. [Genesis 9:6; NKJV]

So the Bible says that human beings are made to look like God, and that this is very good.  The Bible also says that human beings are made to share God's qualities and attributes, and that this too is very good.  But the Church conflates the former with the latter, then outright denies the former; replacing it with heretical doctrines about "lust" and "modesty" based on what is clearly an unbiblical, heretical view of human beings.  A view that, as some have pointed out, is directly responsible for the pornography industry!  And a view that has to invent "commands of God" where there are none, under the pretense of avoiding sexual sin.

The Truth About Genesis 3

Genesis 3 is the record of the fall of mankind.  But how much of it do we really understand?  Well, thanks to the Church, you probably believe that the serpent was being controlled by Satan, yet was still punished for doing something that it had no control over.  Read the first verse very carefully.  Genesis makes it very clear that it is a creature with real flesh and blood that is doing the things described, not Satan.  That doesn't mean that Satan couldn't have prompted the creature to doing it, but it does mean that the creature chose of its own free will to deceive mankind into eating the forbidden fruit.  This probably isn't the only thing about the chapter that is either not understood or is misunderstood.

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” [Genesis 3:1; NKJV]

The word translated as "cunning" is the Hebrew word "arum", which can also be translated as "crafty", "subtile", "prudent", etc.  It can also be mistranslated as "naked" for the simple reason that it uses the exact same spelling as the Hebrew word "arom" (Hebrew has no vowels), which literally means "without clothing".  The description of "cunning" makes it very clear why it was a serpent that did this and not some other creature.  Also, Satan isn't very creative, so he relies on the creativity of others to accomplish his goals.  Then uses the same tricks on every new generation.

By the way, there's absolutely no indication that there are any miracles going on here.  In fact, everything is portrayed as being completely normal here.  It may be the case (and some traditions state this to be the case) that animals could originally talk before the fall, but that after the fall, God made it so that they could no longer talk.

Now, let's take a look at the deception.  Some in the KJV only cult will say that the "Did God really say" is the entirety of the deception.  But this in and of itself is a deception (to keep you from questioning their doctrine).  The real deception comes by how the serpent quotes God's commandment, saying "You shall not eat of every tree of the garden".  The original command started as "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat" [Genesis 2:16; NKJV].  Note that the original command gives Adam the freedom to eat of every tree in the garden, except the one forbidden in the next verse.  The serpent's twisting of the command has made the command look restrictive.  Or shall we say, oppressive, since the way the serpent worded it makes it seem as if God has not given them anything to eat.  Making God's commandments look oppressive/burdensome is literally the first deception ever recorded in the Bible!  So if anyone tells you that God's Law is too hard, now you know from whom they got their teaching from.

2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' " [Genesis 3:2-3; NKJV]

There is another point to the serpent's twisting of God's commandment:  Notice that the woman started by correctly stating what the command was.  But when she got to the exception, she too added to God's command.  Why did she do this?  Most of the explanations I've seen assert that Adam added this when he relayed the command to Eve, placing a hedge around God's command, which was then used by the serpent to trick her into eating the fruit.  And while this is possible, I find it unlikely.  Ever heard of psychological manipulation?  What probably, actually happened, is that by making the command look oppressive, the serpent tricked Eve into thinking that the command was oppressive in some way.  She therefore thought that there had to be more to the command than simply not eating it, and a command against touching it made the most sense.

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The serpent saying "you will not die" is the only lie that the serpent speaks in this entire exchange.  The most dangerous deceptions are those that are not outright lies!  Or those that use the truth to cover the lie.  The serpent called God a liar when it said "you will not die."  Because God said, "you will die."  And by the way, Adam and Eve both died as a direct result of eating the fruit, proving the serpent to be the liar.

In verse 5, the serpent said that if they eat of the fruit, they will be like God and know good and evil.  This is true, but it's what the serpent is not telling them that is the important detail.  The serpent left out the part that knowing good means doing good, and knowing evil means doing evil.  Of course, if the serpent told them this, they surely would not have eaten the fruit.  This detail would not have been important before, because previously, Adam and Eve both trusted that God had a good reason for not allowing them to eat the fruit:  That being that they were only meant to know good.  But now that the serpent has portrayed knowing both good and evil as being good, their trust in God has been compromised.  The serpent, in all likelihood, knew that this would happen.

By the way, the above fact is hidden from us by the Church.  Instead of pointing-out that knowing good means doing good, and knowing evil means doing evil, the Church instead teaches that the fruit gave Adam and Eve knowledge when they ate of it.  But fruit is incapable of giving such knowledge.  And the fruit of this tree is no different.  In other words, the tree is named what it is not because of a non-existent ability to do what other fruits cannot do, but because eating from it would be evil.  What makes eating from this tree evil?  The command not to eat of it.  The command not to eat of the tree was to give Adam and his wife a choice:  To (a) show that they love and trust him, or (b) to do things their own way.

We're only 5 verses into Genesis 3 and we already can see why Deuteronomy 12:32 says what it does, and why the Deuteronomy 13 Test exists.  Simply adding to God's commands can cause others to do the same thing (even by accident).  And doing things your own way rather than obeying God's commands shows that you really don't trust God.

Also, whenever someone says "you will be like God", it's always a trap!  To say "you will be like God" implies that we are nothing like God, which is itself a deception.  We are already like God in certain ways.  We are made in God's image, and in his likeness (Genesis 1:26).  Also, the teaching that any of these qualities were tarnished or lost during the fall is also a lie!  Bonus points if they also claim that they were restored by the blood of Jesus, because that's also a lie.  The blood of Jesus provides atonement for the sins of those who believe in him.  Nothing more, nothing less.

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. [Genesis 3:6-7; NKJV]

Notice here in verse 6 that Eve never saw the tree as being good for food, or desirable for making one wise until the serpent lied to her and deceived her.  Her perception that the tree is good for these things is the direct result of the serpent's deceptions.  Before, they trusted that God had a good reason for forbidding them from eating from that tree (that it was not good for food).  And up until now, everything has been going well for them as a result of their obedience.  But now things are going south very quickly.

So now they now know both good and evil, but not in the way that the serpent implied they would.  No, they now know good and evil because they have done both good and evil.  But they still don't know this.  Instead, they're now distracted by the fact that they have no covering on their bodies, and the fact that they are vulnerable to something.

By the way, the word translated as naked in verse 7 is the Hebrew word "erom", which wile translated as "naked", has an emphasis on being vulnerable.  This word is used in 3 places:  (1) Prophesies about the punishment for rebelling against God's Law, (2) commands to provide for those who are in need, and (3) Genesis 3.  The word "erom" is naked in the metaphorical sense, and does not necessarily reflect a person's physical clothing (or lack thereof).  Also, the word translated as "coverings" is the Hebrew word "hagor", which literally means "belt".  And yes, Eve was topless during these events.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"

10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."

11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" [Genesis 3:8-11; NKJV]

Here's a question:  Adam already covered himself with a belt of fig leaves, so why is he still afraid of being naked in the presence of God?  He is no longer naked.  The answer comes from the fact that the word used is "erom", which, as mentioned earlier, emphasizes vulnerability.  The issue is not that he's naked (which he's not, unless his belt fell off).  The issue is that he broke God's command and is now vulnerable to God's judgement.  That is why he is really hiding from God.  And of course, God sees right through his excuse, and rebukes him by asking, "who told you that you were naked?"  Key word in that question is "who", not "what".  Notice that God immediately followed-up with another question, which concerned the real issue, rather than waiting for Adam to give a response to the first question.

Most believe that the fruit gave Adam and Eve knowledge about what is right and wrong, and that it's this knowledge that told them they were naked.  But fruit is not described as a "who", but as a "what".  The only thing that qualifies as a who that would be (1) willing and (2) able to tell those two that they were naked is the serpent!  That's right!  They made belts of fig leaves because the serpent told them that they needed to cover their reproductive centers.

12 Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"

The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." [Genesis 3:12-13; NKJV]

Notice that Adam answered the second question rather than the first.  Realizing that he couldn't hide what he had done, he confessed, but deflected blame to the woman, and also to God himself.  Notice that when Adam said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me", he's actually blaming God for giving the woman to him.  Never-mind that he was given the command to guard the garden (which means it is his job to intervene and prevent that fruit from being eaten).  So Adam didn't break just one command, but two.

When God confronted the woman, she also confessed to eating the fruit.  She however, didn't blame God, but the serpent, who deceived her.

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:

"Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. 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." [Genesis 3:14-15; NKJV]

God's judgement came first on the serpent, who deceived them.  Notice the prophesy about the redemption of mankind in the sentence that God gives to the serpent.

16 To the woman He said:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." [Genesis 3:16; NKJV]

Next, God pronounced judgement on Eve, but doesn't specify the reason like he did with the serpent, or with Adam, as we shall soon see.

17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':

"Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return." [Genesis 3:17-19; NKJV]

Notice that the ground was cursed for Adam's own good.  Also notice that God reiterated the fact that Adam would die if he ate of the tree by describing exactly what was to happen to him when he died.  "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return!"  Notice that death is a reversal of the process of creation.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. [Genesis 3:20; NKJV]

Technically, Eve didn't have a name until after God pronounced all of his judgements.  And it was Adam that gave Eve her name.

Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. [Genesis 3:21; NKJV]

This is perhaps one of the best examples of the Church breaking Deuteronomy 12:32.  Here, God kills an animal and makes tunics of animal skin for Adam and his wife in place of the belts that they were wearing before.  The Church uses this as proof of some sort of command to always be clothed.  This is nothing more than reading into the text.  The Bible simply says that God clothed them.  It doesn't say why.  Any explanation as to why is merely reading into the text.  If this was to point out a moral obligation to be clothed, God would have given an explicit command later on when he gave us his Law.  He did no such thing.  The Church is falling for the exact same deception that Adam and his wife fell for after they ate the fruit of the tree!  By the way, a tunic is a skirt-like garment that goes from the waste to the legs.  So Eve was, once again, topless.

22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. [Genesis 3:22-24; NKJV]

Notice here that God himself confirmed that Adam and Eve are indeed like God in the sense that they know good and evil.  But they don't know good and evil in the same way that God does.  As mentioned earlier, knowing good means doing good, and knowing evil means doing evil, at least for mankind.  But for God, knowing good means knowing what good will bring.  And knowing evil means knowing what evil will bring.  In other words, God knows good and evil through foresight.  Humans are very bad at foresight unless we've already experienced what our actions will bring, or have been told what will happen by those who have experienced those things.

Finally, notice that God removed Adam and Eve from the garden and denied them access to the tree of life, which was capable of allowing them to live forever.  This completes God's promise to Adam, that he would till the soil for food until the day he died, and the promise that they would indeed die.

To summarize:  The deceptions of the serpent included a single lie (that they would not die if they ate the fruit) surrounded by truth (that they would be "like God" and know good and evil), deceptions by omission (what it means for man to know good and evil), implied denial of certain facts (eg: the fact that we're already like God by having been made in his image and his likeness), defaming God's character (by casting doubt over his goodness and intentions, and by making him out to be a liar), and creating a moral obligation where there is none (God "requiring" clothing).