Swearing vs Cursing vs Profane Language

A while ago, I addressed a few instances of Yeshua saying, "but I say" in what appears, at first glance, to be him nullifying the Law of God.  One of those instances concerns swearing.  But what's the relationship between swearing and cursing?  And since the use of profane language is often referred to as "swearing" or "cursing", what's the relationship between profanity and the other two?

First, let's address the issue of swearing.  Swearing is making a promise to do something, or to abstain from doing something.  Leviticus 19:12 makes it very clear that we are allowed to swear, but that we are not to swear falsely.  And if that were not clear enough, Numbers 30:2 makes it all the more clear that one must do as they swear to do.  And Leviticus 5:4 warns us to be careful when we swear, lest we sin by failing to keep an oath we swore recklessly.  Notice that Yahweh only gave provision for swearing by him.  And also note how the Pharisees abused the "you shall not swear by My name falsely" of Leviticus 19:12 to say that if you swear by something other than God's name, you may do so falsely.  Yeshua didn't take too kindly to that rule.  By the way, James 5:12 is the same situation as Matthew 5:34.  The "not" is a qualified not.  The context proves that the proper qualifier is "falsely".  Both passages say "do not swear falsely".  Nowhere are we forbidden from swearing an oath.

Cursing on the other hand, is to declare harm or misfortune on someone or some thing.  It's not a promise to do something, it's calling on God (or a false god) to bring judgement on someone or some thing.  Just like with swearing, the "New Testament's" teaching on cursing is also misunderstood.  Of course, it doesn't help that cursing and swearing are often conflated.  For example, Romans 12:14 says "bless and do not curse" in the context of blessing those who persecute us.  And in James 3:9-10, James rebukes those who curse others.  The context of this rebuke concerns doing evil with the tongue.  But we also have instances such as Acts 8:20-23, where Peter curses a man who just recently came into the Body of Messiah.  Again, Peter cursed someone who just became a follower of Yeshua.  The reason for this curse?  This man thought that the Holy Spirit could be purchased with money.

So cursing isn't forbidden in all circumstances.  There are times where cursing is absolutely called for.  And like with swearing, it's not something to be taken lightly.  And as shown in several instances, people can die from being cursed.  And also, as shown in passages like Deuteronomy 23:5, Yahweh has the ultimate authority over curses and what happens as a result of said curse.

So that leaves profane language.  Or to put it in layman's terms:  "bad words" or "curse words".  The concept that a word, by itself, is bad, is not from the Bible at all.  It's from paganism.  Words, in and of themselves, are not good or bad.  It's the context in which they are used that is good or bad.  Christians are generally taught to be offended by certain words because such words are "bad words".  But this teaching does not come from Scripture.  Now, obviously words have meaning, and it is important to take into consideration the meaning of a word when it is used.  Using the wrong words in a sentence can convey a meaning that is not the intended meaning.  But even this does not make a word by itself good or bad, since words by themselves are not good or bad.  It just makes certain words not fit to convey a particular meaning.  Yeshua warned that we will be held accountable for every careless word that is spoken.

If words by themselves are not good or bad, then what about passages like Colossians 3:8, or Ephesians 5:4?  Those passages are not condemning words that culture says are "bad".  Rather, they are condemning something known in Hebrew as "the evil tongue".  And if you look at the context of both passages, you'll see that both concern abstaining from evil, including evil speech.  Remember Deuteronomy 12:32.  Examples of evil speech would be lying, deceit, defamation, speaking maliciously about someone, and swearing falsely.  All of these things God hates (and speaking the names of other gods)!  Not the use of words that humans consider "bad" or "offensive".

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.

How Often Will a Christian Sin?

Have you ever heard someone say, "You will sin every day in thought or deed!"?  How true is that saying?  Under what circumstances might it be true?  And under what circumstances might it be false?  And is it possible to never sin?  First, we need a definition for sin.  Leviticus 4 is a good place to start.  Notice that it says "whoever sins and breaks a commandment" multiple times.  This means that the definition of sin is breaking God's commandments (that is, his law).  And 1 John 3:4 also confirms that this is the definition of sin, as does the Apostle Paul, on multiple occasions.  For instance, in Romans 7:7.

Now that we have a definition for sin that comes directly from the Bible, we can begin to answer the question of whether it's true that a Christian will sin every day in thought or deed.  To start, let's reread something that Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry:

13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

14 "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. [Matthew 5:13-16; NKJV]

How much of a light are we if we sin every day?  Aren't we just like the world if we do?  And before anyone pulls the "but we confess that we sin" card, doesn't even the world admit that they do what is contrary to the ways of God?  Some even take pride in it, and even sit in judgement of God's Law, rather than submitting to it.  So if it is true that a Christian sins every day in thought or deed, then that Christian shows the world that there's no difference between believing in Jesus and not believing.

So if a Christian does sin every day in thought or deed, that Christian either (a) has not learned what is or is not sin, (b) has not learned to be careful so that he or she does not sin, or (c) does not care what God's commandments are and is therefore not actually a Christian.  Jesus told us to be perfect (Matthew 5:48), so it is possible to never sin.  But who has done so, except Jesus himself?  Didn't Jesus also say to "sin no more"?  Again, it is entirely possible for someone to never sin again!

What would it take for someone to never sin?  First, it would take a perfect knowledge of what God's Law says about everything, followed by a perfect understanding of all that it says.  It would also take a perfect understanding of which commands are currently impossible to keep (there are some commands which cannot currently be kept as prescribed).  And if two or more commands come into conflict, which command take priority.  Finally, that person would have to always be careful to never break a single command, ever!  But who has ever done that except Jesus himself?  That is exactly why we need to trust him so save us as he promised.

So, Jesus told us to stop sinning and to be perfect.  But he also said that anyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34).  And that those who love him will keep his commandments (John 14:21)   So the one who believes in Jesus will make every effort to not sin.  What does this mean?  It means the one who believes in Jesus will study God's Law, so that he or she knows what is right and what is wrong.  That person will also try to implement what he or she has learned, so as to not do anything that is contrary to God's commandments.  Finally, such a person will also be very careful not to break any of those commandments.  The person that does all of this will rarely sin.  This is the duty of everyone professing faith in Jesus.

Generally speaking, the teaching that someone will sin every day in thought or deed is accompanied by a teaching that, when examined closely, boils down to "you're going to sin anyways, so don't bother trying not to sin".  This of course is contrary to everything that Jesus taught.  The same people who teach this also try to correct Christians for their sin.  Does anyone see the hypocrisy in that?  If you teach "you can't not sin, so don't even try", then you shouldn't be surprised when someone follows that teaching.  It does not matter if it is a big sin or a little sin.  Neither does it matter if a person merely doesn't care if they sin, or if they actively seek to deliberately commit sin.  If you teach "don't even try", and someone takes that to heart, you reap what you sow!

Now, what about if we do sin by accident or without knowing that we have sinned?  That's where the grace of God comes in.  For the one who believes in Jesus, the blood of Jesus covers these types of sins.  When we become aware of our sins, we confess those sins and repent.  And God forgives us of those sins.

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 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).

What Sins are Not Covered by the Blood of Jesus?

The Bible makes it clear in many places that whoever believes in Jesus will have their sins forgiven and will be saved.  But is this forgiveness conditional or unconditional?  And if it's conditional, then what are the conditions?  Well, Hebrews 10:26 says that when you learn something is sin, but deliberately continue in it anyways, then you have no atonement for your sins.  In fact, if you keep reading past that verse, you'll see just how dangerous it is to rebel against God's commandments once you learn what they are.  The very next verse literally says that the enemies of God will be BURNED! UP!  Jesus himself said, "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." [John 5:14; NIV]  And we know from a previous examination of Scripture what that "something worse" is.

So one of the conditions is that we cannot continuously, deliberately do something that we know is sin.  If we learn that what we are doing is a sin, we must stop if we want to be forgiven.  Is that the only condition to being forgiven?  No.  Jesus made it very clear in several places (eg: the Lord's Prayer) that if we want God to forgive us of our sins, then we must forgive those who have sinned against us.  In other words, if you hold a grudge against someone who wronged you, even if they have repented, you will be counted among the wicked and the fate of the wicked will fall onto you.

By the way, what does it mean to forgive?  Psalm 32:1-2 gives a good definition.  It means to not count or hold something against someone.  When God forgives us of our sins, he no longer counts those sins against us.  If someone offends you or harms you, and you forgive them, then you no longer count that offense or harm that they have caused you against them.

Are there any more conditions for our sins being forgiven other that what we discussed, and the need to continuously believe in Jesus?  There does appear to be one more condition:  "One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps on speaking against the [Holy Spirit] will never be forgiven, neither in the [present age] nor in the [coming age]." [Matthew 12:32; CJB]

Note:  Because of the translation I quoted from in the above passage, I translated the Hebrew phrases in the translation to English.  The word I translated as "age" can also be translated as "world" or "eon".

So, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit means complete disqualification from having your sins forgiven.  Now, nearly all translations that I know of does not have the word "keeps", implying that one mistake in this regard condemns you with no hope of redemption.  However, it appears that the Greek word translated as "against" (kata) has something to with a continuous action.  So the CJB is probably correct to include the word "keeps".  So one mistake won't do it.  But the continuous action of blaspheming the Holy Spirit will indeed disqualify you from eternal life.

So, there are three conditions for being forgiven, not counting the obvious condition of believing in Jesus.  These conditions are:  (1) When you learn of your sin, stop deliberately doing it.  (2) Forgive those who sin against you.  And (3) do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  What about all of those "what if" scenarios concerning sin?  Well, if you're not deliberately sinning, then you show that you do not want to sin.  The fact that you do not want to sin proves that your faith is the type that God wants from you:  A faith that drives you to naturally obey his commands.  Jesus himself advocates for us [1 John 2:1-2].

Those who learn of their sins, and initially deliberately continue in it, but later stop doing it and repent of it, they will also have complete forgiveness of their sins.  But if anyone uses that as an excuse to start deliberately doing what they know is sinful, because they can later "stop and repent", is that repentance even genuine, since they planned to sin from the beginning?  Such people put themselves into great danger!  Nobody who genuinely believes in Jesus wants to sin.  Nobody!  They all want to live in full obedience to his teachings!

One more thing:  If for any reason, there is a command that you cannot keep, then failure to keep that command is not a sin.  Using this as an excuse to break a command that you can keep however, is a sin.

What Does Believing Moses Really Mean?

A common (and 100% correct) argument used to refute theistic evolution is the fact that those who don't believe Moses will not believe Jesus.  When Young Earth Creationists (which I am one) make this argument, they are quoting Jesus directly, from John 5:46.  Again, this is 100% correct, but not just for the reasons that creationists give.

Most of the time, when a creationist invokes John 5:46, they're talking exclusively about believing what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything.  And while they are right that you need to believe what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything in order to believe Jesus, where they go wrong is the exclusion of the rest of what Moses wrote.

Some will point to Genesis 3:14-15 as being where Moses wrote about Jesus.  This is indeed a prophesy about Jesus written by Moses, but there is so much more that Moses wrote than a single prophesy in a single book.  In fact, Genesis as a whole is a mirror image of the Messiah (both literally and figuratively).  The literal part because of the fact that Hebrew scrolls are striped (to guide the scribes on where to write) and pierced (to bind the different scroll pieces together to make a single scroll) just as Jesus was striped (by whips) and pierced (by thorns and nails).  The figurative part because many of the lives of those who are recorded in Torah mirror the life of Jesus.

Here are some examples of people who's lives mirrored that of Jesus:

• Noah's Ark saving Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus saving us from God's coming judgement.
• Noah's Ark being the only means of salvation from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus being the only means of salvation from God's coming judgement.
• Isaac being born by the Spirit of God is a mirror of Jesus also being born by the Spirit of God.
• Isaac nearly being sacrificed is a mirror of Jesus actually being sacrificed.
• Joseph being betrayed by his brothers is a mirror of Jesus being betrayed by a close friend.
• God using the treason against Joseph to save the world is a mirror of God using the treason against Jesus to save the world.
• Joseph is never recorded to have sinned even once, mirroring Jesus never sinning once.

In addition to that, many of the things which are found in Moses' writings point directly to Jesus, including:

• Jesus is the Passover Lamb that caused God's wrath to pass over us (the Passover meal).
• Jesus is the Unleavened Bread, leaven representing sin (Feast of Unleavened Bread).
• Jesus is the First Fruits from the dead (Feast of First Fruits).
• Jesus is the Sabbath (seventh day) rest.
• Jesus is the Atonement for our sins (Day of Atonement).

There is quite a bit more in Torah that points directly to Jesus than what I've listed here.  Go search for yourself!  As you can see from this sample, Genesis is only a small part of what it means to "believe Moses".  If you believe Moses concerning Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote, then you really don't believe him.  For nearly everything recorded in Torah is a picture of Jesus our Lord and savior!  In fact, according to the biblical definition of faith, merely believing what Moses said is not good enough.  You must also obey him!

Again, believing Moses about Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote is not believing Moses.  Believing Moses only starts with believing Genesis.  And believing all of what Moses wrote without obeying him is also not believing Moses.  For Moses told us how to live holy (set apart) lives dedicated to God.  Obeying him shows that you believe he was truthful concerning holiness, while disobedience shows that you believe he was mistaking or lying about holiness.  And Jesus obeyed Moses!  Isn't it interesting that those who do not obey Moses (who wrote exactly what God commanded him to write [Exodus 24:4]) also do not obey Jesus?  And that those who cherry-pick Moses' teachings also cherry-pick Jesus' teachings?

Can the Church be Reformed?

Churches more and more are falling away to Universalism and New Age mysticism.  This falling away is not happening by the individual congregation, but by the denomination.  There is a desperate need to reform the Church.  But, can the Church even be reformed?

To answer that question, we just need to take a look at history, when a Catholic Priest by the name of Martin Luther tried to reform the Catholic Church with his 95 thesis.  Little did Martin Luther know at the time that the Catholic Church is run by those who are not hungry for the Word, but by corruption up to the highest levels in the Church (yes, he did have some idea of the Church's corruption, but only a small portion of it).  The resulting movement was not a reformation of the Catholic Church, but a break-away from the Catholic Church and its many, many heresies.

Also, note that the Catholic Church is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination.  It is but one branch of a satanic cult bent on ruling the world.  Those that run the Catholic Church (both in the past and in the present) do unimaginable acts of wickedness in secret.  And the wickedness that they do in public, and teach their members to do in the name of Jesus, is just the tip of the iceberg.  The Catholic Church, as Martin Luther found out the hard way, cannot be reformed.

Martin Luther's movement resulted in many people abandoning some of the Catholic Church's practices.  But this move to return to God's commandments would be greatly incomplete and short-lived, as most who are in the Church are governed by the flesh.  This is also why the Puritan's move to outlaw the counterfeit holidays of Christmas and Easter ultimately failed.  Those who are governed by the flesh worship God their own way, rather than God's way.

Over the past several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by the same, satanic cult that runs the Catholic Church.  But this time, that which was previously done in private is more and more being done in public for all to see.  And the means of deception have only gotten better, so that those who would otherwise be convinced of the intolerable nature of these acts are instead committing them themselves!  And by the way, we're still talking about the tip of the iceberg!

The teachings of these abominations have to do with gratification in this life, or hope only for this life.  Sin is rarely, if ever discussed, and the message of salvation and the promise of eternal life is reduced to allegory.  And there is absolutely no concept of being held accountable to God on Judgement Day.  Their teaching is ultimately one of hopelessness with the "perk" of no accountability or condemnation on Judgement Day.  In other words, their teachings add up to this:  This is the only life you have and when it's over, it's over for good, with no hope of eternal life, and no accountability for what you have done.

Contrast that with the numerous warnings in Scripture given by both Jesus and his disciples:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [Matthew 7:21-23; KJV]

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. [Matthew 12:36; NIV]

Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, [Hebrews 9:27; NIV]

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. [Romans 3:19]

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. [Matthew 3:10; NIV]

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. [Matthew 3:12; NIV]

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [Matthew 7:19; NIV]

As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. [Matthew 13:40; NIV]

That's just a small sample of the numerous warnings about what will happen to the wicked.  Get the picture?  The one who does not have their sins atoned for will be BUNRED! UP! on Judgement Day!  Those who trust in Jesus for this life only instead of for the remission of sins and his promise of eternal life will BURN! UP! on Judgement Day!  Once this life is over, you will be raised from the dead to face God's Judgement!  The righteous will inherit eternal life, but the wicked will perish in the lake of fire!

14 Then death and [the Grave] were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. [Revelation 20:14-15]

It would seem that the mission of these wicked pastors is to make sure that people are blind to the danger of the impending judgement.  Any Church run by such people cannot be reformed until all those who teach against the Judgement by not mentioning it are removed from said Church.  Even then, as we've learned from history, most of those who call themselves "Christian" are governed by the flesh, which compels them to worship God their own way instead of God's way.  Even those who are supposed to be teaching people how to live by God's Word are instead governed by the flesh.  So the Church as a whole cannot be reformed.  And the extremely few congregations that may reform will incur a great financial loss.

Your best option is to leave a Church as soon as you recognize that it's falling away, and form your own Bible study group.  And to study the Bible for yourself and to obey it!  And to test everything against it.  Also, any Church that refuses to learn to obey the front of the book will eventually stop obeying what little of the back of the book that they are currently obeying.