Because BTFWWIII is so yesterday, we present BTFICBMD:
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Just six days after proudly proclaiming that it was unscathed by the Mt.Gox debacle, another Bitcoin bank -Flexcoin - has admitted that it will be forced to close after hackers stole 896 bitcoin, worth around $600,000, in an attack on Sunday. As The Guardian reports, the company shut its website and posted a statement on Tuesday morning detailing the loss..."as Flexcoin does not have the resources, assets, or otherwise to come back from this loss, we are closing our doors immediately."
“On March 2nd 2014 Flexcoin was attacked and robbed of all coins in the hot wallet,” the statement read. “As Flexcoin does not have the resources, assets, or otherwise to come back from this loss, we are closing our doors immediately.”Not all of the company’s assets were stolen. In line with best practices for running a bitcoin financial service, Flexcoin held some bitcoins in “cold storage”, keeping them on devices not connected to the internet. Those bitcoins are safe, but only users who explicitly requested their bitcoins be held in cold storage (and paid a 0.5% fee) benefit.“Users who put their coins into cold storage will be contacted by Flexcoin and asked to verify their identity,” the statement continues. “Once identified, cold storage coins will be transferred out free of charge. Cold storage coins were held offline and not within reach of the attacker. Flexcoin will attempt to work with law enforcement to trace the source of the hack.”...Flexcoin’s closure follows that of MtGox’s, blamed on hackers stealing 750,000 bitcoins by exploiting a bug known as “transaction malleability”. Several other bitcoin businesses, both high- and low-profile, have gone under. Services including Bitcoinica, Inputs.io and MyBitcoin have all been hacked, each losing thousands of bitcoins.
Credit to Zero Hedge
The Bosphorus has been a busy place today where first two Russian ships, the Alligator Class landing ship 150 Saratov and the Ropucha class landing ship 156 Yamal have passed the Turkish strait in a northerly, Black Sea, direction, followed promptly by the Ukrainian frigate U130 Hetman Sahaydachniy. Full steam ahead to a Sevastopol rendezvous? Find out in a few hours.
Photos and captions courtesy of Bosphorus Naval News:
Saratov passing through Bosphorus on 4 March 2014. Photo TRT
Yamal passing through Bosphorus on 4 March 2014. Photo AA
Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny is passing through Bosphorus with Ukrainian flag hoisted.
Credit to Zero Hedge
An adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that authorities would issue general advice to dump US government bonds in the event of Russian companies and individuals being targeted by sanctions over events in Ukraine.
Sergei Glazyev said the United States would be the first to suffer in the event of any sanctions regime.
“The Americans are threatening Russia with sanctions and pulling the EU into a trade and economic war with Russia,” Glazyev said. “Most of the sanctions against Russia will bring harm to the United States itself, because as far as trade relations with the United States go, we don’t depend on them in any way.”
Glazyev noted that Russia is a creditor to the United States.
"We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner,” he said. “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.”
According to US Treasury data from the end of 2013, Russian investments in US government bonds total around $139 billion out of a total of $5.8 trillion of US debt held in foreign hands.
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday warned that Russian military interventions in Ukraine, which have been justified by the Kremlin as protection for residents in heavily ethnic Russian-populated regions, could result in “serious repercussions” for Moscow.
"Unless immediate and concrete steps are taken by Russia to deescalate tensions, the effect on US-Russian relations and on Russia's international standing will be profound," Kerry said.
Kerry mentioned economic sanctions, visa bans and asset freezes as possible measures.
Former deputy energy minister and lively government critic Vladimir Milov slammed Glazyev’s remarks, saying they would put further downward pressure on the ruble, which was pushed down Monday to a record low of 36.5 against the dollar amid fears about the possible outbreak of war.
“That idiot Glazyev will keep talking until the dollar is worth 60 [rubles],” Milov wrote on his Twitter account.
A high-ranking Kremlin source was quick to distance his office from Glazyev’s remarks, however, insisting to RIA Novosti that they represented only his personal position.
Glazyev was just expressing his views as an academic, and not as a presidential adviser, the Kremlin insider said.
Credit to RIA Novosti
A 30,000-year-old giant virus has been revived from the frozen Siberian tundra, sparking concern that increased mining and oil drilling in rapidly warming northern latitudes could disturb dormant microbial life that could one day prove harmful to man.
The latest find, described online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, appears to belong to a new family of mega-viruses that infect only amoeba. But its revival in a laboratory stands as “a proof of principle that we could eventually resurrect active infectious viruses from different periods,” said the study’s lead author, microbiologist Jean-Michel Claverie of Aix-Marseille University in France.
“We know that those non-dangerous viruses are alive there, which probably is telling us that the dangerous kind that may infect humans and animals -- that we think were eradicated from the surface of Earth -- are actually still present and eventually viable, in the ground,” Claverie said.
With climate change making northern reaches more accessible, the chance of disturbing dormant human pathogens increases, the researchers concluded. Average surface temperatures in the area that contained the virus have increased more steeply than in more temperate latitudes, the researchers noted.
“People will go there; they will settle there, and they will start mining and drilling,” Claverie said. “Human activities are going to perturb layers that have been dormant for 3 million years and may contain viruses.”
Claverie’s co-author, Chantal Abergel, nonetheless cautioned that their finding is limited to one innocuous virus infecting an amoeba.“We cannot definitely say that there are some human pathogens in there,” she said.
They will reexamine the drill core samples, Abergel said, to “find out if there is anything there that is dangerous to humans and animals.”
Claverie’s laboratory was behind the discovery, in Chile, more than a decade ago, of the first giant DNA virus, dubbed Mimivirus. They next identified a far larger virus of an entirely different family in 2011, dubbing it Pandoravirus salinus, in homage to the mythical Pandora’s box that first unleashed evil on the world.
This time, they used an amoeba commonly found in soil and water as bait to draw out a virus from a Siberian permafrost core that had been dated to 30,000 years ago.
The finding described Monday looked like another Pandora, except it was 50% larger.
Kerry Lands In Kiev, Sanctions Against Russia "In Matter Of Days", US Prepares $1 Billion Loan For Ukraine
While the world digests the recent Putin press conference in which he appeared to superficially soften his stance on the Ukraine, US SecState John Kerry lands in Kiev while the state department announced that sanctions against Russia are "coming in a matter of days", and as the US announces it is preparing a $1 billion aid package for the Ukraine, which despite the toned down rhetoric by Putin just lost the Gazprom discount for natgas due to non-payment meaning its reserves will be depleted even faster, suggesting a far greater urgency to providing funding for the Ukraine in what some have said is now a fight between Putin and the IMF, as the latter tries to drain what little funds remain in the nation, while the former urgently seeks to keep it afloat.
Here is how the WSJ lays out the itinerary:
U.S.’s Kerry Arrives in Ukraine
U.S. Pledges $1 Billion in Loan Guarantees to Ukraine – Officials
U.S. to Provide Technical Support to Ukrainian Central Bank, Finance Ministry
U.S. to Help Ukraine Trace Stolen Assets
U.S. Sanctions on Russia Likely “Days” Away – Officials
Credit to Zero Hedge
PART 8: Temple Mount Troubles Grow
When you were a child, did you ever play “king of the hill”? That’s like what is being played out in the Middle East today. But it is not child’s play; it’s a deadly game with worldwide consequences.
War and peace, life and death hang in the balance of this contest for control of the Temple Mount. As we’ve seen, much blood has been shed in modern times over the Temple Mount feud. Things aren’t getting better, but worse, because neither the Islamics nor the Jews will follow what the true God said about the matter. All sides are determined to do what Psalms 2:1–3 says:
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
The United Nations, the European Union, the United States, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and everybody else are all determined to do what is right in their own eyes. This has always been fallen man’s fatal flaw. From the people before the Flood of Noah’s time, to Nimrod and the tower of Babel, to Israel’s decision not to take the land from the inhabitants at the time God directed it to do so, to Ehud Barak offering the Temple Mount to Arafat for the sake of peace—everybody has wanted to do it his or her own way, not God’s way. The result is that rather than things getting better and better, as the evolutionists tell us, things are getting worse and worse, as the Bible says: “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The Temple Mount in Jerusalem will continue to draw violence until Christ returns at the end of Armageddon.
Looking at the issues of war and peace surrounding Jerusalem and Palestine in recent years, we notice an absence of all-out war. Some would call this a positive sign of improvement over the war woes of previous decades.
While there has been an absence of all-out war, however, no true observer of the Mideast situation can honestly proclaim that the region has had real peace. The fact is, the attempts to control the violence since the last major conflict—the Persian Gulf War—and the War on Terrorism following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of September 11, 2001 have acted like a pressure-cooker lid for the region. The Middle East is indeed a cauldron. Unfortunately, the false peace makers (the international community, including the U.S.) have been able to do nothing to do away with the causes of the trouble building between Israel and its aggressive Arab-Islamic radical neighbors. That’s because the problems are supernatural at their roots; they are satanic.
Threats of all-out war surrounding and involving Israel have been in the headlines for years. Most recently we think of Syria and the possibilities of war being ignited by the battle to oust Bashar Al Assad as the country’s dictator/president. Consider the tremendous dangers building within the Israeli/Iranian confrontation over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Added to this are the boiling anxieties and turmoil initiated when the Muslim Brotherhood, under the false promises of the Arab Spring eruptions, ousted Hosni Mubarak from Egyptian leadership. All the while, the many enemies surrounding the Jewish state remain resolute about erasing Israel from the map. As a matter of fact, maps used by many of the Arab nations have no references outlining or even mentioning Israel.
A time will come, the Bible says, when those who work to agitate for war will cause God’s anger to bring judgment: “God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies” (Nahum 1:2). He will take vengeance on those who come against His people, to whom He gave the land of promise—which includes the Temple Mount.
The storm of rage has been building since Israel no longer seems willing to give away land and other concessions with nothing given by Palestinian adversaries in return. There seems little Israel’s Palestinian enemies can now achieve by continuing with a negotiating process for a peace they don’t want anyway.
Up until the year 2000, Arafat and company had reason to come to the peace table and at least pretend an interest in peace. A steady stream of concessions flowed to them with little effort on their part. They finally got an Israeli-free territory, being allowed to have a Palestinian armed police force of more than thirty thousand.
Things changed once this was achieved. Arafat refused Barak’s seemingly insane offer of the Temple Mount and many other concessions. If Arafat had accepted Barak’s offer, many observers believe the PLO chairman would have been assassinated by his own people, as was Anwar Sadat following his peace treaty with Menachem Begin.
Most observers believed, also, that once the PLO and the Islamic radicals got all they could at the peace table, the hardball issues would have to be addressed—issues like border determinations, water rights, bringing Palestinian refugees back to disputed territories, the ultimate status of Samaria and Judea, and, of course, the sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Sovereignty over Jerusalem includes control of the Temple Mount and the authority to make arrangements for access to it. Corridors for pilgrims to the holy sites must be maintained. These corridors must be arranged so as not to cross opposition territory. For Israel’s foes in the region to accept a final settlement would mean the Islamic radicals would have no further claims. This they will never agree to accept.
The so-called Middle East peace process between Israel and the Muslim forces of the nations surrounding the tiny Jewish state has been ongoing for decades. These are Arab nations, and all contain fiery Islamist fanaticism that openly declares that Israel must be destroyed. John Loeffler, an observer/commentator of that peace process, frames, in an all-encompassing thought, the seeming hopelessness of the situation:
Everyone also realized that once the peace process played out, the Arabs would have no further incentive to remain at the negotiating table and behave themselves, leaving a new round of war(s) as the only remaining option. The act of accepting a final agreement would force the Arabs to relinquish any future claims on the Israeli state, its people, and the very existence of Israel itself. It would be final; the events begun in 1947–48 would be over. In the world’s eyes, the Arabs would lose all “legitimacy” for further struggle.[i]
No matter how vicious the attacks by the terrorists against the people of Israel, when that nation responds with force, the world news organizations and world community declare the response to be overreaction.
There are almost always sympathetic voices for the Palestinian aggressors who throw stones and Molotov cocktails, and even for those who fire with heavy-caliber weapons upon Israeli forces. It is amazing to watch as a bully attacks someone who is trying to live in peace, then hear an entirely different report on what you are witnessing. Instead of reporting that the fighting has been started by the Palestinian troublemakers, the world news reports invariably imply that Israeli forces brutalize their victims with overwhelming military power.
For example, on Sunday, May 30, 2010, a fleet of six flotillas set sail from Cyprus for the Gaza strip, carrying pro-Palestinian activists and humanitarian aid to the area. Included in that fleet was the Mavi Mara, a Turkish cruise liner chartered by IHH, a group that, in addition to performing humanitarian efforts, also supports radical Islamic terrorist networks, including Hamas.[ii] Israel and the Israeli navy gave numerous warnings to the fleet prior to setting sail, as well as during the journey. They also offered an alternative plan for the fleet to dock at Ashod, where cargo could be inspected and then transferred by land. The fleet defied these warnings and instead attempted to break the Israeli naval blockade.
The next day, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) decided to board the flotillas and force them to redirect to Ashod. Five were boarded without incident; however, when IDF soldiers attempted to board the Mavi Mara, they were met with violent attacks by Palestinian activists wielding clubs, knives, and a gun—with all of the activity supported by video evidence. IDF soldiers returned fire, killing nine activists. Seven IDF soldiers were also wounded.[iii]
The incident was characterized in nearly every major news network as a brutal attack on humanitarian aid workers by Israeli forces, provoking international condemnation. In September 2011, the United Nations published a report of its findings about the incident. The report exonerated Israel, but not without characterizing the incident as “excessive and unreasonable.”[iv] Again, nearly every major news headline emphasized the description “excessive and unreasonable” rather than highlighting the exoneration.
Israel is not without fault, of course. The Israeli military has no doubt been brutal at times in use of force. But, only in cases of defensive-oriented, preemptive action has Israel struck at its neighbors first.
Israel might be back in the land of promise in unbelief, but it seems to take the Lord at His word in the matter of self-defense. Considering the history of the nation’s hostile neighbors, heeding God’s advice has been very wise indeed!
New World Order Builders
The prophet Nahum’s words more and more seem written to describe our time:
The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.
That they may do evil with both hands earnestly. (Micah 7:2–3a)
It does appear from events in our nation and around the world that there aren’t many good people left. The brutality people inflict upon each other is widespread and extremely troubling. This is one of the excuses those who want to build a new world order use to justify their desire to control all people. The one-world builders say they have answers to all the violence and brutality.
If everyone could become equal in every way, then jealousies, envies, hatreds, and all the other factors that cause trouble would be eliminated. In this way, mankind would again achieve a degree of goodness that has been lost, they apparently believe. Fighting at every level, robberies, murders, and all the rest would be eliminated in their perfect world order. Everyone would have the same status in life, thus everybody would be content.
Of course, the one-world-order builders would have a higher position than the rest of us, as they govern their better world. This means they would not be subject to the same limitations as we worker bees. They would have the Rolls Royces and the private jets, etc.
This proposition is preposterous! God’s Word says: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God” (Luke 18:19). Until Christ changes a person from within, that person’s sin nature remains unchanged. People never can be transformed by mankind’s institutions and social architecture. Still, the one-worlders dream and plan and plot, determined to bring us to a time like it was at the tower of Babel (se Genesis 11).
“Global governance” is a term put into our language by the new-world-order crowd meaning that it is not one world government they seek, but authority over all national governments. They want to operate, at least at first, like the U.S. government. A “federal” system of government is what they want at first. The global governance would have top priority over any decision, law, or regulation of any nation. There would be a judicial or legal system that could override any nation’s court.
The one-worlders want a controlling authority over every aspect of life, including economic, judicial, social, technological, ecological, and military matters. No doubt, they want to control religion also. And they especially want to appease the most vicious elements of those who hate Israel. Despite agitations by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups stirring the Palestinian people to violence, the UN and the would-be, one-world controllers demand that Israel not retaliate. The—supposedly—most intelligent, best-informed globalist leaders make these demands, yet it is plain to most everyone else that the radical Islamics have no interest in reasoning together. They can be appeased only if Israel is driven into the Mediterranean Sea.
Nonetheless, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are seen as the trigger to nuclear Armageddon. The fanatics must be appeased at all costs. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has proved to be caught up in the appeasement as of this writing.
The globalists want peace at any price—that is, as long as it doesn’t cut into their perks or benefits. The one-world architects are like the people in high authority described in the book of Micah:
The prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up.
The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge. (Micah 7:3b–4a)
Everyone will have to make sacrifices for the cause of world peace—everyone, that is, except them. Israel is under terrific pressure to yield to the demands of the international community. The internationalists want peace at all costs in the Middle East so that the oil will continue to flow freely to the Western industrialized governments, which fund their big plans.
Undoubtedly, some within the globalist movement want genuine peace—for genuinely compassionate reasons. But the movement itself is geared toward achieving power by stepping on the backs, heads, and bodies of anyone who gets in their way.
The ultimate globalist will be Antichrist. The Bible says “by peace [he will] destroy many” (Daniel 8:25). The world’s last dictator will gather to himself all the power he can in order to enforce global peace. But, it will not be true peace; it will be the ultimate war on individual freedoms—and it will result in the greatest world war in history: Armageddon.
Technology has forged ahead dramatically in most every field except one. The world still depends upon petroleum to produce the fuel that runs industry and transportation.
Have you wondered why, despite all the progress in other areas, we still have the internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels at a tremendous rate? Why has a practical solar-battery-powered engine not been produced? Or why don’t we have a safe, efficient, nuclear-powered car that runs every bit as well as the internal combustion motor?
The “green energy,” liberal-minded environmentalists have managed to siphon billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding into their useless machinery. The Obama administration has channeled funding into these totally failed efforts, only to turn around and channel more funds into more failed green energy debacles. It’s as if an insanity has set in at the highest governmental levels. These “public servants” spend our hard-earned greenbacks, but produce no-yield, green-energy alternatives.
There is no answer that I or others have been able to determine except this: The powers that be have so much invested in the internal combustion engine that they are not willing to abandon it or even phase it out.
The money powers also have great economic interests tied up in oil around the world. Weaning people from the gas guzzlers would be cutting the money powers’ economic throats.
There are answers beyond that, however—supernatural ones. Satan, the prince of the power of the air, this earthly realm, knew from the beginning that the shortage of fossil fuels would eventually bring the showdown in the Middle East. The serpent still has his cunning ways. He appeals to the minds of men, tempting them with the world’s riches the Lord Jesus Christ refused on the Mount of Temptation.
The top money powers of the world will not cut into their profits and develop new fuels and engines to power the industrialized world. That is, they will not do so until the petroleum reserves are so low that they must do so in order to continue their profitable ways. By the time the reserves are that low, however, it might be too late. Every petroleum interest will be looking for the same, dwindling source. Because of the great reserves from the time after the Fall in the Garden of Eden, the place of that dwindling source will be the Middle East.
God will gather these money powers to Armageddon. It is likely He will use their greed and the oil fields of the Middle East to bring them together for the feast He is going to provide for the scavenging birds and beasts to enjoy. Bringing them to the valley of Megiddo will not be an act of cruelty on God’s part; it will be His righteous judgment on a wicked people like those described in Micah 6:10–12:
Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?
Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?
For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.
The globalists will have worked their lies and appeasing ways to the harm of God’s chosen people, Israel. Vengeance is the Lord’s! (See Romans 12:19.)
With the tremendous upheavals taking place around the world, America’s people as a whole seemed not to notice at all—that is, not until September 11, 2001. That was indeed a 911 call to us all. When those gleaming, towering buildings collapsed and the huge Pentagon complex was struck a devastating blow, our attention instantaneously turned to the reality all around us. Suddenly, our luxurious, unmatched way of life was threatened.
Our richly blessed culture exceeds that of any that has ever existed. Do you have trouble believing that? Did Alexander the Great have a TV set? Did Cleopatra have central heat and air? Did Julius Caesar have a microwave oven, a refrigerator, or a laptop? Considering even just the technological blessings of this generation of Americans, ours is the most blessed ever.
So…what’s the point?
The point is that the very blessings we enjoy today make American people the most pampered. History has shown that pampered people are headed down a one-way path to decline and fall. Historian Edward Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire recounts precisely the point that ease of life brings about the death of a culture.
The Romans, from the time of Christ’s birth until the empire ceased to be in the AD 400s, went deeper and deeper into self-serving pleasures. Their leisure time greatly increased, and they filled it with every form of entertainment their wicked minds could imagine. Such has been the fate of every culture that achieved leisurely contentment.
Even the hard-working men and women of America can come home and throw their feet up on their recliners’ footrests and get lost in nightly TV entertainment of every sort. (My apologies to the wonderful mothers of America, whose work never seems to allow such leisure.)
So, again, what’s the point? Such leisure is a mighty tool in Satan’s hand. We are examining here the cauldron of war and peace. Appeasement of the American people comes in the form of tremendous blocks of leisure time. Apathy, or the “who cares?” attitude, is the result of self-absorbed living.
Americans today are appeased, as far as attitudes about issues of war and peace are concerned. We choose leaders who promise to make our lives of leisure better. Voters simply don’t care about the other issues very much. They often choose leaders whose characters and activities are very bad indeed. Character, as we’ve been told time and time again, just doesn’t matter. But, God’s Word says otherwise. Leaders with upside-down thinking can lead a people down the path to decline and fall. Hitler is one such leader who comes to mind.
The point is, then: America’s apathy has led to choosing bad leaders in the past. Other nations at other times have chosen leaders of terribly flawed character. The results have been, in many cases, that those nations turned against God’s chosen people, the Jews, to one degree or the other. No matter how haughty, high-minded, or technologically sophisticated a nation becomes, God says He will bring such a people down.
It is reasonable to wonder: Has the Lord, because of the way Israel is being treated internationally and because of the anti-God attitude prevalent today, begun to deal in judgment with America and the more financially privileged nations of the world?
Financial crisis exploded in 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the banking problems that followed. Since that time, America has seen its national debt climb into the trillions of dollars, some believing that we are as of this writing headed toward more than $140 trillion in debt. This means that there is no hope for America to survive as the nation we have known it to be, if the figure is correct. As a matter of fact, the entire world of finance will have to be completely changed at some point to reconstruct any semblance of economic sanity.
Such apathy and disregard for godly direction one day, perhaps soon, will lead to America and the rest of the world turning to the ultimate Jew-hater, Antichrist. He will seek to get rid of everyone who dares to oppose his devilish plans to make all people worship him as God. Antichrist’s regime will be a completely dominating economic order. (Read 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13.
Credit to Raidersnewsupdate.com
In posting the previous chapter of this book I have anticipated some objections that may be raised to what has been set forth. In trying to keep each post to a reasonable length it becomes untenable to attempt to address in one writing every concern, question, or objection to a doctrine as profound and far reaching as the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe a good beginning was made in the previous chapter. I will now proceed to build upon that foundation.
I encourage those to whom this teaching is new to search the Scriptures as did the noble Bereans, to see whether the things being declared are true. Truth does not fear scrutiny. It is error that must ever hide in the shadows, and falsehood that does not assent to be questioned. In your searching you must not fail in diligence. Do not be content to grasp that which is on the surface alone. You must dig deep to discover what lies beneath.
One of the most irresponsible things we could do is to reject a teaching out of hand, saying, “That is not what I have been taught. What you are sharing offends me.” It is common to view with fear that which contradicts what we have received as the orthodox view of the church, especially if it was communicated to us by someone we admire. I have experienced this emotion myself, but I have listened to that still, small voice that told me to hear before I judge, and to test all things before rejecting them.
Perhaps you were taught that God the Father created the heavens and the earth and it troubles you to hear it taught that all things (other than the Son Himself) were formed by the Son of God. In the preceding chapter there were numerous Scriptures cited in support of this teaching. The skeptical reader should examine each verse to see if it truly says what this Bible teacher is declaring. They should also look for other Scriptures that may affirm, or refute, the conclusions shared. If they had done so, they may have come across the following passage.
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
These words of one of Christ’s apostles very succinctly summarize the role of the members of the godhead in the creation. The translation above does contain an inaccuracy. The word “world” is translated from the Greek “aion” which means “an age.” A more literal translation would say “through whom also He made the ages.” This is in fact the meaning that Young’s Literal Translation, The Amplified Bible, and others bring forth. Rendering aion as age does no harm to the point being made, for we see the Son being the agent through which the Father is creating the ages. I would also suggest that “the ages” encompass all that is contained within them, including the heavens and the earth.
The Father can be said to have formed the creation, but He did so through the agency of the Son. As John testified, nothing came into being apart from the Son. The great truths of Scripture do not stand alone on one verse, or one statement. A truth may be declared in one passage, but additional insight is obtained in other Scriptures. We must take the entire counsel of the word of God and form a comprehensive view of truth where all the various passages complement one another to form a harmonious whole. If we find a passage that contradicts, then we have either understood verses incorrectly, or there may be a translation error. Translation errors are abundant in Scripture, for men translate according to their understanding, an understanding that is often faulty.
Fitting All the Pieces Together
In the previous chapter we looked at a number of Scriptures that reveal that the Son’s being and existence is subordinate to the Father. The Son of God did not always co-exist with the Father. The Bible reveals that at some point the Son was generated from the Father. He is the “monogenes” of the Father, the only direct generation of God. The Bible reveals that God the Father has always been. He is the self-existent One. The Son is not self-existent. He came forth from the Father. As one considers what the terms Father and Son mean, and what is entailed in being “born,” they will see that it would be inconsistent to speak of Yahshua as the Son of God while holding to the view that His existence and beginning is identical to that of the Father. How can Christ be the “first-born” of the Father and always have existed with Him? How can it be said that a son has existed as long as his father?
Being born implies that one had a beginning and arose out of another. You are the offspring of your father and mother. You had a definite beginning. We can debate whether your beginning was at the moment of birth, the moment of conception, or whether you existed even further back as the seed of your father and ancestors. We could even suggest that your beginning lay as far back as the thought of God before the earth was formed, for the Bible says “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...” (Jeremiah 1:5). What is indisputable is that in your bodily form as a descendant of Adam, you had a definite beginning.
The same is true of the Son of God. Perhaps He always existed in the mind of the Father. Yet even as a thought does not take on substance until a man exhales his breath and forms a word that others can hear, so too there was a definite point in time when Yahweh breathed out His Spirit and formed “the Living Word.” That Yahshua is a part of the creation of God is plainly stated in the Bible.
The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this...
And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
For to which of the angels did He ever say, "You are My Son, today I have begotten Thee"?
Of God the Father no similar statement can be made. There was not a day in which the Father was begotten. He was not generated by another. He always has been. He is the great I AM.
Part of the confusion that exists in the church today regarding the Son of God’s origin and beginning comes from a lack of patient and careful consideration of the Scriptures. There are a number of passages of the Bible that declare the Son to be one with the Father.
“I and the Father are one.”
Some have assumed that this statement means that there is no difference between them. Such a conclusion does not stand up to scrutiny. Most assuredly there are differences between them. One is the Father. The other is the Son. One is called Yahweh. The other is called Yahshua. One is Spirit who no man has ever seen at any time, the other was incarnated in the form of man, and the disciples saw Him, handled Him, and spent several years of their lives walking with Him. Furthermore, we have Christ’s own confession that the Father is greater than Himself.
“You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
None of these truths diminish the honor and glory of the Son of God. Christians need not be afraid that acknowledging the Son as subordinate to the Father, and the first creation of the Father, in any way is a denial of His preeminence, or of His identity as God.
On the other hand, I have had conversation with numerous individuals over the course of my ministry who deny that Yahshua is God. It was not atheists making this claim. It was men and women who profess to be Christians. The views on this are many. Some claim that the Son of God is the same being as the archangel Michael. Others who are non-trinitarian in their beliefs, deny that Yahshua could be God, for the Bible says there is only “one God.”
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!”
I Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Yahshua...
Some who oppose the trinitarian view would point to the verse above from Timothy and confidently assert that only the Father is God, and Christ is a man, albeit a glorified man. This reveals the error of focusing too narrowly on a single passage of Scripture. For a doctrine to be true it must accord with the entire testimony of the Bible. There are numerous passages that attest to the truth that Christ is God.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Thomas answered and said to Him (Yahshua), "My Lord and my God!"
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Yahshua.
If we would walk in truth we must not neglect those Scriptures that serve to refute some doctrinal belief we have adopted. There are men and women who are zealous in their contention that the Father and the Son are in every way identical to one another. To the other extreme there are those who declare that Christ is not God at all. Both positions are proven false as we apply ourselves to “rightly divide the word of truth.”
I am in no way intending to criticize those who have sincere objections that hinder them from being able to accept specific truths. The world is a very confusing place. There are a myriad of voices declaring a plethora of contrasting and often incompatible beliefs. The church itself is fractured into thousands of denominations that are largely divided along doctrinal lines. As I demonstrated in the writingYahweh’s Book, even our Bibles are leavened throughout with error. Yahweh has not preserved the Bible without error anymore than He has preserved the body of Christ without error. This may seem to some to be a bad thing, but it is in an environment of error, deception, and lies that Yahweh is best able to prove those who are lovers of truth, and to cause His people to exercise themselves in the pursuit of the same.
I have observed a similarity in the zeal of some who are offended at the teaching that reveals that the Son of God is a creation of the Father and the zealousness of those who are offended when they hear it declared that there are contradictions in the Bible. I understand the reaction. Some believe that teaching that Christ was created by the Father is an attack on the Son of God’s divinity. Similarly, some believe to describe the Bible as anything other than perfect and inerrant is an attack on God or Christianity. When strong emotions are aroused people tend to lose their ability to reason. Fear and anger are hindrances to the apprehension of truth.
An example of the errors in the Bible is readily observed in books of the Bible that parallel one another, but differ in their accounts. The books of Kings and Chronicles give accounts of similar things, but contain differences. The same is true of the Gospels, particularly the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I will cite a couple of examples.
Describing the Bronze Laver, also called the Molten Sea, that Solomon had constructed to hold water for the ceremonial washing of the Levitical priests, the book of I Kings and the book of II Chronicles differ by a third in its capacity.
I Kings 7:26
And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
II Chronicles 4:5
And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
Similarly, we see a discrepancy in the number of days that passed from the time Christ was said to have taken Peter, James, and John up to the mount of transfiguration.
And He was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." And six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves.
"But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." And some eight days after these sayings, it came about that He took along Peter and John and James, and went up to the mountain to pray.
These type of errors are not uncommon in the Bible. What are we to attribute them to? Did the Holy Spirit inspire the original writers of these books to present contradictory information? Have these writings been altered over the millennia as scribes copied and re-copied the Scriptures? Are there errors in translation that can account for these differences? Certainly the role man has played in copying and translating the Scriptures has led to a great many errors. In the case of the above two examples, it would be very easy for a scribe, or a translator, to change one number to another by accident.
There is another type of Bible error of which those who seek truth must be aware. It is an error of understanding. When the Bible is translated from one language to another those laboring to produce a copy of the Scriptures must not only have an understanding of the original language of the Bible, and the language to which it is being translated, they must also understand the truths contained in the Bible. It is common for a single Hebrew or Greek word to bear a diversity of meanings. If a translator does not have an accurate understanding of what is being declared in a Bible passage, he/she will find it difficult to identify correctly which meaning a Hebrew or Greek word was intended to convey. This is a very problematic issue. A man could be the foremost Hebrew or Greek scholar of his day, and not understanding the truths of the Bible, he would err in bringing forth a translation.
As an example of the wide divergence of meaning that can be derived from a single verse, let us look at the following Scripture.
I Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
I Timothy 1:17
And to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, [is] honour and glory - to the ages of the ages! Amen.
Comparing this verse in the King James Bible with the same verse in Young’s Literal Translation, we find that very different information is conveyed. Not only is the information different, but in some instances it is contradictory. Is the King “eternal” or is He the “King of the ages”? The KJV translation places the emphasis on the King Himself. The word “eternal” becomes an adjective to describe the King. Young’s Literal Translation places the focus upon the duration of the King’s reign. The words “eternal” and “ages” are widely divergent in meaning. Eternal means without beginning or end, yet the word “ages” speaks of that which has a definite beginning and a recognized end point.
There are other marked differences in information conveyed in these two translations. Who is right, or are either of them correct? The problem we find here did not arise as much from a misapprehension of the Greek language as it did from a difference of doctrinal views. The KJV translators were charged to not derive any interpretation of the Scriptures that would upset the orthodox teachings of the Anglican Church of which King James was the titular head. (This present series cannot address the doctrine of the ages of creation at length. Those who are interested in pursuing the subject further will find it set forth at some length in the book God’s Plan of the Ages.)
I chose the above verse as an example of contradictions that exist between Bible translations because it bears directly on the subject of the attributes of the Son of God. Identifying the King as Yahshua, we find one Bible attributing to the Son an eternal existence while the other does not. We have already read in a number of Bible passages that the Son was “born,” He is the “beginning of the creation of God.” Therefore, a contradiction arises when we read in the KJV Bible, and numerous other translations, statements that ascribe to Yahshua an eternal character. We find this same contradiction among Bible translations in the following Scripture:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
And unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign;
Is the Son’s rule “for ever and ever,” or is it “to the age of the age”? These are very different expressions. The KJV rendering indicates that there will be no end to the Son’s rule. Once again the translators have rendered the Greek word “aion” as “for ever” while Young renders it more accurately and literally as “age.”
I have found that people are often not convinced by arguments based upon the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word. This is understandable, for very few Christians today, myself included, can lay claim to being advanced scholars of these ancient languages. How then are we to know which translator has done the better job? The way many Christians resolve the issue is to accept the word of their pastor or some trusted friend. Many saints simply adopt the view that they have been taught from early on to view as correct.
There is a better way to resolve the matter, however. Contradictions such as these can be settled as we become conversant with the entire testimony of the Bible. This is one reason it is important for Christians to independently study the word of God. If you have applied yourself to the study of Scriptures then the Holy Spirit is able to bring to mind other passages that will lead to understanding. For example, as I consider the verses above, desiring to know what is the proper interpretation, my mind is quickened to the following passage from Paul’s address to the Corinthian believers.
I Corinthians 15:24-28
Then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.
The apostle Paul reveals that the reign of Christ will have an end. At some point in the distant ages the reign of the Son will have accomplished its purpose of subjecting all things to the Father. When this is accomplished, all rule and authority will be abolished. The Son’s reign will also come to an end as all things are subjected to the Father and He becomes “all in all.”
People of God, as we look to the entire counsel of the Scriptures to inform our judgment we are able to see that Christ had a beginning as the firstborn of the Father. We are told He is “the beginning of the creation of God.” The Son is ancient of days, but He is not eternal. He has a beginning, and his rule will have an end when He has subjected all things to the Father. It is therefore inaccurate to describe the reign of the Son of God as “for ever and ever.” His reign will be to the end of the ages. It is also incorrect to describe the Son as “the King eternal.” Robert Young has translated the passage properly for us when he rendered it as “the king of the ages.”
Many more examples of this type of conflict and resolution, leading to a harmonious view of the whole of Scriptures could be cited, but I will cite only one more that a reader cited after the previous chapter was posted. He asked me about the testimony found in the following Scripture.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Once again we find a verse that is conveying information about the Christ that contradicts with that which is revealed elsewhere. How can the Son of God be rightly described as “Eternal Father” if He has a beginning, and His reign will come to an end at the end of the ages? How would we test the matter? How do we arrive at truth?
My intent in this writing is to do more than supply the reader with answers to doctrinal difficulties. My desire is to demonstrate to the reader how to resolve doctrinal difficulties themselves. There is a proverb that states, “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.” I would much prefer to teach the people of God how to arrive at truth for themselves than to tell them what truth is.
The place to begin is always to pray, for Yahweh is the possessor and guardian of all truth. There is nothing that is hidden from His sight. He has also admonished His people to seek Him if they lack wisdom, or need understanding.
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
“And in that day you will ask Me (the Son) no question. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name.”
It would be presumptuous of any man to think that he can arrive at spiritual truth apart from the aid of God the Father. At the same time, we would be negligent if we asked Yahweh to instruct us and then neglected to apply ourselves to the study of the word of God. We should invite our heavenly Father to guide us in our study of His word.
How might we begin to test Isaiah 6:9 to see if our English translations that describe Christ as “Eternal Father” are correct? A good place to begin would be to see what Hebrew word lies behind the word “eternal.” We could look up the word inStrong’s Concordance where we would find this entry:
ad; from OT:5710; properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by implication) duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity...
This leads us in turn to another Hebrew word, Strong’s number 5710, from which this word is derived.
adah; a primitive root; to advance, i.e. pass on or continue; causatively, to remove; specifically, to bedeck (i.e. bring an ornament upon):
Perhaps these definitions are a bit cryptic. James Strong had a pretty good vocabulary. He used many English words that are relatively obscure today. What after all is a “peremptory terminus”? The word peremptory signifies that which is definite, unable to be challenged, and unchangeable. The word terminus refers to an end point. Together they describe something that has a definite end point, either a beginning, or an end, or both, that is fixed and definite. This describes very well an age, or any period of a fixed length. It does NOT accord well, however, with the word “eternal.”
The Study Light Forum has an entry for this Hebrew word. On it they list a Greek equivalent word. These equivalent words are at times obtained by looking for quotations of Old Testament passages that are cited in the Greek New Testament, for these quotations are in abundance. An equivalent Greek word may also be found by looking at ancient versions of the Old Testament that exist in the Greek language. The Septuagint is an example of such a Greek translation. Although these word equivalents cannot be considered conclusive, they do show how some ancient Greek speaking people understood Hebrew words.
The Greek word equivalent for “ad” that is listed is “aion.” This is the same word we have just looked at in a number of New Testament passages. We saw that the KJV Bible was rendering aion as “eternal” or “for ever” while Young’s Literal Translation was consistently interpreting it as “an age.” The definition of aion as “an age” accords very well with the “proper” meaning of the Hebrew word “ad” as defined by James Strong. It is a duration of time with a “peremptory terminus.” In other words, it indicates a span of time that has definite end points.
As we look at other passages where this Hebrew word is used, we find that the KJV translators ascribed to it a range of meaning. Following are a couple examples.
Knowest thou not this of old (Hebrew “ad”), since man was placed upon earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment?
“Eternal” would not be a suitable English word to use to translate this Hebrew word in the verse above. We would not say “Knowest thou not this of eternity...”
Another instance of this word is in the following verse:
Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until (Hebrew “ad”) the evening.
Keep in mind that Strong’s Concordance tells us that the proper meaning of this word refers to a “peremptory terminus” or a definite end. We can see then how this word was employed in the original Hebrew of this verse. Men work “until” a certain end, which in this verse is identified as “the evening.” Men do not work perpetually, or eternally.
The King James translators most often rendered this Hebrew word as “for ever.” Yet, we must question whether they have done well in doing so in all instances. Following is one example.
And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever (Hebrew “ad”).
Following is how the New KJV translates this same verse.
Then he looked on Amalek, and he took up his oracle and said: "Amalek was first among the nations, but shall be last until (Hebrew “ad”) he perishes."
Again, the word until carries with it an understanding of something coming to a peremptory terminus. Amalek was prophesied to exist “until he perishes” (comes to a peremptory end). It would appear that the NKJV has done a better job of expressing the meaning of the Hebrew word.
We have seen that there is a range of meaning that can be ascribed to this word. We have seen it properly employed to mean “old,” or “until” some indicated end. Could this verse in Isaiah be translated differently, in a manner that accords well with the proper meaning of the Hebrew word “ad,” and at the same time find a harmony with the testimony of the rest of Scripture? It certainly can. Following is one possible translation.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,Ancient Father, Prince of Peace.
The Bible does describe the Son of God as ancient. We have already read that the Son of God existed before the heavens and earth were formed. He is described elsewhere as “ancient” of days.
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.
Brothers and sisters, I wish to assure you that I have no interest in leading you astray. I recognize that people have very strongly held beliefs about the Son of God. It is a very sensitive issue to many to be presented with thoughts about the identity of the Son of God that are contrary to what one was raised to believe. Many have been taught that Christ is no different from the Father. Some have heard it repeated ad infinitum that He is eternal. My desire is to cause you to look to the entirety of Scripture to see what is testified about the Son of God.
When you do so you will find clear statements that the Son had a beginning, and His reign will have an end. You will find that the Father is declared to be greater than the Son. These truths must be reconciled with the rest of the Scriptures. When you encounter contradictions in the Bible, as you surely will, it is requisite that you tarry until you resolve the contradiction. Exercise patience. Demonstrate that you are a skillful workman who is able to rightly divide the word of truth. Look to the Father to guide you.
If you would be established in truth, you must labor to clear away all the confusion, deception, and lies, that are characteristic of this dark and evil age in which we live. The rewards are worth the effort. Press forward brothers and sisters. The truth awaits you.
Credit to Joseph Herrin