The word Jehova verses the word SEÑOR

The following is an article I've written for a Spanish Magazine entitled "La Voz Bautista." They've asked me at least four or five times to submit them an article, and I've been blessed to see those printed. What I give below, I have translated into English. I believe the information is very important, especially to those who know no Spanish. For in these last days of apostasy, we have many a Missionary, Pastor, Deacon, and Evangelist, who are INCONSISTENT in their doctrines and teachings, and are HYPOCRITICAL, as they defend two very different and distinct points of view in defending their Spanish Bible reading when they are with Hispanics, but then defend their King James reading when they are with English Speakers. The facts are, however, that THEY DO NOT READ THE SAME! And as one English Pastor so nicely put it, "Things different are not the same!" Or in Sesame Street lingo for those of you who aren't that well educated, "Some of these things are kinda similar, some of this things are NOT THE SAME!"

This article will show you why the Valera 1602 Purified is superior to any other Spanish Bible on the topic of using SEÑOR (LORD) as the King James Bible does. I hope this will be informative, and help people to finally make up their minds to be either KJV only or to just tell the truth that they are really not KJV, and stop pretending to be, when they claim they are. God bless! Sincerly, Robert Breaker.

Jehova verses SEÑOR

There are many who want to vehemently attack the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible by saying it does not use the word “Jehovah.” But their attacks are invalid. For the word “Jehová,” is used in the Purified in at least four different places.
Before we look at why the Purified retains the word “Jehová,” in several places, we should first investigate why the Valera 1602 Purified uses the word “Señor” everywhere else.
There are many ignorant men who attack the “Puri” in saying that it is incorrect to use “Señor” and they dogmatically scream that the text should always say “Jehová,” in every reading, as many modern versions of the Reina-Valera have it. But it is interesting that the majority of those critics that preach this in Spanish are all in favor of the King James in English, which also does not translate the Hebrew word as “Jehovah,” rather as “Lord” (Señor). How weird that their arguments and critiques are not the same! How is it posible to defend a translation of a word in English (Lord instead of Jehovah) and not defend the same translation in Spanish (Señor instead of Jehová).
No, theirs is an argument of someone who has not thought out their position. The simple truth is the word Lord is Señor in Spanish. I then want to ask, “Why is it that those who attack the 1602 Purified do not attack the King James as well for not using Jehovah in English?” That would only be consistent and logical.
The Hebrew word underlying both Señor and Jehová is:

If we try to pronounce this word, we have a problem. Many say it is “Je-ho-vah.” But there are no vowel points in this word. Because of this, others say that we ought to pronounce it as “Yah-weh” or “Yeh-wah.”
The truth is no one knows exactly how to pronounce this word. For this reason the translators of the King James, in their infinite wisdom, translated the word into English as: “LORD.” Notice that they put the word in all caps, to show that it is not only the name of the Holy God, but also his very being, which deserves much respect and reverence.
The translators of the Valera 1602 Purified were also careful to translate the word as SEÑOR (LORD) in all caps, in order to give honor and respect to God, just like the King James translators did.
Cassidoro de Reina explains in his preface to his 1569 Spanish Bible more about the Hebrew word:

“The meaning of the name is very convenient to what it signifies, because it is taken from the very first property of God, that is of his being, of which is his, and everything else in the world is, and has its being from Him. For this reason, although all other names of God are communicated to others, this name only is convenient: from where it follows evidently that if in the Scriptures are communicated to others the Messiah and Holy Spirit, (as we find it many times) the invincible argument that they are all one divine essence with the Father, then the Mesiah should also have the same human nature as us.”

El texto en Español: La significación del nombre es muy conveniente a lo que significa: porque es tomado de la primera propiedad de Dios, que es del ser, lo cual es propio suyo: y todo los demas que en el mundo es, lo tiene mendigado de él. Por esta causa aunque todos los otros nombres de Dios, son comunicados a otro, a el solo conviente: de donde se sigue evidentemente que si en la Escritura se halla comunicado al Mesias y al Espiritu Santo (como se halla muchas veces) es argumento invincible de que son de una misma escencia divina con el Padre, no obstante que el Mesías tenga también la misma naturaleza humana que nosotros”.

Thus, this Hebrew word is very important, because it not only is the name of God, but it also signifies his being, and his very essence. It also speaks of the trinity, because it shows us the Messiah (Jesus Christ) as equal to God the Father.
It is important, then, to put SEÑOR or LORD in all caps when we desire to translate this Hebrew word to another language, as it speaks not only of God the Father, but of the Son as well. (Note: No other Spanish Bible does this, as they all retain Jehová, and although they capitalize the first letter, they do not capitalize the rest of the word. How disrespectful!)
The question then arises: Why on earth did Reina in his Spanish translation of 1569 use “Jehová” instead of SEÑOR?
Let’s let Reina answer that himself. Once again from his preface we read: “We have not here determined to take this issue into question with anyone, nor pressure anyone to pronounce this name, if the superstition of the Jews seems better than the pious liberty of the Profets and pious men of the Old Testament, you may pass over the word when you read it, or instead pronounce, “Señor,” as the Jews do.”

El texto en Español: “Ni tampoco aca estamos determinados de tomar question con nadie sobre este negocio: ni constreñir a ninguno a que pronuncie este nombre, si la supersiticon Judaica le pareciere mejor que la pia libertad de los Profetas y pios del viejo Testamento: puede pasarlo cuando leyere, o en lugar de el, pronuciar, Señor, como hace los Judios...”.

Thus, according to Reina, the text ought to read “Jehová,” but he explains that it is okay to use or read “Señor,” if you so desire.
To understand better Reina’s dogmatic position on only using “Jehová,” in his text we need to remember who Reina was. Both he and Cipriano de Valera lived in the middle ages and were Catholics before they received Jesus as their Saviour. During that time, the Catholic church persecuted the Jews and hated them. And as we read the preface of Reina in his Bible, we clearly see Reina retained a little of this anti-Jewish attitude when four times he speaks of the Jews as “supersticious” as they held on to their own “superstitions,” in not pronouncing the Holy name of God.
While Reina was dogmatic in leaving the word “Jehová,” in his edition, just to be against the tradition of the Jews, we find that Valera also followed suit, when he chose to leave the word in as well in his revision of Reina’s Bible which came out in 1602. Valera says in his preface:

"And pertaining to the sacred name of Jehovah, that is the name of the divine essence...we have retained it for the many pious reasons of the first Translator [Reina] gave in his preface. I will only add two reasons here why it appears to me...the obstinant superstitions of the Jews, in pronouncing this name Jehovah. And before I add, I will note here that Jehovah is the Hebrew name of God derived from the word that gives life to all creatures. This is His own name of his divine essence...and thus is the Hebrew name of Jehovah...Our Sevillano Benito Arias doctorate in languages speaks of the names of God and makes particular mention of the essential name of Jehovah and says these words: ‘And it is lawful to show by reason of others that the pronunciation should be JEHVEH. And I think that they Fathers pronounced it: the Israelites, as others men of other nations which has notice of this name.’ The same Benito Arias after having said this, promised to try to find another place of the true prounciation of the name of Jehovah. I do not know if he ever did.
So that not in vain, but in truth, judgment, and justice I take the name of Jehovah...The Jews then deceive themselves when they do not sware by the Holy name of Jehovah, when they don’t pronounce it...The name of Jehovah...is Holy and Terrible. If it is Holy, oh poor miserable sinner, why do YOU profane it in taking it in your mouth in every other word without reverance? If it is terrible, why don’t you, you miserable worm, you dirt, you ash, not TREMBLE when you take it in your dirty mouth? Remember that God will not hold innocent the man that takes his name in vain... "

El Texto exacto en Español: “Cuanto al sacrosanto nombre Jehovah, que es el propio nombre del la escencia divina, y incomunicable a las criaturas, habemos lo retenido por las doctas y pias razónes que el primer Traductor da en su Amonestación... Solamente añadiré aquí dos razones, que me parecen muy peremptorias para confuntar la supersticiosas obstinación de los Judios, cuanto al pronucar este nombre Jehovah. Y antes que las añado notaré aquí que Jehovah es nombre Hebreo derivado del verbo que da ser a las criaturas. Este es el nombre propio de la Escencia divina, y incomunicable a las criaturas...y así es Sino del nombre Hebreo Jehovah, que habían oído ser el nombre del Dios de los Hebreos? Nuestro Sevillano Benito Arias doctísimo en lenguas, hablando de los nombres de Dios hace particular mención del nombre esencial Jehovah y así dice estas palabras: Y sí es licito mostrar por razón de otros semejantes nombres la cierta pronunciación, J E H V E H se habría de decir. Y así pienso que los Padres lo pronunciaron: así Israelitas, como otros hombres de otras naciones, que tuvieron noticia de este nombre. El mismo Benito Arias después de haber dicho lo precedente, promete que tratará en otro lugar de la verdadera pronunciación del nombre Jehovah. Si lo haya hecho, no lo sé.
Así que cuando no en vano, sino con verdad, juicio y justicia se toma el nombre Jehovah, no es pecado sino parte del culto que Dios nos demanda. Engañanse pues los Judíos cuando no solamente no juran por el sacro santo nombre Jehovah, mas ni aun lo pronuncian. Pero los santos Patriarcas y Profetas tomando gran consuelo con este nombre lo escribieron y pronunciaron, y juraron por el. Léanse sus escritos, cuantas veces dijeron: Vive Jehovah. El Psalmo 69 tiene trece versos, y en ellos el nombre Jehovah se nombra once veces. El Psalmo 29, tiene doce versos, en los cuales David nombra Jehovah diez y ocho veces. De una cosa me maravillo, que los Judíos hagan tanto escrúpulo de escribir y pronunciar Jehovah (escribiendo y pronunciando en su lugar Adonai) y sin ningún escrúpulo escriban y pronuncien Jah, que es tan propio nombre de la Esencia divina, y tan incomunicable a las criaturas como Jehovah: ninguna diferencia hay entre estos dos sacrosantos nombres sino esta, que Jehovah, se escribe con cuatro consonantes, y Jah, como abreviatura de Jehová, se escribe con dos. Habiendo probado ser licito pronunciarlo, y que los antiguos, así Hebreos como Paganos lo pronunciaron, resta ahora avisar al que lo pronuncia que cuando concibe este glorioso nombre en su mente, cuando lo escribe, o pronuncia, lo haga con la reverencia que se debe a un tan sacrosanto nombre: acuérdese de las condiciones, que poco ha habemos notado, que Jeremías capitulo 4 verso 2 de sus Profecía pone. El nombre de Jehovah (come se dice Psalmo 111:9) es santo y terrible. Si es santo, porque miserable pecador, lo profanas tomando lo sin reverencia ninguna a cada tercera palabra en tu boca? Si es terrible, porque tu miserable gusano, polvo, y ceniza, no tiemblas cuando lo tomas en tu boca sucia? Acuérdate que Dios no tendrá por inocente al que tomare su nombre en vano. Exod. 20. Acuérdate del horrendo Castigo con que Dios castigó al blasfemo, Lev. 24:14, mandó Dios que fuese apedreado. Y así lo fue. Perdonadme Cristiano Lector si he sido largo en esto: la superstición de los Judíos, y los escrúpulos de algunos Cristianos me han hecho ser prolijo.”

Here we see Valera, like Reina, also calling the Jews “supersticious” for their pious tradition of not pronouncing the word “Jehová,” However, Valera confesses that we might not know if we are pronouncing it right in saying “Jehová,” and although it is not sin to him to say “Jehová,” he is quick to call others worms, dirt, and ash, while instructing them to tremble when they take that Holy name in their mouths.
Clearly, we see the reason that both Reina and Valera chose to use the word “Jehová.” It is because they were against the Jews way of reverencing that sacred name, and they held the Jews in contempt for their practice of not pronouncing God's most Holy name. But as we read the other writings of both Reina and Valera, we find something interesting. They, like many other Spanish Protestants of their day, used the word “Señor” instead of "Jehová," in speaking of God, especially when they translated verses in the Old Testament. Why then were they not consistent in their versions of the holy scriptures to do the same? I believe it was because of their anti-Jewish sentiment that they chose to use the word “Jehová,” as a form of spite to the Jews.
As we study other old versions of the Bible, we find they did not use “Jehová,” in the Old Testament, rather Señor, or some other word. For example, in his translation of the Psalms, Juan Perez de Pineda (who put out a New Testament in 1556) wrote "Señor" instead of “Jehová,” And also we find in the Biblia de Ferrara (a work done by Jews) that they chose to use Adonay instead of “Jehová.”
For these reasons, we see that the Valera 1602 Purified is better in using SEÑOR, as it not only follows the King James in English, but also the Juan Perez de Pineda, and also is in agreement with the Jewish translation from Hebrew, and against the anti-semitism of Reina and Valera, who chose to transliterate the Hebrew word as “Jehová,” thinking that was the proper pronunciation of the word.
Again, we should ask as Valera did, “How do we know if we are pronouncing it correctly?”
Allow me to give an example of mispronuciation. My name is ROBERT. It’s spelled: R-O-B-E-R-T. What happens if I take out all the vowels, and no one knows exactly how to put them back in it to pronounce my name correctly? What if they try, but they pronounce it as ROBERTA? I would be very mad! Because my name is ROBERT (masculine) and not ROBERTA (feminine).
For this reason, then it would be better to know exactly how to pronounce my name, or else not use it at all. Would it not then be better to use SEÑOR in Spanish, as we really don’t know exactly how to prounce God's name, and we don’t know if we are saying it right with Jehová? How do we know we aren't offending God by pronouncing JEHOVAH incorrectly? (At any rate, because of Reina and Valera the use of the word Jehová and its pronunciation has been accepted by hispanic people for almost 400 years, and for this reason they use it in their versions of the Bible).
Looking back on the history of the word "Jehová" we find anti-semitism, but as we look forward to today, we find much damage being caused by the use of the word Jehová, in Spanish Bibles, instead of the King James reading of LORD (SEÑOR). For we find that the use of Jehová has lead to much false doctrine among hispanics, as Jehovah Witnesses have gained much ground in the Spanish-Speaking world because the use of the word in the Old Testament. This then gives us another reason why SEÑOR is better, as the word “Jehová,” helps the Jehovah Witnesses, who do not believe in the Trinity.
Remember that Reina said that “Jehová,” is the being of God, and that also the word speaks of the trinity and of the Messiah (Jesus Christ). We know that the same SEÑOR (LORD) in the Old Testament is the same Señor (Lord) of the New Testament. That is to say that Jesus Christ is God. The versions that use only “Jehová,” lose this important connection.
Now that we know the reasons why it is better to use SEÑOR than Jehová let’s return to our original subject, which is, “Why does the Valera 1602 Purified use the word “Jehová,” in four places, while it uses SEÑOR instead of Jehová in all other places?”
To answer this question, we need to look at where the King James uses the word “JEHOVAH” in English:

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalms 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

The Valera 1602 Purified reads just like the King James in these verses in using “JEHOVÁ” (notice it’s in all caps). Here are the same verses in the Purified in Spanish:

Éxodo 6:3 Y yo aparecí a Abraham, a Isaac y a Jacob bajo el nomre de Dios Todopoderoso, mas en mi nombre JEHOVÁ no me di a conocer a ellos.

Salmo 83:18 Y conozcan todos que tú, cuyo nombre es JEHOVÁ, tú solo eres el Altísimo sobre toda la tierra.

Isaías 12:2 He aquí, Dios es mi salvación, confiaré, y no temeré; porque mi fortaleza y mi canción es el SEÑOR JEHOVÁ, el cual también se ha hecho mi salvación.

Isaías 26:4 Confiad en el SEÑOR por siempre: porque en el SEÑOR JEHOVÁ está la ROCA de la ETERNIDAD.

The question, then, is: “Why does the Valera 1602 Purified use both SEÑOR and JEHOVÁ, and not SEÑOR­ only?”
Without going into a deep study into the Hebrew, which would only confuse you, I’ll answer that question as simply as possible.
In the first two verses above, we find the NAME OF GOD in the context. For this reason, the Valera 1602 Purified translators, as well as the King James translators, chose to write JEHOVAH.
In the third and fourth verses, we again find the Hebrew word but it appears in Hebrew text twice. Because it doesn’t sound good to translate it as SEÑOR SEÑOR (LORD LORD), nor JEHOVÁ JEHOVÁ (JEHOVAH JEHOVAH), the translators of both the KJV and the 1602 Valera Purified chose to use LORD JEHOVAH (SEÑOR JEHOVÁ), which is very strong in both English and Spanish.
In closing, let me state the obvious. The critics who attack the Valera 1602 Purified for not using Jehová are not consistent. Because the Spanish versions they use do not show respect for the name of God, (as they do not put the word Jehová in all caps). They claim to be defenders of the King James, but they attack the Valera 1602 Purified, which is the only Spanish Bible in history to read exactly with the King James in using LORD (SEÑOR) in all caps.
Thus, we can dogmatically state, “An attack against the Valera 1602 Purified is nothing more than an attack against the King James Bible in English, and the use of the word LORD instead of Jehová!”

The truth is the Valera 1602 Purified is the only Spanish Bible that uses both “SEÑOR” y “JEHOVÁ” in the Old Testament. For this, it is the only Spanish Bible that Jehovah Witnesses cannot use to deceive people, as it gives us the correct reference and the glorious truth that JEHOVAH is THE LORD (EL SEÑOR)!

Which Spanish Bible do you use and why? Do you use a version that has JEHOVAH instead of SEÑOR? If you do, have you studied out the reason why? For if you study it, you’ll find the KING JAMES in English is superior for using LORD in all caps, and so is the Valera 1602 Purified for using SEÑOR in all caps, as it shows reverence for God.

A Nation Divided

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. (Mark 3:24)

It's clear: A nation divided against itself shall not stand! And if ever there was a nation that was divided, it is the United States of America. The last two presidential elections really proved to me just how divided America and Americans really are. They are now almost half liberal and half conservative. And this division can clearly be seen in the elections of today, where almost 50% of Americans are in favor of Democrats, and 50% in favor of Republicans.

As I thought on this, I realized just in how many ways Americans are divided. They are...

...DIVIDED IN POLARITY

I believe probably no other nation in the history of the world has ever been as divided as the USA is now. Let me rephrase that. I believe no other nation in the world has ever had two parties that are so extremely opposite. Liberals and Conservatives of today are as far apart from each other as they can be, and it appears they have absolutely no common ground in which to unite. They both want their own way or else, and they can never rest until their agendas are fulfilled. How can a country survive such opposite extremes, especially when neither side wants to give in? I just don't know.

...DIVIDED IN PURITY

The two opposite extremes in America appear to be opposite in their morals as well. In America you have those who are fully "liberated" and given over to their unsatiated sinful behaviours, and those who are upstanding citizens who are trying to live honest lives full of dignity and honor.

On the one side you have those who are full of wickedness and hatred who practice lying, slandering, libeling, and ridicule. While on the other, you have people who are decent, nice, and caring towards others. How can a nation continue with such a continental divide among its citizens?

...DIVIDED IN POSITION

I see in America two distinct kind of persons: CITY PEOPLE and COUNTRY PEOPLE. City people usually learn how to be cold towards others, not even saying, "Hello," as they pass others on the street. And growing up in the ghetto, and in the "hood" is without a doubt hard, because of the rampant crime, drugs, and robberies. Living in the city oftentimes produces people who are self-gratifying and uncaring towards others. Now, I'm not saying all city people are bad, but to live in a city nowadays is to live in a place closer to danger than the country.

Contrast this with country folk, who are usually down home, friendly, nice people who wave to you as they drive by, and are often quick to strike up a conversation with you. They are usually decent, clean, fun-loving individuals who work hard to make a living and enjoy having fun. And they are usually considerate, and ready to help others in need.

It wasn't always this way. People in the cities used to be just as nice as people in the country, but over population in places like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Detroit, etc., lead to the rise of gang members and violence in the inner cities. Further, we find more crime in cities, which leads to more distrust among the populace of those around them. How does a nation stand when others live in fear for their very lives from thugs and villans?

...DIVIDED IN POLITICAL IDEALS

America was founded a constitutional republic with FREEDOM for its citizens as the main objective. It used to be the majority of Americans wanted this form of government and wanted LIBERTY for themselves and their children. But lately we've seen a rise in a system of governance that is uncompatible with these principles. That is SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, and we see them taught in the colleges and universities throughout our land as viable systems of government. (Never mind that they have NEVER, EVER turned out good in any country they were instituted in, and they always ended in failure!). Yet, in America, we see more and more young people siding with Communism than with Constitutional freedom. And we see the rise of communism and socialists in America fighting for their ideals, yeah even openly speaking and writing of their desire to see revolution in the streets! How is this a good thing?

...DIVIDED IN POWER

In America the governing parties are diameterically opposed to one another. Democrats hate Republicans and vice versa. The two are pitted against each other, and often times bitter words and heated rivalries ensue. Each has their own agenda. One wants big government and to control the people, while the other claims to want to make government smaller and give people more freedoms. Continually they fight for power, and what we find is usually they only care about themselves and not the American people. How does this two party system help the country? And what's wrong with a three or four party system? And why don't politicians do what's best for the country instead of what's best from themselves?

...DIVIDED IN PROGRAMS

Americans don't want to work together. Or maybe I should say it this way: there are Americans who want to work, and get ahead and enjoy what they've earned. And then, there are those who don't want to work at all, but enjoy just as much as those who have worked hard to get ahead. Because of this the government has set up programs like WELFARE. Some Americans support this. Others think it unfair, and want it discontinued, because it's not right to let some people do nothing and get ahead while others have to work hard for what they earn.

Americans cannot get together and work out their differences. Nor does Congress do anything about this. Instead it lets the division continue so that the have nots hate those who have and those who have show contempt on those who have not and don't want to work to get it.

...DIVIDED IN FUTURE PLANS

Finally, Americans are divided on how this country should continue. Some want to go back to the constitution just the way it used to be originally. Others want to do away with the Constitution completely, starting a new form of government. Yet no one has any idea how to fix the mess that is America and pay off the massive debt its government has incurred through needless wars, failed programs, and unfruitful stimulus' (plural).

IN SUMMARY

In conclusion, it doesn't take a genius to see that America is divided. It is divided in every aspect. Its citizens have been pitted against each other and this is exactly what the enemy wants in order to come in and take it over. America can't even agree on who it is, where it came from, or in which direction it is headed. In short, its liberty and freedom has been its greatest blessing, but also its greatest curse, for it has allowed communism and socialism to breed in the minds of its youth, who will eventually try to implement those failed systems into the future of the country.

Jesus said it clearly, "...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Mat 12:25)

I love my country and it saddens me greatly to write a blog like this. But its obvious that America is on the rocks. It's headed to hell in a handbasket unless its citizens can agree.

What's the answer? That's easy! It's the BIBLE! For the word of God, and the Creator are what helped to make America great to begin with, and for it to be great again, Americans must turn to their creator and His word, and repent of their sins.

Dreams from My Father

No doubt people have heard about Barack Obama's book: "Dreams from my Father," in which he tells about his desire to follow his father's political views as he learned about what his father went through as a black man in Africa. You've probably also seen the new book by Dinesh D'Souza entitled: "The Roots of Obama's Rage," which gives us great understanding into the mind of Obama and his anti-colonialist mindset. And I'm sure you've probably also read Obama's book: "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on the American Dream," in which Obama tells us of his upbringing, his political ideas, and his strategies for reforming (or should I say fundamentally "changing") America. (What's that? You haven't read any of those books? Well maybe you should! It'll give you a lot of insight!)

As we look at Obama's life (and his recreational drug use) and struggle with not knowing his father, we find a man who has determined to make his life more in line with that of his father, and the political ideals he held. This is a little scary in some aspects, but I won't delve into the political and/or socialistic (communistic) morés of either man. Instead, I wish here only to offer a contrasting idea in comparing my life with Obama's, and how his past is affecting his actions here for us in the future.

Though I was blessed to have a father at home as a child, I do know what it's like to not have him around. For, my mother divorced my father when I was 14, and for four long years I didn't see him. I was blessed later to live with the man and learn from him and what he believed. And it's certain that my father did shape my life. More than that, he changed my life, for as in Obama's case, I too chose the religion of my Father (for me it was Christianity). My father converted me some two weeks after my 18th birthday, and his teachings had a great influence in my life. And like Obama, I also spent time in my life in a third world nation, seeing how others live in great poverty.

But with so much in common, I do see a great difference between Obama and I. Even though we went through many of the same things, we did not end up the same. For, my father's teachings did not make me angry or bitter to those of another nation, nor did it give me a desire to try to "redistribute wealth" to those of another race or culture. In fact, it had the opposite affect, as I tried to teach others who were poor how to better themselves and pull themselves up, instead of waiting around for others to come to them and give them something for nothing.

As I look at myself and Obama, and as I read Dinesh D'souza's book, "Roots of Obama's Rage," I see we are two very different people even though we've been through much the same things in life. And I find that the things done to me and my family in the past don't affect my future, or drive me to try to change the way things are. Instead, they make me thankful for being who I am, even though who I am, and who my family was for many generations, have been people who've been oppressed, browbeaten, lied to, stolen from, and defrauded.

In my family, it's been said we have the "Breaker curse." And sometimes I often wonder if that's not so. As a seventh generation American, I can boast of my long-standing heritage in this great nation. And I can even recount how each Breaker male has an amazing story to tell of his struggle through life in many different occupations. But as I studied not only their facts of birth, life, and death, I soon realized I didn't really know the men themselves. And I found it hard to identify with them. It wasn't until I studied more about who they were inside, what they did, and some of the things they went through, I found out more about myself. And I found out more about others who did their best to attempt to destroy us.

You see, we Breaker's have one fatal flaw: We believe in doing good to others and being nice to them. We haven't been revolutionaries, nor political activists. We've lived quiet, simple lives, enjoying our friends and family and doing our best to help others. And what I've found is instead of us getting ahead for it, we've ended up getting the shaft.

And as I studied more about my family descendents, I found time after time they've all passed through their own trials and tribulations. Whether it was sickness, natural disasters, swindlers, crooked business partners, or unforseen circumstances, they all took their lumps, and were left near destitute. But they all persevered, as they all seemed to have the strength it took to carry on in the midst of their enemies. In short, they had the "audacity" to overcome the adversity in their lives with "hope." And they made sure they did so without bitterness or anger, always forgetting and forgiving their adversaries and setting aside the past and focusing only on making a better life for themselves and finding a better future.

As I look at Obama and the facts about his father's life, I too see struggles and adversity. But I don't see forgiveness. It appears the man has determined to continue on his father's struggle as he will not let go of what's been done to his family in the past.

It's hard to live a life like this. We've all been wronged. But we can't live our lives trying to undo the wrongs and make them right. We've got to overcome and leave the past where it lies. We need to deal with the here and now, not the back there and back then.

With that said, I'd like to close with the fact that I'm a white guy, (if that even matters. Your race shouldn't matter nowdays, as we are all supposed to be color blind).

As I studied my ancestors, I found them all to be white Southern landowners with a rich Southern Heritage. And as I see what they went through both during the American Revolution and the Civil War, it saddens me greatly. They lost a lot, as it seems they were always on the losing side. Sometimes when I think of the countless millions of people who died in those wars and others like them, it makes me almost want to cry. And when I think of the horrible pillage, rape, and plunders that took place under men like General Cornwallis and Gen. Sherman, I can't help but remember the great injustices done to those of the South, by both the English and the Federalists alike.

But, I've determined not to be bitter, nor to let what happened to my ancestors affect what I do today. I'm not a revolutionist, anarchist, or hate monger, nazi-skin head, who vows to take vengance on those injustices. Instead, I'm just a guy who is trying to make it through my own trials and tribulations the best way I can. I'm not interested in holding on to grudges, and writing the many wrongs in the world. Instead, I'm just trying to do right myself. Shouldn't we all do the same?

I'll leave you with the words of Jefferson Davis, a man who became president of the South not out of ambition, but out of love for his country, and a man who was held in jail for years without trail after the Civil War. In addressing a group of young men in his later years, he said these amazing words:

"The faces I see before me are those of young men; had I not known this I would not have appeared before you. Men in whose hands the destinies of our Southland lie, for love of her I break my silence, to speak to you a few words of respectful admonition. THE PAST IS DEAD; LET IT BURY ITS DEAD, its HOPES and its ASPIRATIONS. Before you lies the future - a future full of golden promise; a future of expanding national glory, before which all the world shall stand amazed. Let me beseech you to lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to take your place in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished - a reunited country."

What "audacity" and what a "dream" of a "father" to give to the youth of today! Forget the past and move forward on the principles that made this nation great, that's the way all politicians should think. If only we had some that did.

The Bible and Anti-Colonialism

I'm currently reading the book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," by Dinesh D'Souza, in which he explains the modern movement against the Colonialization of the world by the white people. This racist anti-white teaching (which is what it really all boils down to), is known as "Anti-Colonialism," and is what caused Obama's father to fight the British in his day. It also caused the U.N. to intervene on many occasions and help many countries overthrow the foreign rule of Belguim, the Dutch, the English, the German, and the French in the continent of Africa.

Now, as a Christian, I'm not in favor of how the colonization was most often inacted, for it usually was brought about by military actions and the senseless slaughter of countless thousands of Africans. Nor am I in favor of the brutal beatings and horrible treatment often accompanied by Colonial reign. But I can't help but see how colonization of Africa eventually helped that continent grow in a civilized way, and it eventually led to the Gospel being spread far and wide within that country. Sure it's an awful thing for foreign people to overtake your land and occupy it, but it's a great thing when they bring with them prosperity and a unifying tongue (like English which is spoken all throughout that continent).

But the thing I don't hear many people speaking about is what the Bible says about the Colonializationism, (for he prophecied it would take place by white people thousands of years before it began). They further don't desire to speak at all about the colonization of the United States of America and how slaves were brought there from Africa. Why did these things happen, and what does the Bible tell us about it?

For the answer, we need to go to the book Genesis. And we must trace back the origin of the races. There we find Noah had three sons: Japeth, Shem, and Ham. Japeth was the white man or the Caucasion. He populated Europe. Shem was the Asiatic, who went east and populated Asia. And Ham was the negroid, who went South and populated Africa.

All this can clearly be seen from the Bible. With this in mind, let's look at the prophecy of what would happen with these races from the book of Genesis:

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Here we read of God cursing Canaan, the son of Ham, and telling him he would be a servant (a slave) unto his brethren. We then read of Shem becoming blessed of God (interestingly enough the JEWS come from Shem, and to be against the Jews, you are called "Anti-Semetic".) Finally, we are told in the Bible that Japheth or the white man would dwell in the tents of Shem. (This is exactly what happened when America was colonized by the white man, who took the land away from the Indians, who by the way have their ancestry from Shem).

So according to the Bible, God said Colonization was to take place, and God allowed the white man to do it. Did the white man do it the right way? Obviously not. Oftentimes slaves were mistreated, and indians were lied to and slaughtered, a great mark against the European white man. And for this reason, he's still greatly hated by other races and countries today.

But if you know your history, and your bible, you'll see that there are two kinds of people. Those who are lost and those who are saved. And, as we look back through time we see most often it was those who were lost that were those taking advantage of others such as the blacks and Indians. Not all white people were bad. For history clearly shows us many whites who cared about those of other races, and their souls, and wanted not to deceive them, but give them the truth. David Brainerd is a great example of a man who went to the Indians with the Gospel of Christ Jesus. David Livingstone was a great evangelist in Africa. And there are many others.

But as we look at history today, we find this is completely forgotten, and all white people are demonized, and made out to be the conqueroring bad guys who pillaged and plundered!

Because of this teaching today, there is a giant surge in the movement of "Anti-Colonialism," in which people with hatred and malice blame the white man for all their problems, and are turning against him, sometimes even threatening "revolutions" and seeking "reparations."

But what does the Bible say about this? Are we to hold the children guilty for the sins of their fathers? Most certainly not. For in the Bible we read:

Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Of course this verse is speaking of a sin worthy of death, or of capital punishment. But it proves that we should not punish people today for the sins of their forefathers. If someone's grandaddy did something wrong to my grandaddy, I should not hold that against them. For it was not me that did it. It was the individual who did, and it's something that's over and done with, and should be forgotten.

Sure bad things have happened all over the world. But we should not resurrect the past in order to allow it to make us angry and hateful and vengeful.

Now back to Dinesh D'souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," it appears, if Dinesh is right about Obama's motives, that this is exactly what Obama is trying to do. He wants to try to undo the past by "redistributing the wealth," that he feels Japhethites has taken from others in his many colonial conquests.

But should we not rather deal with the present instead of druding up the past? Shouldn't we lay aside bitterness and anger and deal with things the way they are today instead of trying to make it into the way we think it should have been?

It doesn't matter what race you are or how or where you were raised. What matters is that you don't let hatred and racism control your actions. And we can't tell others that if they are a certain race or color then they must pay others of another race and color because of something their ancestors did. Let everyman stand or fall based upon his own actions, and not those of his forefathers.

WHEN IT'S WRONG TO GIVE

The Bible tells us it's a good thing to give. Jesus even said:

Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. (Luke 6:38)

The Bible also teaches us about "charity" which carries with it the connotation of sacrificial giving:

Let all your things be done with charity. (1 Cor 16:14)

So in the Bible, there is much teaching about "giving." But as I read the Bible, it doesn't command us to give away everything we have (communism), nor does it teach us we have to give to everyone we meet. In fact, as I read the Bible, I find that there are some times when it is actually WRONG to give to others. And I'd like to focus on this topic in this blog: "When it's wrong to give."

1. It's wrong to give when you are constrained to do so.

The Bible clearly teaches this in 2 Cor. 9:6-7...

6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Here the Bible teaches that giving should be as one desires to do from their heart, and not being forced to give against their will. In other words, giving should be something a man wants to do, and not something he has to do.

Giving should never be something that a person is pressured to do against their will. Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor 13:3, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

Paul says even if he gives away all that he has, it's for nought if he gives it without charity. He even says it profits him nothing. What he desires then, is to give out of love, and wanting to help, not out of constraint.

Oh, if only some of today's ministers would realize this and spend more time preaching on CHARITY than on TITHING, how different the world might be! For it's wrong to give because you've been forced to do so. You should give because you want to do so.

No wonder Jesus preached against the Pharisees who gave, but forgot to give with compassion:

But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Luke 11:41-42)

2. It's wrong to give when you do so only to look good in the eyes of others.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees continually because all they did was to be seen of men (Mt. 23:5), and not to please the Lord. When they gave offerings, they frequently gave large amounts, but did so only while making sure others were watching, so others would see what appeared to be a great sacrifice on the Pharisee's part.

Jesus even sat in the temple and watched the Phariee's giving, and was little impressed. In fact, he said the following:

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he [Jesus] saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had. (Luke 21:1-4)

Here we we the Pharisees giving of their abundance, and doing so only to be looked upon by man. However, Jesus saw a woman who gave more than them all, because she gave everything she had, and she did so willingly, and without pomp and circumstance.

If only our churches of today would learn this lesson. I've been in churches where offerings were received by a man in the pulpit like an auctioneer saying, "Who'll give 10 dollars, 20, 50, 100?"

After each monetary unit, he asked for a show of hands of who would give what, and then had a young person take the plate directly to the person who raised their hand to collect on the spot. Everyone looked around to see who was giving what. When it got to the 100 dollar denomination, very few raised their hands, but those who did were looked upon as those who gave the greatest sacrifice. But how is this scriptural? Is it right to give to the Lord and allow others to know how much you are giving, and then feel good about yourself because you gave more than others. Certainly not! That's what the Pharisee's did, and God didn't like it.

3. It's wrong to give when giving makes a person dependent upon you instead of working for themselves.

In this day and age in which we live, people have become accostumed to taking "hand-outs." This didn't used to be, as people knew the importance of hard work. But we live in a society today of lazy people who don't want to work. And, by giving a sob story, they've found they can live off of the kindness of others who out of pity (not love) give them alms.

Now hear me out. I'm not against helping people who really need it like the crippled who can't work. But I am very much against giving people something who don't need it, don't deserve it, and who have the ability to work for themselves, but just don't want to.

Does the Bible mention such people? Yes it does, and it calls them "sluggards:"

As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him. (Proverbs 10:26)

The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. (Proverbs 13:4)

The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. (Proverbs 20:4)

Yes, there is a class of people who do not want to work. They would rather beg for a living than work. It is WRONG to give to such people, especially when they can work and contribute to society. For giving them welfare makes them dependent upon man instead of trusting in the Lord to supply their needs as they toil and labor as the Bible commands them:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Th 3:10-12)

Even Jesus said:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)

For giving to such people and making them dependent upon you will make them angry when you run out and are unable to continue giving - so angry they will turn on you and perhaps even do you bodily harm. In Honduras they had a word for such people: PARASITES!

Therefore, it is wrong to give to those who are not truly in need, and can fend for themselves but they just don't want to.

4. It's wrong to give when what's given is used for evil.

I'm surprised how many non-profit organizations there are in the world today, and how they all are run by donations. But have you ever checked on those organizations to see who they really are and where the money really goes? Every now and then a news report will come out about one of these non-profit corporations which laundered money, and used people's donations for selfish gains instead of for it's intended purpose. What gets me is people who have given to that organization don't think much of it. But the truth is the money they gave in which they thought was going to a good cause was embezzled and enjoyed by someone who didn't need it!

The Bible commands us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thes. 5:21)

And again we are instructed to be busy: "Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Eph 5:10-11)

We should never give without first investigating who we are giving to and exactly what it's going for. There are many liars and deceivers out there who are only interested in taking and using money for their selfish and ungodly lusts. They will LIE to get what they want. So it's important to make sure the person you are giving to can be trusted, and will not use what's given for evil, rather for good.

5. It's wrong to give when it's not your money to give!

You would think this would be a no-brainer. But unfortuneately, it's not. When it comes to politics and politicians, they give away a ton of money to many different nations through aid and international trade agreements. I'm not saying it's not good to help people with aid, but it should be the people's choice to give aid, and not the government's choice to use the people's money without their consent. There is a word for that - it's called STEALING!

What saith the scriptures about that? I'm glad you asked. (What's that? You didn't ask. Oh, well, I've give it to you anyway).

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Eph 4:28)

Notice this verse says that you should not steal. It further states that it's the individual who worked for the money who is responsible for giving to him that needeth, not a nation or an institution.

6. Finally, it's wrong to give to someone when he is doing wrong.

As we've seen, giving should be out of compassion, and it should be to help others in need. But when someone is living in sin openly and doesn't care about doing right, we should not support them or we too will be guilty of the sins they commit.

My Dad used to always say, "When you do right we'll help you and support you. When you do wrong we won't. We just can't help you do wrong! We don't reward bad behaviour!"

His philosophy was a good one. It made me want to do right in order to get reward. But, someone who rewards evil, helps evil increase.

A good example of this is a child who is living like the devil, yet his or her parents, give them everything their heart desires: a car, a home, money, the latest electronics, etc., but they never deal with the child's sin. What will happen to a child like that? Isn't it obvious? They will become a spoiled brat, who is used to getting their way. As they grow they will become more ungodly until they ultimately cross the line and experiment with drugs, liquor, fornication, adultery, etc. Eventually, the most likely the scenario is the child we transgress the law and begin a life of crime as they continue to get things the "easy way" through stealing, grand larceny and robbing from others. Because they were never taught to get reward by doing right, they will continue to do wrong and learn how to prosper in so doing. (This is how things like gangs, the mafia, and ungodly secret societies get started).

Should we give to the ungodly in hopes that it will make them do right? I'll let you decide that for yourself. But the Bible teaches us the following:

Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall. For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. (Proverbs 4:14)

We should not enter into the path of the wicked, nor help them in any way in their wickedness. They live only to do violence, and mischief, and we are not to reward them for their transgressions.

In Summary, we find there are times in which it's WRONG to give. It's wrong to give because someone constrains you to give, it's wrong to give just too make yourself look charitable in the eyes of others. It's further wrong to give when you make a person dependent upon you and don't allow them to learn to work and provide for themselves. And finally, it's wrong to give to those who are doing evil and who will use what you give for the forces of darkness, rather than for what's right.

By all means, I'm not against giving. It's a good thing to be charitable. But you need to make sure what you give goes a long way and will make an impact for the most good. Don't give frivolously, but give smart. Giving to a cause that can and will use your donation to the fullest for the most good.

EXHORTATION vs EXTORTION

There are two words in the English Language that sound very much alike. These words are:

EXTORTION and EXHORTATION

One is bad, and the other is good.

Let us look at a few verses which mention these words:

EXTORTION:

Ezek 22:12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by EXTORTION, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD.

Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of EXTORTION and excess.

EXHORTATION:

Luke 3:18 And many other things in his EXHORTATION preached he unto the people.
Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of EXHORTATION for the people, say on.
Acts 20:2 And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much EXHORTATION, he came into Greece,
Romans 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on EXHORTATION: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and EXHORTATION, and comfort.
2 Corinthians 8:17 For indeed he accepted the EXHORTATION; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.
1 Thessalonians 2:3 For our EXHORTATION was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:
1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to EXHORTATION, to doctrine.
Hebrews 12:5 And ye have forgotten the EXHORTATION which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Hebrews 13:22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of EXHORTATION: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.

Notice, if you will, that the Bible speaks more of EXHORTATION than it does of EXTORTION. Why is this important to note? Because we live in a day of much extortion, and very little godly exhortation.

Notice too in the verses above that Jesus is the one exhorting the people and telling his disciples to do the same, while it is the Pharisees who are guilty of the malicious and godless act of extortion. This should give you a great illustration of the difference between Jesus Christ and false religion (i.e. between true disciples of Jesus, and those false disciples who claim the name of Jesus for financial gain only.)

Before going further, and applying this study to our day and age, let's define from the 1828 dictionary exactly what the words Exhort and Extort mean. Let's begin with the bad word and then look at the good word.

EXTORT:

1. To draw from by force or compulsion; to wrest or wring from by physical force, by menace, duress, violence, authority, or by any illegal means. Conquerors extort contributions from the vanquished; tryannical princes extort money from their subjects; officers extort illegal fees; confessions of guilt are extorted by the rack. A promise exorted by duress is not binding.

2. To gain by violence or oppression.

EXTORTION:

1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting any thign for a person by force, duress, menaces, authority, or by any undue exercise of power; illegal exaction; illegal compulsion to pay money, or to do some other act. Extortion is an offense punishable at common law.

2. Force or illegal compulsion by which anything is taken from a person.

EXHORT:

To deliver exhortation; to use words or arguments to incite to good deeds.

EXHORTATION:

1. The act or practice of exhorting; the act of inciting to laudable deeds; incitement to that which is good or commendable.

2. The form of words intended to incite and encourage.

3. Advice; counsel.

As we look at these two definitions, we find some interesting things which you might never have thought about before. EXTORTION is a very bad thing. It is an act that someone does which defraudes another. It's not always forcing a person to PAY money, but can also be forcing someone to PERFORM an action against their will (like, say, forcing someone to buy Health Insurance whether they want to or not, upon penalty of fines. But I digress.)

Further, to EXTORT someone is to take something from them, whether it be money, freedom, virtue, or dignity. And according to the definition, extortion is a CRIME, punishable by law.

Also, according to the Bible, extortion is something that God hates, and is something he will punish people for harshly. Just look at the following verses:

Psa 109:11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
Psa 109:12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.

1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

These verses tell us to not have company with, eat with, or have anything to do with extortioners, for they shall not inherit the things of God. Nor should we show them any mercy, for they are sinful, wicked, and ungodly.

Contrast this now with the EXHORTATION. As extortion embodies all that is evil, exhortation seems to embody all that is good. To exhort others is to use words to incite others to good deeds, and to counsel and encourage people to do right. Notice how exhortation allows a person the free will to do as they please, while extortion takes away their right to freedom of choice. EXHORTATION lets one decide their course of action, while EXTORTION demands a person's compliance, often upon threat of unwanted and unmerited punishment.

Just looking at the definitions alone show us that we should desire to be Exhorters, and not Extorters. But in our world today, there are very few who practice exhortation. Rather, they are busy planning, plotting, and scheming new ways of extortion. Why is this?

It really all boils down to one verse in the Bible. In Philippians 2:3, we are instructed to: "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."

According to this verse, we see that everyone is commanded to care more about others than themselves. A practice that is not popular, nor widely taught in our world today. Most people care only about themselves and what they can get out of life. They are sensusal and selfish and care only about pleasure and profit. And because of this, they learn at an early age how to get what they want - they then become masters at the game of extortion and hone their skills to the fullest for their own selfish gain.

But what ever happened to exhortation? It used to be all around us, as there were people always there to instruct us and teach us how to live. Parents, grandparents, teachers, bosses, friends, and more all practiced exhorting us to work hard, scrimp and save, treat others fairly, and do good unto others. But where are those principles now and where are those people?

Today, instead of the mantras of days gone by like: "Respect your elders," and "Be kind to others," and "Treat others as you'd like to be treated," people's attitude is "Me first, you next - maybe!" Why is this? I believe it's because no one has been there to exhort them to do right. Instead, they've been left alone and learned how to get by on their own through wicked, sinful means.

Instead of being raised by their parents, many latch-key kids are raised on the streets. Instead of school teachers who are upstanding citizens and role models for their pupils, we find professors who are radical leftist communists who incite young people to violence. Instead of churches preaching and teaching the importance of abstaining from sexual vices, libations, revelings, and depravity, churches have become social clubs which have allowed the world to entire their doors and poison the minds of the youth with rock music, worldly movies, and secular practices.

The simple fact is Extortion has birthed forth into the monster that is today because of the lack of Christian Exhortation.

Sadly, Christians are to blame. For we find this like practice of exhortation not only in the world, but also in churches today, in which ministers spend their time fleecing their flocks and pressuring them to give financially out of necessity, instead of simply teaching and preaching the word of God and allowing their congregations to give out of love for the things of God.

In closing, let me ask you a question. Are you an Exhorter or an Extorter? And, if I may be so bold, might I ask you another question, "Do you care more about yourself and what you can get from others, or do you care enough about others to encourage them to do right?"

The choice is yours. But I'm convinced the world would be a much better place with less extortion and more exhortation. And let me add to that by saying, "The Church of God needs to be the example, and follow the word of God by EXHORTING others to live for God and follow the scriptures in their daily lives."

For the simple fact of the matter is apostasy breeds extortioners, while revival births exhortationers. Which are you?

Review of The Blessed Hope: We're Almost Home by Rowley

A friend of mine asked me to read the online book by Dave Rowley, entitled: The Blessed Hope: We're Almost Home.

(This book can be found online at: http://www.sounddoctrine.com/blessed_hope.htm )

I not only knew what the book was about, I also met the author years ago, and we discussed a little about the topic. I further learned that many Christians have read his book, and have decided to follow it and it's doctrinal teaching that the tribulation has only 3 1/2 years left to go. With that in mind, I'd like to review this work and give my thoughts on the book. I also suggest you read it for yourself, and to DISCERN it. My father taught me how to discern things, and I would stress to others to do the same. Study for yourself and come to a logical conclusion. Don't just take a man's word on anything, mine included!

As I began reading the book, I couldn't chuckle at the title words, "We're Almost Home," especially after the author wrote that he started the book in 1973, and completed it in 1996. It is now 2010, so I don't know what his definition of "almost" is, but to me, that's pretty far off from "almost!"

The author starts with: "The coming of Christ for His Church is a subject close to the heart of God's people. Notwithstanding, the Church has been derelict in its charge to discover the details of that remarkable event." I'm sure that's true today, as more and more ministers depart from teaching sound doctrine, but I remember being in many a church in my lifetime and hearing much preaching and teaching about the RAPTURE when I was younger. I even remeber that before I was saved, I was scared to death to miss the rapture! I wasn't even saved, but I could have taken you to the verses and showed you where they were (I'd heard about it that much!)

As Rowley continues, he quotes people who say we can't know the date of the rapture, therefore we shouldn't talk about it. And, like the author, I agree they are wrong. 1 Thess. 5 tells us we are not in darkness, and that we can know the times and seasons.

The author does a great job showing the difference between the "Day of the Lord" and the "Day of Christ." Something I'm grateful I was taught in Bible School, as most fundamentalists colleges try to reject the notion and follow "Bible Correctors" and "the Critical Texts" to prove they are not different. The truth is they are!

He further speaks about the "immenincy doctrine" of the rapture, and how it can come at any time. I've always believed this, that is, until I got saved and read the Bible. And, it's clear that in Thessalonians, the Lord can't come back until the anti-Christ first be revealed. (Then, as soon as he is, then we'll immediately be called out!)

Up until then I enjoyed reading the book, and agreed with it readily, realizing most of it was taken from notes we were taught in Bible School (the author graduated from the same Bible School as I did). But I had problems with his teaching of what he called a "mid-week" rapture. (He made sure not to call it a Mid-Trib. rapture). He further states that the term "Great Tribulation" applies to the entire tribulation, and it consists of only 3 1/2 years. I have a great problem with this. The following verses from Revelation below show us otherwise:

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

The verses above in Rev. chap. 11 show Jews worshipping in their temple, and then they are cast out so that the Gentiles can occupy it for 42 months (3 1/2 years). Logically then, the Jews must have been there for 3 1/2 years before. How can this happen if their temple isn't rebuilt yet in our day?

In the verses above in Rev. 13, we see the anti-christ ruling, and then power is given him to continue 42 months. That means he must have been ruling already if he's going to "continue" to do so. (Interestingly enough, Rowley quotes this verse too, but omits commenting on the small little word "continue.")

From my studies, the term "Great Tribulation" refers only to the last 3 1/2 years of the seven year Tribulation, while "tribulation" refers to the entire seven years. I would challenge you to look up the verses on the "Great Tribulation" to see if that makes sense.

The author does a great job of showing how Christ's coming was conditional upon his being accepted or rejected by the nation of Israel, and how God's "times and seasons" were moveable, based upon their decision. Had Israel accepted their Messiah, then the tribulation would have taken place after Jesus' resurrection, and then Armageddon would have been later. But because the nation as a whole rejected their Messiah, then Jesus allowed the church age to come into fruition, and it will end with the rapture, the tribulation, and then Armageddon.

He continues by breaking up the train of thought by giving examples of Babylon the Whore, and taking about diet, but then he comes back to the point he's trying to make in chapter four under the title of "Seven or Three and One Half?"

Rowley then runs to Daniel 9:27, and makes the second word "he" refer to Jesus Christ instead of to the main-stream view of the verse speaking about the anti-christ. (Something that is interesting and worthy of further study!) But then he tries to make the tribulation only 3 1/2 years, by saying the verse doesn't give us any specific information on when the week (of seven years) is divided into two periods of 3 1/2. And, he openly states that for him, there is only 3 1/2 years left, for the "covenant" in Daniel 9:27, was the Abrahamic covenant (which he claims Daniel mentions in verse four), and Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel 9:27, when he came to the earth and died on the cross, and after his resurrection, all is desolate in Israel. Thus, he says 3 1/2 have already passed, and 3 1/2 are still future.

In Rowley's own words he theorizes, "I constructed a chronology (see appendix) which runs from the decree of Cyrus King of Persia until the beginning of the public ministry of Christ. That puts the end of the 483 years of the prophesy not at the death of Christ, but at the beginning of His public ministry which lasts approximately 3½ years."

In other words, to Rowley, the first 3 1/2 years of the seven years of tribulation have already taken place in Jesus' earthly ministry!

This is very hard to swallow! Rowley must have forgetten to read verse 26, in which Messiah is "cut off" (i.e. CRUCIFIED) after 62 weeks. This still leaves seven years AFTER Jesus is crucified.

So, it appears hard to make the arguement that half of the tribulation is already over and it was completed in Jesus' earthly ministry. (One would do better in my book in trying to prove that half of the tribulation was fulfilled in the time right after Jesus' death and resurrection in which the Apostles preached with signs and wonders.)

Rowley finishes his treatise in chapter five talking again about the rapture and makes some valid points.

SUMMARY

It all boils down to whether or not there are only 3 1/2 years left or a full 7 as stated by the book of Daniel. If 3 1/2 years of the tribulation were already fulfilled in the book of Daniel, then there are only 3 1/2 left. (Which is Rowley's theory). However, what if Rowley is wrong? What if the tribulation is a full seven years still in the future? Would not Rowley's teaching then deceive people into thinking they are not in the tribulation if indeed the rapture comes and they are left behind? That's a scary thought!

I enjoyed ready Rowley's work and discerning his arguements. It was very thought provoking. However, I still don't see only 3 1/2 years of tribulation coming. I see a full seven! If you get a chance, go back and read the book of Revelation again all the way through, and see if you don't come up with the same teaching of seven years still future in which the anti-christ rules as a man for 3 1/2 years and then dies and then comes back as the son of perdition to reign for another 3 1/2 years. Also, reread Daniel. For in chapter 9, it's clear the Messiah must be "cut off" before the seven years begin. How on earth could you get Jesus' earthly ministry being half of the tribulation??? I mean, I can see how it's possible that 3 1/2 years could have passed already after Jesus died and rose again in the ministry of the apostles, but even then I'd have a problem lining that up with the book of Revelation.

What do you think about it? How about some comments?

The first, middle, and last word in the Bible

I don’t remember if I’ve ever stated this on my blog before. So if I haven’t, I’m going to do so for the first time. If I have, then I’ll do it again. : )

Have you ever gone through the Bible and looked at the very first word, the very middle word, and the very last word? In Sunday School, I'm sure you probably had a teacher who tried to tell you what those words are, or maybe you learned it in Bible School. But did they tell it to you right?

Usually, they only say there are three words. That is, there is only one word for each. But that's not so. There is no middle word in the Bible: there are TWO middle words in the Bible! (Because of how many words there are, you can't just get one word, you come up with two).

So what are the first, middle, and last words in the Bible? They are in all caps in their respective verses below:

IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

It is better to trust in THE LORD than to put confidence in princes. (Psalm 118:9)

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. AMEN. (Revelation 22:21)

So the first, middle, and last words of the Bible make a sentence if put together:
"In the Lord, Amen!"

That about says it all, Amen? You are either in the Lord or you are not! You are either saved or lost. And, the Bible is written to tell us how to be in Him.

THE SIN OF HYPOCRISY

I don't know if you've ever thought about it, but the word "Hypocrite" was a word Jesus loved to use to describe the religious people in His day. Seventeen times in the New Testament, Jesus responds to the Pharisees as "Hypocrites." And, three times we find Jesus personally calling a man a "hypocrite" to his face. For Jesus, he had no problem calling people what they were-hypocrites!

So, what exactly is a "hypocrite?"

Answer: "It's someone who pretends to be something they are not."

That's the simplest defintion. When I think of hypocrites, I immediately think of ACTORS, because an actor is someone who pretends to be something he is not. His entire life is full of pretending, and he is praised for how well he portrays someone or something other than himself.

Sadly, in our modern society, actors are some of the most well-paid individuals and their profession is the most highly sought after. This should give you a little insight into the depravity of our day, and the mindset of the people. They would rather pretend to be something they are not, then to just be themselves.

As we study the scriptures, we find a hypocrite "puts on a show" for finacial gain, or to deceive others into thinking he is something different than he actually is. This is the Sin of Hypocrisy, and is what the Pharisees were guilty of. It's also what modern-day Pharisees do as well.

As we look at the life of the Pharisees of old, we find their greatest flaw was that of trying to appear righteous when they were not. They were "acting." And, they did so for a reason. They wanted others to respect, esteem, and follow them. However, they didn't want to be what they were supposed to be (righeous and holy), so they put on a show for others to make them think they were really good people, worthy of endorsing and obeying.

I'm sure if you went back in time to Jesus' day and visited the neighborhood and asked the people what they thought of the Priest, they'd probably say things like, "Oh, Rabbi Labinowitz is a very pious man! He is very consecrated and devoted to his religion. He's a priest who knows his law and follows it to the letter."

But if you actually visited the Rabbi's house, you'd probaby find a different story. In fact, if you could sit down and actually talk with the Rabbi's wife, I'm sure she'd tell you much to the contrary. As you listen to her describing what he's really like, you'd probably come away with an entirely different perspective of the man, realizing he's not perfect, and is a sinner like everyone else, but none the less someone who is trying to follow his religion the best way he knows how.

But what if you could have asked Jesus about the Rabbi? How different his answer would have been. For Jesus not only sees him from without, but he sees within him, and he knows the Rabbi's hypocrisy not only decieves the people, but can damn them as well. And Jesus would then warn you to stay away from the religious faker entirely, as his path leads straight to the gates of hell!

Why would Jesus be so against a man who claims to be a religious leader for so many? The answer lies within the scriptures themselves. Looking at the six times Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites in Matthew 23 we find an interesting thing:

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous.

In these verses we find the sins of the Hypocrite. Jesus lamblasts the Pharisees because of their:

1. Shutting up the kingdom of Heaven against men (i.e. their false and damnable teachings) Mt. 23:13

2. Devouring Widows' Houses (i.e. their love of money) Mt. 23:14

3. Proselyting and making Children of Hell (i.e. corrupting the youth) Mt. 23:15

4. Omit Judgment, Mercy, and Faith (i.e. They have no compassion on others) Mt. 23:23

5. Full of extoriton and excess (i.e. They black mail others into doing their bidding) Mt. 23:25

6. They build the tombs of the prophets and garnish them (i.e. they praise men more than God) Mt. 23:28

Now, before going any further, let me state something that is very troubling to me: "These same sins that Jesus rebukes the Hypocritical Pharisees for, I find very prominate within the modern Fundamentalist Movement today!"

I'm going to be nice, or as nice as I can be. I'm not saying that all Fundamentalists are "Hypocrites!" Nor am I saying they are all "damned" and on their way to Hell. But I am saying, and as loudly and dogmatically as I can, and to anyone that will listen, that modern Fundamentalism is headed the way of the Pharisees, as it too is guilty of many of the very same things that Jesus preached against to the Pharisees.

For example, it's common place today among many many Fundamentalist ministers to:

1. Preach Another Gospel. (One of doing something, instead of simply resting upon what Christ has already done).

2. Persue finacial gain and use their positions of authority to amass riches.

3. Proselyte and pervert many young people in their Fundamentalist schools, teaching them doctrines and traditions foreign to the scriptures, making them "groupies" instead of men of God who put Jesus first.

4. Persecute, ridicule, and attack others who do not do things their way.

5. Pressure others through "blackmail" to do what they desire.

6. Praise other men exalting them beyond measure, instead of simply praising God.

Now maybe you don't see things like this happening in your church or Bible School. If not, then praise the Lord! But if you are in the ministry, you see this happening all the time. Men, who claim to be ministers, gain control and have set themselves up as Governors, who amass to themselves more political power through corrupt and perverse means. They might look like great men of God without, but inside they are Jesus said, "Full of Hypocrisy, iniquity (Mt. 23:28), and all uncleaness (Mt. 23:37)."

If you haven't met such men, don't worry. You probably soon will. For in these last days, they are showing themselves more and more. Before Jesus came the first time, they were well in positions of authority and protected by their fellow men. And when Jesus comes again, I'm sure they will be here just as they were before.

We are also living in a day and age in which these HYPOCRITES are becoming political. They are joining the world and beginning to adopt the traditions and teachings of the world. And very soon, I believe, the world is going to start pushing and persecuting true Christians. When this happens, you'll start to see who the real hypocrites are, as they will do just what the Pharisees of old did: They will join the powers that be against Jesus and his disciples, and persecute them!

Are you a hypocrite? Are you guilty of the sins of hypocrisy? It's not to late to Repent!

Before Jesus came on the scene, John the Baptist came and preached "Repent!" And you know the story, the only people who didn't repent were the Pharisees; the HYPOCRITES. How about you? Are you one of them?