2nd Book

Chapter 3: Overcoming the hostilities to the Word [∞]

Children are able to approach God without preconceived ideas. Unfortunately, the rest of us have been taught to be hostile to the Word of God and to doubt it. These subtle hostilities take several forms, but they all tempt us to disbelieve. Until now some have simply refused to give in to the temptations, but now we have the ability to see the hostilities for what they are and resist them by a knowledge of God.

The first step in eliminating hostilities is to identify them.

Challenging the Source

Challenging book authors

You have probably never heard the evidence that Genesis was written by eye witnesses. It is an old and subtle hostility to the word of God to say that Moses wrote it. If Moses wrote it, how can God expect us to believe it? How does this claim differ from that of others who claim to have heard from God? God does not expect us to blindly believe such things. He said we could know and then believe.

Challenging dates of books

Claims by scholars that books were written long after the recorded or traditional dating is designed to cast doubt in the same manner as the claim that Moses wrote Genesis. Most 'scholars' are people who needed to do a novel thesis to get a degree. Their wild idea has no more credibility than anyone else's but it is draped in the garb of academia because three other people who were quoted in the paper read it. Then young pastors in an attempt to be wise preach on them. It would appear that challenging God's word in the name of human wisdom started in the garden when Eve wanted to be wise.

Challenging preservation of the text

There are actually many important changes to the Hebrew text since the time of Jesus. Around 600 AD the Jews added dots and small lines called niqqud around the letters to give pronunciation hints. By doing so they scrambled the language. The word for "word" amar אמר also means "lamb". But they made them into two words by pronouncing them differently. They are the identical word in the original language. Those trained in the Loyala-Jesuit traditions will attempt to convince you that the later versions are more accurate. Merely ignore the niqqud and you are reading the older version. The original is preserved even in the changed versions.

Doubting the language

Proto-Hebrew vs. Sqaure-text

'Scholars' will attempt to shed doubt on God's word by saying that the Proto-Hebrew alphabet is older than the square text. In the Proto-Hebrew the letter aleph looks like an ox head. It's "hidden meaning" is ox. The square text letter is א. It is the number 1, and it's name means 1000. It contains the unspeakable name of God which sounds like 'ee-oo-ee' if you did pronounce it. It means "I" and it means "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". It tells of the Trinity. It has a hidden meaning of "God spoke and created the heavens and the earth".

The reason they say that the Proto-Hebrew is older is because they don't find the square text in archeology until the time of the captivity. They say that the Hebrews used the language of their enemies and captors to write their most sacred texts. To make this claim they must ignore what the Bible says.

At the time of captivity, the sacred things in the temple were defiled and made common. The king used the furniture and utensils for his drunken parties. The square text was made public. Prior to this time is was a private and Holy language.

Passed from father to son, writings in the square text were likely carried into Egypt by Jacob, and placed in the library of the Pharaoh by Joseph. Moses, who had access to them, being raised in Pharaoh's household, took copies to the desert when he left. They would have been kept in and around the tabernacle and later in the temple, with limited access to them.

There is a very plausible explanation why you would not expect to find them in archeological digs. Being hostile to God, they attempt to detract from his Word with a story how the Hebrews wrote scripture in Assyrian.

Doubting the Text

Anachronism

Some scholars would discount the word of God because they impose modern standards on the text. They claim that when Jesus quoted the Old Testament, he sometimes mis-quoted it. Jesus sometimes quotes scripture and sometimes he makes a commentary on it concerning himself, since it all speaks of him. If you presume that Jesus is a fraud, then of course you will interpret prophecy of him as a later imposition.

There times when an item is mentioned, like a place name not used until later than when the record was written. It is plausible that a scribe wrote a note in the sidebar to explain the text, and later the note got incorporated in the text. This does not disqualify the text any more than adding the niqqud does. Simply ignore such notes.

Cultural impositions

Some scholars go to great lengths to impose interpretations of historians on the text. What is needed to interpret scripture is in scripture. Historians are not apostles.

Ignorance as Truth

Misunderstood text

The Gentile and largely Greek church did not wish to be Hebrew nor to learn the Hebrew language. Consequently that often misunderstood what the apostles were teaching.

The word "agape", though a Greek word for love. is also a Hebrew word for 'the combatants'. Agape love is the love given to an enemy with no expectation of return. While we were still sinners and enemies of God, Christ died for us.

Doctrinal imposition

The Calvinist must read scripture with the view of Calvinism imposed upon it. The Catholic must read it in light of Magisterium dictates. Most people impose the doctrine of whatever commentary they are reading the Bible with. This is not learning. It is merely reinforcing your personal beliefs.

Wrong Genre

Literal-historical

The largest hostility against the scriptures is the declaration by 'scholars' beginning with Augustine, that the genre of the Bible is literal-historical and that the human authors could only write about what they knew. Jesus said taht all the scriptures spoke of him. If the account of the Exodus speaks of Israel leaving Egypt, and it speaks of Christ, then the literal-historical must be a parable of Christ as well.

Correcting this hostility enables all the others to be corrected as well.