Bible Contradictions: In Using The Term Arnion, Does The Book Of Revelation Contradict Johns Gospel

🔎 Bible Contradictions: In Using the Term “Arnion,” Does the Book of Revelation Contradict John’s Gospel Which Uses the Word “Amnos” Instead? 🔍

By Award-Winning Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

This short essay is a brief reply to a question that was posed by a member of my “Eli Kittim Theology” group on MeWe.

——-

The member’s name is Marlo Bliss. This was his Question:

The writer of the Book of Revelation used

the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON <G721> for

Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S <>

(lambkins require feeding). He did so 26

times. Why this contradiction to John 1.29

and 1.36?

Thanks for any reply.

*I use the DLT (Dabhar Literal Translation)

software in hebrew, greek, english and

german.*

——-

He’s basically asking the following question: if John’s Gospel uses the Greek term Ἀμνὸς twice to refer to Jesus, then why does the Book of Revelation repeatedly use the word ἀρνίον instead? Isn’t that a deviation from the canonical context? Doesn’t that constitute a Biblical contradiction? The implication is that the Book of Revelation appears to be wrong and contradictory in its terminological usage.

First of all, it is important to establish at the outset that both ἀμνός (amnós) and ἀρνίον (arníon) mean the same thing. These terms are not self-contradictory, but rather interchangeable and complementary. Whereas **ἀμνός** (amnós) has the connotation of a consecrated or sacrificial lamb, especially a one-year old lamb, **ἀρνίον** refers to a “little lamb,” under a year old (Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940). According to J. Thayer, the connotation of ἀρνίον (arníon) is that of pure innocence, with virgin-like (gentle) intentions.

Second, John’s Gospel uses both amnós and arníon. It’s true that John chapter 1 and verses 29 & 36 use the term Ἀμνὸς (lamb) to refer to Jesus Christ. But this term occurs only twice. And yet, the exact same gospel of John uses the alternative ἀρνία (lambs) in chapter 21 verse 15—-which is the plural form of the singular term ἀρνίον (lamb)——to refer to the *Christ-like* followers, namely, the saints of God who are becoming like Christ.

Third, the use of the word ἀρνίον (arníon) in a “messianic canonical context” is in fact scriptural, as can be seen, for example, in the Book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 11.19, the Septuagint (LXX) uses the Greek term ἀρνίον in an overtly messianic context:

ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ

θύεσθαι οὐκ ἔγνων ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλογίσαντο

λογισμὸν πονηρὸν λέγοντες δεῦτε καὶ

ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ καὶ

ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων καὶ τὸ

ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ μνησθῇ ἔτι.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

But I as an innocent lamb led to the

slaughter, knew not: against me they

devised an evil device, saying, Come and let

us put wood into his bread, and let us

utterly destroy him from off the land of the

living, and let his name not be remembered

any more.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 53. In fact, Jeremiah’s aforementioned verse is a parallel to——and presents a near-verbal agreement with——Isaiah 53.7 (LXX):

καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει

τὸ στόμα· ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη

καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν

ἄφωνος οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα

αὐτοῦ.

Translation (NRSV):

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb

that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep

that before its shearers is silent, so he did

not open his mouth.

In Jeremiah 11.19, the L.C.L. Brenton translates ἀρνίον “as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter,” while the NRSV similarly renders it as a “gentle lamb led to the slaughter.” The theological idea in Jeremiah 11.19 is consistent with that of Isaiah 53.7—-which says “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter”——even though Isaiah employs the terms πρόβατον (lamb) and ἀμνὸς (sheep) instead of Jeremiah’s use of the word ἀρνίον (lamb). These thematic parallels demonstrate that the above terms are interchangeable.

Thus, the Septuagint (LXX) uses 3 alternative terms to refer to this so-called messianic “lamb” of God who “was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; … and by his bruises we are healed” (Isaiah 53.5). Two of the three terms that the LXX uses for this *slaughtered messiah* are found in Isaiah 53.7, namely, πρόβατον and ἀμνὸς. Incidentally, πρόβατον (probaton) means ἀρνίον, which comes from ἀρήν (meaning “lamb”). Thus, ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable terms.

The word πρόβατον (probaton), which means ἀρνίον, is also used in Gen 22.8 by the LXX to refer to the sacrificial lamb of God:

Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the

lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ (NRSV)

The Septuagint also uses the Greek term πρόβατον (which means ἀρνίον) to refer to the sheep which is slaughtered as a “sin offering” in Lev 4.32.

Therefore, the Book of Revelation uses the exact same term that is found not only within the Biblical canonical-context itself (Jn 21.15), but also within the writings of the Septuagint as well. So how is it contradictory? It is not!

Conclusion

As you can see, the way in which the Koine Greek language has been used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament clearly shows that the words ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable and complementary terms. These 3 words have all been used in terms of a “messianic sin offering,” that is, in reference to an innocent lamb that is led to the slaughter (cf. Rev. 5.6 ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον/“a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered”). Although these terms have slightly different nuances, nevertheless they have been used consistently within a “messianic scriptural context” across the board. This is based on the principle of expositional constancy, the idea that similar terms and images are used consistently throughout scripture.

Since most scholars don’t think that John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation were written by the same author, this would explain why they don't use the exact same terminology. Different biblical authors use different vocabularies. This fact alone doesn’t preclude their books from being seen as authoritative or inspired. On the contrary, if we look at the 27 New Testament books, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception!

Thus, Mr. Marlo Bliss’ accusation——that “the writer of the Book of Revelation [who] used the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON … for Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S” was contradicting “John 1.29 and 1.36”——is unwarranted and without merit!

Incidentally, I looked at the so-called “DLT” (Dabhar Literal Translation) that Mr. Bliss uses, but unfortunately it is not faithful to the original Greek New Testament text. Besides, there is no disclosure or commentary about which text-types were used or if there even was a committee of scholars who edited it, which I seriously doubt, given the poor quality of the translation. I’ve also come across some YouTube videos, that are put out by the same sect, which endorse the Dabhar Literal Translation. Unfortunately, this English translation is of an inferior quality. Adherents of this cult further claim that the Book of Revelation is a “spurious” book. This sounds like a sect that has drifted away from sound Bible teaching!

——-

The Quran: A Critical Review

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Islamic Origins

Aside from the fact that the Quran was initially built on bloodshed and violence——in which the founder of Islam, Muhammad, participated in many military battles to convert neighbouring peoples and tribes——there are many other problem areas with the history of Islam as well. Many Jews were slaughtered who would not convert, as well as many other innocent people. The motto is the same now as it was then: “convert or be killed by the sword.” The question is, would the pure and holy God of Heaven and earth condone, or even encourage, such behavior? It’s true that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did the same. However, the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, did not engage in any military battles or in any terrorist attacks to convert people to Christianity by force. Muhammad did! One began with peace; the other with war. That’s the main difference.

Bloodshed and violence also marked the beginning of the Islamic period following the death of Muhammad. Rival Muslim leaders were vying for control of the Caliphate. Many killed their rivals or were themselves assassinated. Even Ali (aka ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib)——a cousin, son-in-law, and companion of Muhammad——was himself assassinated in 661 AD. That’s when the Shia–Sunni split began. Since then, there have been so many different splintering sects (denominations) and myriads of different schools and branches of Islamic theology that it is downright misleading to claim that there’s only one interpretation of the Quran:

Islamic schools and branches have

different understandings of Islam. There are

many different sects or denominations,

schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and

schools of Islamic theology, or ʿaqīdah

(creed). Within Islamic groups themselves

there may be differences, such as different

orders (tariqa) within Sufism, and within

Sunnī Islam different schools of theology

(Aṯharī, Ashʿarī, Māturīdī) and jurisprudence

(Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī). Groups in

Islam may be numerous (the largest

branches are Shīʿas and Sunnīs), or

relatively small in size (Ibadis, Zaydīs,

Ismāʿīlīs). Differences between the groups

may not be well known to Muslims outside

of scholarly circles, or may have induced

enough passion to have resulted in political

and religious violence (Barelvi, Deobandi,

Salafism, Wahhabism). There are informal

movements driven by ideas (such as Islamic

modernism and Islamism) as well as

organized groups with a governing body

(Ahmadiyya, Ismāʿīlism, Nation of Islam).

Some of the Islamic sects and groups

regard certain others as deviant or not truly

Muslim (Ahmadiyya, Alawites, Quranists).

Some Islamic sects and groups date back

to the early history of Islam between the 7th

and 9th centuries CE (Kharijites, Sunnīs,

Shīʿas), whereas others have arisen much

more recently (Islamic neo-traditionalism,

liberalism and progressivism, Islamic

modernism, Salafism and Wahhabism) or

even in the 20th century (Nation of Islam).

Still others were influential in their time but

are not longer in existence (non-Ibadi

Kharijites, Muʿtazila, Murji'ah).

—- Wikipedia (Islamic schools and

branches)

Another criticism that has been levelled against the Quran is that it has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner as the Bible, neither does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence, textual discrepancies, or omissions!

Textual and Linguistic Problems with the Quran

But these are not the only problems. There are many more problems with the Quran. While the Bible remained uniform, even though it was revealed to many different authors and prophets——written in different languages, during different time periods, and in many different locations——the Quran was only revealed to one man who happened to be illiterate. And how good was his memory? We don’t know. How much of what he heard was he able to retain? Let’s face it, the Quran is a relatively large book that is virtually impossible to memorize word for word, especially in the consonantal language of its day. Add to this the fact that in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?

Muslims often claim that the Quran is a reliable, uncorrupted text because there is supposedly only one Quran. However, that is actually a misleading and fallacious argument. For one, Classical Arabic was a consonantal language that had no vowels and was thus open to various interpretations. It was different from the Arabic of today. For another, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original text. Hence its textual integrity has been seriously compromised. The text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, when Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) burned all the existing variant copies of the Quran, he uniformly corrupted it in a textually undetectable manner. That’s actually a manipulation of the evidence. Why? Because the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed because we have, for example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrating textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy. Besides, there are so many different “readings” of the Quran which give rise to so many different Islamic interpretations.

Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!

But there is more. With regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues of forgery involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works. Case in point, the Quran copies from the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus gives life to clay birds. The Quran also uses the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, an apocryphal Gnostic text of the 3rd century. This is one of the texts where the idea that Jesus was not crucified comes from. The text claims that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Jesus’ place. Jesus is seen as standing by and supposedly "laughing at their ignorance.” The Quran also employs the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, an “uninspired” text that is part of the New Testament apocrypha. This text also denies the crucifixion of Jesus and suggests that there was a substitute. This is attested in the Quran, which says that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified (Sura 4:157-158). So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as “inspired” either by the Jews or the Christians. Thus, the sources of the Quran are highly dubious, even though they are described within the text as “revelations” from God.

Theological and Historical Discrepancies

Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious! In fact, the evidence suggests that the Quran is the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects. In other words, Islam was originally a heretical Eastern-Christian sect!

The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.

These are just some of the problems of the Quran. But there are many, many more. The Quran lacks historicity. Mecca and Medina, for example, were deserts without water or vegetation, making it highly unlikely for a civilization to live there, let alone thrive, according to Islamic expert Dr. Jay Smith. Not to mention that these cities are not mentioned anywhere until the late 8th century. This would strongly suggest that the stories concerning these locations are probably nothing more than historical fiction.

The Biblical Stories are Altered in the Quran

There’s also a great deal of deliberate misinformation that is coming from Islamic scholars. For example, I’m currently reading “The Clear Quran Series: A Thematic English Translation” (Lombard: Book of Signs Foundation, 2016), translated by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, with chief editors: Abu-Isa Webb, Aaron Wannamaker, and Hisham Sharif. They are affiliated with the site: TheClearQuran.org. In the preface, Dr. Khattab says (p. xvi):

Arab Muslims, Christians, and Jews call

God ‘Allah.’

This is false. Neither Jews nor Christians call God Allah. In providing a definition for the name, Dr. Khattab is disingenuous because he fails to inform readers that Allah was a pre-Islamic god who was worshipped long before the writing of the Quran. On the same page, he makes another linguistic error by stating that “Jesus used ‘Alaha’ to refer to God.” This is false. Jesus never called God Alaha. On the following page (xvii), Dr. Khattab begins a paragraph with the title “Was the Quran Copied from the Bible?” He writes:

It is worth mentioning that the first Arabic

translation of the Bible was done centuries

after the Prophet’s death.

He attributes the similarities between the Quran and the Bible not on “intertextuality” (i.e. literary copying) but rather on “divine revelation.” However, this is another misleading argument. The Bible had been translated into Syriac, Coptic, Aramaic, and Latin within the first few centuries of the common era, which makes it highly improbable that the first Arabic translation occurred in the 9th century. Just because we haven’t found earlier Arabic manuscripts doesn’t mean they did not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, we know that there existed an Arab-Christian community long before the time of Muhammad. There were certainly Christian churches in the East where the Bible was regularly preached. Textual criticism demonstrates a literary dependence of the Quran on various spurious works of a Christian and Jewish bent. Scholars can trace many of the stories of the Quran back to the Bible and the early Gnostic apocryphal texts. How would the early Muslims know about these texts or be able to copy them if they were not written in Arabic? Dr. Khattab makes many other erroneous and fallacious comments that I will not mention at this juncture because they will divert us from the topic in question.

Things actually get much worse once we start reading the Quran. Dr. Khattab claims that it is a masterpiece of Arabic literature, something akin to Shakespeare. But once you start reading it, it quickly becomes apparent that it doesn’t have the majestic refinement, eloquence, elegance, loftiness, or the wisdom of the Bible. In fact, it is so crude, unrefined, and tasteless that it doesn’t even sound “inspired,” let alone revealed. It actually reads like a second rate text in which a very insecure author is trying to establish himself either by gaslighting the readers or by blowing smoke about his knowledge of the Bible via the use of repetitive phrases such as “remember” Moses, “remember” Abraham, etc. But who gave him the literary license to alter the Biblical stories and to present them mangled and distorted? How is the reader supposed to “remember” the Bible if the author of the Quran is constantly interpolating new material and changing the stories, either deliberately or because he never really understood them?

As I started to read the Quran, I noticed that God is not talking in the first person. Rather, there seems to be a human narrator, which begs the question: how is this text divine? The preface claims that the Quran is scientifically accurate, yet Surah 2:22 refers to God who made “the sky a canopy.” The sky is obviously not a canopy. Also, the author seems to have little confidence because he’s constantly challenging the reader to defy him. God would not speak in that tone. As you read on, it becomes apparent that the author wants to discredit the Christian Trinity. But he devised a clever rhetorical device to do so. He has God supposedly saying “We” did this, or “We” did that. And then he explains that God is talking to the Angels. This would suggest that God used the help of angels to co-create. This would elevate the status of angels to “co-creators,” which is certainly a theological and hermeneutical contradiction! This is also theologically problematic because when God says in Genesis 1.26 “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness,” he is obviously not talking to angels because humankind is not made in the image of (created) angels but rather in the image of (the uncreated) God! Yet the Quran (Surah 2:30) directly contradicts this by claiming that God was talking to the angels about the creation of human beings:

‘Remember’ when your Lord said to the

angels, ‘I am going to place a successive

‘human’ authority on earth.’

Further theological discrepancies occur in Surah 2:32 in which the angels admit to not knowing “the names of all things” (Surah 2:31). But, surprisingly, “God said, ‘O Adam! Inform them of their names’ “ (Surah 2:33). In other words, the human Adam had more extensive knowledge than the divine angelic host combined. I’m not sure how a finite and limited human being who doesn’t have access to divine knowledge can possibly know more than the angelic beings who have existed for aeons upon aeons before the creation of the universe! This passage is yet another instance that reveals Allah’s lack of confidence, in which he’s constantly challenging the angels in order to prove that he knows more than they do. To make matters worse, the author once again invokes the memory of an episode that doesn’t exist in the Bible. So, there’s actually nothing to “remember.” This is a fabrication out of whole cloth. Yet, in Surah 2:34, the author writes:

And ‘remember’ when We said to the

angels, ‘Prostrate before Adam,’ so they all

did——but not Iblis [Satan], who refused

and acted arrogantly.

This Quranic commandment actually violates the 1st commandment of the Torah: “You shall have no other God’s before me.” In the New Testament, Romans 1:25 also condemns those who have “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” The Book of Revelation 19.10 strictly prohibits people from worshipping even angels, let alone humans. Therefore, this Quranic passage not only directly contradicts the Bible but is also ironically forcing us to “remember” a false memory, namely, that God commanded the angels to worship Adam. But there’s no evidence that God ever said that. So how can anyone “remember” something that never happened? This is nothing short of literary gaslighting.

What is more, Surah 2:35-36 directly contradicts the Genesis creation account by claiming that Adam and Eve lived “in Paradise,” and after the fall had to “Descend from the heavens ‘to the earth.’ “ This also contradicts the Bible which states that Adam was created on earth (Genesis 1:27). In Surah 2:51-52, the author says that even though “you worshipped the calf in his [Moses’] absence, … We ‘still’ forgave you.” It appears that the angels have the power to forgive sins. I thought only God forgave sins. Apparently, the angels forgive, too. Then, in Surah 2:57, the author says to the Israelites:

And ‘remember when’ We shaded you with

clouds and sent down to you manna and

quails, ‘saying’, ‘Eat from the good things

We have provided for you.’ The evildoers

‘certainly’ did not wrong Us, but wronged

themselves.

Since the author will later deny the Trinity by proclaiming that God is one, it begs the question: who does the plural pronoun “We” refer to? It seems as if the author of the Quran is trying to reinterpret the plural pronoun “Us” in Genesis 1.26—-when God said “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness”——by suggesting that God was talking to the angels. Thus, the “We” plural pronoun, once again, suggests a reference to the angelic host. However, this theological language is problematic because God wouldn’t speak about the angels as being co-creators or providers of the human race. On the contrary, Philippians 4:19 says that it is God (and God alone) who supplies “every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” Furthermore, God wouldn’t share his glory with the angels by implying that they’re co-creators, co-providers, and co-forgivers. Isaiah 42:8 reads:

I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not

yield my glory to another or my praise to

idols.

Therefore, in using the plural pronoun “We” to describe the joint efforts of God and the angels, the author of the Quran clearly demonstrates that he has misunderstood the theology of the Old and New Testaments. That’s precisely why the Quran doesn’t sound like divine scripture. It doesn’t have the ring of truth; it doesn’t sound genuine. This unbiblical conflation of God with angels is seen again in Surah 2:59, which reads: “We sent down a punishment from the heavens upon them for their rebelliousness.” Notice, it is not God who sent it; “We sent” it! Not to mention that God’s language in the Quran is rather vulgar and insulting. Surah 2:65 records the punishment for the Sabbath-Breakers:

You are already aware of those of you who

broke the Sabbath. We said to them, ‘Be

disgraced apes!’

A very insulting and demeaning language is used that is uncharacteristic of a pure and holy God. This is certainly not the language of the Bible. Incidentally, Jesus also broke the Sabbath and healed a man who had been unable to walk for 38 years (John 5:1-18). Is the author of the Quran alluding to Jesus as well, calling him an ape? How insulting!

Then comes a projection. We already know that Muhammad was illiterate. We also know that the Quran knows nothing about Holy Scripture because it keeps getting the stories wrong, misinterpreting them, distorting them, and adding to them. But, ironically, instead of admitting this, the author of the Quran pronounces a condemnation on those who do these things. But that’s exactly what the Quran is doing. He writes in Surah 2:78-79:

And among them are the illiterate who know

nothing about the Scripture except lies, and

‘so’ they ‘wishfully’ speculate. So woe to

those who distort the Scripture with their

own hands [writings] then say, ‘This is from

God’——seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to

them for what their hands have written.

In Surah 2:102, the Quran talks of magical themes:

They ‘instead’ followed the magic promoted

by the devils during the reign of Solomon.

This reference is not found anywhere in Scripture. As far as I know, the only known text to discuss demonic magic during the time of Solomon is a pseudepigraphical text, ascribed to King Solomon, which is known as The “Testament of Solomon.”

Another linguistic problem with the Quran is that it has God openly disrespecting Christians and Jews and their scriptures in a manner that is not theologically persuasive or convincing. God would not talk down to Christians and Jews by mocking their Scriptural beliefs. This is uncharacteristic of the holy and pure God of Scripture (see e.g. Surah 2:111, 113, 120). The Quran is also embellishing and contradicting the Scriptural stories by adding extraneous elements. If these stories were revealed in the 7th century, why were they not known to the earlier prophets or mentioned in Scripture? Nowhere throughout the Old and New Testaments is there the slightest clue, for example, that Abraham was in Mecca. So how are the readers supposed to remember this story? Yet Surah 2:126 declares:

And ‘remember’ when Abraham said, ‘My

Lord, make this city ‘of Mecca’ secure and

provide fruits to its people.

Unless this is copied from a spurious, apocryphal Gnostic text, there’s really nothing to remember. What is more, the Quran distorts Scripture. In the Bible, Ishmael and Hagar are disowned by Abraham. In Genesis 21:8-21, Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away. Moreover, Isaac is the promised seed or the heir of the promises (see Gen. 13:15; 15:5; 22:17). But in the Quran it’s the exact opposite. It is Ishmael who is the promised one, and Abraham celebrates him. This is called “twisting God’s Word,” which is a manipulation of the Scriptural evidence. It represents a kind of underhanded (sleight of hand) Islamic apologetics. It is as if we have a new film director who decided to change the plot. In this 7th century (dark ages) sequel to the Bible, it’s all about Abraham and Ishmael. And we have another plot twist in which the second commandment that prohibits the worship of idols is broken. There’s also an allusion to the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which was also venerated in pre-Islamic pagan times. Paradoxically, Surah 2:125 urges the reader to remember a time that never existed. I suppose it’s a clever way of attempting to historicize a fictional narrative that has no basis in history or literature:

And ‘remember’ when We made the Sacred

House [Ka’bah] a centre and a sanctuary

for the people ‘saying’, ‘You may take the

standing-place of Abraham as a site of

prayer.’ And We entrusted Abraham and

Ishmael to purify My House for those who

circle it, who meditate in it, and who bow

and prostrate themselves ‘in prayer’.

Then there is a theological fabrication of the one true God which departs from Scripture and tradition. It also falsifies Hebrew Scripture which never mentions Yahweh as the God of Ishmael. Surah 2:133 declares:

Or did you witness when death came to

Jacob? He asked his children, ‘Who will

you worship after my passing?’ They

replied, ‘We will continue to worship your

God, the God of your forefathers——

Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac——the One

God. And to him we all submit.’

There is also a seeming allusion to the Christians, whom the anonymous author of the Quran is denouncing as polytheists (see Surah 2:135). The author of the Quran obviously doesn’t understand the theological concept of the Trinity. It doesn’t evoke polytheism. The Triune God is defined as one God who exists in three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial divine persons. An analogy would be the fingers of a hand. Although there may be 5 fingers, it is still one (1) hand!

——-

For further details on the Trinity, see the following article:

Is the Trinity a Biblical Teaching?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/631800420436754432/is-the-trinity-a-biblical-teaching

Eli of Kittim

Is the Trinity a Biblical Teaching?

By Author Eli Kittim ——- While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New

——-

The Quran Contradicts Itself

Finally, I will put forth one last statement before I make my closing arguments. The anonymous author of the Quran claims that he follows the revelations of the Hebrew patriarchs and of Jesus. He writes (Surah 2:136):

Say, O believers, ‘We believe in God and

what has been revealed to us; and what

was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac,

Jacob, and his descendants; and what was

given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets

from the Lord. We make no distinction

between any of them.

There are two things, here, worthy of consideration. On the one hand, the author claims to accept the revelation of Jesus. On the other hand, he contradicts the revelation of Jesus by saying that Jesus is no different than anyone else. Well, which is it? Does he accept Jesus’ revelation or not? He’s violating the law of non-contradiction, which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Jesus claimed that God is a trinity. Matthew 28.19, for example, is an authentic verse that is part of the New Testament critical edition. In this verse, Jesus describes what God is:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the

nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If the anonymous author of the Quran accepts Jesus’ revelation, as he claims, then it is incumbent upon him to also accept the revelation of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Moreover, if this author accepts Jesus’ revelation, then it is incumbent upon him to also accept the divinity of Jesus! Otherwise he is contradicting himself.

The Deity of Jesus Christ

In John 1:1 (“the word was God”); Colossians 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of the godhead [θεότητος] dwells bodily”); Hebrews 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”); Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”); Philippians 2:6 (“being in very nature God”); Colossians 1:15 (“The Son is the image of the invisible God”); 2 Peter 1:1 (“our God and Savior Jesus Christ”). And in John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” John 1:3: “All things came into being through him [Jesus], and without him not one thing came into being.”

——-

Jesus’ Incarnation Prophesied in the Tanakh (Old Testament)

Leviticus 26.12:

“I will walk among you and be your God”

Micah 5.2:

“out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel—One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.”

Daniel 7.13-14:

“one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. … He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him.”

Isaiah 53.3-5:

“He was despised and rejected …, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. … Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

Zechariah 12:10

“They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn”

Isaiah 9.6 (emphasis added):

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

You have to be exegetically ignorant or completely illiterate not to notice that the divine Messiah was prophesied in both the Tanakh and the Habrit Hachadashah. If the author of the Quran accepts Jesus as the Messiah——as well as Jesus’ revelation, and his future coming——then he must also accept the aforementioned revelations!

Conclusion

So, the Quran was built on bloodshed and violence in which its prophet, Muhammad, participated in many military battles to convert people to Islam. Bloodshed and violence also marked the beginning of the Islamic period following the death of Muhammad. Rival Muslim leaders were vying for control of the Caliphate killing each other off and forcing conversion by the sword. The Quran was written in consonantal Arabic, a language which is susceptible to multiple interpretations. There were also multiple versions that were burned and destroyed, so that the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original text. What is more, the Quran lacks a critical edition, and has no scholarly apparatus to inform us about important text-critical questions. The hafiz died, and so did the oral tradition. And the Quran itself is full of discrepancies and contradictions, constantly changing and falsifying the Biblical stories to suit the author’s theological needs. But Adam was created on earth, not in heaven. God never asked the angels to worship Adam, nor did he make man in their image. And Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac. So, when the Quran tells us to “remember” these fabricated stories that have been ripped out of their original contexts and altered, this is a deceptive way to gaslight its readers. The Quran is also a collection of forgeries of many different apocryphal and pseudepigraphical Jewish and Christian texts. The Quran lacks the majestic refinement, eloquence, and loftiness of the Bible. In fact, it is rather crude and unrefined, so much so that it doesn’t even sound “inspired,” let alone revealed. It actually reads like a second rate text in which a very insecure author is trying to establish himself either by gaslighting his readers or by trying to persuade them of his biblical knowledge through the use of repetitive phrases such as “remember” Moses, “remember” Abraham, etc. But who gave him the literary license to alter the Biblical stories and to present them mangled and distorted? No! The Quran doesn’t read like Scripture. It doesn’t have the ring of truth.

🔎 What Does the Phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις Mean in 1 Timothy 2.6? 🔍

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓

There is a mysterious phrase in the Greek New Testament which seems to suggest that the evidence for Christ’s death has not yet been demonstrated. If one considers Christ’s historicity and death as a foregone conclusion, then this terse phrase certainly questions this assumption. Let’s go a little deeper and look at some of the details. The Greek text of First Timothy 2.5-6 (SBLGNT) declares:

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ

ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ

δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ

μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·

The last clause literally means: the martyrdom/testimony [given] in its own times.

We must first understand what the Greek term μᾰρτῠ́ρῐον (martúrion) means. It actually has several meanings:

1. testimony, evidence, proof

2. martyrdom

3. shrine of a martyr

Since 1 Timothy 2.5-6 is explicitly referring to Christ’s death as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον), it is therefore appropriate to regard the term μαρτύριον (martúrion) in this particular context both as a testimony and as a martyrdom. Let’s look at the translation of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 (KJV):

“For there is one God, and one mediator

between God and men, the man Christ

Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to

be testified in due time.”

There is something deeply perplexing about the last clause. If the testimony took place in Christ’s own time, then why will the evidence or proof be put forth “in due time”?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the phrase “in due time” means “eventually at an appropriate time,” as in the sentence “I will answer all of your questions in due time.” Therefore, the KJV seems to suggest that the evidence establishing these facts will come at some future time period. The text is referring specifically to Christ’s death as “a ransom for all.” So, the KJV suggests that the evidence for Christ’s death will be demonstrated “in due time.” Bear in mind that this is the same English Bible translation which says elsewhere that Christ will die “ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD” (Hebrews 9.26b italics mine)! Let’s look at a cross-reference in 1 Timothy 6.14-15 (the same letter), which has the exact same phrase (καιροῖς ἰδίοις):

τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον

ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς

ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος

δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων

καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων.

Translation (NASB):

“keep the commandment without fault or

reproach until the appearing of our Lord

Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at

the proper time—He who is the blessed and

only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord

of lords.”

First Tim. 6.15 has the exact same phrase that we find in 1 Tim. 2.6, namely, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, and in this particular context it is a reference to “the appearing of our Lord Jesus,” which elsewhere is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13; Rev. 1.1)! Here, the Greek phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις means “at the proper time” or, more accurately, “in its own times” (YLT). And it refers to the future revelation of Jesus in his own time.

But if 1 Timothy was written at the end of the first century——and the evidence for Christ’s death had already, presumably, been demonstrated in the New Testament books——why would the author insist that the proof of Christ’s death comes “in its own times”? It doesn’t make any sense. If Jesus died ca. 30 AD, and the writer of 1 Timothy is writing at around 100 AD, 70 years later, then why would the testimony of Jesus’ death be given at the proper time, or in Christ’s own time? The author doesn’t say that the testimony was already given but rather suggests that it will be given in due time. In other words, why isn’t the testimony given right then and there? Or, why isn’t the testimony considered as something that was already given in the past about the occurrence of a previous event?

Readers often read 1 Timothy 2.6 and ignore the last clause, or they skip it as if it doesn’t really mean anything. But it does! In fact, it is the key to understanding the passage. First Timothy 2.5-6 (NASB) reads:

“For there is one God, and one mediator also

between God and mankind, the man Christ

Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for

all, the testimony given at the proper time.”

Notice how the last clause is translated in modern Bible versions. Most versions translate it correctly, without committing the clause to a past reference point, thereby suggesting that the evidence for Christ’s death is given in Christ’s own time (whenever that is…).

The New International Version gets it horribly wrong. The editors are clearly basing their translations on their theological bias. Nowhere does the Greek text say that the testimony “has now been witnessed.” Yet that’s what the NIV says at 1 Tim. 2.6:

“This has now been witnessed to at the

proper time.”

Unfortunately, that is unsubstantiated by the Greek text, which reads:

τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·

However, most of the modern Bible translations actually get it right:

ESV - “which is the testimony given at the

proper time.”

KJV - “to be testified in due time.”

ASV - “the testimony to be borne in its own

times.”

DRB - “a testimony in due times.”

YLT - “the testimony in its own times.”

Conclusion

Hebrews 9.26b (KJV) says that Jesus will die “once in the end of the world.” First Peter 1.20 (NJB) says that Christ is “revealed at the final point of time.” Revelation 12.5 says that the Messiah is born in the end times. Acts 3.19-21 says that the Messiah cannot come “until the period of restoration of all things.” Galatians 4.4 says that Christ is born in “the fullness of the time,” which Eph. 1.9-10 defines as the consummation of the ages! Moreover, the auditory and visual impressions of the transfiguration narrative in 2 Peter 1.16-18 constitute an apocalyptic *prophecy,* which is revealed in verse 19:

“so we have the prophetic word made more

sure, to which you do well to pay attention

as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”

What is more, 1 Timothy 2.6 (written at ca. 100 AD) says that Christ’s death is meant “to be testified in due time.” The author is certainly NOT referring to 70 years prior to the time that he penned this letter (i.e. ca. 30 AD)! Therefore, it's perplexing why this mysterious phrase “to be testified in due time” is inserted in the text, and what is its temporal implication. That’s because it implies that the testimony of Christ’s death seems to be forthcoming rather than being already available!

Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”

By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Introduction

Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”

According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.

Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship?

In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:

Calling on his name is what mattered,

whether you would say Iesous as the

Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.

Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:

of all the names in the world given to

men, this is the only one by which we can

be saved.

Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once! The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once! The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus? Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic? By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble? After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)! After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se!

A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation

Pollack writes:

When the New Testament was written in

Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to

be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’

That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:

τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

My Translation:

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:

αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι

προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

Translation (NJB):

He himself had declared that a prophet is

not honoured in his own home town.

Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse? Nowhere! The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.

Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.

What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament?

Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:

‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is

Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell

me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are

supposed to say? How should we address

him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt

the Greekified version instead of his original

name?

But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.

By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ? Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.

Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament?

Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ‍), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”

However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament!

Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Jesus then means according to the Hebrew

‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The

Healer.’

Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".

see 2392. iasis (“healing”)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm

We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).

Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name

As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it!

Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι

λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.

3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.

4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.

You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.

The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς? All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we?

If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:

Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable

of taking away sins.

It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both!

A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Polish Translation of Eli Kittim’s article

Polskie tłumaczenie artykułu Eli Kittima

——-

DOWÓD, ŻE DANIEL 12.1 ODNOSI SIĘ DO ZMARTWYCHWSTANIA NA PODSTAWIE TŁUMACZENIA I EGEGEZY JĘZYKÓW BIBLIJNYCH

Autor Eli Kittim

Księga Daniela 12.1 jest w kontekście wielkiego ucisku czasów ostatecznych! Jest powtórzony w Mateusza 24.21 jako czas wielkiej próby: καιρός θλίψεως (por. Ap 7,14).

Daniel Teodotion 12.1 LXX:

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

Teodotion Daniel 12,1 z Septuaginty tłumaczy hebrajskie słowo עָמַד (amad) jako αναστήσεται, które pochodzi od rdzenia ανίστημι i oznacza „powstanie”.

Tłumaczenie:

W tym czasie powstanie Michał, wielki książę, obrońca twojego ludu. Nastanie czas udręki, jakiej nie było, odkąd narody po raz pierwszy powstały.

Moje twierdzenie, że greckie słowo ἀναστήσεται („powstanie”) odnosi się do zmartwychwstania, zostało zakwestionowane przez krytyków. Moja odpowiedź jest następująca.

Pierwszym dowodem jest fakt, że Michał jest po raz pierwszy wymieniony jako ten, który „powstanie” (ἀναστήσεται; Daniel Teodotion 12.1 LXX) przed powszechnym zmartwychwstaniem (ἀναστήσονται; Starogrecki Daniel 12.2 LXX). W tym przypadku istnieje solidny dowód językowy, że słowo ἀναστήσεται odnosi się do zmartwychwstania, ponieważ w następnym wersecie (12.2) liczba mnoga tego samego słowa (tj. ἀναστήσονται) została użyta do opisania ogólnego zmartwychwstania! Innymi słowy, jeśli dokładnie to samo słowo oznacza zmartwychwstanie w Daniela 12.2, to musi również oznaczać zmartwychwstanie w Daniela 12.1!

Drugi dowód pochodzi ze starogreckiej wersji Septuaginty Daniela, która używa słowa παρελεύσεται do określenia hebrajskiego słowa עָמַד (amad), które jest tłumaczone jako „powstanie”.

Starogrecki Daniel 12.1 wersja LXX brzmi:

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

Starogrecka wersja Septuaginty Daniela dalej pokazuje, że Daniel 12.1 opisuje temat śmierci i zmartwychwstania, ponieważ słowo παρελεύσεται oznacza „odejść” (umrzeć), tym samym wskazując na śmierć tego księcia w czasie koniec! Dlatego przygotowuje scenę dla jego zmartwychwstania, ponieważ tak zwana forma „Teodotion Daniel” z LXX wypełnia luki, używając słowa αναστήσεται, oznaczającego zmartwychwstanie cielesne, aby ustalić okres dni ostatnich jako czas, w którym ta książęca postać zostanie wskrzeszony z martwych!