The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth Of The Gods

The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth of the Gods

By Independent Scholar and Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓📚

The Sons of God Are Not Extraterrestrials: They Are Supernatural Spirits

Erich von Däniken is one of the first figures to popularize the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth a long time ago and influenced human civilization. And, since then, many authors have picked up this idea and continued to expand on it, using mythologies from around the world, including the Bible. For example, Tim Alberino, Graham Hancock, and many other such writers——who also promote theories on alternative history and ancient civilizations——believe that there was an advanced alien civilization on earth, with very advanced technology, that was wiped out by a comet impact c. 12,900 to 11,700 years ago (aka “the younger dryas impact”).

However, it is important to note that mainstream science refutes the ancient alien-civilization theory. Books on these topics are generally in the realm of science-fiction, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. These writings have not undergone rigorous scholarly peer review and have not been published in any credible academic or Biblical journals.

As regards the Scriptures, ancient astronaut theorists typically try to link alien civilizations and extraterrestrials to the Genesis 6 account, when “the sons of God” (called the “watchers” in the apocryphal book of Enoch) had supposed “sexual relations” with human women, whose offspring were said to be giants, the so-called “Nephilim” (cf. Jude 1.6). But this is reading too much into the Biblical story. The Bible is neither a sci‑fi novel, nor a historical treatise. It is a book about an invisible spiritual or metaphysical reality that interacts with our own.

What is more, the Bible has many different literary genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking animals, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, people turning into pillars of salt, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Bible Translations Versus The Hebrew Text

Now if we turn our attention to the original Hebrew text, nothing in the Genesis 6 narrative suggests an advanced alien civilization of extraterrestrials, nor can one adduce that the Genesis 6 narrative should be taken literally as a historical account. Unfortunately, some English Bible versions have mistranslated certain words by inserting their own *theological interpretations* that are not found in the original Hebrew text. For example, The New American Bible renders Genesis 6.4 as follows:

the sons of God had intercourse with the

daughters of human beings.

The NET Bible similarly says:

the sons of God were having sexual

relations with the daughters of humankind.

The New Living Translation also adds words and images that are not found in the original text:

the sons of God had intercourse with

women.

These are not only unfaithful translations of the original Hebrew text, but they are also bad interpretations that suggest interbreeding between spirits and mortals. Biologically, people can interbreed with one another, but people cannot interbreed with animals or spirits. This, then, shows a fundamental hermeneutical error in trying to understand Genesis 6 in purely physical, biological, or historical terms. According to Wikipedia:

Sons of God (Hebrew: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,

romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, literally: "sons

of the Elohim") is a phrase used in the

Tanakh or Old Testament and in Christian

Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in

Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of

different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

So, the sons of god (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ LXX) are spirits (see Ps. 82), while the daughters of men are human beings. The Genesis 6.2 account of the sons of god——who supposedly marry the daughters of men——is an allusion to a “spiritual marriage,” not a physical one, as when a *spiritual rebirth* in God (Jn 3.5-7) is like being married to God. That’s why the believers in Christ are said to be the bride of Christ (see 2 Cor 11.2)! Similarly, Genesis 6.2 is alluding to “supernatural beings“ (the so-called “fallen ones”) who entered women and united themselves to them in spirit, thus giving them a sort of Faustian *spiritual rebirth.* In Genesis 6.4, Young’s Literal Translation reads thusly:

The fallen ones were in the earth in those

days, and even afterwards when sons of

God come in unto daughters of men, and

they have borne to them -- they are the

heroes, who, from of old, are the men of

name.

It is, essentially, a *theological* (not a historical) account that tries to explain the origins of evil and how wickedness multiplied on earth (Gen. 6.5):

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man

was great in the earth, and that every

intention of the thoughts of his heart was

only evil continually.

The Hebrew word וַיִּקְח֤וּ (way·yiq·ḥū) means “they took” (Gen. 6.2). That is to say, the sons of God took נָשִׁ֔ים (nā·šîm) “wives” or “women” (Gen 6.2) in the *spiritual* sense of inhabiting or possessing them. The language of Genesis 6 suggests that they entered them. In Gen. 6.4, the Hebrew term יָבֹ֜אוּ (yā·ḇō·’ū) means “to come in,” or “go in.” But it is not explicitly referring to sexual intercourse, as most people mistakenly assume. Moreover, the Hebrew text in Gen. 6.4 doesn’t actually say that the earthly women bore human children to the sons of God. The text uses the term וְיָלְד֖וּ (wə·yā·lə·ḏū), which means “bore” or “brought forth, but it doesn’t say “children” per se. Readers often assume that the “mighty men … of old” were the “human children” that the mortal women supposedly bore.

But we must be very careful, here, because that’s not exactly what the text is saying. Notice that the *union* between the sons of god and the mortal women is initially spiritual, not biological. This spiritual union ultimately brought forth הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים (hag·gib·bō·rîm) “the mighty” אֲשֶׁ֥ר (’ă·šer) “who” [were] מֵעוֹלָ֖ם (mê·‘ō·w·lām) “from ancient times” or “from eternity.” These were אַנְשֵׁ֥י (’an·šê) “men” הַשֵּֽׁם׃ (haš·šêm) of “the NAME” of God (Gen. 6.4). So, this spiritual union between spirits and mortals eventually *brought forth* embodied ancient spirits. These are obviously wicked spirits that deliberately possess human women for the purpose of giving birth to hybrids, such as the “Nephilim” or the so-called “giants.”

But, as I will demonstrate, we should not view these types of accounts as referring to a race of multiple giants but rather to the arrival of the gods, the superpowerful “giants that were from of old, the Heroes of fame” (Gen. 6.4). Therefore, even though this spiritual union will eventually give birth to an evil offspring in human history, the text is nevertheless trying to show the backstory to this event, namely, that what gave rise to it is a spiritual union, not a physical one!

The Births of Two Giants: The Virgin Birth and the Birth of the Antichrist

In fact, Genesis 6 sounds like a *reversal* of the virgin birth theme in which the Spirit of God impregnates a daughter of men, who then gives birth to a *giant,* a spirit from everlasting, namely, to God himself! So, while the gospels *prophesy* about the union of God’s Spirit with a mortal woman, bringing forth an everlasting spirit of God into the world of time and space, Genesis 6 seems to be *prophesying* about the same type of union, but this time between a dark spirit and a woman, bringing forth another ancient spirit, a man of renown, known as the Antichrist, whom the New Testament calls “the son of perdition,” “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship” (2 Thess. 2.4), and “whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thess. 2.9)!

Here’s an excerpt from chapter 10 (p. 225) of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation”:

The Bible affirms that ‘there were giants on

the earth in those days’! (Gen. 6:4, ‘New

King James’). These figures, which are

beyond human description, represent the

gods that have come down upon the earth

in the form of ‘Christ’ and ‘antichrist,’ to

whom scripture devotes a brief but

noteworthy depiction: ‘the mighty men who

were of old, men of renown’ (Gen 6:4).

Interestingly enough, in the apocryphal ancient text known as the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is said to be resurrected as a *Giant*! This is also alluded to in Rev 1.7:

Behold, He [Christ] is coming with the

clouds, and every eye will see Him.

From an eschatological perspective, the *giant Jesus* coming out of the tomb, in the Gospel of Peter (vv. 38-40), seems to be a *prophecy* which indicates that he will take the form of a *giant* at the end of days! A 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, whereas a *giant* Jesus can be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Of all the end-time depictions of Christ, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For instance, it seems to fit with the *giant* Pauline Christ who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2.8). It’s also congruent with another Old Testament verse in which the Lord appears as a *colossal figure* who flies “Like birds” in order to “protect and deliver” Jerusalem (Isa. 31.5). Elsewhere, only a great figure of *immense proportion* can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14). That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4). Which days? All the *prophecies* seem to converge on the end of days.

The exodus account is no different. If we compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon “Egypt” to the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place (see e.g. Ex. 10.1–20 [cf. Rev. 9.3]; Ex. 9.13–35 [cf. Rev. 16.21]; Ex. 9.1-7 [cf. Rev 6.8]; Ex. 7.14–24 [cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4]; Ex. 7.25–8.15 [cf. Rev. 16.13]; Ex. 9.8–12 [cf. Rev. 16.2]; Ex. 10.21–29 [cf. Rev. 16.10])!

Why does Lk 17.30 compare Noah’s flood to the coming of Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the same apocalyptic messages that we find in the New Testament. Moreover, the *giant* resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to accurately portray the image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven” (cf. Dan. 7.13-14).

Similarly, the Antichrist also seems to be depicted as a *giant* who is incarnated on earth at the end of days! Case in point. In Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” to earth in the last days and who turns out to be a powerful figure that holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)!

Similar to Genesis 6, there are many prophecies in the New Testament that allude to the future incarnation of Antichrist on earth. For example, the author of Luke 10.18 writes:

I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

This same event——when the sons of god will come down to earth——is *prophesied* to take place at *the end of days* in Revelation 12.9:

And the great dragon was thrown down, the

serpent of old who is called the devil and

Satan, who deceives the whole world; he

was thrown down to the earth, and his

angels were thrown down with him.

Revelation 12.9 is a remarkably similar account of *the sons of god* that we find in Genesis 6! What is more, the future Antichrist will eventually be resurrected from the dead (see Rev 13.3, 14). And it appears that he, too, will be resurrected as a *giant,* causing people to marvel. Rev. 13.3-4 says:

I saw one of his heads as if it had been

fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was

healed. And the whole earth was amazed

and followed after the beast; they

worshiped the dragon because he gave his

authority to the beast; and they worshiped

the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast,

and who is able to wage war with him?’

Thus, Genesis 6, which talks about the giants, doesn’t appear to be historical, but rather prophetic! On the whole, the Bible is pointing to the messianic age——and specifically to the births of Christ and Antichrist——at the time of the end, just prior to the great and terrible day of the lord. Accordingly, Matthew 24.37 tells us that the days of Noah were *types* of the coming apocalypse:

For the coming of the Son of Man will be

just like the days of Noah.

It is also worth noting that Daniel 9.26 referred to the coming destruction as an eschatological flood:

And its end will come with a flood.

In stark contrast to what the authors on ancient civilizations are saying, the pivotal episode in human history concerning the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is in the future, not in the past. That’s precisely why the Great War between Christ and Antichrist will take place at the end of time! In the context of the end-times, Revelation 12.7 reads:

And there was war in heaven, Michael and

his angels waging war with the dragon. The

dragon and his angels waged war.

Conclusion

Authors on ancient civilizations typically talk about faraway planets, spaceships, and extraterrestrials. They usually don’t provide any credible references, aside from their literary fantasies and wild imaginations, and hence their claims appear to be unfounded. In addition, without any training whatsoever on biblical languages, textual criticism, or exegesis, they nevertheless offer outrageous interpretations based on a superficial reading of the Bible. Unbeknownst to them, many of the Old Testament stories are actually *types* that point to the *anti-types* (or fulfillments) in prophetic literature. Contrary to fundamentalists who read scripture literally, as if Noah’s flood literally happened, a close interpretation of the Bible reveals that the so-called “antediluvian” narrative of Genesis 6 is actually an apocalyptic oracle about the coming destruction during the day of the Lord in the end-times (2 Pet. 3.10)! We also know this because mainstream interdisciplinary science categorically rejects the notion of a global flood in earth’s history. According to Wikipedia:

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible’s internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah’s Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience.

——-

Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?

Eli Kittim

The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.

From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:

he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;


upon him was the chastisement that

brought us peace, and with his wounds we

are healed.

We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death?

In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!

How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,

and the ark of his covenant was seen within

his temple. There were flashes of lightning,

rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,

and heavy hail.

Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ! A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,

coming down out of heaven from God,

prepared as a bride adorned for her

husband. And I heard a loud voice from the

throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of

God is with man. He will dwell with them,

and they will be his people, and God himself

will be with them as their God.’

Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:

at the name of Jesus every knee should

bow, in heaven and on earth and under the

earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the

Father.

Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:

I will be ever present in your midst: I will be

your God, and you shall be My people.

Compare Revelation 21.3:

He will dwell with them, and they will be his

people, and God himself will be with them

as their God.

How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?

By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:

Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!

Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:

That’s an interpretation!

Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.

But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.

Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.

In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.

By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.

Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!

At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!

However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:

Coverdale Bible of 1535

In the begynnynge was the worde, and the

worde was with God, and God was ye

worde.

Smith's Literal Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Literal Emphasis Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Catholic Public Domain Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Lamsa Bible

THE Word was in the beginning, and that

very Word was with God, and God was that

Word.

Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning

the Word having been and the Word having

been unto God and God having been the

Word.

Concordant Literal New Testament: In the

beginning was the word, and the word was

toward God, and God was the word.

Coptic Version of the New Testament: In

(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and God was the Word.

Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the

begynnynge was the worde, and the worde

was wyth God: and God was the worde.

New English Bible: When all things began,

the Word already was. The Word dwelt with

God, and what God was, the Word was.

Revised English Bible: In the beginning the

Word already was. The Word was in God’s

presence, and what God was, the Word

was.

Today’s English New Testament: In the

beginning was the Logos. And the Logos

was with God. And God was the Logos.

The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In

the bigynnynge was the word and the word

was at god, and god was the word.

Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et

Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat

Verbum.

Vulgate translation: in the beginning was

the Word and the Word was with God and

God was the Word.

See also:

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj

The Exact Month and Year of Jesus’ Birth Are Revealed in the Bible

By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Matthew 1.17 tells us the year of Jesus’ birth

Astoundingly, the gospel of Matthew imparts a cryptic clue concerning the birth of Jesus that hardly anyone knows about. Specifically, the ancestry of Jesus, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew, is actually a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of his birth! The key to solving this puzzle can be found in Chapter 1 and Verse 17. Notice that there is a constant repetition of 14 generations throughout the foregoing lineage. We also know from Scripture that a generation is equal to 70 years (Ps. 90.10). Matthew 1.17 reads as follows:

there were fourteen generations in all from

Abraham to David, fourteen from David to

the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the

exile to the Messiah.

One final clue: the calculation does not begin from the time of Abraham but from the time of David who alone represents the Messiah! Do the math.

So, let’s work out the calculation. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from David to Babylon. Each generation is equal to 70 years. Thus, 14 x 70 = 980 years from David to Babylon. And there were 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah. Therefore, 14 x 70 = 980 years. So, from David to the exile are 980 years, and from the exile to the Messiah are another 980 years. Hence 980 (+) 980 = 1960, the year of the Messiah’s birth! Mind you, this is not a historical but rather an esoteric rendering, which contains a cryptic clue concerning the year of Jesus’ birth!

Luke 1.26 tells us the month of Jesus’ birth

The Bible is very clear and very simple when it comes to imparting cryptic and esoteric clues. We don’t need to use overly technical, heavy-handed, and convoluted mathematical equations. For instance, in an attempt to figure out the month of Jesus’ birth, some scholars begin by applying the months pertaining to the 24 courses of the Levitical priests that rotate to minister in the Tabernacle (based on John the Baptist’s father in Luke 1.5, “Zechariah, of the division of Abijah”), and then, after figuring out the date of Elizabeth’s conception, they add 6 months to determine the timing of Mary’s conception (Luke 1.26, 36), and so on and so forth. But this calculation is far too complex and very confusing. By contrast, Luke’s gospel makes it very, very simple and very clear. Luke 1.26-27 reads thusly:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel

was sent from God to a city in Galilee

named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a

man whose name was Joseph, of the

descendants of David; and the virgin’s

name was Mary.

In Luke 1.26, the angel was sent “in the sixth month.” That’s the clue. That’s the key! Simple and to the point. The sixth month (in the Jewish religious calendar) is called Elul. In the Gregorian calendar it falls on the month of August. Thus, that’s the month that the Messiah is born!

Conclusion

In chapter 1 verse 17, Matthews’ genealogy is theological, not historical. That’s because “historically” it doesn’t make any sense. For example, we know that the Babylonian exile took place sometime around 586 BCE. If David lived approximately 980 years earlier, that would put David’s timeline at around 1566 BCE, which is historically inaccurate. David lived around 1,000 BCE. Similarly, 980 years after the Babylonian exile would put Jesus’ birth at around 394 CE (the fourth century), making him a contemporary of Jerome. So Matthew’s genealogy is obviously crypto-theological, not historical. It is meant to impart a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of the Messiah’s birth!

But you may object and say, wait a minute. I thought Jesus was born in 4 BCE and died sometime around 30 CE, right? Well, not exactly. The gospels are theological, not historical, documents. Scholars know that the early extra-biblical references to Jesus by people like Josephus and Tacitus were tampered with (interpolations). What is more, there are no eyewitnesses and no first-hand accounts of Jesus. There are also many literary discrepancies in the New Testament. For example, the earliest New Testament writings (the Pauline letters) don’t contain the embellishments and legends we find in the later writings (the gospels). Not to mention the historical discrepancies as to whether Jesus was supposedly born in 4 BCE (Matthew) or 6 CE (Luke).

But, more importantly, the New Testament epistles themselves tell us that Jesus will actually be born during the consummation of the ages, or “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10), and that he will be “revealed [for the very first time] at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB). Moreover, Hebrews 1.2 tells us that Jesus will speak to humankind in the “last days,” while Rev. 12.5 confirms that Jesus will be born in the end-times as a contemporary of the last empire on earth (the so-called “7-headed dragon with 10 horns”), during a time period just prior to *the great tribulation* that lasts 3 and a half years (see Rev. 12.5-6, 13-14). Similarly, Isaiah 2.19 says that the Lord rises (or resurrects) “to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no 2,000 year gap between Jesus’ resurrection and judgment day! Rather, they’re contemporaneous events. And Daniel 12.1-2 prophesies (in the Greek Septuagint) about a princely figure who will die and resurrect in the last days, just prior to the *general resurrection* of the dead.

So, there are many, many references to the Messiah’s one-and-only visitation in the end-times (e.g. Job 19.25; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 2.1—3; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 19.10d)! But probably the most important and explicit reference to Jesus’ *atonement* and *death* at the end of days comes from Hebrews 9.26b (KJV), which says categorically and unequivocally that the timeline of this event is in the end-times:

once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus]

appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice

[or death] of himself.

So, according to Hebrews 9.26b, Jesus’ death takes place “in the end of the world,” not 2,000 years ago! Therefore, the one-and-only visitation of Jesus in the end-times is well-supported and multiply attested!

——-

For further scholarly details (from the original Greek) on the future incarnation of Christ, watch the following (short) video: ⬇️

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

——-

I just spent some time giving you the backstory concerning the Jesus prophecy. Now that you understand the biblical timeline and context of Jesus’ one-and-only coming, let’s get back to what we were talking about earlier. So, in conclusion, Matthew 1.17 reveals the year of the Messiah’s birth (1960)! Similarly, Luke 1.26 reveals the month that the Messiah is born (in August)! Thus, Jesus the Messiah has already been born and will soon appear on the world stage. That’s precisely why the countdown to Armageddon began after the restoration of Israel in 1948. The rebirth of Israel in 1948 (Ezek. 38.8) marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations in that modern Israel becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days (cf. Mt. 24.32-34; Acts 1.6). So the idea that the Messiah would be born 12 years after the rebirth of modern Israel coincides with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. Accordingly, the so-called *restoration* of “Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9.25), in the 70 weeks of Daniel, also began during this same time period! In other words, the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel also prophesies of a coming messiah after the restoration of Israel. If you do the work of modern critical scholarship, it all fits like a glove. So, are we living in the last days? You better believe it!

——-

For further details on the 70 weeks of Daniel, see the following article: ⬇️

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

Tumblr

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

By Author Eli Kittim ——- Christological readings The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Boo

——-

⭐️ The Little Book of Revelation [Amazon] ⭐️

(By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim) 📚📖

———————————————

Amazon Books 🎓

⭐️ 🌍 Winner of 2015 Religion & Spirituality Double Decker Books Awards on Goodreads 🪐 ⚡️

———————————————

Eli Kittim - Het kleine boek Openbaring: De eerste komst van Jezus aan het einde der dagen

Eli Kittim - Küçük Vahiy Kitabı: Günlerin Sonunda İsa'nın İlk Gelişi

Eli Kittim - Den Lille Åbenbaringsbog: Jesu første komme ved dages ende

Eli Kittim - Den lilla Uppenbarelseboken: Jesu första ankomst vid dagens slut

Eli Kittim - Den lille Åpenbaringsboken: Jesu første komme ved slutten av dagene

Eli Kittim - Pieni Ilmestyskirja: Jeesuksen ensimmäinen tuleminen päivien lopussa

———————————————