294Questioning Paul

Incredible

…Testing Faith

 

5

Translating the Babel

 

Would You Believe…

Prior to the flood, Yahowah said that man had become overwhelmingly religious, political, militant, and cruel. For there to be any hope of a relationship, He would have to eliminate the perpetrators and start over. The eight souls willing to listen to His life-saving instructions were carried to safety aboard the Ark.

In that this story sheds light on Yahowah’s aversion to politicized and militant religions such as Christianity, let’s consider it with an eye to understanding how such beliefs hinder man’s approach to the Covenant. Also, this exercise will lead us to some rather amazing insights regarding the sordid history of English translations.

God’s warning begins…

“Indeed, when (ky – by contrast, and as a verifiable result) the defilement and slaying (chalal – the profane nature, contemptible attitude, and disgraceful wounding, the dishonorable pollution and violent, harmful stabbing; from chalah – sickening disease, illness which weakens and grieves, painful travails (hifil perfect – the subject causes the object to participate in the action which is comprehensive, albeit finite in duration)) of the descendants of ‘Adam (ha ‘adam – mankind, humans with a neshamah – conscience) came to actually and continually exist (hayah – began to occur, becoming 295manifest (qal imperfect – actually and habitually)), it increased dramatically (la rabab – it grew to the point of being multiplied greatly in a myriad of ways, reaching into the tens of thousands with the shooting of arrows (qal infinite – genuinely intensifying the action of the highly descriptive verb)) upon the presence of the realm of the descendants of ‘Adam (‘al paneh ha ‘adamah – on account of the face of and before the presence, thereby identifying the ground where Adam’s descendants lived, symbolically turning them the ruddy red color of blood).

And daughters were born to them (wa bath yalad la hem – therefore, in addition, female offspring were conceived by them (pual perfect – passively causing the object to suffer the effect)), (6:1) and the sons of the Almighty (wa beny ha ‘elohym – the children and male offspring of the Father, God Almighty) saw that (wa ra’ah ‘eth – they perceived and they noticed accordingly therefore that (qal imperfect)) the daughters of ‘Adam (ha bath ha ‘Adam – the female offspring of the man) were indeed (ky – surely as a result and by way of comparison and contrast, truly) desirable and beneficial (towb – pleasing, beautiful, and valuable, better, more productive and prosperous, especially for facilitating the accumulation of possessions, thereby possessing a useful quality).

So they habitually grasped hold of and took for themselves (wa laqach la hem – and they selected, obtained, and continually collected (qal imperfect)) women (‘ishahym – female individuals who had the potential to be, but were not necessarily, wives or mothers) from any which as a result of their relationships and to benefit their ways (min kol ‘asher – from every one whose benefit) they chose (bachar – they desired or preferred, they selected and considered (qal perfect)).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 6:1-2)

Chalal, translated as “defilement and slaying,” depicts the problem Yahowah was seeking to resolve. The 296descendants of Adam, men with a neshamah / conscience, had become sullied with religious myths. Corrupt, they had become violent and deadly.

Ha ‘adam can be translated as “the man, a man called ‘Adam, or the descendants of ‘Adam.” Ha ‘adamah, which also appears in this statement, is either “the realm associated with ‘Adam” or “the ground where ‘Adam’s descendants lived.” While ‘adamah is nothing more than “‘adam – mankind,” rendered in the feminine, and thus perhaps “humankind,” it is often defined as “ground.”

Rendering ha ‘adam and ha ‘adamah as “man” and as “ground” is deficient. It not only ignores the definite articles, but also the Hebrew basis for both words, including their association with the first man created in Yahowah’s image and the ground upon which he had lived. The failure to associate the corrupt and deadly tendencies of these folks to the neshamah, which gave them a competitive advantage, and to the place this was occurring, deprives this statement of the principal insights required to understand it.

This infers that the neshamah, which was the singular attribute that differentiated ‘Adam and Chawah from the humans living outside of the Garden, was passed along to the “daughters who were born to” “the descendants of Adam.” That is what made them “desirable and beneficial.” The neshamah equips a person to think, to exercise good judgment, and to understand – even to predict the most likely outcome of events based upon the circumstances that led up to them. It, like the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil can be used for good or bad. In this case, it was almost universally detrimental, making those equipped with it vicious killers. They desired similarly equipped women because their superior intellect would aid in the construction of weapons and accumulation of possessions.

The “sons of the Almighty” refers to ‘Adam being 297conceived in God’s image and also to the relationship Yahowah had with ‘Adam, denoting His desire to have his descendants become part of His Covenant Family. In this context, therefore, it depicts men with a neshamah, the only distinguishing aspect capable of conceiving sons in our Heavenly Father’s likeness.

These individuals are unlike mal’ak, the heavenly messengers, who, while being spiritual beings, were not created in the image of God. They would never be described as “ha ‘adam.” The mal’ak are implements, not sons. There is no Covenant for them. The daughters of ‘Adam, therefore, depict women born with a conscience, with the ability to reason.

They were seen as desirable because children born unto them would be vastly more capable than those conceived without a neshamah. And in those days, sons supported their father’s ambitions. It became a recipe for disaster.

You may have noticed that there was no love involved here, no volition on behalf of the women. They were seized and taken, not unlike what occurs in Islam. They had nothing to say in the matter. Also noteworthy, most English Bible translations render ‘ishahym as “wives” when the word simply means “female individuals.” As “women,” they would have had the potential to be, but were not necessarily, mothers or wives. And without consent, the idea of marriage is ludicrous.

No doubt, Yahowah made Chawah “towb – beautiful and desirable” in addition to “beneficial and valuable.” These “advantageous” attributes were transferred to her offspring, making them “considerably better, more useful and productive,” than lesser endowed females outside of the Garden. In a world of man piercing and wounding other men and animals to survive, such women would have been preferred and chosen, selected and seized.

298From the beginning, men, who are stronger, have had their way with women, treating them as inferior, even as property. As a salient example, it is the primary reason Muhammad was able to attract militants into his ranks and turn them into savages. Without misogyny, Islam would not have prevailed. But Muslims are not alone. Man grabbing, examining, testing, and probing any woman he chooses, without consideration of her desires, has been prevalent throughout human culture.

Profaning His creation, depriving women of freewill, and polluting the earth while wounding the living was not the course Yah had plotted. As such…

“Then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of the name of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah existence and our shalowm – restoration) said (‘amar – communicated using words with ongoing implications (qal imperfect)), ‘My Spirit (Ruwach ‘any – Spirit of Mine, always feminine in the text; from ruwach – to accept as a result of being perceptive, to facilitate understanding, and to provide relief and restoration, enlarging an individual and expanding their capabilities over an interval of space and time) shall not remain nor abide (lo’ duwn – will not dwell nor contend with, will not plead with nor vindicate (qal imperfect)) with the descendants of ‘Adam (ba ha ‘adam – with mankind, humans with a neshamah – conscience) forever (la ‘owlam – indefinitely or eternally, for an unending duration of time), also because (sha gam – to make a contrast, in addition) he is (huw’) flesh and prone to preaching (basar – biological life, an animal, a corporeal construct subject to decay; based upon the verbal root, basar – to proclaim, publish, and preach news considered good and beneficial by those who hear it).

So for a period of time, it shall exist that his days will be (wa hayah yowmym huw’ – therefore it shall 299actually and for a limited period be that his time shall be restricted to (qal perfect)) one hundred twenty (me’ah wa ‘esrym – a hundred and twenty) years (shanah – repetitions of the seasons, times to change and be different, a repeat of the solar year).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 6:3)

Time had run its course for every man and woman with a neshamah – conscience, save Noach and the seven souls with him. It will occur again, this time for everyone who fails to embrace the Covenant prior to 2033 CE, Year 6,000 Yah.

Yahowah’s Spirit is akin to light, and thus similar to energy. She is eternal. Our physical bodies, however, are comprised of matter, and are thus mortal. One cannot reside with the other beyond a finite period of time. To become immortal, to enter Yahowah’s presence, to become more like Him, to inherit the benefits of the Covenant and be empowered and enriched, we will have to jettison our physical bodies and be transformed into light. But this is only possible for the Covenant’s children. While Yahowah will abide with His sons and daughters forever, those who remain mortal, those who cling to the family of man, those impressed by expressions of human power and influence, will remain estranged and they will continue to degrade over time.

The primary meaning of basar is not “flesh.” Its verbal root, basar, reveals the actual reason Yahowah’s Spirit would no longer endure with man. Humankind had become overtly religious: “proclaiming, publishing, and preaching news considered good and beneficial by those who heard it.” Ask any Christian to define “Gospel,” and this is what they will say.

The limitation of 120 years is still in effect. Even with all of man’s scientific and medical advancements, the longest human lifespan was that of Jeanne Calment of 300France, a woman who died in 1997 at 122 years old. Women have the capacity to live longer because they have two X chromosomes while men have just one. Once one of one is damaged, there isn’t a second option to fall back upon.

The second oldest woman, Susannah Jones, an American, died in May 2016 at 116. The longest-lived man in recorded history was Jiroemon Kimura of Japan, who died in 2013, four years shy of 120. More recently, the oldest living man was Yisrael Kristal, a Yisra’elite. He was born in September 1903 and was 113 at the time of his passing in August 2017.

The length of a human life is determined largely by our genes. Human cells are limited in the number of divisions they can support, as they progressively lose telomeres with each subsequent cell partition until a few short telomeres become uncapped leading to an arrest of growth known as replicative aging. While these cells do not die initially, in the absence of genomic alterations, the telomere DNA remains quiescent, producing different proteins than younger cells. But then once a tipping point is reached, and many telomere ends become uncapped, the division of critically shortened telomeres leads to rapid cell death and puts the body into crisis.

There is, however, an enzyme called telomerase, which can lengthen clipped telomeres. Unfortunately, it has the side-effect of promoting malignancy. This should not be surprising since cancer is caused by rapidly replicating cells. The potential reward, the ability to provide a lifespan of up to a thousand years, has global pharmaceutical companies salivating. Since it would create the fabled Fountain of Youth, geneticists are trying to find a solution to the lifespan limitation of telomere DNA without the deadly side effects of telomerase-induced cancer.

301While they are not going to resolve this challenge prior to Year 6000 Yah (2033 CE), at least with a drug that will be widely available, the fact that the DNA language of life can be edited to lengthen and shorten a human lifespan has profound implications regarding our interpretation of the Towrah. For example, Adam’s and Chawah’s DNA would have been programmed such that it prevented cell senescence indefinitely. But then, the information contained in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil may have altered our initial script so that it started the aging clock ticking. Adam, Chawah, and those closely related to them would then have had the capacity to live for up to 1000 years.

Thereafter, since He authored the code of life, Yahowah edited our DNA such that 120 years would be the upward limit of human existence. As such, the oldest of the last generation conceived with the capacity to witness Yahowah’s return would have been born in 1913 – one of the darkest years in American history (the year the Federal Reserve was clandestinely created commencing the destruction of the currency and the Federal Income Tax was established to control everyone by redistributing wealth, all while Europe inched closer to world war and to an international pandemic).

There is some potential symbolism associated with the 120-year lifespan. It reflects three periods of testing, which is always a multiple of 40. For example, 40 Yowbel (50-year increments) separate man’s exclusion from the Garden to the affirmation of the Covenant on Mowryah with Yahowah and ‘Abraham in year 2000 Yah. After another 40 Yowbel, Yahowah fulfilled the first four Miqra’ey, facilitating the benefits of the Covenant in year 4000 Yah (33 CE). Then after the third passage of 40 Yowbel, in year 6000 Yah (2033 CE), Yahowah will return to fulfill Kipurym and Sukah, reconciling His relationship with Yisra’el so that we can reenter ‘Eden. Similarly, 302Moseh | Moses, who lived to 120 years of age, endured three 40-year trials, the first in Egypt, the second as a shepherd, and the third as the liberator of his people.

Looking ahead, those who are born to Covenant parents during the Millennial Shabat of Sukah will have their DNA reprogrammed such that they will again have the potential to live for 1000 years. As is the case with so many things we have discovered in the Towrah, from six days of creation accurately representing 14 billion years, depending upon whose clock one is considering, to the asteroid impact and upwelling of seawater which led to the flood, or now the reduction in human lifespans, Yahowah’s explanations are not only plausible, they can be validated.

Now moving on to the next statement, I am appalled by the number of conspiracy advocates who promote the myth that the Nephylym were “giant spiritual beings” who “mated with human women.” Many use the book of Enoch, which is outright fraud, to advance their case. The Nephylym were not giants, they were not even particularly tall, but they were religious. And they were also militant, becoming the living embodiment of the plights God hates most. We know this about them because this depiction serves as the basis of their name.

As one became many and families became societies, cultures, and civilizations, men and women became increasingly evil. As proof, if I were to ask you to name a single civilization, from Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria, to the Hittites, Canaanites, and Egyptians, the Greeks, Spartans, Persians, Romans, or Carthaginians, or even the Aztecs, Incas, or Mayans to the Americans, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, which treated its citizens fairly and its neighbors appropriately, in all of human history, could you name one?

The question, ‘Is man basically good or bad,’ is answered by another: ‘How many of them are there?’ Gang 303mentality, where an individual’s sense of right and wrong becomes collectivized, is the bane of religious and political institutions. The first group of people Yahowah identifies were oppressive and murderous. They were also overtly religious, political, and militant.

By the errant and pervasive rendering of naphylym as “giants” we must assume that the Latin scholars who initiated this myth wanted to avoid the religious and political connotations of the word. They assumed that physical prowess would be the only reason to mention such people in this negative light.

“There were (hayah – for an ongoing period of time, there actually and literally existed (qal imperfect)) the Nephylym (ha Nephylym – those who prostrate themselves and are stillborn; from the verbal root, naphal – to fall in prayer, battle, and status, going from a higher position to a lower one, those who are separated and die, those who bow down, falling prostrate to worship something on the ground, those who neglect and are thereby neglected, those who attack to conquer in an offensive military action, becoming inferior in the process, those subject to miscarriage, and thus untimely death) existing in the region (hayah ba ha ‘erets – came to exist within the land or territory, albeit for a limited period of time (qal perfect)) in those days (ba ha yowmym ha hem), but also by comparison, in a slightly different form, they existed for some time thereafter (wa gam ‘achar ken – and in addition, besides, but also by similarity and resemblance, after this, for some time later in another form, somewhat different and distinct but of the same genre, one following the other).

By association (‘asher – revealing the benefits and showing their way of life), the sons of the Almighty (beny ha ‘elohym) came (bow’ – actually made a habit of pursuing (qal imperfect)) to (‘el – toward and upon) the daughters of man (bath ha ‘adam – the female offspring 304of mankind who were descended from ‘Adam), and they conceived children for themselves (wa yalad la hem – they approached and impregnated them, culminating in the birth of their offspring (qal perfect)).

These (hem) warriors and political leaders (gibowr – prominent individuals with the ability to fight and who prevailed in their quest for military and political power), who hailed from a relatively long time ago (‘asher min ‘owlam – who are from antiquity and thus from the distant past), are individuals with reputations and recognizable names (‘ysh ha shem – men of renown).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 6:4)

Most Hebrew nouns are defined by their verbal, or actionable, roots. Nephyl, and in the plural, Nephylym, is no exception. It is based upon “naphal – those who prostrate themselves and are stillborn.” It, therefore, depicts “religious people who bow down in prayer and die as a result.” Fully amplified, naphal describes those who: “fall in prayer, battle, and status, going from a higher position to a lower one, those who are separated and die, those who bow down, falling prostrate to worship something on the ground, those who neglect and are thereby neglected, those who attack to conquer in an offensive military action becoming inferior in the process.” It is related to nephel: “those subject to miscarriage, and thus untimely death.” It reveals that the religious conceive “stillborn children.”

Since ha Nephylym is a title, it should be transliterated, and then explained, either within a parenthetical as part of the translation itself, as a footnote, or in a collaborative commentary. But there is absolutely no justification for translating ha Nephylym as “giants.” This error is a legacy of the Septuagint, one incorporated into the Latin Vulgate and then passed along through the King James Version. Even Strong’s, while attempting to justify the KJV as is their penchant, attributes nephylym to the verbal root, 305naphal, acknowledging that it is “from H5307.” And yet, H5307 – naphal, is the antithesis of giant, of big, or of standing tall. It is about being decreased in stature and status as a result of bowing down and dying in battle.

Since the erroneous nature of English Bible translations is a product of religion, once we have concluded our evaluation of Bare’syth 6:4, we will use the errant rendering of ha Nephylym in English Bibles as “giants” to explain how these errors originated and why these mistakes are seldom corrected. It is a long and sordid tale, one that deserves our undivided attention.

Before we go down that road, however, let’s continue to focus on what Yahowah just revealed in Bare’syth 6:4. And what I find particularly interesting about this passage is what follows ha Nephylym. It is an insight every translator missed. Speaking of these overtly religious individuals and of their deadly and militant nature, even of the fact that they were in essence killing their own children, in Bare’syth / Genesis 6:4, Yahowah said: “wa gam ‘achar ken – but also by comparison, in a slightly different form, they continued to exist for some time thereafter.”

This means that a propensity for worship and war did not die out with the Nephylym, but instead, both traits continued to plague humankind throughout the civilizations which followed. And indeed, this was the case with Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, the Hittites, Canaanites, Egyptians, Minoans, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Spartans, Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Ottomans, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans, et al. Alone, man is bad, but in tribes, nations, and civilizations, he is far worse. It is the very point Yahowah will soon make regarding Babel.

I have long denounced the savage and grotesquely immoral nature of Rome, calling them the most horrific civilization in human history. By doing so, I am echoing 306Yahowah’s perception of them. But even though Imperial Rome was more ruthless than the barbarian tribes they subjugated, the Roman Catholic Church has been a greater menace to mankind. They are a legacy of the Nephylym. Rather than looking for giants or over-sexed spirits, their translators ought to have been looking at their own institution.

The conclusion of this misunderstood and errantly translated passage should have been easy to assess. The Nephylym, and those who resembled them throughout antiquity, were “gibowr – warriors and political leaders, prominent individuals with the ability to fight who prevailed in their quest for military and political power.” According to God, these egomaniacal despots were “‘ysh ha shem – men of renown, individuals with reputations and recognizable names.” They all left their mark on the world, one too often made by their weapons of war.

To be famous or, in this case, infamous, is not good. God does not value soldiers or those who deploy them. They are not heroes nor valiant. Their might did not make them right and their fame is their shame. There is no one depicted among them to be found in heaven.

Should you believe that I’m projecting my personal predilections with this assessment, as opposed to conveying Yahowah’s bias and perspective, you may want to consider what follows in Bare’syth 6:5, a statement we will consider before we track down the reason bible translations can all say the same thing and all be wrong.

“So (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of the name of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah existence and our shalowm – restoration) saw, perceived, and understood (ra’ah – literally observed, actually considered, and consistently revealed, viewed, discovered, and made His perspective known because of its 307ongoing consequences (qal imperfect)) as a result that, indeed (ky – truly and surely, emphasizing and strengthening this statement), the depravity, wrongdoing, destructive nature, and perverse attitude (ra’ah – the wickedness, immorality, and evil, the harmful, troubling calamity, the corrupting and misfortunate criminal behavior which was injurious and miserable, creating the distressful and ruinous circumstances) of mankind, these descendants of ‘Adam (ha ‘adam – humankind), were excessive and being exalted (rab – were enormous and inordinate, abundant and prolific) throughout the region (ba ha ‘erets – within the land, territory, and material realm).

And also (wa), every inclination, conception, and motivation, most especially the way ideas are formed and framed (kol yetser – everything conceived and imagined, fashioned and formed, every desire and ambition, all of the impulses and tendencies, especially the many ways issues were framed and character was defined, the way ideas were shaped and forged, plans were devised, prepared, and ordained, and the framework of their society and purpose; from yatsar – to form, fashion, and frame premeditated and preordained ideas) regarding his thoughts, inventions, musings, reasoning, and plans (machashabah – in association with his cognitive abilities and thinking, the way he schemes, plots, and devises things, even the purpose of the myths he invents and meditates upon, his artificial constructs and contrived ideas; from mah – to ponder how and why and chashab – to cunningly invent imaginary accounts and then justify and esteem them, imputing value to them) which affect his judgment and perspective (leb huw’ – with regard to his reasoning, the way he processes information, his ability to evaluate evidence in a rational way and respond appropriately, his inner nature, his character and heart) were exclusively and continually (raq – were restricted to, uniquely and only yielding, always and without 308exception, chronically and sickeningly producing those who were undernourished and unhealthy, those who spit and drool) wrong (ra’ – bad, not good, immoral, ignorant, and irrational, wicked and evil, undesirable and harmful, injurious and troubling) every day without exception (kol ha yowm – all of the time).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 6:5)

According to God, Barnum and Bailey were wrong. It is possible to fool most of the people most of the time. Man was doing so then, and he is doing so again now.

Over the course of many years, I have had the opportunity to lead readers on a wide variety of investigations as we have sought to understand something God has revealed along the way. And without exception, not only have our adventures been rewarded, we have always found Yahowah affirming what we discovered, usually in a subsequent statement. But seldom has an affirmation been this immediate or appropriate.

Yahowah just revealed that we were right – not just about the legacy of the Nephylym, not just about the harmful nature of religion, but also regarding how the inventions and schemes of man tend to produce the likes of the Christian New Testament. It was not an accident, but instead deliberate. It was the product of conniving men and it was wrong.

We interjected ourselves into this discussion to more fully understand Yahowah’s perspective on what ails man. And based upon what we have seen, we can reasonably surmise that religious malfeasance is man’s biggest foe.

It is fascinating to note that while “ra’ah – saw, perceived, and understood” is transliterated similarly to “ra’ah – depravity, wrongdoing, and calamity,” they are written differently in Hebrew. To “see” is , while “evil” was written .

309This brings up an interesting perspective on the way a word’s meaning is conveyed in Hebrew. In “see,” man  (a Rosh) is shown facing the  (an Aleph), the first letter in “‘ab –  – Father” and “‘el –  – God.” In “evil,” man  (a Rosh) is forming his own perspective  (an Ayin) on  (a Hey) humankind. And this perspective is not just limited to these words, but to almost every word containing a  (Rosh). If the individual is facing a letter that is found in Yahowah’s  name or one of His favorite titles, the word conveys positive connotations, whereas if we are shown looking away from God, with our back to Him, the implications are typically derogatory.

Ky, translated “as a result,” is important in this context because it reveals that the deplorable situation Yahowah observed was a consequence of the ongoing legacy of the Nephylym and the negative implications of “these warriors and political leaders, the prominent individuals with the ability to fight who prevailed in their quest for military and political power.” The notion that they were “valiant heroes” has been eliminated. They were responsible for the adversarial conditions Yahowah deplored.

Equally important, by connecting cause and consequence with ky, Yahowah has validated the lessons we learned by considering the root of Nephylym. They, and those who were similar and followed in their footsteps, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Canaanites, Philistines, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Muslims, Ottomans, Brits, Nazis, and Anglo-Americans, would be comprised of “naphal – religious people who would bow down in prayer and die as a result.”

Their “miscarriage of justice would lead to stillborn children who would meet with an untimely death.” Year after year, century upon century, they would “fall in prayer, battle, and status, going from a higher position to a lower one.” Separated from God by bowing down, they were 310dead men walking – resembling the zombies we have previously discussed.

The reason for the impending flood was that humankind’s “ra’ah – depravity” was “rab – great.” Man was “wrong,” and the consequences were “injurious.” “Evil” not only “prevailed and was prolific,” it was “being exalted.” This is, perhaps, a foreshadowing of Political Correctness, where all manner of moral turpitude is celebrated as if it were a source of pride. Also serving as a harbinger of our time, an “abundance” of “criminal behavior” had become “overwhelmingly” “destructive.” Man’s “corruptions” were “commonplace.” That is to say, the truth had become so unpopular, it no longer appeared credible. Such is the case today as you read these words.

While it is now a global problem, five thousand years ago the degradation of humankind was a regional concern. God is describing the fallen condition attributable to the descendants of ‘Adam as they migrated out of ‘Eden toward the Black Sea and along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. ‘Erets does not mean “Earth” in the sense of the planet, but instead “land or region.” It can also identify the “material realm,” which is distinct and separate from the “shamaym – spiritual realm.”

This is critical for several reasons. First, man’s “neshamah – conscience” was being misused, and it was only passed along to the direct descendants of ‘Adam – all of whom lived in this region. Second, the flood was isolated to this part of the world, and was not a global catastrophe. And third, just as Satan had inspired the exodus from ‘Eden, the Adversary and his fallen envoys were belligerents in this battle involving the material and spiritual realms.

According to God, man’s depravity was deliberate, a derivative of his “kol yetser – every inclination and motivation.” Man’s deadly nature was “premeditated and 311planned.” He had become a natural-born killer. His “every impulse and tendency” was corrupting and harmful. The strategy man deployed to achieve this debilitating and deadly condition lies at the heart of yetser, which speaks of “framing an issue.” It is how religions are formed, how politicians prevail, how generals motivate soldiers to kill. Twisted and jaundiced perceptions create an alternate and artificial reality whereby a perverted perspective causes deceptions to appear credible. It is how one fools most of the people most of the time.

“Machashabah – the cognitive ability to devise contrived schemes” is possible only in the presence of a functioning neshamah. But just like Yahowah’s other gifts to humankind, mortal life and freewill, each can be used to understand and advance the truth or to preach and accept a perversion of it.

When applied to Yahowah’s guidance and teaching, our neshamah’s capacity for reason is mankind’s most enlightening and empowering attribute. But it can also serve to inspire faith and instigate war. In this context, and cognizant of the fact that machashabah is derived from chashab, it speaks of “cunningly inventing imaginary accounts” and then not only “justifying these mythical constructs,” but also “elevating such musings to the point that they are revered.”

The old adage is true. Garbage in, garbage out. Myths were being promoted with a religious zeal. Everyone, from cleric to king, from lord to general, was singing out of the same hymnal. But there is yet another way to fool most of the people most of the time, and that is to negate the functionality of their neshamah – conscience. This can be done in several ways.

Rome crucified those who acted or thought independently. Its legacy, the Roman Catholic Church, branded them as heretics and then tortured them to 312dissuade similar considerations. Today, political correctness is used to deactivate our neshamah by not only inverting truth and lies and thus destabilizing the individual, those who dare challenge their indoctrination are publicly humiliated and disgraced. This is what Yahowah was referring to when He said that “their judgment, ability to reason, and perspective” were “continually and exclusively” “wrong.” And therein is the core of the issue.

This is not what Yahowah had intended. ‘Eden was a land devoid of religion and politics. There were no militaries or death. And the brief interlude of deception was a result of ha satan corrupting God’s testimony, removing what God had actually revealed from its context, and then twisting His intent to seduce the unwary woman into accepting a lie. Chawah was then guilty of adding to Yah’s testimony, going beyond what He had said, not unlike Rabbis with their Talmud, Mishneh, and Zohar and Christians with their New Testament.

God had envisioned a close and personal relationship based upon trust along with open and honest communication. Man came to prefer religion, instead, as it empowered men to rule over others as if they were gods. The swamp had become so murky and polluted, life was unsustainable. Mankind was on a collision course with self-annihilation. In this environment, Yahowah was essentially unknowable and life was unsustainable.

“So (wa – then) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of the name of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah existence and our shalowm – restoration), as a result of His compassion, was sorry and lamented (nacham – was disappointed, sympathetically grieving and regretting (nifal imperfect – passively, at no fault of His own, Yahowah was disappointed and therefore lamented with ongoing consequences which would unfold throughout 313time)) that (ky – therefore it follows accordingly because) He had engaged with (‘asah ‘eth – He had endeavored to perform, acting on behalf of (qal perfect – formed a genuine relationship even if for a limited period of time with)) the descendants of ‘Adam (ha ‘adam – humankind) in the region (ba ha ‘erets – within the material realm).

He was distressed over what He had fashioned and formed (‘atsab – He was hurt by His creation and consumed by grief, indeed injured by these deliberate distortions (hitpael imperfect – Yahowah, and He alone, was suffering the effect of what His creation was continuing to perpetrate, causing ongoing consternation)), even with regard to (‘el – in conjunction with) His decision and reasoning (leb huw’ – His judgment in this regard, His viewpoint and motivation).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 6:6)

While nacham is simplistically rendered “regretted” in most English Bibles, the word is considerably more complex because it is “driven by compassion.” God “felt sympathy” for those who were being misled and abused. His “grief” was born out of “concern.”

It is hard for us to imagine God becoming so disappointed that He would regret His own decision. But this is how it had to be. If the Covenant was going to model a family, if we were going to be treated as sons and daughters rather than toys to be played with, mankind had to be afforded the opportunity to foil God’s intent.

Had God become a micromanager, prompting every good choice while preventing bad decisions, thereby predestining the outcome, it would have all been for naught – nothing but a charade. Just because Yahowah can peer into our future and witness the consequence of our decisions, both good and bad, does not mean that He predestined us to that outcome. If He were to do so, we 314would be nothing more than pawns to be pushed around on a gameboard.

If you have ever loved and lost, you know the feeling. Your intentions may have been sublime, but nonetheless, unrequited love leads to grief, consternation, and tears. But even we, corrupt as we may be, know that it is better to have loved and lost than to never have experienced love at all. For our Heavenly Father it was worth the risk, as evidenced by the fact He would give mankind yet another chance.

Before we move on, there are two additional words which would benefit from further clarification. The first is ‘asah, which is inappropriately rendered in religious publications to suggest that God regretted having “made” man. But in the context of a relationship, and particularly when used in harmony with ‘eth, ‘asah ‘eth is more accurately translated as “engaged with” or “performed on behalf of” humankind. Relationships require both parties to participate, so just as God wants us to “engage with” Him by “acting upon” the terms and conditions of His Covenant, He sets the example for us to follow, always taking the first step.

Therefore, it is the relationship that soured, not the inherent design of creation, life, or the Covenant. The universe was perfectly planned, but it required chaos to be interesting. If everything was orchestrated and predictable, it wouldn’t have been worth God’s time or effort.

The second under-appreciated term is ‘atsab. At first glance, it may appear as if God simply repeated Himself because the secondary connotation of ‘atsab and nacham are somewhat similar. However, they are used in a different context. Nacham reveals that “compassion was the reason for being disappointed” by the descendants of ‘Adam, whereas ‘atsab was used “in conjunction with” Yahowah’s “emotional distress” over the “deliberate distortions” 315which were “affecting His perspective” on humanity, especially considering what He was offering and had done on our behalf.

“Then (wa – so) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH based upon His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) said (‘amar – promised in response), ‘I will remove the contamination (machah – I will wash away and blot out the corruption and infection (qal imperfect)) of the descendants of ‘Adam (ha ‘adam – of humankind, of those made in God’s image with a neshamah) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – to show the way to life), I brought into existence (bara’ – I have created (qal perfect)) out of the material realm (min ‘al paneh ha ‘erets – from presenting their opposition to the land by their presence in the region).

Because as a result of humankind (min ‘adam), inclusive of the predatory beasts (‘ad bahemah – including plundering, warlike animals and the herd mentality of the ongoing witness and continued testimony of these frightening and fearsome monsters), the testimony of the slithering reptiles (‘ad ramas – the warlike nature of the serpentine aggressors), and (wa) the winged creatures (‘owph – beings that can fly, swiftly darting about while dispensing darkness and gloom) of the spiritual realm (shamaym – heavens), indeed (ky – surely, denoting these exceptions)), I regret as an expression of My sympathy (nacham – compassion moved Me to pity, sorrow and lamenting, disappointed (nifal imperfect – passively, at no fault of His own, Yahowah was saddened and therefore lamented with ongoing consequences which would unfold throughout time)) that (ky) I have engaged with (‘asah ‘eth – I have endeavored to perform, acting on behalf of (qal perfect – formed a genuine relationship even if for a limited period of time with)) them (hem – addressing the descendants of ‘Adam).’” (Bare’syth / In 316the Beginning / Genesis 6:7)

God intervenes, imposing His will so infrequently, when He interferes and alters the course of human events, we should consider His motivations. Based upon machah, man had become a contaminant, a deadly infection whose corrupting influence was poisoning His creation. Unless He removed the infection, life would be unsustainable.

A plague cannot be thwarted by treating the symptoms or by accommodating the pathogen. It is only by diminishing the accessibility of viable hosts that spread the disease that can be controlled. Then the breeding ground must be disinfected and sanitized, such that the infected area becomes safe to inhabit. God was doing what a loving father would do to protect His home and family. Had He not intervened when He did, man would have destroyed himself and God would have become unknowable.

When translating these words, the broad range of meanings associated with min, ‘ad, bahemah, and ramas should be considered. For example, since the usual translation of min as “from” or “out of” does not work in this context, the most logical choice becomes “because as a result,” denoting “the reason behind and cause of” what follows. It is not uncommon for min to be used in this manner.

We have dealt with ‘ad before and noted that its primary connotation denotes “testimony which endures,” as opposed to simply “until.” As noted previously, ‘ed, meaning “enduring witness and testimony,” would have been written identically in the text. Also revealing, ‘ad describes a “predator stalking and plundering prey as booty in war.” This, therefore, gives us a lot to consider prior to rendering the word one way or the other.

This is relevant because there would be no reason for God to truncate the lives of “domesticated animals” which is how bahemah is often translated. But now in conjunction 317with the full cadre of connotations associated with ‘ad, we can use them to ascribe revealing characteristics to these “beasts,” explaining why the region would be better off without them.

Likewise, remes can be rendered “moving or creeping things,” and thus by implication, that which “slithers.” This depicts the lowly and serpentine nature of a venomous snake. It serves metaphorically to convey Satan’s serpentine nature and deadly toxins which underlie many religious schemes. Additionally, the affinity between “those who aggressively trample and destroy, often in militaristic pursuit,” and Yahowah’s depiction of the Roman Catholic Church in Daniel is too similar to ignore.

Lastly, while ‘owph can be translated as “bird,” demons are “‘owph – winged creatures that can fly, quickly darting through space and time while dispensing darkness and gloom.” And then there is the potential association with “‘owts – counsel and plans” which are “‘owa’ – distorting and perverting.”

Moreover, these “‘owph – winged creatures” are being associated with the “shamaym – spiritual realm,” suggesting that God is referring to fallen mal’ak. Since a spiritual being cannot be killed, even by God, it is important that we correctly convey the meaning of machah, because Yahowah can and will “remove their contamination and corruption.”

Yahowah does not require perfection, is not impressed by popularity, and was willing to give us a second chance. Thankfully, Noach was willing to listen to God and engage, doing what Yahowah wanted to be done. It does not actually take much to please God because His goal is to perfect us in ways that are mutually beneficial.

318The propensity of English Bibles to misrepresent ha Nephylym as “giants” serves to demonstrate why we should be suspect of Christian publications. Their portrayals of Genesis 6:4 are consistently wrong, absolutely and unequivocally untrue.

There was no race of giants. In fact, the average height of men is substantially taller today than it was five thousand years ago. Moreover, by misrepresenting God’s message, the essential lesson He was conveying relative to mankind’s propensity to be religious and vicious, necessitating the flood, was lost in translation.

This is what Yahowah revealed…

“There were for a limited period of time, the Nephylym (those who prostrate themselves and are stillborn, falling in prayer, battle, and status, who were militaristic and thus met with an untimely death), existing in the region in those days, but there would also be many bearing a resemblance to them in a slightly different form for some time thereafter.

By association, the sons of the Almighty habitually pursued the daughters of man (the female descendants of ‘Adam), and they conceived children for themselves.

These warriors and political leaders, prominent individuals who prevailed in their quest for military and political power, who were from a relatively long time ago, are those with reputations and recognizable names.” (Bare’syth / Genesis 6:4)

The long litany of errors, and especially the notion of “giants,” began during the transition from Hebrew to Greek. An overly imaginative, or perhaps, unthinking scribe composing the Septuagint wrote: “Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go into the daughters of men, 319they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.” (Brenton’s Septuagint Translation of Genesis 6:4)

As we are aware, there is no etymological justification, nor anything in paleontology, anthropology, archeology, or ancient history, to support changing ha Nephylym to “giants.” And while the name should have been transliterated, its value is derived from explaining it – especially based upon what God told us about them.

The statement “now the giants were upon the earth in those days” is false. Therefore, either the translation was wrong or the Author was mistaken. And should anyone believe man was right, I will take that wager.

Without an appreciation of what it means to be a son of God, all manner of misconceptions become possible, some of which we will witness in subsequent “translations.” Further, hayah ba ha ‘erets is much more accurately translated as “existing in the region” than “were upon the earth.”

The phrase, wa gam ‘achar ken, is trivialized by “and after that,” destroying the reason it was included in the text. Yahowah is telling us that the vicious religiosity of the Nephylym would continue to manifest itself in other civilizations for a protracted period. He is correct.

Halak, whose primary meaning is “to walk,” is commonly deployed to convey “to go.” Bow’, which was used here, means “to come” “to arrive,” “to enter,” or “to pursue.” Moreover, if the intent had been to convey “were wont to go,” the verb would have had to have been written in the volitional mood, but that was not the case. Likewise, ‘el means “to.” Had God wanted to say “into,” He would have used ba.

The Septuagint’s translator ignored the definite article, ha, preceding ‘adam, and then failed to convey the fact that 320‘Adam was the name of the first man Yahowah created in His image.

There was no reason to write “children” in italics, which means that it was added for readability without justification in the text because yalad means “to conceive children.”

While gibowr can be rendered “mighty and powerful,” it does not mean “giants.” The most accurate translation in this context would be “warriors and political leaders, prominent individuals who prevailed in their quest for military and political power.” This underscores the point Yahowah was making with the Nephylym. It is also one He will confirm in the next statement. Also, while it is possible to extrapolate shem as “renown or reputation,” its primary meaning is “name.”

Therefore, as is the case with almost every attempt to render a Hebrew statement in Greek, the Septuagint’s translator failed miserably. Either Hebrew concepts are difficult to convey in Greek or the Greek scholars who attempted these translations were inadequately schooled in Hebrew – or both. More to the point, Greeks were not only the most xenophobic race in recorded history, they universally hated Yahuwdym and their language, Hebrew – believing that they and theirs were superior. However, since Yahowah and His Word are inseparable, to hate Hebrew is to hate God. To disassociate oneself from Yisra’el, is to estrange oneself from Yahowah.

The reason this is important is because “Old Testament” translations were derived from the Greek Septuagint as it was reflected in the Latin Vulgate. This becomes a serious problem because the only people who surpassed the Greeks in their overt animosity toward Yahuwdym and Hebrew were Romans. If we were to search the world for the two most inappropriate languages and cultures to communicate Hebrew ideas, we would find 321none worse than Helens promoting Greek and religious Roman scribes writing in Latin.

As anticipated, rather than translating the Hebrew text, Jerome replicated the Septuagint’s mistake in the Latin Vulgate on behalf of his Roman Catholic overlords. He wrote: “gigantes autem errant super terram in diebus illis postquam enim ingress sunt filii Dei ad filias hominum illaeque genuerunt isti sunt potentes a saeculo viri famosi,” which translates as: “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went into the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.”

In a moment, we will study the long and sordid history of English Bible translations, but before we do, let’s read what some of the earliest, and then a few of the most recent, Bibles have proposed regarding Bare’syth 6:4. Following the Septuagint and Vulgate, Wycliffe was the first to end the Roman Catholic embargo on the Bible, doing so by translating Latin into Anglo-Saxon, a precursor to English: “Soothly giants were on the earth in those days, forsooth after that the sons of God entered in to the daughters of men, and those daughters begat; these were mighty of the world and famous men (they were the mighty and famous men of the world).” While he was wrong, his heart was in the right place.

The next to publish, Tyndale, composed: “There were tirantes in the world in thos dayes. For after that the children of God had gone in vnto the doughters of men and had begotten them children the same children were the mightiest of the world and men of renowne.” While it would be natural to assume that “tirantes” was meant to be “tyrants,” as in ruthless despots, since the Tyndale Bible renders the same word in Bamidbar / Numbers 13:13 as “giants,” we would be closer to the truth with the assumption that his intent was to depict beasts who were frighteningly terrible.

322The third oldest English Bible translation was composed by Cloverdale, although it wasn’t much of a translation since he copied Tyndale word for word. His renditions of Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:13 echo the mistakes made by his mentor.

Thereafter, we find the next four English “translations” slavishly returning to the familiar pattern of the Latin Vulgate. Without exception, they all replicated the errant rendering of ha Nephylym found in the Septuagint and thereby plagiarized Wycliffe’s efforts. King Henry VIII’s Great Bible reads “giants,” as does Queen Elizabeth’s Bishops’ Bible.

The resolutely Protestant Geneva Bible, demonstrating its adherence to the Latin text of the Church they opposed: “There were giants^[g] in the earth in those days: yea, and after that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they had borne them children, these were mighty men, which in old time were men of renown^[h].” Footnote [g] says: “or tyrants” as an ode to Tyndale, and footnote [h] reads: “which usurped authority over others, and did degenerate from that simplicity, wherein their fathers lived,” which is neither helpful nor accurate.

The first Roman Catholic English translation (of the Latin Vulgate, of course), known as the Douay-Rheims, offered: “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.”

Proving that the King James Bible made no attempt to translate the Hebrew text, but simply plagiarized earlier translations of the Latin Vulgate, the king’s minions published: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

323Simply stated, the cast of alleged scholars who worked on the KJV was guilty of plagiarism. If students in their classes attempted such a thing, they would have received a failing grade and then be dismissed from academia in shame. Any time someone copies someone else’s work and passes it off as their own, they are being deceitful, even if the original answer was right. But when they copy an erroneous work, they not only reveal their ignorance, they expose their character, proving that they cannot be trusted. Such is the case with the whole of the KJV – the most acclaimed and popular of all English translations. That is a sobering indictment, especially for those who are rational and moral.

Thereafter, the Webster Bible parroted their predecessors: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore [children] to them: the same [became] mighty men, who [were] of old, men of renown.”

The Common English Bible toed the same line: “In those days, giants lived on the earth and also afterward, when divine being and human daughters had sexual relations and gave birth to children. These were the ancient heroes, famous men.”

We are obviously noticing a trend. The mistakes were passed along from one to the next. To call any of these “translations” is to dishonor the word. They are simply modest revisions for religious or political purposes.

Sadly, no one seemed interested, willing, or able to hold them accountable. Worse, no one protested, stating that these lies and deceptions could not possibly be the inerrant word of God. There were no giants. Divine beings did not mate with humans – that is unless one is sufficiently foolish to believe the myths associated with Greek gods.

Now that we have considered the oldest English 324Bibles, let’s see what time has wrought. Surely, more recent “translations” will be more accurate, right?

In Young’s Literal Translation, after “Jehovah saith” and before “Jehovah seeth,” we find, “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.” Well, at least, shem was literally rendered. As for “Jehovah,” they got one of the four letters right.

The Good News Translation was bad news. The authors of this modern paraphrase proposed: “In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago.” This, of course, is invalid in every conceivable way. There were no giants on the earth then, or later, and God did not say or infer that they existed. The GNT completely disposed of the phrase “sons of the Almighty” and replaced it with “heavenly beings.” The only such beings are mal’ak, and they do not engage in sex. They are comprised of light and serve as Yahowah’s implements and messengers. There are no “heroes” in this story and God was not addressing “fame.” It is reprehensible that men sold this rubbish as the Word of God.

For those who may want to challenge the notion that “there were no giants on the earth then, or later, because Goliath was called a “giant,” I would argue that one particularly large individual does not define a race. And since archeologists have just recently unearthed the first evidence of a Philistine gravesite, we have proof that these invaders were of average height for their time, with the median stature just over five feet. Goliath may have been abnormal due to Acromegaly, a disorder that results from excess growth hormone. But sadly for the disagreeable giant, it made him rather grotesque looking with blurred vision. Andre the Giant is a modern example of someone 325suffering from Acromegaly. He was 7 foot 6 inches and 520 pounds when he died at 46 in 1993.

Beyond this, the Masoretic Text is corrected by the Dead Sea Scrolls with regard to Goliath’s height. The MT reads “six cubits and a span.” A cubit was measured from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger, and therefore averaged sixteen to eighteen inches. A span was the width of a hand, or six to nine inches depending upon whether it was measured across the palm or from an extended thumb to the little finger.

Therefore, while the rabbinical text would have Goliath towering above the fray at nine feet nine inches tall, according to 4Q51Samuel, a one-thousand-two-hundred-year-older manuscript found in the caves above Qumran, his height was actually four cubits and a span, and thus only six feet, six inches, tall. So, while that would have made him nearly a foot taller than the average Philistine or Yisra’elite, he was only a giant from the perspective of lesser men.

Returning to the myths promoted by the religious, in the Living Bible we find: “In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings for the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of whom so many legends are told.” I did not think it could get worse than The Good News Translation, but that was before reading this in the Living Bible. Its rendition is despicable and wholly unjustified. It makes God out to be a nincompoop, nearly as dumb and perverted as His creation. Other than the opening phrase, which was out of order, they did not get anything right.

The message of the Message became: “This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.” With all evidence to the 326contrary, we are still mired in the ignorance and carelessness of the Septuagint and Vulgate.

Laughably, the most recent English variation, the New Living Translation, opined: “In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.” While transliterating ha Nephylym as “Nephilites” would have been better than calling them giants, the NLT did not get either right.

It would be funny if it were not so sad. But it is depressing, because these money-grubbing religious imbeciles perpetrated their fraud in the name of God. They ascribed their verbal diarrhea to the Creator of the universe. In the process, they made God out to be a liar and launched a score of moronic conspiracy theories in the process. Thankfully, there is a consequence for doing such things. They will pay a price as a result.

While it would have been difficult for some, in that the Masoretic Text wasn’t readily available to them, anyone creating or updating a translation over the past century could have taken the time to examine the root of Nephylym as we have done, and could easily have created an accurate transliteration and translation. But they chose to parrot their predecessors. Even though there is absolute proof demonstrating that there never has been a race of “giants,” they continued to attribute this lie to God, hoping that Christians would buy the result.

These purported translations have gone from bad to worse. The most recent are even more despicable than the oldest. But that is the nature of things. Once something is perverted, it seldom gets better.

Now that we are in the midst of exposing the malfeasance of religious “translators,” or should we say, “copyists” and “plagiarizers,” there is yet another problem 327I discovered through my previous research a number of years ago. The first English translations of the “Bible” were derived from Latin, not Greek, and most certainly not from Hebrew. They were all based on the Roman Catholic Church’s Vulgate – which itself was an amalgamation of Old Latin manuscripts. While Jerome (actually Eusebius Hieronymus Sophronius (or more accurately, Erroneous)) completed his blending process in 405 CE, it’s the letter that he wrote to Pope Damascus that should have obliterated the credibility of Christianity before it was imposed by Rome:

“If we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?”

If Christians were aware of this assessment, and if they could process its implications rationally, it would be over. The person in the best position to know, knew that the text of the New Testament was not credible. And he was imploring his pope to create the illusion otherwise.

The process would be the same for Islam’s Qur’an three hundred years later: coalesce many divergent texts into one authorized version so that it can be promoted as the inerrant word of god. If people are given choices, they tend to think independently, and that is not in the interests of those who wield power. If discrepancies are allowed, they lead to questions, and ultimately to questioning authority. Facts are not good for faith.

Jerome’s (Eusebius H. Sophronius’) mission was to eliminate the opposition by forestalling criticism. He and 328his overlords would control the text, constraining people’s access to God, interpreting it as they pleased, while claiming that it empowered them, and them alone. And they would do so in their language, the tongue of the beast, Rome’s Latin – not Yahowah’s Hebrew, not even Sha’uwl’s Greek.

But that was just the motive for the crime of the millennia and, of course, the consequence. And yet, the most alarming part of this declaration was not even that the Christian religion’s most important individual, relative to the documentation of its “New Testament ‘Scriptures’” admitted that by the late 4^th century there were already “many” “forms,” “variations,” “mistakes,” and “changes” in the “Latin texts” comprising the Christian New Testament.

While devastating to Christendom’s credibility, the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus of Christendom, the veracity of its “New Testament” crumbles with the realization that the myriad of errors was the result of “inaccurate translators” and “(un)duly confident” and “ignorant critics” who “blundered” their way to copious “alterations,” based upon the legacy of “‘comatose’ copyists.” And in this characterization Jerome was not incorrect. While he and his church destroyed the variant Latin manuscripts, the variances found among the 69 pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts tell the same story.

It should have been game over for Christianity. Seeking credibility, they destroyed it. If you are awake, if your mind is open, if you are rational, upon reading this, you should reject the New Testament if you haven’t already. The faith’s foundation is fraudulent – predicated upon a deliberate “babel – mixing together” of inconsistent and conflicting hearsay accounts composed by those with a sinister agenda.

Apart from the Greek Orthodox Church and the Copts 329in Egypt, the Vulgate served as the foundation of Christianity for over one thousand years, and now we know that the text was a deliberate amalgamation of errors, the product of acknowledged ignorance, the result of accepting blunders. Those who promoted it cannot and should not be trusted. If you believe what they concocted out of incongruous material, if your faith is based upon the message they manipulated, you are a gullible fool.

The variances between late 4^th and early 5^th century Greek manuscripts of the Christian New Testament are overwhelming, something Jerome (Eusebius H. Sophronius) would have known as a Greek scholar, but deliberately omitted from his letter to Pope Damascus. A score of unreliable, inconsistent, and incompatible Greek scribal scribbles cannot “fix” the problem of discordant Latin texts. One does not derive truth by distilling a vast array of errors into a single amalgamation of those many mistakes.

Jerome’s admission, along with the subsequent unearthing of scores of pre-Constantine codices, obliterates the myth held by Christians that “God would never allow his word to be corrupted.” Sorry, but facts are facts. Putting Paul’s disagreements with Yahowsha’ aside for a moment, there has never been a time when the foundational texts of the Christian New Testament agreed with one another. As a result, God either allowed the Christian New Testament to be corrupted because He had nothing to do with it in the first place or He was impotent, and thus unable to stop the unfathomable number of alterations.

In this regard, only the initial option is viable, because faith in a god incapable of providing mankind with credible testimony is a fool’s folly. Faith is, therefore, required because knowledge resulting in trust becomes impossible.

Since these points are logically irrefutable, there was absolutely no chance whatsoever that Eusebius / Jerome 330could have resolved the inaccuracies and blunders found in the early Latin texts by referring to Greek manuscripts which were equally divergent. This problem is exacerbated especially since Jerome errantly claimed in his letter to his pope that Greek represented the original language. Truth cannot be derived from a false premise. Greek was not the original language. Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew – never Greek. (More on the implications of this in a moment relative to the “Church’s” most important citation.)

The “Christian New Testament” Greek copyists worked in the same places, for the same poligious (political and religious) institutions, at the same time as did those who had butchered the Latin translations. They were equally incompetent. But, and this bears repeating, unlike the Latin, where the divergent manuscripts were destroyed to hide the evidence of this crime, we have absolute and irrefutable proof that the Greek translators and copyists created “many forms and variations which were laden with mistakes and changes,” and that their “many errors, alterations, and inaccuracies” were the product of “blundering and ignorant” scribes.

Over the past century, sixty-nine extant Greek copies of the “Christian New Testament” have been recovered and published, all dating from the early second- through mid-4^th century CE. They are not only substantially different with respect to each other, there are over 300,000 known variations between these early manuscripts and the Textus Receptus (which is comprised of 184,000 words).

The same is evident when the oldest extant papyri are compared to the Nestle-Aland, the blended texts publishers claim underlie more modern English translations. As would be expected, it was not just the Latin texts which were irreconcilably corrupt, the Greek manuscripts were wholly incompatible.

Since the evidence in this regard is prolific and 331irrefutable, this realization completely obliterates Christianity’s credibility. Even if the scribes of the 3^rd and 4^th centuries had accurately maintained the texts they were given, it would not have mattered. A perfect copy of an imperfect document remains errant. It is like correctly copying an incorrect answer during a test. It is wrong twice over.

And since we are dealing with facts, we now know that 80% of the Christian New Testament was corrupt the moment the author’s pen stained the papyrus. Paul’s fourteen letters are unGodly, invalid and, worse, demonic. And Mark, Luke, Acts, and Matthew are no better.

As for the few Greek texts that may have some merit, Yahowchanan and Revelation are now suspect because their value has been eroded by misguided translators and copyists. A glaring example of this would be the story of the adulterous woman told in John 8:1-11. The entire episode, including “let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” was contrived in the 8^th century CE. There is no record of it in any of the many hundreds if not thousands of manuscripts composed between the 1^st and 8^th centuries. Not one. The entire account was made up because Christians wanted their god to contradict the Torah.

Simply stated: the Greek, Latin, and English texts of the Christian New Testament cannot be trusted. Manuscripts have been in a constant state of degradation since the Greek texts were first composed. This problem cannot be resolved or rationally refuted. Moreover, subsequent translations can be no more accurate than the underlying text which, as we know, is a jumbled mess of alterations from errant translations.

Should you seek proof of this, read Philip Comfort’s Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts where all sixty-nine pre-Constantine manuscripts are presented for our consideration. Do not blame me for a 332“lack of faith” until you have observed the evidence for yourself.

In his introduction, Comfort wrote: “This book provides transcriptions of sixty-nine of the earliest New Testament manuscripts…. All of the manuscripts are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100 – 300). We chose A.D. 300 as our terminus ad quem because New Testament manuscript production changed radically after the persecution under Diocletian (A.D. 303 – 305) and especially after Constantine declared Christianity to be a legal religion in the empire.”

The phrase, “changed radically,” when applied to “manuscript production” means that codices copied after 325 CE were so different from their predecessors, they were no longer comparable. It would not take long for variations to blossom from hundreds of thousands to millions.

Consider this graphic example. If we were to dive into a swamp and grab a bucketful of alligator excrement, then dissect what we had found, studying the evidence by amplifying the specimens individually and collectively under a microscope, sharing every nuance that could be derived from a close and careful evaluation of this collection, the fact remains that all we would be contemplating would be a chaotic arrangement of reptilian discharge that has been rotting away in a swamp. Nothing will ever change that, no matter how accurate or complete our rendition of the information conveyed becomes. It makes no difference how one slices, analyzes, polishes, or rearranges this product of decay – it still stinks.

Swamps not only tend to breed bacteria, but they are also home to some of the world’s most venomous and deadly reptiles. They are not safe for human habitation. Such is the case with the manuscripts of the Greek text of the Christian New Testament. Any attempt to accurately 333translate what remains is akin to evaluating decomposing organic material scooped out of a cesspool. As crude as this may sound, even shocking, it accurately depicts the condition of the Christian “Scriptures.” It is so bad, even Yahowah uses a similar metaphor to depict the nature of errant testimony.

This brings us to the realization that “Iesou Christos – Jesus Christ” did not create the Christian institution known as the “Church” by saying: “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” (KJV Matthew 16:18) He did not speak Elizabethan English. But since Yahowsha’ did not speak Greek either, he could not have said: “ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.” And while he could have made a declaration in Hebrew on this day, since we have nothing from the 16^th chapter of Matthew prior to Eusebius in the 4^th century, the line which served to justify the Christian Church was actually written by that Church.

This known, had Yahowsha’ said something John thought too insignificant to report and Peter remained remiss in sharing, we can translate Greek into Hebrew and see if it could have made some sense. In this regard, the Greek word “ἐκκλησίαν – ekklesia” as a compound of “ek – out” and “kaleo – to call” means “to call out.” The only word similar to it in Hebrew would be qara’, which in addition to “called out” means “to summon and invite, to meet and greet, and to read and recite. More importantly, qara’ serves as the verbal root of Miqra’, which as a compound of my and qara’ speaks of pondering the implications associated with being invited to be called out and meet with God. Moreover, it was the Miqra’ which Yahowsha’ was building upon because he was here to fulfill the first of them – Passover. Without it, there is no life in the Covenant nor salvation.

As an interesting aside, there is no correlation of any kind between ekklesia and “church,” The only Greek word 334upon which anything approaching “church” can be transliterated is the name of the goddess, Circe, the daughter of Helios. If you recall, she played a starring role in the Odyssey.

While there is absolutely no justification for changing ekklesia to the Christian institution known as the “Church,” in Hebrew the statement would have been instructive. Translating “ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν” out of the Greek and into Hebrew and then English, we derive: “Upon (‘al) this (ze’th) Rock (‘eben), I will build (banah ‘any) my Invitation to be Called Out and Meet (Miqra’ ‘any).”

The Septuagint, which was used as the basis of the citations found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is not credible either. Those who translated the text from Hebrew into Greek, and the others who copied their work, were equally incompetent and errant.

As proof, by the dawn of the 3^rd century CE, discrepancies between the many versions of the Septuagint had become so pervasive, they required the better part of a lifetime to resolve – a resolution, however that has been lost to time. Third century Christian scholar, Origen Adamantius, devoted most of his life to overcome these disparities, creating his Hexapla of Greek translations in Alexandria, the birthplace of the Septuagint. In his Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew, he explained the purpose for creating the Hexapla:

“Due to the discrepancies between the manuscripts of the Old Testament…we were able to overcome them using the testimony of other editions. This is because these points in the Septuagint, which because of discrepancies, manuscripts aroused doubt, so we reevaluated them on the basis of other editions.” His assessment of the Septuagint was less pejorative, but otherwise identical to Eusebius’ / Jerome’s evaluation of Latin texts. Discrepancies 335prevailed. His “solution” was also the same. Compare texts filled with disagreements and then choose which variation to accept or discard.

According to his notes, Origen compiled a parallel presentation of four variations of the Septuagint, and he devoted one column to the Hebrew text transliterated using Greek characters, and another to present Hebrew written in Hebrew. Therefore, the Hexapla, meaning “sixfold,” was comprised of six columns, with four of them designed to compare divergent variations of the following Greek translations: Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus the Ebionite, Theodotion, a recension of Thodotian with interpolations to indicate where the Hebrew was inadequately represented, Lucian, Philoxenian, Harclean, Hesychius, Onkelos, and Sahidic.

Those who claimed to have seen it said that the lone copy was fifteen volumes and six thousand pages. During Origen’s life, however, it was poorly regarded and seldom considered. He, himself, was defrocked and banished from Alexandria by Bishop Demetrius. He fled to Yisra’el, where he was then tortured by Emperor Decius. Upon Origen’s death, the lone copy of his Hexapla was hidden away in the library of the bishops of Caesarea, collecting dust for centuries. It was then destroyed during the Muslim invasion in 638 CE.

So while he may have miraculously created a somewhat viable amalgamation from conflicting texts, his Hexapla was not available to Eusebius / Jerome and his devotion to rectifying the propensity of Christian translators and scribes to err accomplished nothing other than to demonstrate that, by the 2^nd century CE, the Septuagint was an unreliable resource.

So now that we know that the Latin Vulgate was nothing more than a compilation of errors earlier translators and copyists had made, and that the Septuagint 336and early Greek manuscripts were similarly flawed, let’s complete the story. How did the errors and divergent renderings found in the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate find their way into the earliest English translations? With so many variants, why did they all turn out the same?

As I had mentioned earlier, the first to compose and distribute an English translation was John Wycliffe, producing his by hand around 1380 CE. To his credit, he did so because, by reading the Latin Vulgate, he recognized that the teaching and claims of the Roman Catholic Church were inconsistent with the text of the book they claimed had authorized them to be the exclusive representatives of God on Earth. His resulting translation, however, was not based on a Hebrew or Greek text, but instead was derived from the amalgamation of errors which became the Latin Vulgate, only because there were no Hebrew or Greek texts available to him at the time.

Wycliffe and his associates produced twelve copies. Most were burned by the Roman Catholic Church on orders of the pope. He was so infuriated with Wycliffe for translating the Latin Vulgate into a language ordinary people could actually read for themselves, Wycliffe was banished as a heretic, and forty-four years after his death, another pope had his bones dug up, crushed, burned, and then scattered. Even worse, John Hus, one of Wycliffe’s associates, was burned alive by the Church in 1415 for the crime of translating the Christian New Testament. Not only was that the prescribed penalty of the Church for anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible, but the pope also used Wycliffe’s translations to kindle the fire. If you are among the 1.2 billion who call yourselves Roman Catholics, you should be ashamed. But no, Catholics are too arrogant for such a responsible response.

In 1490, Oxford professor and physician, Thomas Linacre, after reading the biographical accounts in the 337Greek New Testament, and then comparing them to what he had read from the Latin Vulgate, concluded that they were so different, they could not have come from the same source. He was right.

Then in 1516, the situation went from bad to worse. The precursor to a monumental intellectual fraud and religious hoax became known as the Textus Receptus. It was perpetrated on an unwary public by Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus. He was a living contradiction, a celebrated Dutch humanist, a homosexual who was known to have affairs with his colleagues and students, a Catholic priest devoted to the pope, a critic of the Catholic Church, a Latin scholar, and a Protestant antagonist and protagonist. One might say he was conflicted.

The moment he had mastered Latin to his satisfaction, he attempted to replicate Eusebius’ / Jerome’s work, and in 1512, collected every Latin manuscript he could find to create his own edition by consolidating divergent texts. Of it he wrote: “It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin.” He could not contain his enthusiasm or ego, writing “My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god.” Indeed.

No one paid much attention to his Vulgate emendations, so he sought fame by attempting to beat Roman Catholicism’s Complutensian Polyglot to print. If they were not impressed by his Latin, he would try his hand at Greek – even if it was only to justify his Latin rendition of the Vulgate. He therefore included a Greek text to permit “qualified readers” to verify the quality of his Latin translation.

Of this parallel edition, he wrote: “There remains the New Testament translated by me [in Latin], with the Greek facing [the Latin], and notes on it by me.” He said, “But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, 338even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention to the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep.” His assessment is equally disrespectful, and thus mirrors that of Eusebius / Jerome, whose text he was now attempting to correct, albeit more than a thousand years thereafter. Nothing had changed. What had begun poorly was now in shambles.

To be fair, however, this man of conflicts, Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, didn’t actually compose a synchronized Greek text or even create one of his own by comparing various manuscripts and choosing between their inconsistencies. He simply copied his text from a handful of highly suspect and woefully incomplete Greek manuscripts from the same Byzantine family, all from the late 12^th through 15^th centuries.

He systematically filled in the numerous omissions between them by translating his version of the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. He did not have a complete manuscript or one that was even reasonably old. Moreover, he essentially ignored his oldest manuscript, the one from the 12^th century, because it was so “erratic” and divergent from the more recent ones, and the inconsistencies were so numerous and extreme, they could not be reconciled. And in such places where the Greek of his 15^th century manuscripts diverged from Catholic doctrine, he recrafted his text to comply by once again inverting the process, translating his Latin into Greek. I suppose that is one way to get them to concur. Rife with errors, and composed using circular reasoning, he rushed his compilation off to his partner-in-crime, publisher, Johann Froben. Even then, it omitted sections of 1 John, Acts, and Revelation, and included portions of John that should not have been there.

This sleight of hand did not actually beat the 339Complutensian Polyglot to press, but it was better marketed. They called it the Novum Instrumentum Omne – the New Testament Revised and Improved, and quickly added the “Comma Johanneum” after publication by translating the Vulgate’s version of 1 John 5:7-8 – all to satisfy his Catholic colleagues.

He had been right to exclude it, but wrong to add it. 1 John 5:7-11, while essential to Catholic doctrine, cannot be found in any ancient manuscript. The same is true of John 8:1-11, which was part of his late Byzantine manuscripts, but cannot be found prior to the 8^th century on any manuscript. Thereafter, Erasmus translated Paul’s conversion experience from his revised Vulgate.

In subsequent editions, Erasmus actually used the Complutensian Polyglot to correct his text, particularly in Revelation, where he only had access to one highly flawed and incomplete 15^th century text. But unfortunately, he could no longer remember which passages he had reverse-engineered out of the Latin, leaving much of Revelation uncorrected.

As time wore on, in 1533, prior to his fifth edition, a Catholic scholar named Sepulveda informed Erasmus that the oldest Vatican manuscripts differed from his text in favor of the Vulgate, citing 365 material variances. There was only one place where Erasmus’ Greek appeared superior to the Vulgate by agreeing with the Codex Vaticanus – a late 4^th century manuscript, and that was the spelling of the name of an island mentioned in Acts 27:16. That is to say, his Textus Receptus was a giant step backward, not forward. Sepulveda later accused Erasmus of altering his Greek translations to accommodate his rendition of the Vulgate, in essence saying that he was a complete fraud.

But undeterred, even if his Latin translations were ill-conceived, in the fifth and final edition of his Christian New 340Testament, Erasmus’ Greek text was presented alone, without support, and subsequently hailed as “being a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament as if received directly from God, Himself,” as “the Textus Receptus.”

The origin of the name Textus Receptus came from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition, where the claim was made: “So you hold the text, now received by all, in which is nothing corrupt.” In actuality, it was a complete fraud, from conception to purpose, from execution to composition. But such is the nature of Christianity – a religion comprised of commingling errors.

As an interesting aside, Martin Luther wrote a letter to Erasmus stating, “Free will does not exist because sin makes human beings completely incapable of bringing themselves to God.” To which Erasmus replied, saying Martin Luther was “a mighty trumpet of gospel truth.” Thereafter, the man who penned the document Protestants would claim enabled them to discard the Church’s teaching and rely solely on his Textus Receptus, would write: “Unwritten Sacred Church Tradition is just as valid a source of revelation as the Bible, especially the Eucharist as part of the Church’s Seven Sacraments.” Denouncing his own text, he called all those who questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, “blasphemers.” Luther would go on to call Erasmus a “viper, liar, and very mouth and organ of Satan.” It is hard to argue with that assessment, albeit this was the pot calling the kettle black.

True to form, even with the inclusion of the Latin Vulgate in early renditions, Pope Leo X dismissed Erasmus’ project, saying: “the fable of Christ was quite profitable to him.” John Mill, an Oxford scholar in 1707, however, had a significantly more intelligent response. He launched an attack that should have sunk the Textus Receptus and Protestantism along with it. Using eighty-two manuscripts scribed centuries before the handful of 15^th century fragmentary texts deployed to create the Textus 341Receptus, Mill systematically highlighted over 30,000 discrepancies. That’s hardly inerrant.

Over time, especially now that we have unearthed sixty-nine much older, pre-Constantine manuscripts dating from the early 2^nd century to the late 3^rd century, the list of discrepancies between the relatively recent blending of popular Greek texts known as the Nestle-Aland, and the earliest witnesses has grown to almost twice the number of words contained in the New Testament itself.

This problem is so enormous in scope and consequence, it is not surprising that Christian clerics sweep the evidence under the doormats of their churches, hoping that no one learns the truth. For if they did, the reliability of the “New Testament,” the lone source of credibility underlying Christianity, would be vanquished.

In the progression of English translations, William Tyndale was next in line to publish, doing so in 1526. This “Captain of the Army of Reformers” started and stopped with the Christian New Testament. (We don’t have any interest in knowing what that old god had to say, after all.) Nonetheless, his publications were burned by the Roman Catholic Church as fast as they could be confiscated. The religious body accurately, although hypocritically, claimed that it contained thousands of errors. Anyone caught hiding, holding, or reading Tyndale’s translation was executed. Only two copies are known to have survived the torch.

Subsequently, Tyndale, himself, was betrayed by a fellow Christian. He was tried for heresy and accused by a special commissioner of the Roman Catholic Church. Incarcerated in hellish conditions for 500 days, he was 342strangled while he was burned at the stake in the Holy Roman Empire by the King of England on Friday, October 6^th, 1536. Christianity had become such a merciful and loving religion.

The first English “Old Testament” with surviving copies was a bit of an enigma. It was offered in 1535 by Myles Coverdale and his associate John Rogers, both of whom were disciples of Tyndale. And while Rogers claimed that their English Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek, that was not true. In actuality, they used their predecessor’s unpublished text and promoted it under Tyndale’s pseudonym, Thomas Matthew. The religion would not be known for its integrity either.

The next variation came shortly thereafter, in 1539. Thomas Cranmer published the Great Bible after revising the Coverdale/Rogers/Tyndale “translation” to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s liking. It was authorized, thereafter, by King Henry VIII for far more sinister reasons – the pope declined his request to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. After murdering two of his many queens, and thumbing his nose at the pope, the English monarch not only renounced the Roman Catholic Church, this bastion of morality created the Anglican Church, also known as the Church of England. He would, of course, appoint himself chief potentate and supreme religious muckety-muck (okay, I made up that title, but it fits). The Great Bible, the first legal English translation, was then printed by this murderous man to spite the pope. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

The occultist queen, Mary, sought to return England to the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and as a result, Bloody Mary banned the Great Bible and burned Rogers and Cranmer at the stake on February 4^th, 1555 and March 21, 1556. With every revolting step along the way to composing an English translation, the 13^th chapter of Paul’s ode to the Romans was looking all the more suspect.

343Thereafter, the aforementioned Myles Coverdale moved from England to Denmark, then Germany, en route to Geneva, Switzerland. I suspect that it was a more inviting option than burning at the stake. He partnered with John Foxe, the man responsible for promoting the myth of Christian martyrdom (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is to this day the only tome to claim massive persecution of Christians by Imperial Rome).

In conjunction with John Calvin, the theologian who got almost everything wrong, especially predestination, they published their “translation” under the title, Geneva Bible, in 1560. It became known as the “Breeches Bible” because it claimed that “God fashioned ‘breeches’ for ‘Adam and Eve.” To their credit, they got one word right. The pilgrims on the Mayflower, including John Bunyan and the Cromwells, were inspired to mistreat the indigenous people by reading the Geneva Bible.

Speaking of Eve, if you want further verification that English Bibles simply regurgitate the mistakes of their predecessors, look up Genesis 3:20 in any English translation. They all claim that ‘Adam named his wife, “Eve,” when he actually called her, “Chawah.” It is the legacy of the Nephylym becoming “giants” all over again.

The substitution was first made by a Greek translator working on the Septuagint. He inappropriately replaced Chawah with Zoe, the Greek word for “life,” unaware perhaps that “chayah – life” was the result of her name, and that names, unlike words, should always be transliterated, not translated. As we know, chawah means to inform and announce.

And lest I forget, in Greek mythology, the Serpent is not presented as the deceiver but instead as the one who “enlightens mankind.” Oh, what a wicked web the religious weave. With every new twist, the Bible was becoming ever more pagan – a commingling of lies sponsored by clerics 344and kings. Eve, like Church, serves as proof.

Furthering this progression, the clerics sponsoring the Geneva Bible sought to replace their politicized Great Bible with a religious alternative specifically to spite the new English Queen. It was composed by revising Coverdale’s pilfering of Tyndale’s unpublished translation of the Vulgate.

To their credit, and solely to undermine and antagonize the British monarchy, they added some marginal notes to the effect that Gentile kings and queens were never authorized by God to rule over their nations. To their shame, they were the first to include chapter and verse designations, which subsequently led to Christians removing statements from their context to advance a plethora of errant assumptions.

The Geneva Bible became so much more popular than its predecessor that eventually, Queen Elizabeth, Henry VIII’s daughter, was forced to cut a deal with its authors, whereby she reluctantly agreed to a limited release in Britain of the Geneva Bible as long as the marginal notes, which were vehemently opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, and monarchs in general, were censored, becoming considerably less forthright. All the while, she was scheming to publish a bible of her own, the Bishops’ Bible, to resolve this problem. Money prevailed over principle.

With the release of the Bishops’ Bible in 1568, it was now obvious for all to see that the fifth English “translation” was little more than a modestly edited variation of her father’s, Henry VIII’s, Great Bible. And while it was a failure with the public when it was introduced, scholars now openly acknowledge that it served as the “rough draft for the King James Version.”

Shortly thereafter, in 1582, more than one thousand years after the Roman Catholic Church imposed its Latin 345Vulgate on the world, killing anyone who would dare translate the script into another language, the Church surrendered, recognizing that they would lose their remaining toehold in England without an English translation.

Their Latin Vulgate was repositioned as the Rheims New Testament, with the Douay Old Testament arriving twenty-seven years later in 1609. Both were quickly challenged and condemned by Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge. He published Fulke’s Refutation in 1589, exposing the “errors and distortions” within the Vulgate-based translations by comparing them to the Bishops’ Bible.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Iames of Scotland became King Iames I of England (the letter “J” had not yet made its way into the English language so the monarch was not yet “James”). His claim of divine sanction to rule, however, was questioned as a result of the now marginalized marginal notes still contained within the popular Geneva Bible. So, with the failure of Queen Elizabeth’s Bishops’ Bible to gain any traction, the newly-minted king immediately sought to resolve his political problem by authorizing a bible that would bear his name and serve his interests.

The Bishops’ Bible was updated, not as a result of a new translation, but by usurping the popular verse designations and word patterns found in the Geneva Bible, and then enhancing them with Shakespearian phrasing and heavy doses of Elizabethan English to create the King James Version. The marginal notes would, of course, be discarded in favor of political correctness.

It is said that fifty scholars rallied to support the king’s agenda. But they, by their own admission, began the process by creating their own Hexapla, a parallel bible that would facilitate the commingling of phrasing found in the 346Tyndale New Testament, the Cloverdale Bible (which included Tyndale’s previously unpublished “Old Testament”), King Henry VIII’s Great Bible, the ever-popular and yet menacing, Geneva Bible, and, if you can believe it, the rival, Rheims New Testament, so as to improve Queen Elizabeth’s Bishops’ Bible, which served as their blueprint. This was a purely political revision, nothing more.

If plagiarism is defined as taking something from a single source without providing credit, and research is described as stealing from multiple sources, then the KJV was a research project. By 1611, the private compilations were assembled into one text and published as The King Iames Bible. So much for Yahowah or Yahowsha’.

While the project had begun using the Bishops’ Bible as a rough draft, it would emerge as a modest revision of the Geneva Bible. Ultimately, the KJV incorporated ninety-five percent of its text.

It is ironic that many Protestant Christian denominations promote the King James Bible as the only authorized, and thus legitimate, English language translation. They seem ignorant of the fact that its “authorization” came from monarchs who hunted down and murdered Protestants for publishing English Bibles, especially John Calvin’s Geneva Bible, all for political purposes. The Church of England continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 17^th century. It was this ongoing onslaught that caused the Protestant Puritans and Pilgrims to flee the Church of England’s persecution and risk their lives by immigrating to the New World. No better, these colonists under the banner of Manifest Destiny gave birth to a nation that would fight 101 wars over its first 400 years.

The evolution of cobbled-together and plagiarized bibles had run the gamut from the Latin Vulgate to 347Wycliffe to Tyndale to Cloverdale to Cranmer (actually Henry VIII) and his Great Bible, to the Cloverdale-Foxe-Calvin Geneva Bible, followed by Queen Elizabeth’s Bishops’ Bible, and then the King James Bible. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops’ Bible before it, the KJV had been published purely to serve the interests of British royalty.

The errors that had been incorporated into the Septuagint deliberately or by happenstance were transferred into the Old Latin texts that Jerome assailed and then blended together to create his Vulgate – Christendom’s official bible for more than one thousand years. Comprised of a veritable sea of alterations and mistakes, all mingled together, this fault-laden text served as the basis for the first English translation, that of Wycliffe. With every copy but one destroyed by the Church, it was edited, augmented, and updated by the likes of Tyndale and Cloverdale, then abused by Henry VIII and then again by his daughter, Queen Elizabeth, with their Great and Bishops’ Bibles.

The anti-establishment Geneva Bible served as a wedge between them and as a catalyst for what followed: the King James Bible. The errors in one progressed to the next, and they each became progressively worse over time. And since then, nothing has changed, with a continued downward digression into a text that bears little resemblance to the Hebrew words Yahowah and Yahowsha’ actually conveyed.

This is the basis of the game originally known as “Chinese Whispers,” but now called “Telephone.” Each time a phrase is transferred from one person’s mouth to the ear of the next, then stored briefly in a participant’s short-term memory before replicating the process, an early mistake is exaggerated, until the end result bears little in common with the initial statement. Missteps compound until a drop of truth is lost in an ocean of delusions.

348This degrading result is true for all information transfer mechanisms. It is the reason redundancy is so valuable, as is the case with the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls emerging through entirely different paths. It is also the reason our cells were designed to avert mutations, almost all of which corrupt or destroy the information stored in our genome.

Similarly, Yahowah has created considerable redundancy along with multiple paths of transmission. He repeats the essential DNA of His life-support system throughout His Word. He communicated through numerous prophets, from Moseh to Yahowsha’ ben Nuwn, from Shamuw’el to Dowd, from Yasha’yah to Yirma’yah, from Howsha’ to Chabaquwq, and from Zakaryah to Malaky over 1000 years to convey a consistent message. In this way, Yahowah makes it possible for us to know Him without interfering with freewill by precluding the human propensity for corruption.

With a little effort, we are able to correct the relatively minor corruptions found in the Masoretic Codex Leningradensis (speaking of the Hebrew text not the JPS translation of it) by using the Dead Sea Scrolls. On average they differ by one word in fourteen. Then by stripping the Hebrew words found only within the MT of their 11^th century diacritical marks and examining the original lettering, we end up with a text that is better than 99% accurate – all in the original language.

This is one of many reasons Yahowah affirmed:

“Yahowah’s (Yahowah – an accurate transliteration of the name YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence and our shalowm – reconciliation) Towrah (Towrah – Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, 349beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (shuwb – turning around, bringing back, and renewing) the soul (nepesh – consciousness).

Yahowah’s (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH based upon His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) everlasting testimony (‘eduwth – restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding (hakam – educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Psalm 19:7)

There is no such endorsement for the Christian New Testament. Christian scribes were careless. Not a single codex, not even a tiny fragment, has been found written in Hebrew or in Judea. The earliest Greek codices were scribed in Egypt, and none within a century of the events they allege to chronicle. As such, there are no credible early copies. And unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest sixty-nine manuscripts of the Christian New Testament serve to further impugn the text rather than clarify or validate it. Simply stated, with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, we know what Yahowah said in the language He said it because He wanted us to know Him as He revealed Himself to us.

By contrast, we do not have any record of what Yahowsha’ said in the language he actually spoke, Hebrew, nor do we have a credible translation of those words or a single reliable copy of the Hebrew he and his Disciples spoke translated into Greek. The only rational explanation of this disparity is that Yahowah intervened to preserve His Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr in the original Hebrew because therein He conveyed His provisions to uphold life, while He neither inspired nor sought to preserve the Greek text of the Christian New Testament. The evidence demonstrates that the CNT is not the Word of God.

350Even if the Christian Bible had begun credibly, as opposed to originating as an amalgamation of alterations in Egypt and then Rome, even if it had not clumsily migrated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, even if the publishers had studied the oldest texts in the original language as opposed to simply rephrasing their predecessors, it wouldn’t have mattered. There is no surviving manuscript in the language Yahowsha’ and his Disciples actually spoke. There is no credible codex to rely upon. So there is no solution to this problem.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The biggest problem for Christendom is that, at its inception, the Christian New Testament was disingenuous and counterproductive, deliberately misleading and anti-Semitic. Paul’s 14 epistles are an ode to Satan. Then the Devil’s Advocate used Mark and Luke to promote his dark and twisted mythology, rendering Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts little more than the Gospel of the Plague of Death. As a result, 91% of a Christian Bible’s opening 350 pages (using the NASB) were toxic at their inception, leaving only Yahowchanan | John as potentially credible. And even then, if it was written by the Disciple, it was scribed by a very old man five decades removed from the events he witnessed. What’s more, it has been subject to more copyedits than any other.

Recognizing that Matthew was not written by “Matthew,” scholars readily admit that there is no reason to believe that James, 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John, or Jude were scribed by men of these names. This leaves us with a very late, and highly corrupted, version of John, a partial text of Revelation, and “Peter’s” short letters, both poorly attested, extant prior to Constantine and the emergence of the final beast: the Church of Rome.

Choosing between collections of officially approved and authorized buckets of excrement dredged from the mud of a murky swamp will never lead to God. The Christian 351New Testament is not credible no matter how many publish a variation of it or how many believe it is true. And then to add insult to injury, the fact remains that everything Paul touched and influenced, which is 80% of what was written, was deliberately misleading, errant, contradictory, and irrational, serving to refute everything Yahowah said and Yahowsha’ had done.

Fortunately, we do not need Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s rubbish and are far better off without it. “Yahowah’s Towrah Teaching is complete, lacking nothing, because it is correct and true, transforming, restoring, and returning the soul. Yahowah’s everlasting and renewing testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making it easy for the open-minded to understand.”

The Christian response toward this reality is bewildering. Believers are universally incapable of dealing with evidence contrary to their faith. It is as if to be a Christian one has to live in denial. There is not one in a million who is willing to acknowledge or attempt to justify the countless irresolvable conflicts and irrefutable differences between what they consider “Old” and “New.” The Christian god is thereby rendered as schizophrenic and disingenuous as his apostle.

It is baffling that Christians are willing to believe the ridiculous notion that the “old god” lied, that he was mean and ineffective, so much so that a new and improved, more loving and accepting, variation was required. Worse, the “new and improved god” would be as inadequate as his predecessor, because neither he nor the twelve disciples he chose and trained would be capable of communicating what he said and did, requiring them to deploy a duplicitous and vicious, demon-possessed and sexually perverted (if we can believe what Paul wrote about himself) failed rabbi to convey his message to the world. It is all so preposterous, it is a wonder he fooled himself, much less billions.

352The faithful will blame my “lack of faith” for this problem, as if beliefs change reality. Nary a one will examine the evidence or do any research on their own. Their only rebuttal, and universal retort, becomes: “I cannot believe that God would allow His word to be corrupted.” And yet the evidence demonstrates that He never intended anyone to get to know Him through the Christian New Testament because He did not preserve any aspect of anything Yahowsha’ had to say in the language he said it. God clearly had no role in creating the original drafts, the mistaken translations, or subsequent errant copies in Greek, Latin, or English. To believe otherwise renders God an incompetent babbling buffoon.

The lone defense of faith becomes faith. For the faithful, belief trumps reason, effectively paralyzing them. And for this reason, there is no way to reason with a Christian. Even Yahowah’s words are rejected by souls poisoned by Paul. It is the plague of death.

Almost as bad, when confronted by a literal and amplified translation of Yahowah’s testimony, rather than examine the words for themselves to ascertain their meaning, independently determining if they are accurate, Christians irrationally cling to the musings of those who have misled them, using the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy to say, “I cannot believe that all of my Bible translations are wrong and you are right.”

Prove to them that Paul admitted to being demon-possessed and that God called him the “Plague of Death,” “Son of Evil,” and “Father of Lies,” and they will quote him as if you were talking to a zombie. Reveal that God’s one and only name is Yahowah, that He expressed it 7,000 times in His Word, that the Passover Lamb was called, Yahowsha’, and they won’t even respond. Demonstrate that there was no one named “Jesus,” that “Christ” is not a last name or an appropriate title, and that the “Lord” is Satan’s moniker, all according to God, and they will 353reiterate their belief in “the Lord Jesus Christ,” not realizing that they might as well be putting their faith in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Like the living dead, they babel thoughtlessly as they slither past the warnings and ignore God’s cure for what ails them. It is like talking to a rock tumbling down a hill into an abyss.

Faith has made Christians so averse to evidence and reason, even to the Word of God, this comprehensive assessment of the deplorable and unreliable state of their “Scriptures” will not faze them. They will continue to believe nothing matters other than their faith. To their detriment and ultimate demise, they will gleefully slurp up the deadly pathogens their clerics are offering as if they were candies handed out to trick-or-treaters on Halloween.

While Yahowah gave man a “neshamah – conscience,” and thus the ability to think and reason, religions like Christianity nullify the intended benefits. Man has returned to the condition of the Nephylym. Five thousand years have passed, and nothing has changed.