"In Defense of Inspired Scripture"

ANY are those, today, who presume to know all about everything.   Those who would lead you are most likely misleading you into gross error or abominable falsehood.

    Some of the worst of these have lately emerged, like eels returned to spawn, from the corpse of Herbert W. Armstrong's pseudo-Christian Worldwide Church.

    Unlike this self-glorifying crowd, this work has been around for the last quarter of a century, for the express purpose of shining the beacon of restored truth onto their dark works of wickedness posing as righteousness (mainly of the self- genre), or just plain evil posing as our "enlightened benefactors."

    In fact, before some of these religious, or now anti-religious, clowns were even "ordained" (a loose term usually denoting a partnership in spiritual crime of the mongrel variety; cf. Psalm 22:16, 20; Isaiah 56:10-12, Philippians 3:2, Revelation 22:15), I found myself in close proximity with them and came to know them personally (often to my deep and abiding regret).

    They were the "usual suspects," Herbert "W." Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Fred Coulter, Roderick Meredith, Joe Tkach Sr, and Jr., Michael Feazell, William F. (is for False) Dankenbring, even the "prophet" (cum child molester) Larry Gilbert Johnson, and a few really mean-spirited bums, who liked to give anyone who disagreed with them in the least little way the "bum's rush," etc., ad nauseam.

    But that's sometimes what someone called as a true minister, prophet or teacher of the pure truth must learn to face.

    Recently I was brought back into contact with several of these, who at the beginning of my ministry were such a thorn in the side, who pose as would-be "benefactors" for the unwary and foolish, who were "ordained" after I came to know them but whose later dereliction of the faith they once professed came to embrace the notion of the rejection of both old and new testaments of the Bible as "false," "uninspired" and even "dangerous."

    And that last adjective truly fits, for those who treat inspired scripture (I'm not saying "the Bible," for no modern translation is totally inspired) so contemptuously, claiming it to be "a work of fiction" by "wicked men," and therefore claim the Savior revealed therein to be a "fraud" and "nonsense" are themselves fulfilling scriptural prophecy, which in and of itself proves those scriptures true (cf. II Peter 2:1-3).

    What follows is my expose of the clownish arguments and "proof" of several of these latest of the faithless, whose sole belief in a "creator" rests only upon thin air and shifting sand, and in fact -- by they own admission -- embraces every past and present false idol, shamanistic, voodoo, Buddhist, etc. false "ism" there is; all but the One and Only true Creators of heaven and earth revealed through Noah, Moses, David, Matthew, Peter, Yahvhanan (incorrectly: "John") and Paul, to name but a few.

    I cannot speak to their future, for it is possible for anyone to repent -- and in fact one of these heretics has said that, if anyone can prove his research wrong then he will "return to the faith I once preached" (which, in itself, would be a terrible mistake), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Therefore, and because the Internet site where he publishes his screed is so self-glorifying titled with "his name" dot com, I see no need to mention him -- or those who joined in his heresy -- by name at this time. Let's just call him an ex-HWA, ex-Tkach, Sr., ex-Tkach, Jr., ex-Worldwide, ex-Worldwide Church, ex-"fundamentalist Christian minister," who now delights in calling all who still teach any faith in inspired scripture "madmen."

    Well, the very definition of insanity is one who cannot understand or comprehend reality as it is, but rather sees all things through the obscured eyes and hears through the deadened ears of the blind and deaf.   Would that they were also mute, but such is almost never the case, and so they blurt forth their poisonous, insane but strangely disparate rhetoric as though they are one of the only sane people left on the face of the earth.

    It isn't surprising, really, that someone in the grips of such anti-scriptural insanity would be promising to "lead people to the realm of reality and hopefully, sanity." The blind do lead about the blind, after all, as also prophesied by inspired scripture (Matthew 15:13-14).

    We shall therefore call our false heretic Blind Guide, or BG for short.

    What does BG think cannot be disproved about his anti-scripture stance?   He says: "If you want to appeal to the "Risen C-----," first prove to me that he was the son of G--, that he rose from the dead and is now alive and ruling in heaven!"

    First of all since I believe in original inspired scripture, and not any modern translation by less than inspired men, let's call Him the risen Messiah (whose actual name is transliterated into English as: Yahvsave; meaning: "Yahveh our Savior") who was the Son of heavenly Father Yahveh (true pronunciation restored from original Ibreya [incorrectly: "Hebrew"] as revealed in The Restoration of ALL Things Has Begun).

    BG doubts this because he assumes that his arguments against inspired scripture are valid.   If they are invalid the entire argument against what inspired scripture reveals is without foundation.   So let's start there to see the "proof in the pudding" of the validity of inspired scripture to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous demonic forces now at work, to lead you astray from the pure truth, if you let them.

    BG claims that "Isaiah" (correctly: YasaYahv) 7:14, for instance, cannot be a prophecy of the Savior because it referred to the birth of a son at that time as a sign to king Ahaz. It was indeed, and it was the son of a prophetess who was a contemporary of YasaYahv (the boy's name was actually Maher-Salal-Has-Baz -- meaning: "Spoil quickly, plunder speedily" -- Isaiah 8:3-4; cf. 7:15-16) who was intended as this sign.

    However, like many prophecies referring to the Messiah (Isaiah 9:1-2, "Hosea" [correctly: Yahvsave] 11:1, etc.) that BG falsely discounts (for instance, the subject of Isaiah 9:2, "the people who walk in darkness," is exactly the same as the darkness and "utter darkness" into which these people were thrust, as described in Isaiah 8:22, and not a complete change of subject, as BG claims), these prophecies were often dual in nature, referring both to an immediate event and also to a much later, far more important, prophetic fulfillment.

    BG discounts Isaiah 7:14 due to two mistranslations. The first is found in the Masoretic text, which after all was a 4th to 5th century Common Era attempt to discount all of those scriptures -- such as this one -- that undoubtedly prophesied of Yahvsave the Messiah.

    Even though the Aramaic original of the entire book of Matthew has been proven to be its original form, and not the Greek text which is undoubtedly a poor translation of that text -- which original text agrees more with the Septuagint Greek translation than with the millennia-later Hebrew revision where the Old Testament is quoted therein -- BG calls the Septuagint "corrupt" and embraces the Masoretic (at least for his nefarious purpose), in falsely claiming that "virgin" should be translated "young woman."

    The Septuagint, like the Dead Sea Scrolls version of "Isaiah," bears out the truth that the prophet, and Yahveh who inspired him, meant "virgin." There is no indication in the text of "Isaiah" exactly how the son of the prophetess was born of a virgin (cf. Isaiah 8:3), and for the purpose of this discussion there need not be any.

    It may have been by entirely "accidental" means, whereby the woman's hymen was left intact, such as by sitting upon a semen deposit unknowingly.   This does not discount the miraculous birth of the Messiah, but merely is one way we can account for the accurate description of the birth of this prior type of a boy born to a virgin, if it was by any means other than a miraculous impregnation (certainly, prophesying this event in advance was miraculous enough, considering the rest of the prophecy and the fact that it was minutely fulfilled).

    What BG has done here is called "circular reasoning." He has relied upon a source, known to be hostile to the true Messiah's first appearance as a man, to "prove" a prophecy about Him -- a text that was corrupted by the Masoretes for this express purpose -- is therefore proof that the same corruption of the text supposedly "does not" refer to the Messiah.

    BG also bases his mistaken conclusion on an English mistranslation of this verse that appears to say: "you shall call his name," when -- according to Matthew 1:23, which quotes a more accurate original version of this scripture -- it actually said: "they will call him."

    There is another scripture, which uses this same phrase, in reference to the Messiah, whose actual name was not any of the descriptive adjectives used in that verse of scripture (see: Isaiah 9:6-7).

    Proof is seen in the fact that not even the son born of a virgin as a sign to king Ahaz was given the name "Emmanvael." The meaning of this phrase (because it is NOT a name) is "the Almighty Ones with us," and this prophecy is minutely fulfilled in such New Testament scriptures as "John" (correctly: Yahvhanan) 1:1-4, 10, 14, 8:23, 14:6, 16-21, 23, 15:4a, 5a, 26, 16:13-16 (cf. John 16:32b), 17:21-23; I Thessalonians 4:13-17, in all of which in so many words the Messiah Yahvsave was indeed said to be the Creator -- of the Almighty One(s), who are the Father and Son -- with us.

    BG's many other twistings of scripture are also based on circular reasoning, false or misconstrued "facts" and similar heresies, but I need only cite one more example to prove this is true beyond any reasonable doubt

    I have no need to belabor each and every picky little point BG raises in sheer ignorance and arrogance against the Almighty Creators of heaven and earth and their inspired scriptures (which are not found in any single translation called "the Bible," which is really nothing more than another gold gilt-edged modern idol, made from paper, which is wood pulp from the stock of a tree; cf. Isaiah 44:9-20, esp. verse 20, as it refers to false translation Bible- ["Word of G--"] thumping preachers).

    BG cites "Jeconiah" in the lineage of the first chapter of Matthew as some sort of "proof" that the Messiah cannot possibly qualify to sit upon David's throne, due to the prophecy and judgment against this last king of Yavdah (incorrectly: "Judah"), yet it clearly reveals that this is the lineage of Yavceph (incorrectly: "Joseph") who at the time was engaged to Mariam, who was a virgin during her conception, pregnancy and until after her delivery of Yahvsave the Messiah (Matthew 1:16; cf. Luke 3:23; "He was the son, so it was thought, of Yavceph").

    Therefore, since Yahvsave was clearly only the adopted son of Yavceph, the prophecy against "Coniah" or "Jehoaichin" found in Jeremiah 22:28-30, in no way disqualifies Yahvsave to sit upon the throne of David on this earth, as Yavceph's legal first born son and heir. Yahvsave's human lineage, through His mother, goes back through the house of David and his son Nathan (not through Solomon as in the kingly lineage given in Matthew).

    So, as the legal heir to the throne through Yavceph, Yahvsave alone qualifies as King of kings, which is what the word "Messiah" means, after all, to sit upon David's throne.

    In Luke, the genealogy given in chapter 3 obviously refers to Yahvsave's mother's father's lineage, for the source of the possessive "the son of Heli" or "Eli" (correctly: Eliya) is Yahvsave and not Yavceph, as in: "Now Yahvsave Himself was...the son of Eliya" or actually, "the grandson of Eliya" through Mariam His mother (Luke 3:23), just as "Jeconiah" or "Coniah" was actually the son of "Jehoiakim," and the grandson of "Josiah" (Matthew 1:11 and cf. II Chronicles 36:1, 4, 8).

    Note, also, that the "Zeravbabel, the son of Seltiel, the son of Neri" here (Luke 3:27) are not the same as "Jeconiah...the father of Seltiel...the father of Zeravbabel" in Matthew 1:12, obviously; as there were many people who had similar names. You will note that the father of each Seltiel was different, and the fact that each Seltiel had a son named Zeravbabel was also nothing more than a coincidence (or early translator confusion and mistake in names perhaps).

    Including the missing generation of the genealogy of Matthew 1, there are only five more generations from David until the Babylonian captivity than are listed in the genealogy of Luke 3, assuming that both Seltiels and Zeravbabels were contemporaries.   Whereas the lists from the captivity until the birth of Messiah Yahvsave, including Seltiel in both lists, is 13 generations in Matthew and 22 generations in Luke.

    This is important because the list in Matthew 1 is apparently shortened, by listing grandfather/grandson relations in several instances, otherwise the average number of years per generation (22 years average) jumps to nearly double (41 years) in the short list given in Matthew.

    This indicates that the Zeravbabel of Luke 3:27, and not the Zeravbabel of Matthew 1:12-13, was he who returned from the Babylonian captivity and laid the foundation of the Temple, according to Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, I Esdras in the so-called Apocrypha, and the historian "Josephus" (Antiquities, Book 11, Chapter 1, Section 3, and Chapter 3, Sections 5 to 10).

    Bible Scholars have wrongly attributed this governor as being a descendant of David through Solomon (this Zeravbabel was only a legal, and not an actual, forebear of Yahvsave the Messiah), and therefore think that Haggai 2:23 somehow reversed the curse of Jeremiah 22:24, whereas in reality this Zeravbabel was a descendant of David through Nathan, and was therefore an actual blood forebear of Yahvsave the Messiah, and so the blessing in Haggai in no way overthrows the curse against the descendants of "Jeconiah," of which Yavceph the husband of Mariam (but not the blood father, only the legal father, of Yahvsave) was one.

    In fact, in the lineage of Solomon, Seltiel was not even the actual father of the Zeravbabel in Matthew's legal lineage, since that Zeravbabel was actually the son of Seltiel's brother "Pedaiah," according to I Chronicles 3:17-18.   This was probably due to the death of Seltiel before he had a son, and Pedaiah taking his brother's wife to conceive a son in his brother Seltiel's name, as a legal heir of Seltiel, according to the law of marriage given in Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

    The list in Matthew further differs from that given in I Chronicles 3 from Zeravbabel onward, but missing generations may well account for this discrepancy.   Resolving of these differences may not be possible, short of uncovering the original royal lineage list as used in Matthew, or the Aramaic original of Matthew.

    And nowhere in the lineage of the Zeravbabel who led the Yasraelites back from captivity is it ever said that he, or Seltiel his father, were descended from "Jeconiah," through Solomon, only that they were of the lineage of David (through Nathan, Solomon's brother, apparently).   Likewise, nowhere in Matthew's lineage does it say that Zeravbabel, the grandson of "Jeconiah" was the governor who returned from Babylon to rebuild the Temple.

    This is nothing more than a big (false) assumption made by "scholars," until the time for the restoration of all things arrived (cf. Malachi 4:5-6; Matthew 17:11).

    The other Zeravbabel who descended from David through Nathan, then, became the governor of Yavdea ["Judea"], laid the foundation of the rebuilt Temple in Yaravsalem as recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah, was called Creator Yahveh's "signet ring" in the prophecy of Haggai, and also became the blood forebear of Messiah Yahvsave through His mother Mariam!

    True, there have been corruptions of the texts of the New Testament (as there were of the Masoretic Old Testament), first when it was translated into Greek and later when it was translated into English (i.e. "Easter," rather than Passover in the King James version of Acts 12:4, for instance), but this in no way invalidates the inspiration behind the original authors and the texts they wrote.

    Why don't we have those original texts today? Modern man is not worthy of them, and would soon dispose of them, just as our ancestors tried to do to the originals. All IS recorded in the heavenly records, however, and is revealed to Yahveh's servants, prophets and teachers, just as BG's errors have now been revealed, and are now exposed for all to see.

    Now it is time to come to the ultimate proof that the inspired scriptures were and are indeed still valid today. For in them (perhaps this is why BG hates them so) Messiah Yahvsave, Paul, and others of His Apostles prophesied of BG, and all those who have joined in his corrupt efforts to raise up any false "mighty ones" -- even the idols of dusty ages long past -- in place of they who alone should be worshipped.

    And as a side matter first, the statement onto which BG falsely latches as some alleged "proof" against the Father and Son duo (Mariam never was, and is not, a "mighty one," therefore there never was any "trinity," in the pre-Christian era, among the true believers), here is what this inspired scripture actually reveals:

    BG's misunderstanding of the intended meaning of Isaiah 43:10-11 is a classic case-in-point of how many Bible "scholars" over the centuries -- Christians and secularists alike -- have twisted the scriptures to their own destruction.

    These verses of inspired scripture do not undermine the very meaning of Elhayavim, as applied to the Creative Father and Son team, or duo. They say: "Before me no mighty one was formed nor will there be one [formed] after me. I, even I, am Yahveh, and apart from me there is no Savior" (cf. Isaiah 42:8).

    Notice the words "formed" and "Savior" in reference to Yahveh. So, just as "John" chapter 1 reveals, it was the Creator of heaven and earth revealed in the Old Testament who became Yahvsave the Messiah! The Father who is Greater than He (John 14:28) was unknown until the Savior came to reveal Him (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22)!

    "Formed" here refers to the Savior being created in the womb of the virgin Mariam by the Father (cf. Philippians 2:5-11; and it is BG, and those who have joined with him in his heresy, who erred not knowing these scriptures).

    Who else but He who created the first man and woman could possibly qualify to pay for the penalty of sin by His own death as a righteous man?!? This was not the Father, for Yahvsave (meaning: Yahveh our Savior!) came to reveal Him for the first time through His ministry (John 5:37; notice also, particularly in view of BG's heresies, verses 38-40; 14:6, and cf. John 6:46 with Exodus 33:11a for instance).

    Always terms such as "the only Almighty One" (I Timothy 1:17) does not mean there is only one being involved in the Elhayavim (correctly: "Almighty Ones"), but instead refers to the fact that there is no earthly idol or false "mighty one" worshipped by men that is His/Their equal.

    There have always been both Father and Son, but pagan Christians, and heretics such as BG and his foolish followers, have always confused the Son with the Father in falsely thinking that the Creator of the Old Testament was the Father instead of the Son (cf. John 1:18 for an enlightening inspired scripture that should straighten out BG's and their confusion: "No one has ever seen Elhayavim, but Elhayavim the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known;" i.e. Elhayavim is the Father, and "Elhayavim the One and Only" is the One and Only Son or Savior who came from the Father [see verse 14], got it?).

    Yahvhanan (incorrectly, "John") was not confused, as BG and nearly every other Christian has been, on this vital point of TWO Almighty Ones!

    Yes, there HAVE been many false pagan counterfeits before the fact, since the adversary well knew the prophecies of the coming Messiah and -- unlike BG and those who follow in his errors -- the false accuser believed those prophecies enough to try to discredit them in advance. This in no way "proves" the true Messiah is not the Savior who alone existed before His human birth (cf. Micah 5:2b, John 1:1-2, 10, 14, 8:58, 17:5, 24, Revelation 1:8).

    Only those who foolishly trust in man, and do not have the Spirit of Truth leading and guiding them, can be easily swayed or convinced by such non-arguments as BG's! Just as it was BG's own foolish trust in man's "scholarly" sources that misled him away from the factual truth of inspired scriptures.

    BG's laughable claim that it is "the Bible" (i.e. in reality the inspired scripture, with which he is really taking issue) that "has caused horrific harm through the millennia" (slightly reworded, but the exact gist of what BG says) is equivalent to the modern mantra that "guns kill!"

   No "Virginia" guns don't kill, people kill using guns (and sometimes other weapons, such as knives, swords, bombs, etc.). I've shot many a gun -- from a replica of an old flintlock pistol to an elephant gun, from handguns to rifles -- and even a bow and arrow, in my youth and to my knowledge never killed, or ever intended to kill, anything whatsoever.

    Likewise, scripture is not responsible for all the bad uses to which people -- including BG now -- have put it.

    As I was preparing this rebuttal to BG's heresy, the number 111 kept appearing in various places and times (such as Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 1:11 above, and including glancing at a clock twice on the same day I began this study, when two different clocks read exactly 1:11 pm and 11:11 pm more than once, among similar "coincidences"), and this might refer back to HWA's old Worldwide Church Pasadena, California post office box mailing address. But more likely this was the Spirit of Truth pointing me to the following:

    As even BG may recall, the scripture says "faith [or belief] is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1; or as the NIV puts it: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."), and so it was due to BG's lack of faith or belief in Creator Yahveh that he first entertained the false idols that led him to abandon the concept of the Creator as revealed through Noah, Moses, the prophets, patriarchs, Apostles, and teachers of inspired scripture (note: I did not say "the inspired Bible," for no translation is 100% inspired).

    And what did BG get in return? An alleged "belief" in a "creator" without form or substance, founded upon thin air and shifting sand, which to his mind embraces even evil shamanism, voodoo, and every other pagan "ism" (Buddhism, Shintoism, Mithraism, etc., etc., ad nauseam).

    In short, anything or everything BUT the truth that alone can set us free, as revealed in the Law of Truth, about which Paul wrote. Paul did not teach anything different or contrary to all the other Apostles. This concept has been bred and nurtured by twisted and tortuous mistranslations into the Greek, which have already begun to come to light, from the mostly Aramaic originals of Paul's writings.

    What BG and others of his ilk are truly seeking is some sort of sign, just as the wicked Pharisees did nearly two thousand years ago, when the Savior walked the earth and told them: "A wicked generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given it..." (Matthew 12:39, 16:4; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29).

    You see, while a minister, BG didn't see the open miracles and healings he expected, so he not only began to suspect his religion of being false, but went so far as to accuse the entirety of scripture of being a fraud.   He seems to think that miraculous healings should be plainly evident and that HE and others like him were preeminently qualified as the most likely recipients of these spiritual gifts.

    And in the absence of open miracles and healings, like those depicted in the first century -- and promised to the faithful servants of our Creator ("Joel" 2:28-30; Matthew 10:1, 8; Luke 9:1-2, 10:8-9 Acts 2:17-19; I Corinthians 12:9) -- BG thinks there is no other proof of the truth of scripture possible.   He seems willingly ignorant of the fact that so many needed healing of so many terrible conditions -- from leprosy, blindness, deafness, and contagious illnesses, to sudden death and the need for resurrecting the dead -- and that few healings were evident before the advent of the Savior and His disciples/apostles, and that almost none have been evident since (cf. I Corinthians 12:29-31).

    That doesn't mean that there have been no healings whatever.   I was personally healed, after being anointed and prayed over by a lowly Worldwide deacon, and I am sure that believing prayers have healed the sick in and outside of many different religions.   Our Creator is no respecter of persons, and He does fulfill His promises among those humble enough to deserve His personal attention.

    BG thinks that he has a lock on the definition of "humble," and knows the hearts of those who were not healed -- and of the ministers such as he once was -- praying over them, and rants and rails over the dismal failure of his apparently carnal attempts to imitate the Savior's, and His called and chosen servants', miracles.

    Worse, BG doesn't examine his own heart and attitude, but instead presumes to judge the Creator Himself of being either "guilty" of sin, or of not even existing (the miracle of every breath of his own life notwithstanding).   Just as prophesied, these modern wicked doubters are going from bad to worse, and are even denying the Sovereign who bought them (II Timothy 3:13; II Peter 2:1-3).

    In fact, since BG and others like him are definitely fulfilling scriptures such as these, what further proof do we need of the validity of inspired scripture?

    Now, if BG were not doing what he clearly is doing -- raising himself up as some alleged (false) "messiah" or "savior" to the world (trying to save Christians from Christianity, and Jews from Judaism, etc.), while trashing inspired scripture and opposing and attempting to "mythologize" He who alone qualifies as the true Messiah and Savior, then this prophecy and the scriptures are proved false.

    But since BG and others ARE very definitely fulfilling these scriptural prophecies today, this makes them hypocrites and liars who claim the scriptures -- in which these prophecies of their own activities are recorded -- are somehow "false" (judging by their own false and corrupt, human standards), when they clearly are not.

    Yes, I will agree with BG, ALL organized religions -- particularly Judaism and Christianity -- have gone off into error and are largely part of the problem and not the solution. And the enemy of humanity has definitely spread his tares amongst the wheat. But that is all the more reason for us to have and maintain an abiding faith that He who inspired scripture will also fulfill His purpose -- as revealed therein -- whether or not we believe it.

    Wouldn't it be the better part of wisdom to be for Him, rather than against Him (Psalm 130:3-4; Romans 8:31; Revelation 6:17), on the dreadful day He shakes the nations -- all those who worship all those false "mighty ones" BG presently embraces -- and plants His Kingdom upon this earth in the not distant future?

    If BG truly is here "for the future of our children," as he professes on his egotistically named web site, then he will want to give this particular rebuttal a lot more careful consideration and prayerful study than any other he has ever received.

    For Yahveh will not long tolerate continued pointless insolence, boastful arrogance, worthless pride, or vainglorious, cocky, fruitless and futile profane babblings of those who embrace modern Mystery Babylon!   And in relation to losing faith in inspired scripture, as others have doubtless discovered, BG only got what he looked for out of his "research" efforts.

    Now it is up to BG how he ultimately intends to fulfill John 15:20.