Amazing and to think I thought myself to be pretty bible saavy, thank you for the correction.

In your second question you asked:

"The main things I'd like your opinion of is in the book of Daniel where the 3 hebrew boys are in the furnace. The 4th person in furnace with them is described as the son of God in the KJV but described as a son of the gods in other versions. These have 2 different explanations for who the 4th person was: Jesus- the son of God, or some other supernatural being- a son of the gods. I bought a strong concodance and intent to do a study on the verse, but what is your opinion, who was in the furnace with the 3 hebrew boys?"

Describing them three Hebrew servants of the king of Babylon as "3 Hebrew boys" reveals how much Christians have been influenced by traditions that have departed from the narrative of the Bible. The three Hebrews "men" were likely to be upwards of 50 years old at the time this occurred. A similar error is often observed as Daniel is often portrayed as a youthful man when he is cast into the lion's den. A careful examination of the book of Daniel and the procession of kings this righteous man served, reveals that he was nearly 80 years old when he was cast into the lion's den.

Similarly, those who tell the story of the birth of Christ often show three wise men appearing at the manger in Bethlehem to present gifts to the newborn baby and his parents. The wise men (magi) actually arrived a couple years after the birth of Christ.

Matthew 2:16
Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi.

Neither does the Bible ever say there were 3 wise men. It could have been a large caravan with many magi in it. People erroneously conclude there were three since it was mentioned that the magi brought three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh).

Returning to your question, whether one translates the verse in Daniel as saying there was with the 3 Hebrew men in the fiery furnace "one appearing as the son of God," or "one appearing as a son of the gods," we are not told whether this was in fact the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Yahshua the Messiah. At this time Yahshua had not yet been born of a virgin, and His earthly form was unknown. Nor would men have recognized His fleshly body as looking like that of a divine being. Christ in His physical body was quite ordinary to look upon as the prophet Isaiah prophesied.

It could be that Christ appeared in a divine form as when He was transfigured on the mount when Moses and Elijah appeared with Him, but those who would argue that it was an angel who appeared with the three men in the fiery furnace have much to base such a claim upon.

The angels do have a glorious appearance. When in this same book Daniel saw angels, he fell down as a dead man and had no strength left in his body. The angels are also described as "sons of God" (ben ha elohim) in the Old Testament. Additionally, we frequently observe where Yahweh sends angels to protect His people when they are threatened. Again, in the same book, when Daniel is cast into the lion's den, Daniel tells the king that God sent His angel to shut the lion's mouths. Certainly a correlation could be made between Daniel's three friends being cast into the fiery furnace and Daniel being cast into the lion's den.

Having this information before you, you can probably understand that it would be ill advised to declare dogmatically that this had to be the actual "Son of God" (Yahshua) who appeared with the men in the fiery furnace. Angels are equally described as having a glorious appearance that causes men to fall down in fear before them.

Thank you for writing to share your comments and questions. In your comment you wrote:

"I was wondering what your thoughts are Josepth on Mike Hoggard and on KJV only view."

I have watched very few of Mike Hoggards videos and cannot give an opinion on his character. It is much easier to speak to specific things he teaches. Regarding the KJV-Only position that you say he advocates, I have written about this subject in the writing "Yahweh's Book" that you made reference to. I demonstrated that this belief is in fact a "bias" that is not supported by factual evidence.

When people manifest prejudice (to pre-judge an issue) they close their minds to any evidence that would overturn or refute the belief they have chosen to embrace. The facts related to the KJV Bible reveal that the translators worked from a Greek manuscript (the Textus Receptus)that has many flaws and was itself hastily translated from a limited set of relatively recent manuscripts that Desiderius Erasmus had access to. The KJV Bible was never intended to be a new and original translation of the scholars enlisted to produce it. It sought to take a number of existing Bible versions (the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale's Bible, the Geneva Bible) and from them to produce something suited to meet King James' ideas of what was needed for the use of the Anglican Church.

King James' motives were largely political as the copious notes in the highly popular Geneva Bible refuted the doctrine of the divine right of the king, and stated that it was right for a people to demand a king to obey God's laws, and that they had the right to remove a ruler who was unrighteous.

King James also placed restrictions on the translators that prevented them from producing a more accurate translation, as he commanded that no words be employed, or changes to phrases be adopted, that would contradict the orthodoxy of the Church of England.

The KJV is no better of a translation than a dozen other English language Bibles that I could readily cite, though it is better than a number of truly abominable "dynamic equivalency" translations (paraphrases).

Those who contend that it is the only English language Bible Christians should use are manifesting a bias that blinds them to facts that are readily available for any Christian to freely examine. This information is set forth in more detail in the writing "Yahweh's Book."

I agree with what you have written here about be grounded in solid biblical truths. I remember watching one of Tom Hornes interviews on youtube and being facinated by the subject matter (nephelim, fallen angels star gates etc) but his reasoning didnt sit right with me and when he started quoting from the book of enoch I knew not to take him seriously.

We live in sensational times, the world is producing movie after movies about super heroes and about heroes from ancient greek myths. These are only movies but I think something in the human (fallen) psyche wants their to be real super heroes and thats when false teachings like Tom Hornes can get a foot hold. He kinds of melds sci-fi with pseudo biblical resoning which make the fantasy of super heroes seem like they could be real.

I think ppl who are facinated by the angelic/spirtual realm shold just read their bibles and study it, there are enough mysteries and descriptions of fantastic beings (seraphims, cherubs, angels etc) that there should be no need to even consider looking at extra biblical sources.

You mentioned Mike Hoggard in your writing. I watch his watchman video broadcast every week and he presents a strong case for the KJV-only view that he has. The only thing that has me slightly on guard about Mike Hoggard is that he seems to love food too much and does not preach about the importance of fasting and self denial of personal pleasures.

I was wondering what your thoughts are Josepth on Mike Hoggard and on KJV only view. I meant to ask you this when I was reading you Yahweh's Boook series. The main things I'd like your opinion of is in the book of Daniel where the 3 hebrew boys are in the furnace. The 4th person in furnace with them is described as the son of God in the KJV but described as a son of the gods in other versions. These have 2 different explanations for who the 4th person was: Jesus- the son of God, or some other supernatural being- a son of the gods. I bought a strong concodance and intent to do a study on the verse, but what is your opinion, who was in the furnace with the 3 hebrew boys?

Thanks

Mark St

it truly saddens me.

Rick Godley

Thank you for writing. In your comment you stated, “Just an observation, am a reader of both you and Tom's writings and have found that in my taking things to the Lord and searching them out myself there is usually opinions mixed in with truth and prejudices on both sides. There is usually two extremes and together iron sharpens iron. Not here to argue or defend either side…”

In making these statements you are suggesting that it is likely that both Tom and I are partly right and partly wrong on this subject. Yet you offer no evidence or arguments by which such a judgment might be tested. Instead you state that you are “not here to argue or defend either side.”

Without any offense, I share with you that such an approach is not helpful. You are doing no more than stating your opinion, and immediately following it up by saying you do not intend to provide any evidence to substantiate it.

In my post I have taken a different approach. The Bible states that one called to leadership among the body of Christ must be “able to teach” (II Timothy 2:24). If we are to assist others in arriving at the knowledge of the truth we must do more than utter opinions. We must demonstrate by proper use of Scripture and reasoned arguments what the truth is, or is not.

In my writing I have used the Scriptures themselves as the authority to establish truth. This is in keeping with Paul’s following words:

II Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…

If you believe I have erred in my use of the Scriptures it is needful that you give a defense of your view, and that you do so in such a way that others may test your reasoning and arguments.

If you show me, or the readers here, the error of what is presented here, providing scriptures and arguments that can be tested, then you have provided them a service.

Although you have provided three translations of one of the main verses discussed in this article, you have not attempted to prove whether these translations are accurate. If your point was simply to declare that there are diverse opinions on this subject, that was already demonstrated in the article. What is needed is evidence leading to the truth that the people of God might divide between what is false and what is true. As you rightly said regarding the translations you quoted, “This does not prove anything…”

Michael, please know that I am not offended at your comment here. I would simply have you to consider whether offering such comments are advancing the cause of truth in the kingdom of God. Often it is best to wait and speak until after we have received some revelation and insight from the Father. If your intent is to help the body of Christ arrive at truth, I would ask you to consider whether that goal was achieved in what you wrote.

Because you posted your thoughts in a public comment field I am responding publicly. I think such thoughts would be better conveyed through a personal e-mail. I am always willing to correspond with readers privately if they want to share their private thoughts.

May you be blessed with peace and understanding in these days.

Apostolic Bible Polyglot with strongs numbers

Gen 10:8 And Chus begot Nebrod: he began to be a giant upon the earth.
Gen 10:9 He was a giant hunter before the Lord God; therefore they say, As Nebrod the giant hunter before the Lord.
Brenton's English Sept

Gen 10:8 And Cush fathered Nimrod; he began to be a mighty hero in the land.
Gen 10:9 He was a great hunter before YAHWEH; so it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before YAHWEH.
Hebraic Roots Bible

This does not prove anything other than others have come to this same interpretation or at least seem to say so. I will continue to read both you and Tom's material and then search the scriptures to see if these things be true. Thank you again for your site, it has been a blessing to me and others. Michael

You have asked some excellent questions about why these books are regarded as falsely attributed writings. I had written to another brother yesterday (his name is also Kevin) and told him that my next writing will likely be on the subject of pseudepigrapha as it would be helpful to the readers of this blog to know the background of these writings. I hope to post something soon.

May you be blessed with peace and understanding in these days.

My question is, how do you know this? I know that the Dead Sea scrolls had pieces of the book of Enoch in them, as well as some coptic churches include Enoch in their cannon. Wouldn't that add SOME credibility?

Thanks buddy .. I appreciate your stuff!

Kevin Kleint
http://www.honorofkings.org