The Greek words for "Damnation".

 Actually I'll talk about the English words Damn and Damnation first, so many KJV onliers won't even admit that what some KJV words mean to them isn't what they meant in 1611.  This is copied from Wikipedia.

Classical Latin damnum means "damage, cost, expense; penalty, fine", ultimately from a PIE root *dap-. The verb damnare in Roman law acquired a legal meaning of "to pronounce judgement upon".
The word entered Middle English usage from Old French in the early 14th century. The secular meaning survives in English "to condemn" (in a court of law), or "damning criticism". The noun damnation itself is mostly reserved for the religious sense in Modern English, while condemnation remains common in secular usage.
During the 18th century and until about 1930, the use of damn as an expletive was considered a severe profanity and was mostly avoided in print. The expression "not worth a damn" was recorded in 1802.^[1] The use of damn as an adjective, short for damned, was recorded in 1775. Damn Yankee (a Southern US term for "Northerner") dates back to 1812.

Neither "Damnation" or any other word form of Damn appears in the King James translation of the Old Testament, but it does appear in the New Testament.

Mostly it's two words translated "Damnation" Krima(2917) and Krisis(2920).  Both are elsewhere in the KJV translated Judgment and Condemnation.

Krino(2919), another form of Krima is translated "Damned" in 2 Thessalonians 2:12, it is usually translated things like judge, condemn, decree ect.

The other two occurrences of "Damned" are Katakrino(2632), which means "to judge against" or "Sentence".

In 2 Peter 2:1&3, Apoleia(684) is translated Damnable and Damnation.  This word also gets translated Destruction and Perdition, like in the phrase "Son of Perdition" or "Goeth into Perdition" in Revelation about The Beast.

It is only Apoleia that comes close to meaning what most Christians today casually mean by "Damnation".  But even then it could mean destruction in a mortal or physical sense and not necessarily an eternal sense.

The K words that all mainly mean judgment are the ones clearly used in direct connection to the concept of going to Gehenna or the Lake of Fire.

Apoleia is rare in the Gospels, used by Judas in Matthew 26:8 and Mark 14:4, the KJV renders it "waste" there.  And by Jesus only twice, in Matthew 7:13, the verse about the broad way and the narrow way.  And in John 17:12 where he calls Judas the Son of Perdition.

The form of the word used in Revelation is the form that ends with an N.  Further backing up in my view that it's similarity to Apollyon is intentional.

Apoleia has also sometimes been translated "Ruin", between that and the "Waste" translation I feel confident that it doesn't inherently mean complete annihilation.

So when you stumble upon this word reading The Bible.  Be aware that it might not mean what you assume it means.

Hades, Gehenna and the Lake of Fire

I want to start by stating that the typical casual understanding of the "Christian" Afterlife is not based on The Bible at all but on Zoroastrianism, which influenced Manicheans like Augustine.

That some preachers continue to play ignorant of how Revelation even in English clearly depicts Hell and the Lake of Fire as distinct really annoys me, but there is no helping them.

The worth discussing issue is of Hades and Gehenna.

A total of three Greek words are translated "Hell" in the KJV translation of the New Testament.  Tartaros is a word used only once in 2 Peter so not worth much of an in-depth discussion here.

Hades is the word that is clearly the synonym for the Hebrew Bible's Sheol (every OT usage of Hell is Sheol, but it also gets translated Grave and Pit, which also have other Hebrew words).

It's also the only of the three words used in Revelation.  Paul also used the word in 1 Corinthians 15:55 once where the KJV renders it Grave rather then Hell.

So on a practical level what Hades refers to is the least disputable.

Etymology wise it is the most justifiable one to translate Hell as the origin of Hell is the equivalent concept from Germanic/Norse languages and mythologies.  (Sheol, Hades and Hell were also used by the Pagans of their respective languages to refer to an Underworld abode of the Dead that has a god and/or goddess ruling over it that was sometimes called by that same name.)  Hel and Hella are alternate forms of the original Norse name.

But in terms of what your typical Preacher means by Hell in modern America, The Lake of Fire is clearly what they mean, and their understanding even of that concept is of disputable accuracy.

The third word is Gehenna.  Gehenna is never by the KJV at least translated anything other then Hell.  It is used 12 times, 11 of them are in the Synoptic Gospels and the only remaining one is in James Epistle.

I have for a long time and mainly still do view Gehenna as referring to the same thing as the Lake of Fire, but I'll get more into that later.

Many radical KJV onliers continue to insist Gehenna and Hades must be the same thing if the KJV used the same term for both.  Though frankly I suspect the Latin translations of The Bible are the origin of both being translated the same way, the Vulgate doesn't use an expected Latin equivalent of Hades like Orcus, but rather Inferus, related to a word for fire.

Revelation 20 makes clear Hades is emptied and then thrown into the Lake of Fire before the New Heaven and New Earth are created and New Jerusalem descends.

The only passage using Gehenna that seems to be quoting or paraphrasing an Old Testament passage is Mark 9:43-48 which is drawing on Isaiah 66:24.  Isaiah 66 is still the same Prophecy as 65, which is clearly what Revelation 21 is drawing on, so this is contemporary with when the New Heaven and New Earth will be created.  So it can't be describing Hades (Also Sheol is not used in the verse) but could fit the Lake of Fire.

Now many who have no trouble with Gehenna and Hades referring to different things may still desire to see the Lake of Fire as distinct from either.  But the timing of Isaiah 66:24, as well the affiliation of Fire with Gehenna (at least one Gehenna passage also uses a Greek word for Fire, the verses in Matthew referring to the "Hell Fire"), as well as Gehenna being linked to the word "Damnation" all tell me Gehenna is probably the Lake of Fire.

Luke 16's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is the only passage linking Torment or a Flame to Hell where Hades rather then Gehenna is used.

Deuteronomy 32:22 is the only passage linking fire to Sheol.  KJV onliers will often call this the first reference to "Hell" in The Bible since Sheol's appearances in Genesis are all translated Grave in the KJV.  But this verse does not attribute this Fire to tormenting the currently dead but does possibly connect it to future Judgment.  The only difference between Sheol and NT Hades is Sheol might be a broader term that includes more of the depths of the Earth then just where the dead is/was.  And thus may include Tartaros/The Abyss.  And also could include the very center of The Earth, which modern Scientists believe is hotter then the surface of the Sun.

But more importantly, this verse of Deuteronomy says God is the source of the Fire, that it comes from Him and consumed the whole Earth Burning it's way down to the lowest Sheol. So this is really a Prophecy of the Great Conflagration of 2 Peter 3:7-12.

Ezekiel 32 describes Sheol, it describes the Dead being there, seems to imply they are awake there and thus contradicting the Soul Sleep view.  But no references to torment or torture or burning.

So since Luke 16 is the only basis for Hades being a place of torture or burning torment with no second witness, you can't build doctrine on it.

The arguments against it being a Parable I find unconvincing.  The main one is an assumption that Parables don't name names, however many view Job as a parable, also Lazarus has been viewed as a nickname and not a proper name.

What is possible is that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man was Jesus using the Pharisees own beliefs rhetorically against them, and not exactly meant to tell us the true nature of the After Life.

Gehenna is also the name of a real location outside Jerusalem.  The place known in the Hebrew Scriptures as the valley of Hinnom, a place often linked to Child Sacrifice and burnt offerings to Molech.  I've also seen it claimed that in Jesus time it was basically a garbage dump where garbage was burned.

Some think using that name for the place of Aionos punishment is merely a figurative or symbolic analogy.  Others see this clear earthly location being linked as an argument against it being the Lake of Fire.  I think it's possible where ever the Lake of Fire currently is cosmologically/spiritually, it will at the White Throne Judgment be opened in the valley of Hinnom.

I think the possibility of Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 19:6 corresponding to Isaiah 66:24 would make a lot of sense.

Gerrard Winstanley was a Universalist.

His The Mysterie of God is apparently the first English language book on Universalism.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66686.0001.001?view=toc

His political views also interest me, I'll be writing more on him in the future.

Right now there is a war between Two Enemies of Freedom

One side wanting to take our Second Amendment rights and the other First Amendment rights.

One side taking advantage of irrational fear of guns and the other of irrational fear of Muslims.

Make no mistake that both sides are equally wrong.

Just say no to giving up Liberty for Safety and Security.

Deutercanonical books

A claim often made to undermine the logic of Sola Sciptura, especially towards KJV proponents, is that the KJV "originally had 12 extra books".

Leaving aside that the KJV translators and publishers clearly didn't intend to endorse them as canonical since they were put in a separate section titled "The Apocrypha", not Canon is what "Apocrypha" means.  They were the 1611 equivalent of DVD bonus features.

It is not the KJV itself I consider God's preserved Word but the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Bible and Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament.  The Deuterocanonical books are part of neither of those but are preserved for us mainly via Septuagint manuscripts, which I don't trust.

The desire to make it sound like Protestants and Evangelicals are the ones picking and choosing I find annoying because the Catholic Bibles do NOT keep all 12 of those books, only some of them.

The first time one of them was quoted by a Catholic while debating Martin Luther, he responded "since when is that in The Bible?"  While these books were around, they were never considered of equal authority.  It was in response to the Reformation some started being propped up more.

The Catholic Church choose to keep in their Bible ones that they could take as supporting their positions on issues like Prayer for the Dead, but rejected ones that contradicted their views on those issues.  If Protestants were also picking and choosing you'd think they'd have kept the ones the Catholic Church rejected.

While the books of Maccabees are most interesting to us today for being our oldest historical source on the origins of Hanukkah, and the Hasmonean revolt.  I suspect the Catholic Church kept them because of parts like First Maccabees chapter 8 that really praised Rome.  I personally think chapter 8 is where the Hasmoneans started going wrong.

2 Esdras (also called 4th Esdras by languages that call the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah 1 and 2 Esdras).  Is infamous for the Prophecies it gives, some of which I have and will in the future mention for the sake of curiosity on my Prophecy Blog.  But the book is dangerous because of a strong Anti-Semitic tone it has.

Judith and Tobit are interesting historical oddities that often come up in talks on Revised Chronology and also Lost Tribes speculation (which one of the 2nd Esdras Prophecies is also a part of).  If they ever were reliable histories the versions we have are clearly corrupt, being filled with confusing geographical contradictions and historical anachronisms.

There are three more books also grouped with the Deutrcanonical books though they are not among the 12 included in the 1611 KJV, or in any Catholic Bibles, but they are popular in the Eastern Churches.  They are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 doesn't seem to say anything particularly interesting.  But it's amusing to me that it makes the Psalms like the original Pokemon.  150 are all you need, but there is also an extra.

4 Maccabees is a poetic elaboration on a story found in 2 Maccabees.

3 Maccabees however is not about the history it's title would make you think.  It is clearly a work of Prose Fiction written by Alexandrian Jews during the time of Caligula about Alexandrian Jews during the time of Ptolemy IV Philopater.

It has an attempt to do an Abomination of Desolation qualifying event but gets thwarted.  Then later Ptolemy tries to massacre the Alexandrian Jews with drunk elephants.

Something similar to the latter is mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion as being tried by Ptolemy VIII Psycon.  I find it amusing how Ussher and many others since think Josephus must be mistaken on which Ptolemy did this, since 3 Maccabees is clearly a literary narrative, and Jospehus goal in Against Apion was documenting things the Greek Alexandrians could verify from their own (now lost to us) historical records.  Now it's possible similar incidents could have been tried by both Kings since History does repeat itself, but if only one is true it's Ptolemy VIII.

So those are my thoughts on this collection of Apocrypha.  They're interesting sources of information, but not Inspired Scripture.

Update August 13th 2018: The Nazarene Judaism Website wants to affirm the Apocrypha via apparent quotations of Wisdom of Solomon in Romans.  However many Scholars who see that connection see it as Paul quoting the ideology reflected in Wisdom of Solomon in order to then refute it.
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh
This is a subject I've spoken on before, like in the Romans part of The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality.  Romans 1:18-32 use of "Para Phusis" as if it's inherently Bad is refuted by Paul's using "Para Phusis" in Romans 11 to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel.

Update November 2018: Early Christian Canons

The earliest source on what Christian viewed as Canon for the Old Testament is the Bryennios List.   It was possibly written in the late first or early second century.  The only thing in that list viewed as a possible endorsement of a Deuterocanonical book is "2 of Esdras" but in Greek Nehemiah was often called 2 Esdras, and in Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah were often the same scroll, so this reference is very likely just to those two books.  Likewise Lamentations is probably only missing because it shared a Scroll with Jeremiah.

 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Jesus Nave, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.

Melito's Old Testament Canon is the other oldest Christian one and is also pretty much ours but with Esther neglected.  Again Nehemiah and Lamentations are missing due to their sharing scrolls with Ezra and Jeremiah.  The only possible reference to a Deuterocanonical book there is Wisdom, but again that is disputed, it's possible he was still talking about Proverbs which is also largely about Wisdom.

Melito's list, as cited by Eusebius, as follows:

    Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

The Murtarian Canon mentions Wisdom of Solomon but strangely does so in a New Testament canon list.  Wisdom seems to be the most popular for Christians to accept, and I think it was because many missed how Paul's use of it in Romans was to refute it.

It's with Origen that we begin seeing Christians treat Deuterocanonical Septuagint books as Scripture, with him even saying Christians accept books the Jews do not.  I like Origen in some areas, but it's with him and his mentor Clement we begin seeing a massive escalation in the Hellenization of Christianity.

I've done my first Audio recording. Reading from the KJV page

[Update January 2025: This was a Link to something I regret recording.]

Was the Name of Yahuah unknown before the Burning Bush?

It is a common assumption that the implication of what Exodus 3:13-14 says, and the seemingly more blatant 6:3, is The Holy Name wasn't known before, and therefore everything in Genesis taken as showing it being known is viewed as a contradiction.  These alleged contradictions are taken advantage of by both Atheists, and by believers with weird fringe theories trying to say YHWH is actually the name of a Pagan god added to the text and never originally part of Scripture at all.

I however feel the greater testimony of Scripture is that it was known from the beginning.

Now where it's used in the narrative voice of Genesis one could easily say that's just Moses giving the text it's final form.  But Abraham in Genesis 22 names a location Yahuahjirah, it's not just an editorial note, it says Abraham gave it that name.

The end of Genesis 4 says in the days of Enosh men began to call upon the name of Yahuah.  While this is irrelevant to it's relevance to this issue, I want to state my disagreement that "call upon" should be translated Profane here which I see asserted often.  This is the exact same terminology used when Genesis latter tells us Abraham "called upon" the name of Yahuah, in Genesis 12:8 and Isaac in 26:25.

Some quotes.

     There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites—The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (1974:102).

And

     [The] texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8), and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation.

Exodus 6:3 has been addressed on this issue in a few ways.  One is that "name" here is being used in the sense of character.  Many are discussed here from a Karaite Jewish perspective, some things he mentioned being not fulfilled yet we believe are.  Another is that the "not" part is meant to be Rhetorical.  Taken form this page quoting a user named Frank Luke.

W. J. Martin has suggested this translation.

"I am YHWH. I allowed myself to appear to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai. My name is YHWH. Did I not make myself known to them?"

Martin argues that the translation of the key clause as a question is demanded by verse 4 beginning with "And also I established my covenant." That would seem to imply that the preceding clause ought to be taken in a positive sense and not a negative sense, such as "by YHWH I was not known to them."

As for Exodus 3.  What happens there can be taken many ways too.  In fact the implication can absolutely be read as implying it's a name already known.  The scene is also believed to reflect Moses entering this on an erroneous Pagan notion that knowing a god's name gives you power over them, he grew up a Prince of Egypt remember.

As for the desire to allege the name is Pagan.  Attempts to find it in Canaanite or Arabic texts or inscriptions that clearly predate Moses or even Solomon are all lacking. 

The best argument for a Pagan origin for Yah is the Egyptian moon god Iah.  How exactly to pronounce Egyptian names has been lost, Iah is the default you see on Wikipedia, but it also states other alternatives like Yah, Jah, Joh or Aah.  They become less similar to the Hebrew Yah as we go down the list.  Other equally likely possibilities could include Ieh, Yeh, or Jeh, which will prove ironic later.  That the Iah theophoric name Ahmose is rendered in Greek texts like Hedotus and Manetho as Amasis or something similar, I consider support for something like Aah being the correct pronunciation.

Aah could be etymologically related to Ajah/Aiah, which is not a Yah theophoric name but can easily be confused for one, it comes from the Hebrew word for Hawk or Kite or Vulture.  The Egyptian moon god Khonsu's name is spelled with Hieroglyphics that resemble similar kinds of birds.

Iah isn't even the main Egyptian Moon god.  There were two for the Moon just as there were for the Sun (all four were male unlike in many other cultures).  The main Sun deity was Ra, while Aten was a lesser one, more like the name for the visible Solar disc itself.  For the moon Iah was equivalent to Aten not Ra, the main Moon deity was Khonsu.  Still Akhnetan choose Aten over Ra for his Henotheistic Sun cult, so hypothetically someone could have done the same with Iah for a Moon cult.

I'm curious what the oldest Egyptian references to Iah are.  I'm wondering if it could have come from in some way the influence of Joseph and later got corrupted.

Fringe theorists will suggest that the Hebrew name for the Moon, Yerech/Yerikh often transliterated into English as Jerah/Jereh, was originally identical to Yahweh but that the scribes changed the spelling of one or the other to obscure it.  But Yerach is the same spelling non monotheistic Semites used in the texts we have for them.

The words only have in common beginning with the same letter, as do many other not related Hebrew words.  The two letters for "h" are different, Yah uses Heh and Yerach uses Heth/Cheth.

Another thing people might use to support a Yahweh as a Moon God theory is the fact that the Torah uses a Lunar calendar.  Mostly I think God wanted that to be contrary to the Solar Calendar as the standard of their Canaanite neighbors.  But either way many other Calendars have been Lunar including the Attic Greeks without it meaning they favored Moon worship over other gods.

Also I've seen the theory out there that the name of Sinai comes from Sin the Akkadian Moon god, and Horeb means shining (a meaning linked to lunar deities like Phoebe).  I consider neither of those the most likely etymology.  Horeb is spelled identically to the Hebrew word for Sword, and is also related to Cherub, Cherub's similarity to Sword is part of the wordplay of Genesis 3:24.  The name Sinai first occurs in Exodus 16:1, which also refers to a place called Sin, the Hebrew spelling implies they come from is the same root as the Sinite tribe of the Canaanites.  It was probably populated by Sinites first then the Midianites and/or Kenites drove them out.  Now it may be the Akadian deity's name comes from the Sinites, who knows.

To show I'm not a hypocrite I want to say I no longer agree with labeling Allah a moon god.  The main Idol of the Pre-Islamic Kaaba was Hubal, who was not a Moon god but the Nabatean form of Baal.  There are many theories as to the origin of the Crescent Moon being a Muslim Symbol, nothing in the Koran actually calls for it to my knowledge.  The theory I favor is it being connected to them using a Lunar calendar.  Some Pre-Islamic Arabian Jews are known to have used a similar symbol for that reason, the Muslims might have copied them.  Being Crescent Moons being use din Byzantine art is also a proposed reason since the early Arabic Empire copied a lot from Byzantine architecture.

The argument for the name being a foreign insertion into the Hebrew texts has two basis really, but a third implication from that is that all Yah theophoric names as well as the expression halleluyah should replace the Yah part with Ye or Yeh.

The first basis is a supposed inconsistency between YHWH and the I AM statement that we assume was when the name was revealed.

The Hebrew says "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" which gets translated "I AM that I AM".  The Hebrew word for I AM is Hayah, but Ehyeh is the first person form.  Someone saying it to refer to someone else would say Hayah.

An interesting fact is that Hebrew and many ancient languages unlike English will use their definite article before a personal name.  The Hebrew definite article is just the letter Heh added to a word as a prefix and pronounced Ha.  So really every occurrence of Yah is really HaYah.

So really the I AM statement is more like a pun on an existing name, not the origin of one.

The second Basis is arguably more then one but all from how the Greek New Testament renders things.  But the New Testament passage that works against them they say is corrupt.  So they're selective.

Now this theory doesn't necessarily assert Ehyeh was the original everywhere you see YHWH.  Based on the common assumptions about Exodus 6:3 they would probably say it should be El Shaddai everywhere it occurs in Genesis.

And they may use the Septuagint and New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible to support saying Adonai (Lord) was in the original.  The Septuagint which I have expressed my problems with before was the product of developing Jewish superstition that you shouldn't pronounce the name that came from a misunderstanding of the 4th Commandment.  The Hebrew Bible is against that idea however, it record the name being spoken in dialogue by humans often.

New Testament quotations I think happen to also do this because for the New Covenant Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus has replaced Yahuah as the personal name of God.

And they use the Greek spelling of Jesus to support their replacing of Yah with Ye/Yeh.  Problem is Eta following the Iota is a common practice of Greek transliteration that does not necessarily tell us how it was pronounced in the original language, we see it with many names that started with a Yot.  Though in this case I think the Holy Spirit might have been playing with how Eta has an ambiguous relationship to the "h" sound.

Revelation 19 verifies that Hallelujah should be pronounced ending with an A sound rather then an E.  So they allege that word wasn't originally in the text at all.  They don't even say it's absent from any old texts, which it could very well be from the Alexandrian corpus for all I know.  Their main argument is that Revelation 19:1-6 is a repeat of part of Revelation 7.  There may be thematic or poetic parallels there, but they were blatantly arguing for a non Chronological view of Revelation.