The Resurrection of Jesus was of The Body

In the past when debating the Resurrection we look forward to,  I have stressed to it as being the same as Jesus Resurrection under an assumption that that itself proves it to be Bodily.  But now I know some people think Jesus Resurrection was not a Bodily one.  So I need to address that.

His Tomb was empty, that should be all I need to say.  I know some might teach something like his physical body was disintegrated, I think I heard the JWs teach that. But that is illogical, if The Gospel itself in your view is of us being liberated from this physical shell, why wouldn't the Gospel narrative make clear it existed separately post Resurrection?

One YouTube video I watched (it's one of those that annoyingly has no voice over) claims that the text of the Gospel proves Jesus was already out of the Tomb before the Stone was rolled away.

1. I believe our Post Resurrection bodies may well have abilities our current ones don't, that they won't be limited to three Dimensions anymore.  In fact Jesus seemingly showed such capabilities pre-Resurrection, like in the scene where a crowd if about to push him off a cliff but he then somehow just walks away, or in John 7 where he seems to show up out of nowhere during Tabernacles.

2. Regardless the narrative doesn't say that.  Again why even roll the stone away if you think the narrative wanted to tell us it wasn't even necessary? 

Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20's account all clearly say the Stone was already rolled away before the Women came within view of it, that's three witnesses.  Only Matthew 28 seemingly says different, but the problem there is Matthew 28 verses 1-7 probably takes place over a longer period of time then a casual reading leads one to assume.

Matthew 28:1 does not say the women already arrived at the Tomb, it's recording them heading for it.  Between Matthew 28 verses 4 and 5 is probably when Jesus walked out of the Tomb, as well as the women first arriving at it as the other accounts of this Sunday morning record.

If Matthew was our only account that would maybe be a contrived interpretation of what it says.  But Matthew isn't our only account, we need two or three witnesses to build doctrine, and 3 out of 4 Gospels make it unambiguously clear that the Stone had been rolled away for awhile before the women arrived.  And if you're a Christian who accepts the consensus of Secular Scholars, the first 8 verses of Mark 16 are the oldest account of these events.

And don't think the women need to have seen this event for it be recorded.  In fact the text of Matthew 28 itself emphasizes the guards as being the ones who saw the stone rolled away.

It's interesting that only Matthew records this, Matthew was a former tax collector, which means he probably had some contacts within the local Roman government in Judea.  So it's easy to imagine why this event only Roman soldiers saw would have reached Matthew's ears before any of the other Gospel writers.  I suspect the same about it only being Matthew who mentions Pilate's Wife and her dream.

The Resurrected Jesus eat Bread on the Road to Emmaus.  He showed people His wounds, and offered to let Thomas but his fingers inside them.  Revelation 5 described him currently while at the right hand of the Father as "a Lamb as it had been slain", Revelation 1 and Zechariah 12 imply he'll still have the wounds following His Second Coming.

Some might wonder given how different I seem to think our Post-Resurrection bodies will be, what's even the point of stressing it as Physical rather then just Spiritual?  If I think we might have the ability to walk through walls and stuff, isn't it semantics at that point?

First of all I've talked about what I think the New Heaven and New Earth will be like on my Prophecy Blog.

Secondly, the key point is I believe it was in Genesis 3 things went wrong, and the Restoration we await is to the conditions of Genesis 2.  While Gnostics think Genesis 2 is where things went wrong.  I've shown on this Blog that the New Testament says Genesis 3 is where things went wrong.

The Serpent of Genesis 3 was Evil according to The New Testament.

There are some teachers out there seeking to suggest a Gnostic cosmology is compatible with The Canonical Scriptures.  Like David Vose on YouTube, who seems to be a Trump supporter which is mind boggling.

I've talked about the New Testament's usage of words the Gnostics also liked already.  The main reason I reject Gnosticism is because I believe in a Physical Bodily Resurrection, which I've talked about in posts on 1 Corinthians 15, and when talking about Lex Meyer's book.  And I've shown that the Resurrection of Jesus was Bodily.

But the big factor in how most people casually think of Gnosticism, is the idea that it was a good thing Adam and Eve eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and perhaps involves identifying The Serpent with Jesus.  Here I'm going to address how The New Testament rejects that idea.

2 Corinthians 11:3

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

And Paul is one of the NT authors most accused of being Gnostic.  The Greek word translated "beguiled" there also gets translated "deceived".  This is the same chapter that later refers to Satan appearing as an Angel of Light.  Paul also said Eve was deceived in 1 Timothy 2:13-15, a passage that can sound pretty sexist outside the greater context of Paul's message, that in the Church there is neither Male or Female as he taught in Galatians 3.

The Book of Revelation identifies this Serpent with Satan, The Devil and the Great Red Dragon in chapter 12 verses 9, 14 and 15, and Chapter 20 verse 2.  Being called the Old (Archaios) Serpent implies the intent is to refer to the first ever Serpent mentioned in Scripture.

Jesus typologically identifies himself with a serpent in John 3:14, but that is the Brazen Serpent Moses raised up in The Wilderness in Numbers.  Which is a pretty big contradiction to trying to view Jesus as opposing YHWH.

Some will tie into this that Jesus is called the Morning Star and thus identify him with Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12.  I've talked on my Prophecy blog about Jesus as the Morning Star.  However part of that is pointing out that there is NO basis in the Hebrew for translating Isaiah 14:12 as saying Morning Star, Lucifer or anything like that.  The rebel god of that verse is the same as The Dragon in Revelation 12.

Now as far as the reasons people feel like it should be a good thing we eat of the Tree of Knowledge, who don't like what it says about Yahuah that He seemingly didn't want us to have Knowledge.  I have two prior studies on the subject.

The Trees of The Garden of Eden.

Ye Hath God Said.  Which I also put on YouTube.

And additionally here is a post talking more about my understanding of the New Heaven and New Earth.

In which I address people who say YHWH is Satan

There are people out there teaching that YHWH (which I pronounce Yahuah) of The Old Testament in particular The Torah is NOT God The Father of the New Testament but rather is Satan.  The primary such teacher I have in mind in writing this post in a YouTube channel titled Good God.  Back in December I already addressed one particular argument of this channel, Is Yahuah described the same as Leviathan?

I'm not gonna address every single argument they make.  Just some basic key points.  In a way I shall be more understanding of their viewpoint then most who would seek to refute it.  And he is a Universalist, so in that area we agree.  I however believe The Torah is unviersalist as well.

In a lot of ways this view kind of follows the same logic as the Hebrew Roots movement, but draws opposite conclusions.  They follow a similar "God does not Change" mentality for example.  They feel simplistically that Paul teaching that The Law was a Curse and is done away with means we need to either reject Paul, reinterpret Paul, or view the God who wrote that Law as Evil.  My position however is that the Law had a role to play in the plan of Salvation, but it's job is now done.

A major starting premise of how this teacher builds his theology is saying the name YHWH was introduced at the Burning Bush.  I have already dedicated a blog post to refuting that common misconception.

He emphasizes the New Testament God's title as Father, yet acts like punishing his people for their Sins is inconsistent with that.  Which kind of shows a misunderstanding of what Fatherhood is that's similar to Muhammad's.

I do not myself know entirely how to deal with things like The Torah apparently endorsing genocide.  But what I do know is that everyone who has died in human history will be Resurrected.  And that punishing His Children when they transgress is part of God's responsibility as our Father.  But it is never a permanent disowning, His Mercy endures Forever.

This channel's doctrine is not Gnostic in the way a lot of people teaching something like this would be.  He does not teach that Jesus was the Serpent of Genesis 3 and it was a good thing that Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit.  The Serpent was Satan in his view.  However it is precisely that fact that leads us to a major issue in his internal logic.

He argues that the True God does speak through the name YHWH in some Old Testament passages.  Obviously that lends itself to a lot of him basically being able to pick and choose whatever he wants.  But his argument that we need to "rightly divide the Word of God" I would consider worth consideration, except...

He also clearly teaches that the Name YHWH belongs to Satan, and so we should never use it in worshiping the True God, and that's why it seemingly never appears in the New Testament.  But he also clearly teaches that Satan is a lair and the True God The Father never lies.

Therefore if a certain name is being used by both, if your quoting verses from the Prophets where the God speaking calls himself by the name of YHWH, and saying some are Satan and some are the True God.  It makes no sense to then say Satan is the one the name belongs to.  But that's what he does.

Much of why he needs to do this is because of narratives where clearly YHWH and Satan are both present as separate characters.  Starting with Genesis 3, and then going on to the Book of Job, I haven't seen him mention the scene in Zechariah yet. He could have argued that there are perhaps two Evil Gods in competition with each other, like Enki and Enlil.  Except he also loves to over emphasize and I feel misuse Jesus saying (when specifically talking about Demons) "A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand".  The point of that quote was that you can't cast out Demons by Demons, that power comes from the Holy Spirit.  But we also see in Daniel 10 that the Nations are divided between Angelic Principalities who often are in conflict with each other.

However perhaps the most theologically important verse he feels the need to say was God The Father speaking in-spite of the speaker calling Himself YHWH is Malachi 3:6.

"For I am Yahuah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

First of all Malachi isn't even different revelations like some of the other Old Testament Prophets.  It's all essentially one speech Malachi dictated for a God calling Himself Yahuah  So if there is a single verse in Malachi that he needs to argue is Satan talking then he's written himself into a corner.

Second of all, this verse is NOT inconsistent in any way with the person speaking being the God who Wrote The Torah.  This teacher loves to talk about the Curses in Deuteronomy 29, but if you keep reading Deuteronomy into chapter 30, Yahuah does promise restoration, he does promise that in-spite of all these Judgments they will not be consumed.

In fact that wording in Malachi is specifically that because He is the one named Yahuah you can rest assured Jacob's children will not be consumed.  Ezekiel 16 also has this message.

He also teaches that the Sacrificial System is inherently Evil, and cites passages from the Prophets often taken as opposing it. The thing is, in the main passage from Jeremiah that is sometimes interpreted as opposing the Sacrificial system, the YHWH God speaking there also claims to be the God who brought Israel out of Egypt.  So again you can't have it both ways, you can't say He isn't the God who wrote the Torah because He's saying he didn't talk about Sacrifices, when He is clearly claiming to be that God because He brought Israel out of Egypt.

He likes to cite Acts 7 as saying it was an Angel who gave the Law to Moses.  Thing is the text of Exodus 3 also says it was the Angel of Yahuah who appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, so that terminology does not contradict the author wanting us to think of Him as the True God since Exodus was definitely written under that pretense.  The Angel of Yahuah is The Word, because angel in both Hebrew and Greek means messenger or message.

Revelation 19 has characters say Alleluia while worshiping the same God at who's Right Hand The Arnion(Lamb in the KJV) sits, meaning they are worshiping him as Yah.  Jesus, coming from Yeshua via Iesous is a Yah theophoric name, it means Yahuah is Salvation.

There is a lot in Revelation that hurts his argument that the New Testament God would not or even cannot do certain things the Old Testament YHWH did.  Not to mention II Peter 2 and 3 clearly saying the God Peter worships is the one who sent the Flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.  And will in the future destroy the present world with fire.

He quotes certain verses from John's Gospel as saying no one had seen God before Jesus incarnation, to say Moses could not have been "Face to Face" with the True God.  But those verses mean something more specific, The Torah itself still puts a limit on how close even Moses was.  Jesus specifically said in John 8 that Abraham had seen him, and goes on to say "Before Abraham was I Am", identifying himself with the Angel of the Burning Bush, Jesus also quotes the Greek translation of "I Am that I Am" in Revelation 1.  And as far as The New Testament seemingly contradicting the Enoch and Elijah narrative by saying no one ascended to the Father before Jesus, that too I've already addressed.

He references the parallel Kings and Chronicles accounts saying in one place Satan and in another YHWH temped David to do the Census. This is explained by Job where it's clear Satan can't do anything without YHWH's consent, and the New Testament repeats that Satan can't touch us without God's permission, like Luke 22:31-32 and 1 Peter 5 and 1 John 5:15.  Satan serves as our accuser (prosecutor) but now Jesus is our Advocate (defense attorney), as 1 John 2:1 tells us.

He argues that YHWH is the Beast of the Sea of Revelation 13 by comparing the Second Beast to Old Testament prophets like Moses and Elijah.  And by citing Hosea 13:7-8's Lion, Leopard and Bear imagery being attributed to Yahuah.  Thing is Daniel 7 is clearly the more direct Old Testament reference in mind there, with the Ten Horns, and when you think about it even the Seven Heads are implied there.  And those Beasts also came from the Sea.  Now Hosea could also be relevant, but it's about Earthly Nations being tools Yahuah uses to Judge Israel, Revelation 13 is about the Nations themselves.

As far as the Beast from the Earth resembling an Old Testament Prophet.  Yes, that is why he's called the False Prophet.  He will seek to present himself as that, and I think maybe The Beast from the Sea will claim to be YHWH in some way.  But that doesn't make their claim true.  Remember that the Israelites identified the Golden Calf with YHWH.

Now it's true that Satan's New Testament depiction as the Archon of the Kosmos and God of this Aion can make it seem like New Testament Satan has a lot of Authority YHWH claimed for himself directly in the Hebrew Bible, when he calls himself the God of the Earth, the Lord of the Whole Earth and the Judge of the Earth.  But Daniel 10 shows us that each Nation has it's own Prince.  And the Hebrew word for Earth in those verses is sometimes used of specifically the Land of Israel.

I haven't watched all the material on this YouTube Channel yet, but I've watched hours of it. I definitely got the gist of how this argument goes.  From what I've seen though he hasn't mentioned Revelation besides chapter 13, and never Daniel.  My researching how to respond to his argument is kind of what caused to me to make some recent Revelation 11 observations.

Daniel could be interesting to his theory, since it only uses the name of YHWH in chapter 9 when Daniel is reading Jeremiah.  It's never used by the Angels who speak to Daniel or at all in the Aramaic chapters.  And only Daniel uses the names Michael and Gabriel for angels, which The New Testament also uses.  He could try to connect Daniel 7 to Hosea 13 being the fourth Beast is Ephraim, the subject of Hosea in that passage.

However, I think it's possible that Michael is The Angel of Yahuah.  Which would not be very compatible with his arguments.

Greek words that are viewed as Gnostic

Accusations of the New Testament being Gnostic or influenced by Gnosticism, or even just the Proto-Gnostic ideas of Philosophers like Plato and Philo.  Mostly come down to the New Testament using some key Greek words that the Gnostics also liked to use.  Even though they are all Greek words or at least roots that existed in the Greek lexicon before Plato.

This post is primarily a response to how this accusation is made with the intent of saying the New Testament is theologically inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible, especially The Torah.  If you want to argue that the Hebrew Bible presents a Gnostic cosmology, or is in some way consistent with interpreting the New Testament that way, (and that maybe the Greek philosophers were influenced by Hebrew ideas), we can have that discussion in the future.  This post is primarily to argue against the notion that these words make the New Testament philosophically Greek in exclusion or contrast to being Hebrew.

And even if you're not interested in that debate, it can be edifying to look into what Old Testament passages help us understand certain New Testament subjects.

Every Gnostic word that the New Testament uses has a Hebrew word that is equivalent and I feel can be shown is used in a similar way.  The New Testament does not use the words Demiurge or Ialdobath.  And Paul in Romans uses "Para Phusis" a term coined by Plato, in a way ultimately intended to refute the Platonic Philosophy behind it.

The most important is probably Logos, the Remember The Commands YouTube channel did an entire video about the Logos.

There are at least two Hebrew words Logos is used to translate in the Septuagint, though Rhema is also used for both those same words.  Dabar and Memra.  In my opinion a more coherent translation would just use Rhema for Memra and Logos for Dabar.  [Correction: Apparently Memra/Memar/Mamar is an Aramaic word appearing only in parts of the Scripture where Aramaic words appear, like Daniel 2-7. Imrah is what works better as the Hebrew equivalent of Rhema.  But Memra does seem to come from the same root as Imrah.]

Genesis 15 begins with "The Dabar of Yahuah came unto Abram" and it's in this chapter that Yahuah on His own performs the covenant ritual.  So this is a strong argument for Dabar being used of a very tangible manifestation of God, even though what it means is word or speech.  This is probably the basis for Philo identifying the Logos with the Angel of The LORD, since Malak in Hebrew and Angelos in Greek mean messenger or message, Malak and Dabar could be treated as synonyms.  The Dabar of Yahuah appears throughout the Prophets also and in Psalm 33:4 which has been called a key to understanding the beginning of John's Gospel.  Still I don't want this argument to be viewed as dependent on identifying the Word with the Angel of The LORD.

I think perhaps a better English translation of both Dabar and Logos would be Expression.  This came to me as I was thinking of making an analogy out of how artists sometimes use the word Voice.  Literally it means the sounds produced by our voice boxes via our mouths.  But artists speak of their Voice in the sense of how they best express themselves, as an aspect of who they are.  The Word of God is also the Expression of who God is, and Yeshua/Jesus is the ultimate Expression of who God is.  Now defining things that way too much can became a gateway to Modalism, which I do not support.  But I do think that is best translation of the word.

The Greek philosophical idea of The Logos as a "world permeating intelligence" is not really implied in any of John's usage of the word.  I also disagree with those who translate it The Logic.

A number of scholars have written on how John's Logos is distinct from Philo, you'll find a few different results just googling it.

Sophia is a grammatically feminine Greek word for Wisdom.  The New Testament basis for seeing Sophia as a being or spirit of some sort is mainly when Jesus said "Sophia is justified of her children" in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. 

The book of Proverbs (particularly chapter 8) repeatedly talks about Wisdom as if Wisdom is an entity or person of some sort (even telling us to call her Sister), and uses feminine pronouns for her.  More then three different Hebrew words are translated Wisdom in the KJV of Proverbs, most are grammatically feminine.  Some like Chuck Missler interpret the Wisdom of Proverbs to be Jesus, and I'm fine with that given my arguments for Jesus having female types in the TNAK in relation to the Song of Songs.

But Theophilus of Antioch makes what is considered the first Extra-Biblical reference to the Trinity, and refers to it as the Father, the Logos and Sophia.  New Testament support for identifying Sophia with the Holy Spirit would include Acts 3:3&10, Ephesians 1:17, James 3:17 and 2 Peter 3:15.  The only support for directly identifying Wisdom with Jesus is 1 Corinthians 1:30, but the context makes that not likely to be this same personified Wisdom, and either way Jesus had The Holy Spirit with Him during The Incarnation.

Isaiah 11:2 uses two of the words for Wisdom that Proverbs does and other feminine words with comparable meanings.  And is often considered necessary to understand the Seven Spirits of God in Revelation, tied to the Seven Horns of the Arnion(Lamb in the KJV).  Proverbs 8:14 uses the same words for Counsel and Understanding as Isaiah 11:2, and the word for Strength in the KJV of Proverbs 8:14 is Might in Isaiah 11:2.

Of the Hebrew words in question, Chokmah is considered the most likely to be the direct basis for Sophia.  And it is used of a Spirit in The Pentateuch twice, in Exodus 28:3 and Deuteronomy 34:9, and associated with the Spirit of God twice in Exodus 31:3 and 35:31., those verses use the same word for knowledge that Isaiah 11:2 does as well.  Deuteronomy 4:6 also pairs Wisdom and Understanding together in a similar way to Isaiah 11:2.

Pleroma is a Greek word that Paul is accused of using in it's Gnostic sense in Colossians 2:9 where the KJV translates it fulness.  This verse was already discussed in my Godhead post.  Paul also used Pleroma in Romans 11 where it's often viewed as a Greek translation of what Jacob says of Ephraim in Genesis 48 that the KJV renders "Multitude of Nations", and the Hebrew word there based on how it's used elsewhere can be argued to mean "fullness" rather then "multitude".

The Gnostic meaning of Pleroma is mostly as a synonym for Heaven or the Divine Realm.  No New Testament author uses it that way.

In fact it seems the first Gnostic usage of Pleorma was Valentinius quoting this quote of Paul for his own purposes.  So no, Paul's usage of the term is not evidence he was influenced by Gnosticism.

However Aion is the hardest Greek word to assert the New Testament uses the same way the Gnostics used it.  Aions to the Gnostics are a class of divine beings, similar to the Hitorigami and/or Kamiyonanayo in Shintoism.  The New Testament clearly uses it to translate the Hebrew Olam, which means Age or Eon but sometimes gets wrongly translated world, forever, eternal or everlasting.

Paraclete is a word that I know at least one Gnostic used, Mani.   In the New Testament only John uses it, most famously of the Holy Spirit but also of Jesus, the Advocate of 1 John 2:1.  It means Comforter.  From what I've read it apparently isn't used in the Septuagint, but I feel it should have been, it is a perfectly valid Greek translation of Nachem and Menachem/Menahem.  The Talmud quotes Lamentations as a basis for using Menahem as a name for The Messiah, and as such is used in the Sefer Zerubabel.

It's possible that Mani himself saw Paraclete as equivalent to Menahem and that he took the name Mani as a shortened form of that Hebrew name.  Noah and Menoah are other Hebrew names based on the same root.

The idea of God as Father is not accused of being particularly Gnostic, but has been accused by some of being not Jewish.  Here is a WordPress post about God as Father in the Old Testament.

Hypsistos is the Greek translation of Elyon, The Most High/Highest.

Monad doesn't seem to be accused of being used in a Gnostic way in the New Testament, either way it's Hebrew equivalent is Eched. In general though the idea behind calling God a title based on how old and ancient He is or being the first thing that existed, like Arche, has a basis in the title Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.  Daniel 7 also provides the main Old Testament basis for Son of Man as a Messianic Title.

Kosmos is the most difficult Greek word to find a Hebrew equivalent for, and ironically is not particularly Gnostic, Gnostics used it I'm sure but it's not one people act like should be ringing Gnostic alarm bells every time you see it.  Erets and Adamah equate to Ge/Gaea and Chthon in Greek, and Olam=Aion as I went over already.  Tebel is another word translated world, but also does not seem to include outer space/the sky/heavens the way Kosmos does, or maybe Kosmos did not originally include all that as it does in how we use Cosmos now? Tebel seems like the best bet.

There are no shortage of Hebrew words that Archon could equate to.  Arca, the root it comes from that gets translated "principalites", no doubt equates to the use of Sar in Daniel 10 and 12.  And that use of Sar I think is also the basis for calling Michael the Archangel.  So Archon could also be a type of Sar, or of others words for ruler.

Satan is depicted as the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 and the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, and the Pharaoh of Mizraim is called the Great Dragon in Ezekiel 29.  So there is some Old Testament basis for the New Testament's depiction of Satan as ruling the world.

Kosmokrator is a word that the Gnostics might have used as a synonym for Archon of the Kosmos.  Paul in Ephesians 6 uses this word in Plural form and that's the only place the New Testament uses it.  It's been my hunch in the past that the Kosmokrators are Angels ruling stars, while the Principalities and Powers rule nations and regions on earth.  I may have to abandon that in light of recent theories of mine, but maybe not.

Update February 9th 2018:  David Vose, who I mentioned in my post on The Serpent, is teaching a Gnostic Interpretation of The Bible but also combining it with a lot of Ancient Aliens type stuff.

So in addition to words that are more commonly labeled Gnostic, he's gone and used just more general Greek Mythology linked terms as evidence The New Testament was using more then the Hebrew Bible or even other Jewish texts as it's theological and cosmological source material.

Tartaros is the first such name he sites, that name appears only in II Peter 2.  Tartaros is either a synonym for Hades/Sheol, or it's a specific part of Hades/Sheol, or it's the Abyss/Bottomless Pit (the last two options could go together) the third option is most likely.  I've learned that in II Peter the word is used as a verb, so I now translate kata-tartara as "cast down".

Abusous from which comes the word Abyss, and is translated "Bottomless" in the phrase "Bottomless Pit", also gets translated Deep in Luke 8:31 and Romans 10:7.  It is the Great Deep (Tehom) of the Hebrew Bible, from which came the Flood Waters.  And the equivalent word for Pit (Phrear) would be in Hebrew (bowr) used in places like Isaiah 14:15.

The name Abaddon from Revelation 9:11 also appears in the Hebrew Bible, Strong Number 11.  Though it is seemingly being used of a location rather then a personage.  How it's used there could be equivalent to the Greek Apoleia in the New Testament, often translated Perdition, Destruction or Damnation.  Like in the phrase "Son of Perdition" or "the Beast the ascends out of the Bottomless Pit and goes into Perdition".

Then there is the Hebrew word Shachath which gets translated both Pit and Destruction.

Vose also claims the New Testament refers to the Titans being cast into Tartaros.  The word Titan isn't used in the New Testament, but again if he's referring to II Peter 2 and Jude 6, many see that as about Genesis 6 though I think it could be about Korah's rebellion which I talked about in my post The Nephilim and the Sons of God, where I also talk about the Rephaim.

Satan being cast into the Abyss in the future has an Old Testament precedent in Isaiah 14:15.

Is Yahuah described the same as Leviathan?

So I've been watching some stuff from people saying the YHWH of the Old Testament is Satan.  I've done so open mindedly and there are arguments they've made that I don't know how to answer yet.  I don't think I'm likely to be convinced of it though based on what I read in 2 Peter today.

Right now there is one minor factor of it I feel like addressing.  A claim that a description of Yahuah in 2nd Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 is basically the same as Leviathan in Job 41.

First of all.  The parallel is more in what they do then of what they look like, no Reptilian/Serpentine features or Coiling is in David's description.

Second, the YouTube videos mentioning this start reading at verse 6 in the Psalm and verse 7 in Samuel.  The context setting this up they skip is that David is calling upon Yahuah because he's already under attack by forces from Sheol.  Sheol and Saul being spelled the same in Hebrew could be a deliberate word play here, but either way Yahauh may not be the only supernatural entity David is seeing.

Yahuah is described as being in his "Temple" and in the Heavens, but there is also language making it sound like something might be coming up from beneath.

Third, Yahuah is riding a Cherub in verse 10 of the Psalm and 11 in Samuel.  There are four Cherubim around The Throne, and Satan is described as the Cherub that Covereth.  So what's described here need not be the only thing that can be described that way.

Also the identification of Leviathan with Satan is complicated.  In Job I still firmly believe both Behemoth and Leviathan are normal animals Job is being shown, probably ones we would today call Dinosaurs.  That word being used symbolically or poetically of Satan in Isaiah 27 or Psalm 74:14 is the same as Satan being represented as a Bird in the Kingdom Parables.

Psalm 104:26 may also be of just the animal.  Job 3:8 (where it's translated "mourning" in the KJV) may be using it as the name of a Constellation, possibly the same one called the Crooked Serpent in Job 26:13.

The Nephilim and the Sons of God

I had opposed the Sethite view for a long time.  My last major post on the Nephilim issue on my Prophecy Blog, The Sethite View and the Nephilim, was me still viewing the Nephilim and BeniElohim as fallen angels but arguing it doesn't actually depict any Hybridization.  An argument that was maybe a little convoluted.

First I want to advise fellow critics of the Hybrid view to stop making bad arguments.  What Jesus said about Marriage and the Resurrection in Matthew 22 had a specific purpose, I do still believe we will be having sex in the Resurrection because it's the Restoration of before the Fall.  The Marriage that is done away with is the patriarchal marriage of Genesis 3.  And nothing in Hebrews 1 proves Angels can't be called Sons of God, the key word in that verse is begotten, only Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

Calling this view the "Sethite view" does it a disservice because it makes it sound like it's the Racist view, when what made me grow more and more uncomfortable with the Hybride view is how it is constantly tied into racist beliefs.  The real point of the Sethite view reaffirms how spiritual intermarriage is the only mixed marriage Yahuah truly objects to.  Now it may have so happened that the peoples descended from Enosh may have been most likely to be followers of Yahuah in the Pre-Flood world, like how it was Israel Post-Flood, but that is not the actual point.

I get annoyed when people like Chuck Missler say that the end of Genesis 4 where it says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuah" it actually says "profane the name of Yahuah" in the Hebrew.  Because this is actually the exact same Hebrew phraseology used when Abraham called upon the Name of Yahuah at Shechem and Bethel in Genesis 12.  If this "Profane" interpretation began among the Rabbis, it was probably a product of their Non-Biblical idea that you aren't supposed to pronounce the Name of Yahuah, that verbally saying it at all profanes it.  And it's the same wording used in Joel 2, quoted by Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Romans 10 for saying that All who Call upon The Name of Yahuah shall be Saved.

The Bible definitely describes Gigantic people in certain narratives, but no word used in Genesis 6 or any other Pre-Flood narrative actually means that.  We don't need supernatural hybridization to make that happen, I think this ancient Gigantism, distinct from the modern known condition, was simply a natural part of Noah's genetic potential that has been lost.  But perhaps sometimes was triggered by cross breeding similar to why Lygers get so big.

Nephilim is a word used only three times in all of Scripture, in two passages, Genesis 6 and Numbers 13.  The problem is using Numbers 13 to help us define the word has a major problem.

In Numbers 13:21-25, the narrative voice describes the Anakim and it never calls them Nephilim or describes them as Gigantic.  Numbers 13:27-29 is the first description of the Anakim and others in Canaan the spies give, and still not yet called Nephilim or gigantic.

Caleb's good report comes next, and he doesn't use the word Nephilim or talk about giants.  Then comes Numbers 13:31-33.  In verse 32 the narrator says "and they gave an evil report of the land they had searched".  The Hebrew word translated "evil report" is also sometimes translated "defaming" and "slander", like in Numbers 14:36 referencing back to this report saying it was a slander.

It is this report that first talks about the Anakim having great stature and in verse 33 twice uses the word Nephilim.  What they are saying is not accurate, they are exaggerating, and may have themselves not been using this word correctly.  And this passage is probably the reason translations starting with the Septuagint translated it Giants.

Deuteronomy 1:27-28 is again referencing back to this evil report.  Deuteronomy 2:10 calls the Anakim tall, but Saul was also tall compared to most Israelites.  Verse 11 says that Emims like the Anakim were "accounted" Rephaim, this word for accounted is also translated esteemed, reckoned, and even imagined.  It is again describing a belief that may not be true.  Verse 20 again talks about them being "accounted' Rephaim.  Verse 21 again calls the Anakim tall, but nothing more.  Deuteronomy 9:2 again simply calls the Anakim tall while referencing back to the evil report.

The first time the Anakim are mentioned in Joshua is in 11:21-22, where there is no mention of them being large in size, or Nephilim or Rephaim.  Joshua 14:12-15 again references the evil report but without talking about Giants.    Joshua 15:13-14 again mentioned the Anakim but no gigantic size.  Joshua 21:11 and Judges 1:20 are the last two references to the Anakim and they are again not called Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.

The word Rephaim is also the name of a location in Israel, and sometimes gets translated "giants" even when referring to that location.  The Rephaim as a group of people are first mentioned in Genesis 14 and 15.

The remaining references to the Rephaim are in Deuteronomy 3:11, Joshua 12:4, and 13:12.  Which all call Og the king of Bashan the remnant or all the remains of the Rephaim.  Og was defeated and killed by Israel in the time of Moses, well before the Anakim were in the time of Joshua.  So if Og was the last of the Rephaim, then this repeatedly recorded belief that the Anakim were Rephaim must be wrong.

And it also proves the word Rephaim doesn't mean Giant because Goliath came later and he's never called a Rephaim, neither are his brothers.   If Rephaim means giant then Goliath's existence creates a contradiction.

The term BeniElohim, translated "Sons of God", only appears in Genesis 6 and Job in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.  Many Christians on this issue have argued the idea of believers being Sons of God isn't introduced until the New Testament in John 1.  And that Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God is different because Adam was a "direct creation of God".  The problem is that the debate about if this term refers to angels or humans or both and if so when forgets that more verses are relevant to this issue then just those that use that exact phrase.

Exodus 4:22-23 Yahuah says to Pharaoh "Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.".   Deuteronomy 14:1 says "Ye are the children of Yahuah your God", the word for children being Ben.

In the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts...

"When the Highest divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.  For Yahuah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.". 

A DSS manuscript of this verse however says BeniElohim instead of "sons of Israel", which has lead many scholars to insist that must be the original and tie it into Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6 to create an idea that Elyon divided the 70 nations of Genesis 10 between 70 divine/angelic Principalities.  However, whatever is the original maybe the copyist who changed it simply felt "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" meant the same thing?  When Jacob came into Mizraim his family was 70, and in Numbers 11 we see another 70 for Israel.  Jesus had His 70 Disciples also.  Deuteronomy foretells Israel to be scattered to all the nations.  And Romans 11 tells us the fullness of the gentiles will be grafted into Israel.

Psalm 82:6, a verse Jesus quoted, says "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Highest.".  This is a Psalm of Asaph, and it sounds like it's referencing back to something.  When Jesus quotes it He attributes it to The Torah.

Also in the Book of Hosea, just read 1:10 and 11:1.  In the latter Yahuah called Israel collectively His Son singular.  But in the former he says the children of Israel are sons of the living God, present tense.

In II Samuel 7:14 Yahuah through Nathan tells David that Solomon will be His Son and He will be Solomon's Father.  And eventually Solomon's great failing in 1 Kings 11 is tied to exactly what Sethite View proponents think the Sons of God did wrong in Genesis 6.

Ezekiel 16 begins by speaking of Israel as Yahuah's adopted daughter.

Malachi chapter 3 warns against marrying the Daughter of a Strange god. If the followers of strange gods are refereed to as their children, then clearly the followers of Yahuah are His children as well.

Even what's said in John 1 is not contradicting that believers already were God's Children.  It says The Word came unto "His Own" and "His own received Him not" and then He gave others the ability to become Sons of God.   The implication is that "His Own" were Sons of God already, or were supposed to be anyway.

Job provides the only place where the Hebrew term "BeniElohim" is used in a way where it seems impossible to say it's human believers and not Angels.  And it's not even at the beginning, one could argue those are deceased believers in Heaven, or that this takes place in the congregation of an Earthly Mishkan, which is repeatedly refereed to as the Presence of Yahuah, as well as of Eden when Cain left it in Genesis 4.  Ezekiel 28 tells us Satan was in the Garden of God and the Mountain of God (a term used only of Sinai), and because of the stones mentioned maybe implies he was the High Priest of that Mishkan.

It's the reference to BeniElohim and Morning Stars singing and shouting for joy when the foundations of the Earth were laid, in 38:4-7.  Which then gets cross referenced with other precedent for calling Angels stars.

Thing is, Job unlike Deuteronomy and Psalm 82 isn't quoted by Jesus in the New Testament.  But even with viewing it as God's Word it could still be viewed as a poetic narrative or parable and not literal history.  And maybe how all these things said in Job 38 connect to each other is being misunderstood.  In Revelation 2:28 Jesus says He will give the Morning Star to the over-comer.  And Job 38:6 refers to The Corner Stone, something everywhere else we know is a title of Christ, so God could have been speaking Prophetically.  And then there is the theory many Nephilim theorists like that the Great Pyramid was a Pre-Flood monument built by Sethites and the Corner Stone was it's Capstone.  Verse 7 does seem to be about the Flood.

What Nebuchadnezzar says of the Angel who appeared in the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3 also gets cited.  This is an Aramaic term (that should be translated sons of the gods, plural) being used by a Pagan Gentile King who didn't became properly a believer till chapter 4.  It's definitely not for building doctrine.  (But also this scene is commonly viewed as a Theophany, this is The Angel of Yahuah, The Word of God, not a common ordinary Angel.)

And that Pagan belief is why Skeptics agree with the Hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 (they just don't think it actually happened) because they're seeing it in the context of how the Pagan texts of Ugarit called the gods of their pantheon the sons of El their chief god, and one at least says there were 70.  Actual Believers should be resisting that Pagan interpretation of the text rather then embracing it.

But perhaps it's disingenuous to use external sources or even later Torah verses to interpret Genesis 6 either way.  Let's think about what this term likely meant in the context of reading through Genesis blind chronologically.  The only prior precedent for something like Angels are the Cherubim and maybe the Serpent, none of them are in any way called sons of Elohim.

But when Eve gave birth to Seth near the end of Genesis 4, Seth is called a Son and then Eve says that Elohim appointed her another seed.  Seth is called at his introduction a Son as well as from Elohim. (Additionally Genesis 4:1 could be read as saying Yahuah is a co-father of Cain in some way.)  Even if I acquiesced to the Skeptics who think this text was originally written from a Pagan viewpoint, the ancient Pagans often didn't view the idea of having a Human father and a Divine father as contradictory, Alexander didn't think of it as denying Philip as his father when he claimed to be the Son of Zeus-Amon, Herakles was still heir to his father's royal line, and Oedipus was called a Son of Helios even though his story is built around him being the son of Laius.  So there is both a Pagan and a Monotheistic justification for reading that verse as proclaiming Seth a son of Elohim.  Also God-Human Hybrids (or Demigods) were mainly a Greek concept in antiquity, I've found no solid evidence of Near Eastern, Mesoptamian or Egyptian belief in similar Divine-Human Hybrids.

However maybe Genesis shouldn't be interpreted so independently. The first 5 books of The Bible are called the "books of Moses", but only 4 are directly about Moses.  Perhaps Genesis is meant to be looked at as a Prequel, and everything in it should be interpreted in terms of how it anticipates, foreshadows and sets the stage for the Mosaic narrative.  As a long time Star Wars Prequel Trilogy apologist and more recently a fan of Fate/Zero, I feel uniquely qualified to analyze Genesis as a Prequel.

In which case there is nothing in Exodus-Deuteronomy defining Angels as Sons of God, but plenty of precedent for believers being sons of Yahuah which I already cited above.  And there is no narrative from Moses time about Angels interbreeding with Humans, but a number of passages about the danger of Yahuah's people marrying those who serve other gods.  Numbers 25:1 even says "daughters of Moab" in a way that parallels "daughters of Adam".  In fact later parts of Genesis say "daughters of Canaan", "daughters of the Canaanites", and "daughters of Heth" talking about the same issue.  And beyond the Torah, Judges 14 uses "daughters of the philistines".

When defending the genealogies of Jesus, we love to point out how in the Hebrew mindset you can be called the Son of anyone your parents descended from.  So Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God absolutely proves Humans can be called sons of God.  But during this mortal life non believers are currently estranged children, I of course believe God intends to bring everyone back in eventually, but it's us believers who already are.

The main reason lots of Christians have supported the Hybrid view is the apparent New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude.  Even though offspring of these "rebel angels' are not refereed to in those verses.

2 Peter 2:4 and 5 are possibly not even about the same thing.  Verse 4 could seemingly be describing Dathan and Korah's rebellion.

Jude verses 6 and 7 are viewed as comparing the Genesis 6 incident to Sodom and Gomorrah.  In my past studies on what Jude says about Sodom, I said both these incidents are about lust between angels and humans, emphasizing how "strange" in strange flesh means different, alien, foreign, ect.  But now I recall how my greater point about the Sin of Sodom is how Ezekiel and Jesus define it has being inhospitable to foreigners.  I should have realized sooner that Jude's intent was to condemn them for their desire to rape foreigners traveling through them. 

Jude mentioned Korah in verse 11, could it be this is all connected and he was also thinking of that incident in verse 6?  Verse 5 seems to set up the context as after the Exodus.  And you can't object to Jude then going backwards chronologically when he mentions Sodom in verse 7 because verse 11 also listed the people it refers to out of their chronological order.

Chuck Missler makes a thing out of a rarely used word for Habitation in Jude 11.  Paul's use of Oiketerion in 1 Corinthians 5:5 follows a reference to the Tabernacle in verse 1.  Thing is, Mishkan also means Habitation, Dathan and Korah created their own Tabernacle that their followers chose over the Tabernacle of Moses and Aaron.

I think the Greek root normally translated Tabernacle in the KJV is the Greek equivalent to Ohel, since it literally means Tent and is used of both the Mishkan and the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7.  I think Oiketerion should be viewed as the proper Greek equivalent of Mishkan.  A number of OT verses use Ohel and Mishkan interchangeably.

In the past I've argued Nephilim means Fallen Ones because it comes from Naphal meaning fall.  And viewed that as supporting it being of Fallen Angels because of Isaiah 14:12's use of Naphal.  But believers can also "fall away" or "fall from grace".  Maybe Nephilim originally meant Apostates or Apostasy?  It is often said that Apostasy is the theme of Jude.  Numbers 14:43 is also considered relevant to the issue of Apostasy, being possibly drawn on in Hebrews 6, and it uses Naphal.

Now in Number 13:33 it could be a wrong understanding of the word already existed, again we are told not to trust that account.  But hypothetically if at least that word was used accurately, there are ways one could argue the Anakim were Apostates, maybe people who once followed Melchizedek and then fell away and traveled south towards Hebron. 

Rob Skiba has attempted to make a point for his peculiar view by saying the second use of Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 is spelled the same as in Genesis 6 but the first use is different.  Hence him arguing these Nephilim came from the Genesis 6 Nephilim.  In the view I've proposed here, it could be these contemporary Anakim were not technically Apostates, but being called something similar because they descended from Apostates. Or more simply I could translate it "Apostates of the Apostasy".

The Enochian literature is all influenced by Greek mythological and philosophical ideas.  I've been arguing against viewing such apocryphal literature as canon since way back when I did still believe in Angel-Human Hybrids.  Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of them predate Greek influence.

But what's annoying is how people act like Apocryphal literature is universal in taking the Hybrid view.  The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is one example of a text that clearly depicts the Sethite view.  The Book of the Cave of Treasures is an older Syriac version of the same story that one tells.

But what really surprised me was to find that Rob Skiba's own precious Book of Jasher supports the Sethite view.  Jasher chapter 4 verses 16-18, is clearly that book's version of Genesis 6.  Jasher chapter 3 verse 23 does use "Sons of God" seemingly of Angels in heaven, but this is unrelated to anything like the Genesis 6 account.  In chapter 4 it's clear that the people who's corruption is linked to marrying "daughters of men" are the men of Seth's clan who this chapter is chronicling. 

Jubilees chapter 5 I think could be interpreted as supporting either view, so I'm not gonna go into it.  It uses the word Angel but again that can be used of human believers. 

I've heard it claimed the Septuagint uses the word Angel in Genesis 6 which Hybrid view supporters point to, but the texts I've seen do not, either way the word can be used of human believers since it means messenger.

The Septuagint's main role in how views on this developed is in translating Nephilim as Gigantes, which is the origin of it being translated Giants, the English word Giant comes from Gigantes.  What the Gigantes were originally in Greek mythology however was not even partly human, they were siblings of the Titans.

Which interpretation is older is irrelevant to which one is true.  But regardless the Angel view can't be proven to exist before the time of Alexander bringing Greek influence to Judea.

The idea that Genetic Impurity was the reason for The Flood is what makes it the inherently Racist view.  The only intermarriage The Torah truly opposes is Spiritual intermarriage.  Malachi who is affirmed as a Prophet by the New Testament said it was marrying the daughter of a strange god Yahuah objected to.

Many Racists will use the Sethite view of course. Especially since the most blatantly racist Christians I've found online aren't even Young Earth Creationists and believe the first mixed marriage was Cain and his Wife who they wrongly claim didn't descend from Adam.

And what I'd say in a debate with them, is that if biological intermarriage was the point why did God describe it in Spiritual terms that made this confusion inevitable?  If their version of the Sethite view was the intent it would have just said Sons of Seth or Sons of Enosh.  But if the Hybrid view was true, it would have simply said Angels or just said Elohim which is already plural and sometimes used of Angels and thus not needed the "sons of" part.

In Genesis 6:11 the reason for the Flood is defined as being that the Earth was filled with Violence.  The word translated "corrupt" there is also a word often associated with warfare, being also translated things like perish and spoiler.  Verse 12 says man corrupted His way upon the Earth. 

And this emphasis on violence is also consistent with the first 4 verses of chapter 6 because the word translated "mighty men" in the KJV is gibborim, which also gets accused of being a word for Giant, but what it means is warrior.  It's sometimes used of good warriors in The Bible like David's Mighty Men, and  is used of the first Warrior King Nimrod.  But in this context it's about the world becoming filled with violence.

Also Genesis 6:4 calls them "Enosh of renown" which in a Pre-flood context I feel verifies they paternally descended from Enosh, since tribal identity in The Bible is usually identified by the father's line.

And the book of Jasher's interpretation of this situation of Sethites taking daughters of men is describing those daughters of men as spoils of war.  And even Hybrid view supporters have pointed out that the language in Genesis 6:1-4 can be interpreted as implying the daughters of Adam were taken by force.

The line of Cain was also associated with Violence. From Cain being the first murderer, to whatever Lamech did.  To Tubal-Cain's clan being perhaps the world's first weapons manufacturers.

The New Testament says Noah preached repentance, you can't repent of being born a hybrid, but you can repent of living by the sword.

Now you may object that I've made two different thematic connections, a connection to the theme of foreign pagan women leading Israelites astray, and women being raped as spoils of war.  But I'd argue those themes do go together.

The main obvious Torah example of the foreign women theme is what happened with the Moabite women because of Balaam.  People forget that happened after Israel had just been militarily victorious over Moab.  And Solomon's many wives also came mostly from nations David had conquered, and chronologically Rehoboam's Ammonite mother he was married to while David still lived.

Taking women as spoils of war can lead to unwanted foreign cultural influence.  To a moderner that's not the actual reason to morally object to the practice, and I'm sure God agrees.  But when writing people a religious guide book unintended consequences are what people are more likely to listen to.

The Tabernacle and The Temple

So another issue that comes up when dealing with Torah only and Torah centric teachers is the distinction between Temple and Tabernacle.  How the very existence of Solomon's Temple violates their interpretation of The Torah.

2 Samuel 7 agrees entirely that a Temple like what David wanted to build was not originally God's Plan for Israel.  And I frankly feel I can consider the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles and even Ezra-Nehemiah to be God's Word while considering that Yahuah didn't approve of this Monarchical system as much as people assume.

What I want to talk about is how maybe, even leaving aside the doctrine of The Church now being God's Temple, the Eschatological Temple envisioned by the Prophets of the TNAK and New Testament really is a Tabernacle not a Temple like what Solomon built.

I could talk about how in the Hebrew and Greek there is more then one word translated Temple.  And I will to an extent.  But more importantly is that in English at least 2 Samuel 7 uses no word for Temple to describe what makes David's intended project unlike God's original plan for Israel. Therefore there is no reason to assume either would be inaccurate to use to describe The Tabernacle.  Words for Temple tend to just mean a place for worship.

The word Ezekiel uses every time you see Temple in the KJV including in chapters 40-48.  Is used of the Tabernacle at Shiloh in 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3.  This word isn't used in The Torah, but also isn't used in 2 Samuel 7.  It's maybe if anything more difficult etymologically to argue can refer to a Tent or outdoor shrine, and yet in Samuel it clearly is used of the Tabernacle.  Some people think the use of this word means a fence of some type was built around the Tabernacle at Shiloh, but that's conjecture.

The same word seems to in other places be used of palaces, like of King's Palaces in verses like Psalm 45:15.  Remember however that Yahuah was supposed to be Israel's King (Deuteronomy 33 calls Him King in Jashurum), and the Holy of Holies is treated like His Throne Room. This word is also used in Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 about an event from when David was fleeing from Saul.

The other Hebrew word for Temple is also translated House, and as such is used in The Torah and 2 Samuel 7.  It is the word that the name Beth-El comes from, meaning House of God.  The Tabernacle is called "The House of Yahuah thy God" in The Torah, in Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 23:18.  And later Joshua 6:24 also calls it the House of Yahuah, and so does Judges 19:18, and again in 1 Samuel 1 and 3, and 2 Samuel 12:20 (when David still hadn't even bought Moriah from Ornan yet).

In that sense, it seems odd for 2 Samuel 7:6 to have Yahuah say He hasn't dwelt in any House since He brought Israel out of Mizraim.  The context was David's comments about a House of Cedar in contrast to Curtains, so the context here is using House more distinctly then it might normally be used, of a House made of Wood or Stone and not a Tent. (I can't help but notice the implication that maybe He did before, perhaps He had a House on Mt Sinai?)

A Hebrew word not translated Temple in the KJV but that possibly is in other translations is Mikadesh, derived from Kadesh. The KJV most commonly translates it Sanctuary.  It is very much used of both The Tabernacle (including in The Torah), Solomon's Temple (in Chronicles but not Samuel-Kings curiously), and Ezekiel's Temple.

Some of the Prophetic references do say Tabernacle rather then either of these words for Temple.  Isaiah 16:5 and 33:20, Ezekiel 37:27 and 41:1, and Amos 9:11, that a few of these say specifically of David I find interesting, since David's Tabernacle was in Zion, not where Solomon's Temple was.  (I have pointed out some misconceptions about where Zion which is The City of David was located.)  Though only Ezekiel 37:27 in the Hebrew is Mishkan. But Ohel is the word that most literally means Tent.  In Exodus 26:7 Ohel is translated covering, as if the Ohel is the Tent itself and the Mishkan the whole structure, or what's inside the Tent.  So Ezekiel 41:1 says this future "Temple" will have a Tent.  Amos 9:11 is quoted in the New Testament in Acts 15.

Places where Mishkan is translated something other then Tabernacle include Psalm 132:5 which I think is about David's Tabernacle on Zion where it is rendered Habitation.  But also interestingly 2 Chronicles 29:6, also Habitation, which seems to be using it of Solomon's Temple.  Psalm 74, a Psalm of Asaph, uses it in verse 7 where it is translated "dwelling place".

Outside The Torah the word Mishkan is used in plural form a few times, but in The Torah the only time it's used in a plural form is Numbers 24:5.

In The New Testament. there is only one word (or rather all from the same root, Strong Numbers 4633-4638) for Tabernacle, it's used both in reference to the Feast of Sukkot and of the Tent of Meeting.  But this Greek word is also used as a verb, for Dwell.

What Stephen says in Acts 7:44-50 is interesting.

Everyone talks about Revelation 21-22 saying there is no Temple.  But overlook how Revelation 21:3 specifically calls New Jerusalem the Tabernacle of God.

A total of 3 Greek words are translated Temple in the KJV (and two verses in Corinthians that seem to use the word Temple without a direct basis in The Greek).  One of them is Temple in the KJV only once in Luke 11:51, it's usually translated House.

Naos is the word used in Revelation, and by Paul when constructing his doctrine of The Church being the Temple of God.  And it's the word used when Jesus refers to His Body as "This Temple".  Naos also gets translated Shrines in Acts 19:24 referring to Diana's.  Naos's usage outside of the New Testament leaves no doubt it can apply to outdoor shrines, like it's usage of the Egyptian Naos.  Stephen and Paul both use the plural of Naos when saying God doesn't dwell in Temples made by Human hands in Acts 7:48 and 17:24.  Paul also used Naos when referring to our bodies as the Temple of God, Peter expresses that same doctrine saying our bodies are the Tabernacle.

The third is Herion, which is a noun form of the Greek word for Holy, Heiros.  It coincidentally happens to resemble how the first part of Jerusalem is rendered in Greek.  That happens to fit though since Jerusalem is called God's Holy City, and it is where Solomon and Herod's Temples were located.  In Matthew 12:5 Jesus used Herion while citing The Torah, so He must have been using it of The Tabernacle, possibly the Hebrew term translated "Holy Place".

In the New Testament "Sanctuary" is Hagios/Hagion, derived from another Greek word for Holy.

In my Nephilim post I identify what I view as the Greek counterpart to Mishkan.