The Books of Chronicles versus Samuel and Kings

When it comes to skeptics looking for alleged Bible Contradictions, The Book (they were one book originally) of Chronicles providing an alternate account of the History of the Kingdom Period is perhaps second only to the parallel Gospel record.

I do feel there are no irreconcilable differences in terms of what the two accounts say happened. I've already talked about The Widow's Son and Jehosheba.  And the Genealogy of Rehoboam's Queen in a Song of Songs post.  As far as whether David used Silver or Gold to buy the land of the threshing floor, the accounts are specific in what they say, the Gold bought the land itself and the Silver everything on the land.

What my mind has been contemplating is a pretty clear thematic difference in point of view.  The Gospels have different things they emphasize, but never leading to the conclusion they are trying to send a totally different message.  With Chronicles it does sometimes seem that way.

We can view these as different points of view where one is less correct then the other, without completely rejecting either as part of God's Word.  It may be God wants us to know and learn from this other POV. 2 Timothy 2:15 talks about rightly dividing the word of truth.  We often talk about needing two witnesses to build doctrine, but don't fully think about the implications of when there isn't a confirming witness.

The first apparent example of this is the origin of the Samaritans.

2 Kings 17 tells us Assyria after deporting seemingly all of the Northern Kingdom settled some people from Northern Mesopotamia in their old land.  The newcomers worshiped their old idols which caused problems, then Assyria gives them a Priest of Jeroboam's Priesthood who teaches them to worship Jeroboam's Idols.  Later in 2 Kings 23:15 Josiah destroys the altar at Bethel which ends Idolatry in the region.  But the point still remains that the Samaritans descend from foreigners.

2 Chronicles does not contain it's own version of the 2 Kings 17 narratives, it does refer to Josiah destroying idols but doesn't single out Bethel.  However in chapter 30 we learn that some remnants of the northern kingdom's population were still there during the reign of Hezekiah who invited them to his Passover celebration.  Some mocked the invitation, but others accepted, with people of Manasseh and Ephraim being mentioned in both groups.  Now the text of 2 Chronicles isn't explicitly saying this is where the Samaritans come from, but the implication could to be they come from those who rejected it.

Now these accounts can both be perfectly true, in fact both being true fits best what the Assyrian inscriptions say, they didn't deport everyone just a lot, this policy was about mixing their population.

But the point is Kings and Chronicles choose different things to emphasize.  And on this thematic disagreement, the New Testament takes a side. 

When Jesus sent the 70 Disciples on their first training missionary mission, He tells them to go only to the Children of Israel and not Gentiles or Samaritans, showing he didn't count them as Israelites.  Later at the true Great Commission the Samaritans are included as are the gentiles.  (Ezra and Nehemiah also seem to confirm the Kings viewpoint.)  

[Update May 9th 2026: I've since changed my mind entirely about 2 Kings 17's relevance to the Samaritans.]

Matthew's genealogy uses the final form of the name of Salmon that Ruth uses, not Salma from 1 Chronicles 2.

One might argue Matthew not including King Manasseh among the generations skipped is an influence of Chronicles, since only Chronicles records his repentance, based on Kings alone you'd think he's the worst most irredeemable villain of the Kingdom Period.  Bur he's not the only Bad King who's name is still included.

And 1 Chronicles 2 may be the only basis for putting a Recab in David's genealogy (Matthew is not saying Rahab the Harlot married Salmon, her name is Raab in New Testament texts).  But that's about it for possible New Testament dependence on Chronicles, one genealogy which for at least one name is also going against Chronicles.

The only point where a New Testament author can be made to look like they're directly quoting  Chronicles, is really them and Chronicles quoting the same Davidic Psalm.  Of course that is true of apparent New Testament quotations of Samuel as well.  And the only NT quotes of Kings is of Elijah speaking.  Jesus quoted The Torah and Prophets (Acts 2 calls David a Prophet), but it can maybe be argued that the New Testament doesn't want us to take the histories in the Kingdom period books at entirely face value.

The Chronicles account is also responsible for much of the confusion about Tarshish.  The only verses making it sound like Tarshish was the destination of naval adventures from the Red Sea port are in 2 Chronicles in 9:21 and 20:36-37.  Their equivalent passages in 1 Kings 10:11&22 and 2 Kings 22:48 make clear that Ophir in Yemen was the destination, but the ships are called ships of Tarshish because they were modeled after Tarshish ships, possibly with cooperation from Tarshish.

This may not be entirely wrong, looking at things like how Native Americans became Indians, maybe at some point Israelites started calling this place Tarshish even though it really wasn't because that's what they called the ships they used to get there.  But Jonah makes clear that Tarshish is really accessed via the the Mediterranean port at Joppa. 

But this confusion has been useful for people who don't find the mainstream views of Tarshish romantic enough, wanting to make it Briton, or Atlantis, or India, or Japan, and I'd even contemplated making them the Olmecs in the past.  But I've abandoned those speculations now.

What's even more interesting is Solomon.  Chronicles has no equivalent to 1 Kings 11.  Which is the first of a few facts suggesting it has a generally more apologetic attitude towards Solomon.  And returning to the subject of the New Testament taking sides, I did a post on how the New Testament is rather dismissive of Solomon.

By leaving out the murder of Urias and including the repentance of Manasseh, Chronicles is arguably being more apologetic to the Davidic Kings in general.  But the moral point is David and Manasseh repented, Solomon never repented of his 1 Kings 11 sins.

1 Kings 4 tells us Solomon went to Sacrifice at the "Great High Place" at Gibeon, elsewhere Kings consistently refers to High Places as inherently bad. Many commentators on this say it shows God's mercy that he answers Solomon's prayer here in-spite of this, and I can't say I exactly disagree with that.

But when 2 Chronicles 1 records the same event, it also identifies Gibeon and calls it a High Place, but adds that this was where the Tabernacle of Moses was.  Other passages in the books of Chronicles further back up the Tabernacle being here for awhile.  But Samuel and Kings never place the Tabernacle at Gibeon, they don't contradict it being here at this time, and do earlier place it at Nob (in an event Jesus refers to) which is often speculated to be either close by or another name for the same place.  But the tone in Kings seems to be that Solomon was in error coming here, while Chronicles wants to justify it.  And Kings tells us Abiathar the priest who survived the Nob massacre lived at Anathoth, and that Abiathar later was working with Joab and Adonijah in their attempted coup, another story Chronicles leaves out.

In fact Samuel-Kings also links a Great Stone at Gibeon to Absalom and Amasa's rebellion.

Even if the physical Tabernacle built by Moses was there, it was violating the Torah itself by being on a High Place.  And also the Ark wasn't here, it was brought by David to first Zion and then Jerusalem.  Psalm 132 tells us David's Tabernacle was at Ephratha.

And then there is how only 2 Chronicles 3:1 applies the name of Moriah to where Ornan's threshing floor was and where Solomon's Temple was built.  Again this Moriah could be not the same hill as Genesis 22:2 and still not be wrong, Solomon may have given the name of Moriah to the hill to evoke that event.

Baptism and the Mikveh

One of the trends of the Hebrew Roots movement is to suggest a connection between New Testament Baptism and the Jewish Mikveh custom.  Thing is, even though I'm someone who wants to explain the New Testament via the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew culture as much as possible, I've been skeptical of this one.

For one, the Mikveh as it's traditionally thought of now is not very supported by the Hebrew Bible, it's mostly a Greco-Roman/Second Temple era development.  There is certainly no verse that uses the word Mikveh in a way that it would make sense to translate it Baptism or Baptize.  There are two Hebrew words sometimes translated wash, washed or bathe in verses cited as being Mikveh relevant.  Of those rachats is the one that I think would be used if the Hebrew Bible described something like Baptism, since it's meaning implies immersion, the other one to consider is kabac but that word is usually about washing cloths.

Secondly, the Mikveh as it had become by New Testament times was done in in-door or at least man made pools of water.  Baptism as presented in the New Testament is done in running water, in rivers.  Now one could say it fits the New Testament theme of rejecting institutionalized religion to move the Mikveh to an outdoor natural water source.  But that would need other evidence.

The Torah/TNAK basis for the Mikveh are all pretty much verses about ritual cleansing.  Which kind of does come up in the New Testament as a separate issue from Baptism, like when Jesus (seemingly) didn't wash his hands in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7.  

Of course another famous New Testament custom connected to this Hebrew word is Foot Washing, Torah references to Foot Washing also use rachats.

It seems the Mishna says the ritual cleansing related to the Red Heifer in Numbers 19 required running water and can't be done in a Mikveh.  But The Torah itself gives no such indication that it has stricter rules.

But even in Rabbinic and Modern Jewish sources, there are no references to Mikvehs being about Repentance as John's Baptism was.

There are two cited uses of the Mikveh that sound to Christians like they make it an attractive analogy for Baptism.  But neither of them have a basis in The Torah or any other part of the Hebrew Bible.

One is it being done as part of a gentile proselyte converting to Judaism.  That seems like what the Baptisms in Acts were all about.  But The Hebrew Bible doesn't call for it, rather the only ritual associated with an outsider becoming an Israelite is Circumcision.  Which of course brings us to the theory about Baptism the Hebrew Roots people hate, that it's meant to replace Circumcision.  Now I'm not convinced of that theory either, but I do believe Christians don't have to be Circumcised.

The other is a claim that it's done by a Bride some time between Espousal and the Wedding.  I could do a whole post on why I'm annoyed at Christians building doctrine on Extra-Biblical Jewish Wedding Customs.  But in this case, not only is this not Biblical but Wikipedia is unaware of it being one of the uses of the Mikveh at all, so this might be something some Christians just imagined.

Michael Rood likes to make it sound like the Israelites were "Mikvehed" in Exodus 19, during the preparation for the giving of The Law.  But actually only their cloths are refereed to as being washed there.

What I have noticed on my own while looking into this issue is that a ritual washing was part of consecrating Aaron and his sons as Priests in Exodus 29:4 and 40:12, and also Leviticus 8:6.  And that makes me think of the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.  And all the other aspects of this consecration ceremony revolved around the Sacrifice which isn't needed anymore.

And this seems to be the only rachats ritual to involve the person in question being "washed" by someone else rather then washing themselves.  Leviticus clarifies Moses did it originally but going forward it's probably implied new Priests are initiated by people already Priests.  So Jesus is Baptized partly because He's our High Priest, and then we are Baptized because of the Priesthood of All Believers.

Baptists are often hostile to these kinds of Hebrew Roots style explanations for New Testament ideas, but in this case it actually does help their position.  The more mainstream view that Baptism simply replaces Circumcision is a core part of the argument for Pedobaptism.  But if it's instead about initiation into the Priesthood of all Believers then that naturally supports Believers Baptism (even Aaron's Sons had already been adults for awhile in Exodus 29, Aaron was older then Moses making him over 80 at the Exodus so it's highly unlikely his kids weren't at least 30).  The Priesthood of all Believers is also foundational to Congregational Polity another core doctrine of the Baptist movement, so connecting it to Baptism is like Poetry it Rhymes.

Speaking of being 30, in Numbers 4 the age of 30 seems to be presented as when Levites began their service in the Tabernacle, 1 Chronicles 23:3 reaffirms that.  And low and behold Jesus came to John to be Baptized when he was about 30 years old.  Perhaps this is why Luke considered John's Kohen Heritage important to emphasize, for both his mother and father.

Whether or not there is some connection between the Mikveh and Baptism.  People like Michael Rood using the word Mikveh as a "translation" of Baptism when they refer to the New Testament doctrine I find very misleading, and doing that when quoting the New Testament is just plain wrong.

The Hebrew Precedent for The Last Supper

Among the claims made by people seeking to assert that Jesus was just a knock off of Pagan mystery cults is sometimes a claim that The Last Supper must have come from the Mystery cults, probably a Dionysus/Bacchus one in that case.  Though there is also a ritual meal associated with Mithras people talk about.

I'm not gonna even bother with evidence for similar rituals existing among the Mystery Cults, cause no one ever claimed drinking wine and eating bread in a religious ritual must be some completely unique idea.  I just want to show the Torah and TNAK precedent for various aspects of it.

I do believe that The Last Supper was NOT a Passover Seder, I believe the Lambs for the Passover were slain while Jesus was on The Cross.  But regardless it is firmly rooted in The Hebrew Bible.

The idea of a supper involving Bread and Wine is introduced in Genesis 14, the supper Melchizedek holds for Abraham.  Melchizedek is refereed to as a Type of Christ in Hebrews, and Jesus Himself quoted Psalm 110 in Matthew 22.

Wine is refereed to as the "Blood of Grapes" in Genesis 49:11 and the "Prue Blood of The Grape" in Deuteronomy 32:14.  Also see Isaiah 49:26 and 63:3, imagery that is drawn on in Revelation 14:20.  There are two Hebrew words translated Blood, Dam Strong Number 1818 and Netsach Strong Number 5332.  According to the Strongs Concordance, both of them are linked to Wine in their very etymology.

When Jesus took the Cup at The Last Supper, He paraphrased not part of the Passover account but Exodus 24:8. 

The only piece of this puzzle I can't think of a solid Old Testament precedent for is Bread representing the Body.  Maybe Genesis 3:19 could help explain it.  But the Wine part is the primary basis for seeing it as based on a Dionysian ritual.

Update: Here's a follow up post I did tying the Showbread into it.

The Two Seed Line Theory

Is a term commonly used to refer to a teaching that Cain was actually fathered by The Serpent not Adam.  This view is sometimes tied into the Angel-Hybrid view of Genesis 6, but can also be a way to accept The Sethite View while still teaching some human bloodlines are impure.

It is fairly easy to refute, the text of Genesis 4:1 says.

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahuah."

Making it clear Adam is the father, it's the exact same way Seth's conception is described in verse 25.

Saying Eve and the Serpent had sex is based on a laughably bad Augustinian view of Original Sin.  Sometimes people who don't even believe The Bible will tell me "The sexual subtext of the story is obvious, Snakes are Phallic shaped".  Except we're never told this was a Snake, the Hebrew word translated Serpent here could refer to any Reptilian animal, or even Amphibians when you include sea serpents.  Some Bible passages refer to flying Serpents which I believe were Pterodactyls.  Snakes are not the only Reptilians that crawl on their bellies, most still around today do.  Leviathan is called a Serpent twice in Isaiah 27:1.  And even outside The Bible the imagery of the Egyptian Ogdoad has the Females be Serpents and the Males as Frogs.

Some people want to say the words for "Beguiled" in Genesis 3:13 and 2 Corinthians 11:3 are inherently sexual terms.  That is absurd, those Hebrew and Greek words mean deceived, nothing more.  The Greek is Strongs 1818, the Hebrew is Strongs 5377.  Both are used in non sexual contexts.

They abuse how the context of Paul's verse talks about Virginity.  Paul is not using Virginity literally here, as he's talking about the Church as the Virgin Bride of Christ.  Eve was most certainly not a Virgin anymore when Genesis 3 happened, her and Adam were already commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and Genesis 2 ends with them being made one flesh, that's terminology about sexual union.  The context of what Paul is talking about is the Mind being corrupted, not the flesh.

Lots of New Testament verses are using terms like "son of" and "father" and even sometimes "Seed" in a not literally biological sense, because a major theme is Gentiles being adopted into Israel.  In John 8 Jesus calls people Abraham's Seed and then says that they are not of Abraham but of their father The Devil.  But 1 John 2:12 which they abuse doesn't even use the word "son", it just says Cain was of the Wicked One, the same way we are of Christ.

This theory is dependent on a lot of Extra-Biblical sources.  Interestingly enough the Targums they cite they are not citing well either. They take Targums that sound like maybe they're saying Eve "knew" an Angel, but that go on to clarify that Angel was the Angel of The LORD which is Biblically a title of the Pre-Incarnate Jesus.

One Targum says Cain and Abel were twins, which is more compatible with the text of Genesis 4 then I thought at first.  But if a Supernatural entity was involved in this in addition to Adam, that would be Yahuah based on what the text says.

And you really shouldn't cite the Proto-Evangelion of James if you're not a Catholic, it teaches early forms of certain Catholic Marian Doctrines.  Either way that text is maybe an early example of thinking something Sexual happened, but gives no support to saying The Serpent fathered Cain.

Mostly the Two-Seedline theory comes from Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Philip.  And even today these Seed-Line theorists are teaching Quasi Gnostic stuff, not proper 'the Serpent was Jesus and Yahweh was Evil' Gnosticism, but very Quasi Gnostic by saying that Adam and Eve only became physical Flesh after the Fall, like what Origen may have taught.  Adam says after Eve is created in Genesis 2 that she is "Flesh of my Flesh and Bone of my Bone", they were not merely Spirit beings.

I've seen one argue for the Adam of Genesis 1 being a separate Creation, an idea I've dealt with elsewhere. But like others using this for a compromise with Evolution he has it flipped around.  It would be the Genesis 1 creation that is merely Spiritual. Genesis 2 describes the element Adam's Body was formed from so it's clearly of a physical body, and in verse 23 Adam calls the Woman flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.  The fact that Adam is in a plural form in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is pointed out by them ignoring the context that Hebrew often uses the Plural Suffix for individuals as a sort of emphasis.  

Now I can see the logic behind looking at Genesis 3:15 where Yahuah is talking to The Serpent.

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

And concluding there must be a Serpent Seed-Line somewhere.  The Jewish view has always been that the Seed of the Woman is Humanity in general, all Eve's descendants.  I don't view that as contradicting it being largely fulfilled in Jesus, but regardless no New Testament author quotes Genesis 3:15 as Messianic  So I can see viewing the Seed of the Serpent as a similar rival species.  But it contradicts the whole point of this same verse if they are also descendants of Eve.

It could maybe make sense to suggest they are descendants of Adam but not of Eve, but certainly not the opposite.  Though there is no solid Biblical basis for that theory either, I shall speculate none the less, but I'll do so on the Comparative Mythology Blog.

What I certainly do not believe is that any Seed of the Serpent exists in the Gene Pool of contemporary Homo-Sapiens.  If The Antichrist is a Human-Serpent Hybrid, it'll be a trait that is completely unique to him.  But I've come to doubt the assumption that the Seed of the Serpent has anything to do with The Antichrist, Revelation 13 and II Thessalonians 2 both call him Anthropos, meaning he's a normal Human Being.

With the Beast we know the seven heads and ten horns imagery represents more then one individual being involved in what The Beast represents, even if one particular individual is more important then the rest. So I've come to think the seven heads and ten horns of The Dragon are the same, the Dragon is The Serpent and it's Seed.

A lot of people think Genesis 3:15 is unique in implying a Woman can have Seed. While it's difficult for us today to accept using the same word to refer to both the male and female contributions to reproduction because of our modern scientific classifications, that is what The Bible does in more then just Genesis 3 and Revelation 12:17.  Ishmael is refereed to as Hagar's Seed in Genesis 16:10, and in Genesis 24:60 Rebeca is told that her Seed shall be thousands of millions (that's Billions).

Now it's possible you could argue that these verses don't contradict Seed meaning specifically Sperm by saying that Seed a male produced becomes a Woman's once it's entered her.  Leviticus 12:2, 15:18, and Numbers 5:28 could support that., as could Ruth 4:12 and 1 Samuel 2:20. In 1 Samuel 1:11 the "child" in "man child" is the Hebrew word usually translated seed, as well as the use of "child" in Leviticus 22:13.

But once you allow that, then that also becomes a viable explanation for Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman.  In any explanation for how a Woman having Seed makes sense, all children of Eve would be her Seed regardless of the Father.  So in order for the Serpent's Seed to be separate, it has to not descend from Eve.

I believe strongly in the Virgin Birth as shown by my Almah post, but I've come to disagree with using Genesis 3:15 as part of that doctrine.  The Seed of the Woman is in a sense all descendants of Eve, Jesus as the Messiah is simply the key Son of Adam and Eve through whom this destiny is fulfilled.

In Romans 16:20 Paul says that God will bruise Satan under our feet. And Jesus said we will tread on Serpents and Scorpions in Luke 10:19.

In Genesis 4:25 Eve says that Elohim appointed her another Seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew.   Something I'm sure many Serpent-Seed theorists point to.  But it shows that Eve was referring to all her offspring as her Seed.  At the start of the chapter she gives Yahuah more direct credit for Cain then she did for Abel.

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.