Would you kindly comb the rest of this thread I am sure I recognized other antagonist remarks?

Antagonist 2, 11, 23,22,

Mindreading 2,12,13,17

Thank you!

***The Book of Mormon is the key that unlocks many passages to the Bible and brings great understanding and joy to one soul by the power of the Holy Ghost****

What! No room for a 29th chapter of Acts? Any place for the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ by Levi?

How about Ruth Montgomery’s “spirit writings” about Jesus or some of the other modern day so called “prophets” scribblings sbouyt Jesus. Even Charlie Manson claimed to be Jesus.

“When the Scriptures are read every day in the Greek Orthodox Church, they are read *in the original Greek* are they not?”

Indeed they are. I listen to the scriptures in the exact same language my ancestors from 1700+ years ago did.

sbouyt = about

Reasons for Changing the Original Bible (Ecumenical)
________________________________________________

As I am a “Bible only” believer, this (Ecumenical) thread must be intended for me, and my “sort”...

However, what attracted me to the thread was the many deleted posts ...

Were they all by Bible believing Christians who were offended by the content of the article ???

Was this thread posted as information...

of as a bone-of-contention ???

As in “antaganistic” ???

The REAL Bible, both the Old Testament, which contains beliefs of my Jewish ancestors, and attests to the coming Messiah, Yeshua...

and the New Testament, which contains the ONLY testament to the fact that the Messiah, the Word, Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, the Lamb of God, did come, and shed His precious blood and died on the cross for me, in my place, and took the penalty of death for my sins on Him, my advocate with God the Father...

My French Huguenot ancestors thought that the words contained in the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, so life or death important, that they preserved them for their children by baking their Bible into a loaf of bread before they fled France for England, and the US...

With an example like that, how could I take The Bible lightly ???

And not also defend the life giving utterances of Jesus and the Prophets (the REAL prophets)...

I am the Way, the truth and the Life. No man (or woman) comes to the Father, except by Me.. John 14:6

For God so loved (Nana and) the world that he gave His only begotten son, that (if Nana or) whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting LIFE. John 3:16

More from the source that this original thread article is posted from.

The Original Bible Revealed!

[This article is based on the book, 'Restoring the Original Bible' by Dr. Ernest L. Martin, ASK Publications, Portland, Oregon, 1994]

Our Bibles Are Different

You may be not be surprised to learn that the Bibles that the Christians use today (also in the past centuries) are not the same as the original Bible known to the Jewish world and to the early Christians. First, we use translations, not the original tongues (Hebrew and Greek); second, there are minor textual variations; and third, we do not have the original autographs.

What should surprise you (unless you have read on Bible's origin) is that the total number of books and the arrangement of books in our Bibles are different from those of the original autographs as judged by the earliest preserved copies. Actually we have not lost any Bible text, so don't think that I am talking about the 'Lost Books of the Bible'. These so-called lost books are apocryphal in nature and was never part of the Bible. However, a set of books properly called Apocrypha found its way to the Greek translation of the Old Testament and then into the Latin Vulgate and into some English Bibles.

Our Bibles (that do not include the Apocrypha) contain 66 books, distributed as 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. What I am about to reveal is that the Original Bible had contained 22 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. But that is not all. The arrangement of the 39 books in the OT is different from the arrangement in the 22 books, though the total text is the same.

I shall show how important the original arrangement was, and what we miss in our Bibles. I shall also show how and why the original arrangement was changed.

The Original Old Testament

If you have chance to examine a Jewish Old Testament (translations would be sufficient), you will notice that it has only 22 or 24 books. Furthermore, the books after Judges are completely rearranged. There is much evidence for the original OT having only 22 books, but late first or early second century AD two of the books were split to give a total of 24. The reason for this can be guessed (I shall mention it later).

The 22 books of the Original OT are divided into three groups: The Law (Torah), The Prophets, and The (Holy) Writings; this last group is sometimes referred to as the Psalms because the Psalms appear first.The division of the books are as follows:
I. THE LAW : The Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses)

(Note: These titles are as found in our English Bibles, adapted from the Greek Septuagint (LXX); the Hebrew titles used the first word of each book (actually a Scroll). For example, Genesis would be called Bereshith which means (In)Beginning (of). The Septuagint titles emphasize the subject matter. The Jewish Bibles also use now the subject titles.)

II. THE PROPHETS
Six books are in this group:

We might wonder about the inclusion of the first two and the omission of the book of Daniel. The reason is that these books were written by the prophets who occupied the second highest rank after the Priests. The Law was written by Moses who belonged to the Priestly class. In the organization of Bible books, proper care was given to rank of the authors. Notice that the Kings came third, hence their books are in the third group. The reason Daniel was not included was because he was 'inferior' in rank due to his being a eunuch, see Dan. 1:3,7 (eunuchs were prohibited from entering the Temple); and his interpretation of dreams of pagan kings dominated his book. However, we shall not consider Daniel as an unholy person. He led a most holy life and was beloved of God, receiving visions of great importance.III. THE WRITINGS

This group contained 11 books known also as the 'Royal' or 'Government' group because the authors are royalty or of royal lineage, or high government officials.

The Original New Testament

Here the difference is not in the number of books, but in the arrangement of books. After Acts the Original New Testament had three divisions as for the Old Testament:I. THE 'PENTATEUCH' : The Gospels and Acts

What is the reason for the above order of books? Apostolic authority or connection and the eldership principle were followed. Ma thew was a Jew, and his gospel was written under the supervision of James who was the Head of the Church (also the brother of Jesus). Mark was an assistant of Peter who was second to James in rank. Luke was an associate of Paul. John was the beloved apostle, third in rank after James and Peter in the early Church. The reason for his book appearing after Luke is perhaps due to its compilation as the last book of the NT, and also because of its philosophical theme. The first three Gospels are called Synoptic because of similar coverage (of the life of Jesus).

The Book of Acts covers the early history of the Church, and was written by Luke. In terms of content and appeal, the five books may be classified as Jewish, Jewish.Gentile, Gentile, Universal and Universal respectively. Note that Luke wrote his gospel to a Gentile ruler, Theophilus (Acts 1:1).II THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES

The term 'Catholic' means 'universal', applicable for general readership. There are seven of them:

These books appear after the Pauline epistles in our New Testaments, but the original New Testament had them following the Book of Acts. Apostolic authority and eldership were the governing rules for this placement. Among the apostles, the ranking followed the placement: James, Peter, John and Jude (last). We read in Galatians 2:9 of the leading Pillars of the church, James, Peter and John, in tha order.III. THE PAULINE EPISTLES

This group has 14 books including Hebrews which is somewhat linked to Paul (my study has shown that Hebrews was written by Timothy, Paul's close associate, except for the last paragraph which was written by Paul who endorsed the epistle with his apostolic authority. Timothy was in prison as he was finishing his epistle, but when Paul got the manuscript, he was released). In our Bibles, these books appear before the Catholic epistles.

The 14 books are:

The first nine are addressed to churches; the last four are addressed to ministerial/professional leaders. Romans. Corinthians and Galatians present the ABCs of Doctrine to new believers, while Ephesians, Philippines and Colossians present the XYZs (the advanced doctrine for mature Christians). Thessalonians deal with end times. Hebrews present a millennial theme along with Temple symbolism.

IV. REVELATION

This final book covers future events and completes the story of mankind that started in Genesis.

Significance of Numbers
Biblical numbers are not there by chance. The numbers we have seen associated with the books of the Bible have special significance. Let us first look at the number 22 which denotes the OT books.The Number 22

The Jewish people attached great importance to this number for the following reasons:

1. Adam, the last of God's Creation, was the 22^nd creation in the Six Day Creation. The number 22 signified completion and perfection.

2. Jacob (Israel) was the 22^nd generation from Adam.

3. The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters

Some of the OT authors used the acrostic of the 22 letter names. Examples:

Psalm 119 has 22 sections, each with a title of the Hebrew letter in succession;

The first section of 8 verses all start with the first letter, aleph; the second section of 8 verses all start with the second letter beth, and so on.

Proverbs 31: 10-31 describes a virtuous woman. Each verse starts with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet in order. We may note that the above passages describe a perfect God and a perfect woman!

There are other places also where the acrostic is used. When imperfection is implied, as in Psalms 9 and 10 which describe chaotic conditions, the acrostic is also imperfect.The Number 7

Throughout the Bible 7 is a sacred number and it also signifies completion. The repetition of 7s in Revelation is very obvious. Multiples of 7 such as 14 are also sacred, and imply completion.The Number 49

49 is 7 x 7, and signifies ultimate completion and perfection. If the Original Bible arrangement had been kept, we would have 49 books, and the Bible would be easily identified as God's Book. The Number 66

6 is man's number (Adam was created on the 6^th day). Multiples of 6 such as 60, 600 and 666 are found in the Bible, all associated with man. The last one, 666, is the Mark of the Beast (Rev. 13).

Our present Bibles have 66 books, and would give the impression it is a human Book, not divine. This is exactly the devil wants the world to believe. The attackers of the Bible are secular humanists!

More about numbers will be given in another article in this section. Suffice it to say that the reorganization of the Bible in the 4^th century by Jerome (who translated the Bible into Latin Vulgate) was an unholy step! Later on, the Church tried to rectify this by adding 11 apocryphal books to make the total number 77, but later this number has been reduced to 66 books as we find in present day Bibles that contain the Apocrypha. These added books are not as divinely inspired as the canonized books, hence should not be added to the Bible to make it look divine.

Jesus, the Central Theme of the Bible

If the book order had been preserved, we should get the following array:

In other words, central part of the Bible would be the books covering the life of Jesus Christ and his activity in the early Church. We have lost this obvious marker as a result of the reorganization in our Bibles. The Gospel of Luke which deals with the Incarnation occupies the central position (the 25^th book). The five books on Jesus may be called the New Testament Pentateuch!

More on the OT Books: The Temple Analogy

There is a remarkable parallel between the OT books and the division and items in the Jewish Temple (see drawing below).

Old Testament	The Temple
3 divisions	3 divisions
- The Law	- Holy of Holies
- The Prophets	- The Holy Place
- The Writings	- The Outer Court

The Law (Pentateuch) reveals the holy God and his Commandments; the Holy of Holies contained the Ark of the Covenant which had the books of the Law. The Holy of Holies was the earthly abode of God. The five items in this room were: Manna, Aaron's rod, the Tablets of stone, the two Cherubim and the Mercy Seat; these could be connected to the five books of Moses:

Manna, the 'hidden' food	Genesis (God was 'hidden')
Aaron's rod that budded	Exodus, the creation of Israel
Tablets of Stone	Leviticus and the Laws
Two Cherubim	Numbers (describes the Ark)
Mercy Seat, cover of the Ark	Deuteronomy, final book

The three divisions of the Temple also signified Three Heavens:

Outer Court	First heaven (atmosphere, air)
Holy Place	Second heaven (outer space with heavenly bodies)
Most Holy Place	Third heaven (God's abode)

It is significant to note that on the floor of the Holy Place had imprinted on it a Zodiac circle with the twelve signs (representing the 12 tribes). The seven lamps of the menorah represented also the seven planets. All these fitted with the symbolism of the Holy Place with the Second Heaven.

I must point out that the Temple layout and its contents have a Messianic message because Jesus Christ is symbolized everywhere - as our sacrifice, atonement, and High Priest who has made it possible for all believers to approach God the Holy Father. The reader can find books on this topic to get more understanding.The Prophets and the Holy Place

There were six pieces of furniture in the Holy Place. These are placed in relation to the six books of the Prophets group:

Golden altar of incense (Holy of Holies and the Holy Place)	Joshua & Judges (connecting link to the Law and the Prophets
The Menorah (7-branched Lamp)	The Kingdom Books (describing the kings: of Judea: Saul, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah and Jehoachin)
The Laver (wash basin)	Isaiah (who called for cleansing the sins.)
Altar of burnt offerings	Jeremiah (Judgement scenes)
The Slaughter place	Ezekiel (foresaw massive slaughter)
Table of Shewbread with 12 loaves of bread	The 12 Minor prophets

Of course, the Temple furniture have more profound meanings attached to them, especially in relation to the Messiah which we shall not cover here.The Writings

The Outer Court was for the public, and had sections for men and women. The Writings were considered less holy than the other two groups, and some of these books (actually scrolls) were not kept in the Temple, e.g. Ezra/Nehemiah, Chronicles because of the public records they contained.

Reasons for Changing the Original Bible

The following reasons can be given for the arrangement of books in our Bibles.

1. Pagan influence in the Greek Translation: It was a King of Egypt of the Ptolemy period that ordered the translation known as the Septuagint. In the third century B.C. The Greek mind preferred subject-wise division and therefore abandoned the divine order.

2. The Influence of Rome: by the fourth century AD, Rome had become the center of Christianity; it was also the emperor's capital city. The Jewish epistles took a second place, and the gentile epistles (written by Paul) took the first place; the Book of Romans was the first of these Pauline epistles. Is it any wonder why the book of Romans appear after the Book of Acts? Jerome who knew the Original Bible boldly changed the order of NT books. Our present day Bible publishers do not want to change the order because they find no support from the Church for it. The Church does not want to return to the biblical order of 'Jew first, Gentile second'.

3. This change is in relation to the change from 22 books to 24 books by Jewish editors.

Why would they want to change the 'perfect' number 22 to 24? The only answer is that when the Christians added the 27 NT books, the total was 49 books, and claimed the complete Bible should have both the OT and NT books. The Jews who did not accept Jesus and Messiah did not like that, so by increasing the number to 24 books, the divine '49' would vanish, at the expense of making the OT less than perfect.

Conclusion

It should now be obvious to the reader that our present Bible is the result of deliberate alteration by people with special interests. As a result of the changes they made, we have lost the divine message transmitted through the order and number of books in the Original Bible. It is unlikely that Bible publishers will go back to the original format because such a change could be quite confusing to most Bible readers.UPDATE: December 7, 2005: The Original New Testament now available

The Original New Testament in English was published a year ago by York Publishing Company in California. This is a monumental work undertaken by Fred R. Coulter, a Bible scholar, who faithfully translated the Stephanus 1550 Greek New Testament, but in the original order of the 27 books as explained in my article. In addition to the 352 page text in full size paper, a voluminous 528 page commentary section is included. At this time there is no word on the Original Old Testament under preparation. The book is available from Amazon.com under the title, 'The New Testament In Its Original Order'. The cover page is shown at right.

More from the source that this original thread article is posted from.

Making Sense of the Six Day Creation

Introduction

All of us have wondered about Creation: how things really got started. Our scientists are constantly searching for answers. They have explored the material universe from subatomic particles to the distant nebulae. Living things are the greatest puzzle because no scientist has been able to make even the simplest unit of life in the laboratory.

The Bible starts with Creation: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' It does not tell us how things were created, but who created them. The reason should be obvious: even in our scientifically advanced age the intricacies of Creation are too complex to understand. We have limited understanding of many creative processes which could throw some light on Creation itself.

My attempt in this section is to help you to follow the Creation acts of God as described in Genesis. There has been much confusion about what exactly God created in six days, and when he created them.

I do not subscribe to evolutionary interpretations because I find that evolution is totally false. I take the Bible literally which means the Six Day Creation took place in six consecutive days a few thousand years ago. All life, past and present, were created in this time span. However, I have found that the Bible does not attempt to describe the creation of the Universe and fix a time for it. These conclusions may be startling to some of my readers accustomed to hearing about a young universe. But I shall show that both the Bible and Science would lead to the conclusion I have reached from many years of study.

In this section on Creation Mysteries I shall focus on the Six Day Creation and other Creation Events described or mentioned later in the Bible. The next section, Flood Mysteries, would cover evidence for a universal flood some 5,000 years ago, the massive death of animals, burial of trees, and the formation of fossils. Evolution's false interpretation of fossils will be exposed. You will also be able to understand many mysteries of the past and the peculiarities of the earth we live on.

Your outlook on Creation would be dramatically changed after you study this section. You will be glad you did this study.

Why Study Genesis?

Genesis means Origin. It makes sense to study Genesis, the opening book of the Bible, if we are interested in origins. Our scientists often think that they can understand origins bit by bit by prolonged study. Unfortunately, most scientists have been trapped in the camp of evolutionists, so their thinking and reasoning processes have been colored by evolutionary assumptions. I have concluded that evolution would never lead to a proper understanding of origins. The reason is, evolution assumes an automatic progression from the simple to the complex. Our own scientists know that to make anything complex they need to plan and design and control the factors that govern the formation of the complex items. Any reasonable person should conclude that the complexity of life and the vastness of the universe demand a super-intelligent and all-powerful Creator whom we call God. Genesis starts with this God, and it then becomes easy to understand how all complex forms of life can appear in six literal days.

The study of Genesis is indispensable for anyone who would like to explore the past. Genesis is the only book that satisfactorily covers the story of the earth and of mankind. The so-called Creation Myths of many ancient cultures have truth mixed with fantasy to the point we cannot separate the two. They, however, have some similarities with the Genesis account of Creation and could be valuable on occasions. Without much further comments, let us move on to the Creation Story of Genesis.

The Genesis Account of Creation

The Genesis account of Creation is found in the opening chapters of the Bible, chapters 1 and 2. Genesis 1 may be considered a summary account, while Genesis 2 elaborates specific creation acts. These are not two disconnected creation accounts as some liberal interpreters insist.

Genesis 1 contains 31 verses, and Genesis 2 contains 25 verses. Some problems arise regarding chapters and verses. The original Bible manuscripts do not have chapter and verse division. These were added many centuries later. So, how do we know where the first creation account ends and the second begins?

There is a problem related to translations. Take, for example, the English translations. If you read the creation account in different translations, they are not identical. This is to be expected because the English language changes all the time in usage. The language of the King James Version (1611 AD) has archaic words that are not in current usage. The translators try to use modern usage. However, that is not the only reason for new versions. The original Hebrew and Greek (also Aramaic) languages used are not always well understood, and more studies reveal newer and better renditions. The availability of newer manuscripts by accidental discoveries is yet another reason for revision. Thus, when the King James Version was made, they had to rely on the available manuscripts such as the Latin Vulgate (a fourth century translation to Latin from the original tongues) and later manuscripts in the original tongues, Hebrew (10th cent) and Greek (5^th cent.). More ancient manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus (4^th century Greek translation) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew manuscripts of 1^st century) became available more recently which led to further translations and versions as we have today.

When it comes to the Genesis account of Creation, the translators have taken some freedom in certain key verses. On top of that, the chapter divisions made much later have caused some confusion.

Genesis One Creation account is frequently called the Six Day Creation because the Creation Acts took place in six days.

The Six Day Creation: Highlights

According to Genesis One, the main events of the Six Day Creation are:

Day 1: Light (Gen. 1:-3-5)
Day 2: Firmament to separate waters (Gen. 1: 6-8)
Day 3: (Dry) land, vegetation (Gen. 1: 9-13)
Day 4: The Heavenly bodies (sun, moon and stars), Gen. 1: 14-19)
Day 5: Aquatic and aerial life (fish, birds), Gen. 1: 20-23
Day 6: Land animals, reptiles, man (Gen. 1: 24-31)

In Genesis Two, the creation of man and woman (Adam and Eve) is the main theme. We shall go into it later.
The Six Day Creation: Questions

There are some puzzling and legitimate questions regarding the Six Day Creation. These are summarized below:
Questions on the Opening verses

Equally puzzling questions can be asked about the first two verses of Genesis. I shall present the King James Version (KJV) of Gen. 1:1,2:
Valid questions such as the following are legitimate:
1. What does 'In the beginning' mean? Does it mean the beginning of the Six Day Creation? If so, it would appear that heaven and earth were first created, so what remained to be created in the six days? Just Life?
1. Verse 2 says the earth was formless and void and there was darkness over the face of the deep (the ocean). Furthermore, the Spirit of God was moving over the waters (of the deep). Does this mean that before the Six Day Creation the Earth was there, but was covered with water and darkness? It would appear logical because the first three days of creation removes the darkness, the waters and dry land appears. What does it mean by 'formless and void' in referring to the earth? If 'void' means empty, it makes senses because the earth was filled with life later. But what does 'formless' mean?
So the opening verses pose difficulty in the light of the creation acts of the six days.
Popular Views on the Six Day Creation
1. The Fundamentalist View
The fundamentalist view is that the Genesis account is literal and the world came into being in six literal days about six thousand years ago (as deduced from biblical chronology). They further assert that the whole universe came into being 'out of nothing' (creatio ex nihilo).2. The Progressive Creation View
This view holds that the creation days are literal, but there were huge time spans in between the days during which gradual changes happened. Evolution is not accepted, though. God simply chose to step in after prolonged periods to create the next set of life forms etc., in a literal day.3. The Gap Theory
This holds the view that God made an original earth with life including prehistoric creatures such as the dinosaurs in the remote past. Lucifer, the exalted angel, ruled the earth. When Lucifer sinned, God destroyed the earth which accounts for the 'chaos' alluded in Gen. (1:2) by the phrase, 'formless and void'. Then in recent times, God recreated the earth with life as we see now. Isa. 14:12-15 and Ezek. 28:13-15 are quoted in support.4. Theistic Evolution
As mentioned before, this view holds that God used the method of evolution to 'create' life over millions of years. The order of creation is somewhat the order of evolution (this is not strictly true). The American Scientific Affiliation of Christians promotes this view.
Critique of the Popular Views

All the above views except the fundamentalist view, accept the antiquity of the earth and life itself, thereby avoiding a direct confrontation with evolution. These views have to be rejected in the light of the best evidence of science alone. There is no proof that the so-called prehistoric life spanned millions of years. Direct radiocarbon dating has been possible on fossils which show the life forms were only several thousand years old (see later). The millions of years you hear have been arrived at by layer dating. If a fossil is found in a certain layer of the sedimentary rocks, the age ascribed to that layer is given to the fossil. This method is totally erroneous because the very assumption that the layers were deposited gradually along with the prevalent life forms is wrong. Creationists have shown that the sedimentary layers of the earth have been formed over a very short period of time during a mighty earth event known as the Flood. We shall examine the Flood in detail later. The Flood was universal, and occurred some 5,000 years ago. All 'prehistoric life' should be called 'antediluvian life'. There is no need to accept the long ages proposed for the appearance of life. The only remaining position appears to be the fundamentalist position. But is that true?
The fundamentalist position suffers from misinterpretation of the Genesis account and the rejection of the best scientific evidence. This may surprise many people because they profess to be scientifically minded and at the same time literal interpreters of the Bible. My study has shown that the best interpretation of Genesis and the best evidence of Science agree on one fact: all life is recent, but the heavens and the earth as popularly understood are very ancient.
Creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) argument has to be rejected because the Hebrew word used for 'created' (bara) in Gen. 1:1 does not always carry that meaning. In fact, when referring to this verse in other biblical passages, the word 'made' (asah) is used such as 'God made heaven and earth' and the word asah is used to imply forming out of pre-existent material. We shall see below that the Six Day Creation was limited to the creation of inhabitable land, atmosphere and all living things. I call it Special Creation.
The Six Days of Creation are Literal Days Without Gaps

The Hebrew words used for 'day' (yom) and 'days'(yamim) in Genesis One leave no room for a liberal stretching of the duration of the day. Words such as the first day, the second day are always used in the Bible to signify literal days. Also, when it says one day, two days, six days etc., it always means literal days. Third, the usage, 'evening and the morning' is always used for 12 hour periods. If they represented long periods, no life would survive with long periods of light followed by long periods of darkness. Earth's temperature would be unbearably hot or cold. Fourth, the Creation days are compared on a one to one basis in Exodus 20:9-11 where it says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy....for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.'. Fifth, Adam was created on the sixth day, and died 930 years later (Gen. 5:5) which does not allow any room for long time spans. Six, all life is interdependent. They had to appear in a short time to survive for mutual survival.
Analysis of the Opening Verses (Gen.1:1-2)

The key to interpreting the Genesis account of creation is the proper understanding of the opening verses and some key words found in the Creation account.
For starters, I shall point out that not all English Bibles render the first verse as a complete sentence. The Hebrew manuscript of Genesis also is not in favor of a complete sentence for the first verse. Let us look at some of the English versions that deviate from the traditional rendering:The New English Bible, NEB (Oxford), 1970:
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters The New American Bible, NAB , 1971:
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the earthThe New Revised Standard Bible, NRSV, 1989
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept swept over the face of the watersThe Torah,1962 (The Jewish Publication Society of America)
When God began to create the heaven and the earth - the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water -
Why did these versions change from a complete sentence to a dependent clause for Gen. 1:1? Because the Hebrew of the opening verses allows such a rendering. The opening words of the Hebrew Bible are: Beresit Bara Elohim which is rendered in most versions as Beginning Created God, or In the Beginning God Created. However, Bible scholars point out that Beresit is translated 'In/At (the) beginning of' in all the other contexts in the Old Testament. Most Bible translators prefer a complete sentence for the opening verse. This practice continues to this day.
There are some serious implications when we render the first verse as a dependent clause. First, it appears that in the beginning of Creation, that is, the Six Day Creation, there was Earth which was unformed; there was water covering the earth. There was no land mass because it was all submerged in water. There was also darkness surrounding the waters. This gives us the impression of a primitive planet earth submerged in water and enveloped in darkness. Second, God caused a mighty wind to blow on the face of the waters. The word rendered wind in Hebrew is ruach which may also be rendered spirit. Most translators chose 'spirit' and capitalized it as 'Spirit' meaning the Holy Spirit.
I shall show later that 'wind' is a more fitting rendering than 'spirit' in the context. Why? Because the events of the Six Day Creation are mighty physical events. God caused the mighty wind to blow away the darkness (caused by dark vapors). Some might argue the darkness was due to the absence of light. This is true, but contrary to popular belief, the sources of light were all there! I mean to say that the sun and the moon and the stars were all in existence before the Six Day Creation, but their light could not reach the earth due to the dark vapors and the waters. It is in this context God commands, 'Let there be light!' For the first time, sun rays penetrated the dark vapors, and light was admitted, nor created. It was possible from that time onwards to differentiate between day time and night time as the earth turned on its axis. Without light, such differentiation would not be possible even when the earth was turning on its axis.
Two Keys to Unlock the Creation Mystery

God provided the keys to understand the Creation story in Genesis One, but the Bible readers including the scholars have missed it. No wonder they are coming up with all sorts of fanciful explanations. What are these keys?
In Gen. 1:8 God defined what He meant by the word heaven. In Gen. 1:10 He defined the word earth. Let us look at these definitions God gave us:
So what is 'heaven' in Genesis? It is not the universe; it is not Space. It is simply the expanse, or the dome we see stretched out where the heavenly bodies appear. This expanse or firmament is like a vault, but is an illusion. In popular language the word 'sky' would be an adequate word. But we read later that the birds flew in the firmament of heaven, hence we can extend the meaning of 'heaven' to the 'atmosphere' which is filled with air.
The word 'earth' is even more fascinating. It is not Planet Earth that is meant here. This is the biggest mistake that Bible interpreters make. 'Earth' in the Bible is 'land' from Genesis to Revelation, and occasionally it also means 'people of the earth' as in Gen. 10:25 (we shall examine this verse in the FLOOD section). The ancient people had no word for Planet Earth. They used a combination of words such as, 'the earth, sea and all that are therein' a usage we find in the Bible frequently. Since land is flat, we might say the earth is flat according to the Bible. This is no laughing matter.
With this understanding we shall go back to Gen. 1:1-2. "In the beginning…God created the heavens and the earth" The creation of the heaven (firmament) and the creation of the earth (land) are the creation acts of Day 2 and Day 3. So the opening verse of Genesis simply refer to the creation acts that were to follow. Gen. 1:2 is very interesting: it says the earth was formless. This makes sense because as long as land was under water, there was no earth! The earth appeared only on the third day.
The Six Day Creation Explained

Now it is a fairly easy job to explain the Six Day Creation. The basic assumptions are: (1) the universe was already there with all the heavenly bodies.(2) Planet earth was rotating and revolving around the sun just as it is today. But the land mass was submerged in water, and there was a dark envelope over it.
Day 1: The first Creation act was the admission of light (not the creation of light). The light that hit the earth was sunlight! But the sun was not visible because the atmosphere was overcast and still very cloudy. It is possible that the darkness was due to a heavy and thick envelope of water vapor (or frozen ice), but it is also possible that hydrocarboniferous vapors released from the earth's interior during its formation was also responsible. God did not create Planet Earth just before the Six day Creation. Planet earth could be a few billion years old.
Day 2: In order to create land on the third day, God had to remove the waters surrounding the land mass. We can assume geological activities that released much heat, causing the waters to boil and evaporate, creating the 'waters above the firmament'. A primitive sky was formed with much rain clouds hanging from it. I do not believe there was a water vapor canopy around the earth from this time onwards. If there was one, it had to be extremely thin, because to see the sun and the moon and the faint stars, the sky had to be clear by the fourth day.
Day 3: God caused the land masses to rise and this caused the waters to recede into one large ocean around it. The earth's crust is a shell of rock, and land masses are granite 'blocks' imbedded in the basaltic rocks beneath. The usage, 'Let the waters gather to one place' indicates there was only one ocean. In other words, all the fragmented land masses joined together into a single land lass, forming a Supercontinent. This was the Good Earth God had created. More of it will be discussed later. We shall also see how and when the present continents were formed. The earth (land) was wet, so God created only Plant life. How God made these plants is not told, but God could have placed the seeds in the soil and let them grow in an instant at His command.
Day 4: The sun and the moon and the stars appeared in the sky. They were not created on the fourth day. 'Made to appear' is the correct rendering, not 'created'. Until the fourth day, the sky was very overcast, but the continuing action of the wind cleared the sky so much that even the faint stars could be seen. These stars were there for millions and even billions of years ago, and the fact that their light reached on the fourth day alone testifies to the fact that they were in existence for a very long time. It takes millions and even billions of years for light to reach the earth from the distant stars.
Day 5: Now the ocean and the atmosphere were both clean and filled with breathing air, so oceanic life and aerial life could be introduced. As in the case of the plants, these life forms were not necessarily formed out of nothing, but could have been born from the eggs and embryos God had first created and planted in the waters and on the ground.
Day 6: Land animals, reptiles and finally man were created. The earth was dry enough by the sixth day. Again, God could have first formed the embryos which grew ups into adult forms in the span of a day. Man's creation is given more coverage in Genesis 2 which we shall examine below.
We see the biblical phrase, 'after its kind' used each time a major branch of living things is introduced. In modern terminology, the word 'Species' would be appropriate. Evolution has never shown that one species would transform to another. All scientific evidence suggests that such major jumps are impossible. We do see minor variations within a species, and evolutionists make the assumption that given millions of years, one species would convert to another. We shall see later that the fossil showcase does not warrant anyone to make that assumption.
The Creation Acts may be considered the 'Opening Ceremony' conducted by the Creator. Everything had been meticulously planned so that when God gave the command things would appear almost instantly. This would be like the Chairman of an automobile company pressing a button when a finished car would appear. We know that behind this feat was an assembly line, a blue print and expert labor. God would not have done the Creation Acts any other way. They demonstrate His wisdom and power.
The Creation story properly ends halfway in Gen. 2:4 (in the popular Bibles) not with Gen 1:31. The chapter and verse divisions appeared in the Bibles much later and there are errors in the division. Thus, the proper ending would be: "This is the story of the making of heaven and earth when they were created".(NEB)
The Psalmist exalted God's creation frequently. Psalm 19 is one example "The heavens declare the glory of God…"
The Second Creation Account

The so-called Second Creation Story begins in the middle of Gen. 2:4 in most Bibles, but begins with verse 5 as a new section in the Bibles which rendered Gen. 1:1 as a dependent clause. In my view this division is the more logical one.
The New English Bible starts this second account similar to the first Creation account, starting with 'When the LORD God made earth and heaven…' Notice two differences: God here is qualified by LORD. In truth, the word LORD is a substitution for the personal name of God which was never to be pronounced, being too holy. The English letters corresponding to the personal name in Hebrew are YHWH with no vowels. Scholars now think the pronunciation would be somewhat like 'Yahweh', not as 'Jehovah' as rendered in the Revised Version (1885; equivalent American Version, 1901) and in the Jerusalem Bible (also some other Bibles). The Jewish people substituted YHWH with the word 'Adonai' which means 'Lord' which is the basis for the LORD usage. 'LORD God' would be 'Yahweh Elohim' in Hebrew. The second difference is that instead of 'heaven and earth' we see 'earth and heaven'.
There is a reason for these changes. The Creator God is now introduced as a personal God who is going to be involved with the affairs in earth because mankind was to be inhabiting the earth, and man was created in God's image. The second Creation account therefore focuses on mankind and their environment.
Was There Rain Before the Flood?

We read that before man was created on the earth there was no rain, and the ground was kept wet by streams. This refers to the condition of the earth from the third Creation day to the sixth. Many Creationists assume there was no rain on earth before the great Flood for ten long generations from Adam to Noah. This is another misunderstanding of the Creation story. Adam and Eve and all mankind got rain which was necessary for the growth of vegetation and for the rivers to flow. But there were no rainstorms, for God had controlled the weather. This was why the wicked people could not believe there would be a deluge and heavy rain. There was no rainbow because heavy rain clouds were never formed before the Flood. During the Flood the atmosphere was all dark and violent. God waited after the Flood to give mankind the rainbow, a sign of God's Promise.
Where Was the Garden of Eden?

People have tried to locate the Garden of Eden based on the references to the four branches flowing out a river from Eden, two of which are Euphrates and Tigris. There are two rivers by these names in Mesopotamia ('the land between the rivers') flowing out of the region of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey. There are no other major rivers flowing out of this mountainous region. The other two rivers, Pishon and Gihon are not known by their names today, but they are described as flowing through or around the lands of Havilah and Cush (later on identified with Ethiopia). Some scholars think that instead of branching out, these rivers joined the main river flowing from Eden, and they think the meeting place was somewhere on the mouth of the Persian Gulf where there is evidence of some dried out riverbeds.
My own belief is that the rivers mentioned are not the same rivers known by the same name today. The original river system with the tributaries was destroyed in the Flood. The survivors of the Flood named the major rivers near Ararat (where the Ark landed) using the pre-Flood names. More on this will be said later when we discuss the Flood.
The Creation of Man and Woman

Man is distinct from all other living things; he is the most advanced of all Creation; furthermore, he shares divine attributes of thinking, reasoning, judging and so on. This why it is said man was created in the image of God (Gen.1:27).
We know Adam was created on the Sixth Creation Day. When was Eve created? God let Adam feel lonely for a while, and it was after that he formed Eve out of his rib. Man was formed from the dust of the earth, that is from the elements of the earth. Yet, he was not made to die, but live eternally. God had made the body wonderfully with the ability to grow and adapt, heal and rejuvenate. Perhaps Eve was created some time later, well past the seventh day. But since Eve was taken out of Adam, the blessing God gave to Adam applied to her also. Gen. 5:2 says they were both called Adam when they were created for the same reason.
The exalted status of man in God's creation is the main subject of Psalm 8 by David. Shakespeare's Hamlet wondered, 'What a piece of work is man! In my Creation Alternative (see BOOKS), I have the last chapter devoted to man, 'Fearfully and Wonderfully Made' (title borrowed from Psalm 139:14).
We shall not go further into the story of mankind described in Gen. 3 where the Fall of mankind is described and the subsequent curse that fell on all creatures and the earth itself. We know that as a result of the Fall, evil things began to appear on earth, and rapidly multiplied until it resulted in the massive judgment of God by a universal Flood.
The Ancestry of Man

You have seen evolutionary charts of the ancestors of man starting with the apes or ape-like creatures about 60 million years ago, with modern man, homo sapiens, appearing more than one or two million years ago. The question is, how does Adam and Eve fit into this scheme? The biblical record shows they were the first created human beings who had no ape-like ancestors, and God created them only several thousand years ago. I shall show what tricks evolutionists have been playing with human ancestry when I discuss the fossil evidence.
How Old Is The Earth?

The answer very much depends on what you mean by earth. If it is land mass, I would say, it is only a few thousand years old as Genesis would indicate. If you consider earth to be Planet Earth, I would say tit is very old, and could be a few billion years old as the scientists say. This is where I disagree with the fundamentalists who assert Planet Earth and the Universe are very young. My answer is, the Bible does not say that. I have shown biblical proof for it. To support their assertion, they have to assume all sorts of unreasonable things: the speed of light was almost infinite at the beginning and has been slowing down ever since. Also, they assume that God gave an appearance of old age to much of His Creation which would 'account for' the antiquity of Planet Earth. All I can say is that they are in violation of God's explicit revelation of what earth really is. I shall later discuss radiometric and other types of dating of rocks (see Flood Mysteries Section).Note on Biblical Days
Just as God defined 'earth' and 'heaven' in Genesis One, He also defined 'day', see Gen.1:5, God called the light "day". Throughout the Bible, 'day' represents only 'daytime' and not the 24 hour 'day' in popular usage. God's creation acts took place only in 'daytime'.
The usage, 'evening and the morning was the - - day' after each Creation Day has been misunderstood Another rendering, more accurate, is 'evening came, morning (came), the - - day'. What it simply means is that the daytime ended with the evening, followed by night which ended with (just before) the next morning. I may add that the terms 'evening' and 'morning' may mean 'dusk' and 'dawn' respectively. The daytime was divided into 12 equal parts which included the dawn and the dusk. The length of the day varied according to the time of the year and the geographical location, so the 'hour' also varied in length, not fixed like the 'hour' we use. Our usage of 'day' as 24 hour period is not biblical, but secular.
The biblical 'day' did not start at sunset and end at sunset as popularly believed. It started at dawn and ended after twilight ('evening'). So the Sabbath does not start Friday evening; it starts Saturday morning and ends Saturday evening. The 'sunset to sunset day' came from Babylonian reckoning.
By the way, the names of the week we use currently are after pagan gods or after the planets, which is a shame. The names of the months also recall pagan gods or zodiac signs. Even the English world 'God' has a pagan origin. The Bible uses 'Elohim' and 'Yahweh', the latter being the Personal name. We should have kept these names in our Bibles.(For more information on the 'Day', please refer to www.icyahweh.org)

Dr. T.V. Oommen

About the Author

Dr. T.V. Oommen is both a biblical scholar and a scientist. Having been raised in a Christian home, he spent many years studying and researching the Bible, most notably in the areas of Bible-Science and Biblical Archaeology. Some of his original contributions are presented in this Biblediscoveries web site under 'Creation Mysteries' and 'Flood Mysteries'. He has been lecturing on these topics since 1973. Other articles on the web site have been adapted from eminent researchers in the respective fields. The author's passion is to share with the world of Bible believers the most significant biblical discoveries of our time, in order to strengthen their faith in God's Word.

By profession Dr. Oommen was a Consulting Scientist/Engineer who worked in academic teaching and industrial research jobs, with many publications and R&D achievements to his credit in the fields of Chemistry and Electrical Engineering. He was honored as a recipient of the prestigious R&D 100 Award for one of the top 100 inventions of 2000. Click here to visit his other website, "My Research Works."

By birth, he is a native of India, but is a citizen of the USA. His birth place is Tiruvalla, a Christian-dominated city in the state of Kerala where the St. Thomas Christians of India are concentrated. St. Thomas, the apostle, is believed to have landed in Kerala in the first century, most likely with Jewish sea traders. Kerala was, and still is, reputed for spices.

In the USA he has lived in the states of Washington, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania and North Carolina (most recent) since 1968. His wife, Anna, is also from the Tiruvalla area.

Residence: Raleigh, North Carolina since July 1991

Family: two sons and their families live in Raleigh and vicinity; daughter and family in Vienna, VA

ORIGINS
NOAH'S ARK
MT. SINAI
CALVARY
ARK OF THE COVENANT
THE NEW EARTH

MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION

DR. T.V. OOMMEN

biblediscoveries.com
For appointments contact tvoommen29@bellsouth.net

The Real Calvary and the Real Holy Sepulcher

Introduction

The two places most sacred to Christians should be the Crucifixion site and the Burial site of Jesus Christ. Are these places known? Wait a minute: aren't thousands of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem every year to see these sites? Everyone has heard about the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Via Dolorosa (the route Jesus took carrying the Cross) with its 14 stations?

If you visit Jerusalem (I have done it twice), you will find there are two places claiming to be the burial place of Jesus. So there begins the confusion. Is it important to find out which one is the correct site? I think so, for the same reason as finding the correct Mt. Sinai and the correct Noah's Ark location. The real places offer us much understanding of the biblical events associated with them. The Bible comes alive in the Real places, not in the fake locations!

I shall discuss both the Crucifixion site and the Burial site of Jesus in this article. Later on, under 'Sacred Relics' you will find additional meaning and significance attached to these sites.The Traditional Sites of Crucifixion and Burial

In AD 326 Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, traveled to Palestine to find the holy places associated with Jesus' nativity, crucifixion and burial. She was apparently successful, and the places she identified were commemorated with magnificent churches. However, the Persian attack of Christian holy places in Palestine AD 614 resulted in the demolition of all the Churches except the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Jerusalem came under Crusader rule in the 12^th century for 88 years, and during this time most of the destroyed Churches were rebuilt. Even the Church of the Nativity is a Crusader modification. The magnificent Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem was built at the location of Helena's Church built over the site of the supposed Burial site. The Church's ownership is divided among the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Ethiopian Churches who conduct separate services in their particular sections.

This Church looks anything but the open ground of Calvary and the sepulcher in the rock that the Bible describes. Church floors have covered the original grounds and it is hard to recognize ancient land marks. Yet, the officials point out one location as the site of Crucifixion, another as the site of burial. The burial chamber has a rock slab at waist level on which one can see some ordinary nails placed. One gets suspicious of the authenticity of this sepulcher. The last few Stations of the Cross are also in the Church. The Via Dolorosa (Way of Sorrows) is a narrow tortuous route originating from the Ecco Homo gate (ruins) where Pilate sentenced Jesus. The Old Jerusalem within the walls is a very different city from the time of the New Testament. The city walls were rebuilt in the 16^th century by the Turkish Sultan, and the original boundaries have been changed in the south and the west. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher lies within the present City walls, but must have been outside the city wall in the first century.

Let us start with a map of the Old City as it appears now. The dashed lines indicate the walls that have been changed from the first century lines.

For the sake of clarity only the more important locations are shown. The most prominent land mark is the Dome of the Rock, the Moslem shrine on the so-called Temple Mount. The popular belief is that Zerubbabel's and Herod's Temples (both referred to as the Second Temple, since Herod only modified and enlarged Zerubbabel's Temple) had once stood somewhere on the Temple Mount, most likely between the Dome and the Mosque (see my article, 'The True Site of Herod's Temple' to find more about the real Temple Mount). The original Temple was built by Solomon in the 10^th cent. B.C. but was destroyed completely by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. For Christians the most holy Church within the City walls is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

The Crucifixion site is believed to be a small hill outside the 1st century western city wall. Of course, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher covers both the Crucifixion and burial sites, as they claim.How Helena Was Deceived

The real Crucifixion and Burial sites were lost for nearly three centuries. The Romans had covered up these places, and pagan monuments were built in Jerusalem which took the name Aelia Capitolina. The Christians fled the city and the Jews were banished. However, there were Christians in certain locations, and Christian bishops later on ruled from Caesarea, the Roman capital of Palestine. How could Helena so easily identify the Crucifixion and Burial sites?

Dr. Ernest Martin (Founder of Scripture Truth Associates) researched this thoroughly. (Dr. Martin is credited with the identification of the 'Star of Bethlehem' and the computation of Jesus' birth date. I'll cover this in another section). His 1988 book, The Secrets of Golgotha (ASK Publications, Alhambra, CA) gives much information. Dr. Martin has exposed the deception connected with the 'discovery' of Jesus' burial site.

Helena had come to Jerusalem to confirm what Constantine had learned about the Crucifixion site in his visions and dreams. As you can imagine, it was hard to find anyone to help her locate the site. Finally, a Jew by the name of Judas (!) came forward and told her he had family records that indicated the true location. He took her to the site where three Crosses were dug up. Constantine proclaimed it as the true site and ordered a Church to be built there. The bishop of Palestine at the time, the famous Church historian Eusebius who lived in Caesarea objected to this declaration, but the Emperor would not be persuaded. He knew the location was wrong.

It turns out that the site Judas pointed out was the site of the a sacred Jewish shrine that had once existed, the burial tomb of the renowned Maccabean priest king John Hyrcanus. Later on, in AD 135 the Roman emperor Hadrian desecrated it by demolishing it and building a Venus temple there. Constantine in his dream recognized this pagan monument but thought it was the site of the Crucifixion. So he had the temple razed to the ground. Judas 'confirmed' the dream to the delight of Helena. Thereafter Christians have been making pilgrimage to John Hyrcanus' tomb, the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Judas was converted to Christianity, and was offered the position of bishop of Jerusalem with the name, Judas Quiriacus!The Garden Tomb and the Skull Hill

In 1867 Dr. Conrad Schick excavated a hidden ancient tomb in an area north of the Damascus Gate. This tomb was cut in a rocky wall, and was unusually large. There was evidence that the Crusaders had used it as a burial place, but the tomb itself was much older. In 1893 an Anglican Trust bought the property and ever since it is known as the Garden Tomb property. Its greatest attraction is the large tomb cut in the rocky wall. This property has other attractions such as an ancient wine press and a large underground water collection cistern. The property was converted to a beautiful garden with protective walls by the owners.

The Tomb in the rocky wall was suspected to be the real tomb of Jesus owned by Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-53). John's gospel says it was near a garden (John 19:41-42) The wine press found certainly would credibility.The picture below shows the outside view of the Tomb.

It will be noticed there is a fairly large entrance and outside of it is a two feet wide slot which was for a rolling stone. This had to be a large stone from the size of the door. In fact the gospels tell us it was a Great Stone (Matt.27:60). I'll tell more about it later. Inside is a 'weeping chamber' and the adjoining room is a little lower level with an elevated slab where the dead body would be placed.

The manner in which Jesus' body was wrapped before placing on the slab in the tomb is explained in the article, 'The Mysterious Holy Shroud of Christ'

The Great Seal Stone was rolled in and placed in the trough outside the entrance wall. It was big enough to cover the fairly large door. How did the Roman soldiers prevent the Stone from rolling back? Apparently by a spike at the edge of the Stone to the wall. We can see a broken iron spike embedded in the wall 71 inches above the ground, several feet to the left of the door; there is a stop carved into the face of the rock on the right side of the door. Obviously the spike was broken when the angel rolled the Stone on Resurrection morning. The separation of the spike from the stop is over 13 feet, which may be considered the diameter of the Stone. Recently elemental analysis has been carried out on fragments of the spike, and the metals found were iron and lead. The Roman practice was pouring molten lead into the hole before inserting the iron nail. Dating the metals is not possible with radiometric dating techniques. For more information visit www.wyattmuseum.com and www.anchorstone.com These details give much support to our belief that the Garden Tomb is the real Tomb of Jesus.

Outside the Garden Tomb property the rocky wall continues to the east as a cliff, and the ground level is much lower. At present this place is a bus station. It is believed the rocky cliff resulted from quarrying Mt. Moriah which had once extended from north to south encompassing the Temple Mount. Abraham is said to have brought Isaac to be sacrificed on Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22) where the Temple was later on erected. It was perhaps Solomon, and later on Herod who cut Mt. Moriah into two to get rock for the Temple and Wall building. So Mt. Moriah has been turned to a flat land between the rocky cliff and the northern wall of the Old

City. Part of the northern wall has a rocky cliff, and underneath is a vast cave system formed by quarrying underground. This cave system is called 'Zedekiah's Cave'.

General Gordon who briefly visited the rocky cliff outside the present Garden Tomb in 1883 noticed a skull shaped depression in the cliff with sunken eye sockets. The nearby cave was called 'Jeremiah's Grotto'. Due to the proximity of the Tomb, he believed this to be the place of Calvary. The Romans used to crucify criminals on public roadsides, and this was a fitting place. On the other side of the Garden is believed to be the place where Stephen was stoned. 'Calvary' or 'Golgotha' meant the 'Place of the Skull' (Matt.27:33).

The present Garden Tomb property guides point to this rocky cliff as the true Calvary. So now we have a second site for Calvary The Garden Tomb itself is a strong competition site for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as the real Tomb of Jesus. I happen to believe that the Garden Tomb indeed is the real burial Tomb of Jesus. However, the identification of the 'Skull Hill' with Calvary is doubtful. The question then is, 'Where is the Real Calvary?' It had to be somewhere near because we are told the Tomb where Jesus' body was laid was in a newly cut rock tomb, and the tomb belonged to the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea, of the Jewish Council.Ron Wyatt Discovers the Crucifixion Site

Ron Wyatt, whom I have referred to several times, and particularly in the previous article on Mt. Sinai and the Red Sea Crossing, returned from the Nuweiba site in 1978 for a brief stay in Jerusalem near the Damascus Gate. He decided to take a walk along the 'Calvary Escarpment', the rocky cliff that I just described above. This cliff extends east west through the Garden Tomb property ,the 'Skull Hill' and further east. There was an Israeli authority about Roman antiquities walking with him. Ron says that at one point he stopped and his left hand automatically lifted and pointed to trash dump and he uttered, 'That's Jeremiah's Grotto and the Ark of the Covenant is in there'. Ron was not thinking about the Crucifixion site nor the Ark of the Covenant. He had never been involved in these items in his archaeological work. The remaining story is given in Ron's booklet, 'The Ark of the Covenant' originally released in his Newsletter (#12) in July 1995.

Ron returned to the site in January 1979 with his sons to start some digging at the site with permission of the authorities. Digging down directly in front of the cliff wall he reached the Roman level of the 1st century about 14 ft below (as evidenced by Caesar's coins found there), which was the bed rock. He found a square cut hole 12 to 13 inch size. Further below (ca. 4 ft) but in front of it was found a number of similar square holes. He assumed these were holes for erecting the Crosses. The vertical beam of the Cross (or tree trunk) was apparently fashioned to fit in the hole (not necessarily of the same size). Ron noticed the rock adjoining the single square hole above was cracked. A tape measure descended into the crack went freely down another 25 ft. This meant the crack had extended down to a considerable distance. Ron remembered the Scripture account of the Crucifixion of Jesus where it is stated that at the time of Jesus' death there was an earthquake and the 'rocks were split' (Matt. 27:51) Could this finding confirm that event?

The figure shown below from a photograph of the site taken at the time Wyatt made the discovery of the Cross hole and the crack is reproduced with permission from Wyatt Archeological Society (see also their web site, www.wyattmuseum.com).

Further indications came that this could be the Crucifixion site. While the square hole was a few feet in front of the cliff wall, Ron found a rectangular slab sticking out of the cliff. He also found the foundations of a room wall encompassing the slab and the hole. It appeared to him the Christians had built an altar and a Church at the place of Crucifixion some time later. Even more astonishing was a a protrusion of a round slab of rock, two feet thick lying flat nearby, buried in soil. He could only expose a part of it, but he estimated the diameter to be 13 ft. Was this the Seal Stone that had been placed to cover the Tomb? If so, it fitted the biblical description of the 'Great Stone'. The picture below is my representation of a seal stone of this size in front of the Tomb.

During my Israel trip, the largest Seal Stone I found was nine ft diameter, at Mt. Nebo. Near the Garden Tomb is a seal stone of 5 ft diameter, obviously brought there from another location. I have seen stones of that size elsewhere in Israel.

So where is the Crucifixion site? In our recent Israel-Jordan-Sinai trip we were carefully pointed out to the site. The photograph below taken by me is similar to what Ron has published in his article. Due to the sensitivity of the officials in Israel, further public identification is purposely omitted. You will see later why this location is so sensitive (see article on the Ark of the Covenant in the next section, 'Sacred Relics'). I can tell you emphatically that the site is not in front of the 'Skull Hill'. The real site, after digging, was completely covered up as agreed, so you will not notice any evidence of excavation. To expose it again, one has to dig several feet to the bedrock. It is shame that the truth still cannot be found easily. The authorities in charge of the competing sites in Jerusalem would do everything to suppress the evidence. However, in God's own time, the truth will be revealed to the whole world. On the one hand, all of us would like to see more tangible proof of all that is down there. On the other hand, can we afford not to believe the strong evidences brought forth?

I may just point out that there is yet another Crucifixion site proposed by Dr. Martin (Secrets of Golgotha). He argues that Jesus was crucified on Mt. Olives directly opposite to the Temple because the centurion could see the torn curtain in the Temple at the time of Jesus' death (Matt.27:51-54). He thinks since Christ was the Atonement, he, like the red heifer which was burned on Mt. Olives on the Day of Atonement, was also executed there, but the execution was by nailing him to a live tree. He further states that the two thieves were also nailed to the same tree! I think Dr. Martin has gone too far.

What about the Ark of the Covenant? Ron Wyatt found the Cross site while digging and looking for the Ark. God later on did lead him to the Ark, but he had to first reveal to him the Cross site. In the section 'Sacred Relics' you will find the dramatic conclusion of this search.

Attacking the Bible is “ecumenical”???

When the Scriptures are read every day in the Greek Orthodox Church, they are read *in the original Greek* are they not?

There is no original Greek...The origin of the LXX is a myth...

The Septuagint was created long after the NT was written...That is why 'some' of the wording matches the NT text...The NT writings were available to copy from...

The Septuagint was created long after the NT was written...

This statement is historically inaccurate.

The translation was made from the Hebrew Bible by Hellenistic Jews during the period 275 - 100 BC at Alexandria. Initially the Septuagint was widely used by Greek - speaking Jews, but its adoption by the Christians, who used it in preference to the Hebrew original, aroused hostility among the Jews, who ceased to use it after about 70 AD. It is still used by the Greek Orthodox church.

SEE THIS VIDEO

Historical evidence that the Septuagint was know the Greek speaking Jews before the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. And it was known to Greek Speaking Jews before the Council of Javneh in AD 90 decided the Canon for the Hebrew Canon. It is also known to the Ethiopian Jews who accept it as canon today. The Catholic Church did not add to the Bible; in fact the Septuagint was Sacred among the Greek Speaking Jews and the Ethiopian Jews.

The books within it are known in other Ancient text and writings as mentioned in the video. All Seven of the deuterocanonical books rejected when the Hebrew Bible was decided are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some scholars thought the LXX was unique to the Alexandrian Greek-Jewish people, but fragments of all of them have been found in Hebrew and or Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This means they had a wide and multi-lingual circulation among the Jewish people.

There are people who claim that the Council of Javneh never happened. But, these Jewish Encyclopedia's say differently. BR> (The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1146)"There is no evidence that the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90A.D.), had the legitimate authority to determine scripture for the Jewish religion"

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)."The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deuterocanonical books."

(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1148)."Protestantism derives its Old Testament Canon from the European Jews who followed the Canon of the council of Jamnia or Javneh (90 CE.)."

Honestly, I think you insist on being contrarian sometimes. What possible motive do you have for denying the early composition of the Septuagint?

It was already an old story to Philo, who died sometime between 40 and 50 A.D. when Christianity was barely a blip in the Empire:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html

So it’s complete balderdash that it was “created long after the NT was written”.

Interesting take. I really wonder why, since the KJV is so flawed, the Mormon church (LDS) does not use the Joseph Smith ‘translation” of the KJV? Is it not corrected by an infallible prophet of God?

>We certainly think so...and for very good reasons. We Greeks are God’s other favorite kids and like those other favorite kids, we are very, very bad people with big mouths. He wanted us to have every advantage and use those big mouths to spread the word! :)

God uses all things for the workings of His will. He definitely used the Greeks extensively. From Alexandrian prophesy in Daniel, to the Septuagint and the use of the term Parthenos to further underline the virgin birth of the Messiah, to the use of the Greek NT letters and books to spread the word throughout the Eastern Med, God surely had His hand on them poor loudmouthed Greeks.

>BTW, if you want scriptures likely nearest to the “originals”, the Byzantine Text of Orthodoxy is what you should look for.

Which one? The Byzantine text family is pretty diverse itself. Since the Ninth Century it was the only Greek text being copied due to the encroaching Muslim hordes, (the Latin, of course being found in the West) but this does not say the OTHER Greek non-Byzantine texts are inferior just because they were not being published.

The use of differing manuscripts is not a weakness but a strength. It shows that the Dan Brown “Constantine had all the other versions of the bible destroyed” myth is just that. As well as the fact that even with all the thousands of manuscripts most of the differences are scribal errors and there are NO doctrinal differences between them. No, we don’t need the bible to have differences in churches, we just need to ignore it.

I personally LOVE textual criticism and would push all those interested in the field to read read read good Christian scholars.

But NOT Bart Ehrman, as he is an apostate with an agenda. Dr. James White really highlighted that in his debate with Dr. Ehrman. (I know, I know, Dr. White is an evil protty CALVINIST, but the debate is quite interesting. Funny that, lots of Catholics love when White debates Christian cultists, apostates and others that they do not agree with...)

I suggest anyone interested to take a gander at this for some good crunchy textual criticism goodness —> ( http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=An+Introduction+to+Textual+Criticism )

language of the world is an earthly tool which is limited just like words to music, but Music is like hearing the language of heaven which is beyond this realm.

Yeah, I was afraid you might go all kinds of post modern on me.

Too bad there are no real Mormons left who would argue their points. Thirty years ago there might have been some perhaps heated discussion, prior to the retreat from the banning of black elders. When the church crumbles in the face of public opinion it must be really embarrassing. What does Jesus say about that? I bet He didn’t suggest caving even in the Joseph Smith interpretation.

Where did the men go in the Mormon Church? Brigham Young would never allow his church to bend the knee without bloodshed. He had some grit and guts and would get in anyones face to challenge them. Joseph Smith would argue that HIS bible was the real bible, and that what we have is the apostate remains. Heck, he died with a gun in his hand. Got to give the guy credit for that, (even if perhaps that alone.) Did all the men go to those LDS offshoots?

But there is no one that stands for anything in the LDS anymore. I think it is because the Mormon church really knows there is no toe, much less a foot to stand on factually, and always has to fall back to the “my feelings tell me” defense. And that must be so satisfying to run from every hill and front. I really wish more Mormons would fight. Instead, we must expect the Mormons to crumble instead of continuing to fight beside the Christians for moral issues, when the fight gets really tough. How long before they abandon the barricades in California? If and when the church starts to get taxed?

The modern Mormon church was feminized and probably will never recover. A worthy foe falls to post modernism. Alas!

Too bad there are no real Mormons left who would argue their points. Thirty years ago there might have been some perhaps heated discussion...

Where did the men go in the Mormon Church? Brigham Young would never allow his church to bend the knee without bloodshed. He had some grit and guts and would get in anyones face to challenge them. Joseph Smith would argue that HIS bible was the real bible....

Neither you nor I lived in that era but the timbre was much different in how people express them self.

When I read a whole sermon of Brigham Young I can just imagine why he talk as he did to keep folks awake in those hot summer days.

How could someone go to sleep after the many intriguing opening statements he would make and sprinkle all through his talk.

By the end of his talk one clearly understood what he was teaching.

People on the earth as a whole have gone through many changes down through the ages we are in the hands of the Potter’s clay.

So my observation in the Church is that more of the LDS were listening to the Lord’s council than it seems the mainstream who to me seemed to be stuck in how they wonder through life..

Refusing to budge might one of the reason for that could have to do with the tradition of men is limited.

You have enough understanding of the scriptures to live on earth to be good citizens but are unable to unlock the passages which prepares one for eternal life!

I have witness a few in the mainstream who have been diligence in their studies and prayers and the Lord’s countenance rest upon them!

Those who are firm and strong in the Lord yet humble will do better in this day and age for they will be able to hear and receive the promptings from the Holy Ghost as they walk through this maze of uncertainly that is quickly unfolding before our eyes.

We live in a time of uncertainly in the earth unable to know what to do with ones savings or investments since the rule of law seem to be suspended!

1. Matt. 6: 19-20
19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

2. 3 Ne. 13: 19-20
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

3. James 5: 3
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

Ten virgins

Do you think the oil in ones lamp that contains these this items will enable one to be readly to meet the Lord?

1. 1 Tim. 6: 4
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Would not striving to obtaining this type of Oil would help to prepare one to meet the Lord?

Galatians 5

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

IMHO

Still your answer is lacking. Why is it you are using a corrupted text instead of one laid out by one that the LDS claims is THE restorer of the faith?

Corruption leads to corruption. Truth leads to Salvation. Yet the LDS continues to preach from a text it claims that Satan himself helped alter from the original, which was re-revealed by Joseph Smith the First Prophet.

If you teach from the KJV you are preaching what Satan had written down according to the LDS. Thus when the LDS preaches from the KJV it is preaching Satan’s gospel. The LDS is preaching an anathema upon itself (Galatians 1: 6-9).

Does this not concern you?

Our Bibles Are Different

The Original Old Testament

The Original New Testament

Jesus, the Central Theme of the Bible

More on the OT Books: The Temple Analogy

Reasons for Changing the Original Bible

Conclusion

Introduction

Why Study Genesis?

The Genesis Account of Creation

The Six Day Creation: Highlights

The Six Day Creation: Questions

Questions on the Opening verses

Popular Views on the Six Day Creation

Critique of the Popular Views

The Six Days of Creation are Literal Days Without Gaps

Analysis of the Opening Verses (Gen.1:1-2)

Two Keys to Unlock the Creation Mystery

The Six Day Creation Explained

The Second Creation Account

Was There Rain Before the Flood?

Where Was the Garden of Eden?

The Creation of Man and Woman

The Ancestry of Man

How Old Is The Earth?

ORIGINSNOAH'S ARKMT. SINAICALVARYARK OF THE COVENANTTHE NEW EARTH

MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION

DR. T.V. OOMMEN

biblediscoveries.comFor appointments contact tvoommen29@bellsouth.net

ORIGINS
NOAH'S ARK
MT. SINAI
CALVARY
ARK OF THE COVENANT
THE NEW EARTH

biblediscoveries.com
For appointments contact tvoommen29@bellsouth.net