Proverbs 31:8 Speak up in behalf of the speechless; Defend the rights of all who are perishing. 9 Speak up and judge righteously; Defend the rights of the lowly and the poor
Proverbs 31 is a letter from King Lemuel's mother on how to be a good ruler.
Regarding this passage Bibleref.com states: In this verse, Lemuel's mother (Proverbs 31:1–2) counsels her son, a king, to champion the cause of those who lack the power to contend for themselves. She makes a deliberate connection between those who are "mute"—literally meaning those who cannot speak—and the king speaking for them. A righteous leader advocates on behalf of those who need help (Proverbs 21:13; 29:7, 14). Earlier lessons described failure to protect "the afflicted" as a sign of failed leadership (Proverbs 31:5). Proverbs 30:14 described those who take advantage of the poor and needy as animalistic predators.
The Hebrew phrase translated "destitute" is an uncommon term literally referring to "children of destruction" or "sons of passing away." In literal terms, this would apply to the terminally ill or those completely incapable of caring for themselves. By extension, this context would also include those in poverty, the oppressed, those suffering in catastrophes, and so forth. It can be easy for those in power to brush aside those who cannot offer anything in return for aid. Yet they need an advocate who can lend the strength they lack. Next, Lemuel's mother will continue to urge him to judge righteously (Proverbs 31:9). A corrupt king or judge might discriminate against the mute and the dying, but King Lemuel was told to render only righteous judgments on their behalf.
Virtually every reference to this chapter on wol.jw.borg talks about being a "capable wife" or this excerpt taken from the Watchtower 2000 2/1 pp. 30-31 A Mother’s Wise Counsel
"Excessive drinking is not to be overlooked. “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine,” she warns. How is a king to render sound and clear-headed judgment and not “forget what is decreed and pervert the cause of any of the sons of affliction” if he is constantly intoxicated?​—Proverbs 31:4-7.
On the contrary, by remaining free from such vices, the king will be able to “judge righteously and plead the cause of the afflicted one and the poor one.”​—Proverbs 31:8, 9.
Though Christian youths may not be “kings” today, the wise counsel of Lemuel’s mother is just as timely, if not more so. Alcohol abuse, use of tobacco, and sexual immorality are rampant among young people nowadays, and it is vital that Christian youths pay attention when their parents offer them ‘weighty messages.’"
It's funny how this chapter is about being a good ruler and speaking up for the speechless...for example CHILDREN and yet I can't find a single one of the glorious Kings in upstate New York speaking about this nor any mention I'm the publications about how they as KINGS to rule with Jesus himself should be applying this to themselves.

If you are thinking about working at or if you are thinking about donating to Faith Comes By Hearing/Hosanna [https://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com](https://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/) you should consider the following. Having worked at Faith Comes By Hearing myself for decades, you should be aware of their culture and ideology. (Arranged from most important to least.)
​
\*Treatment of the Bible:
​
Grammatical, historical and cultural context as well as literary genre are all ignored by top management. So, Scripture is often misquoted and misused:
​
Ignoring basic, common sense guidelines, rules for interpreting the Bible results in misinterpreting, misunderstanding, and misapplying the Bible. Management ignores the fact that observation (what the text says) must always come before interpretation (what the text means); and interpretation always comes before application (how the text applies to me). They do not consider the Bible text objectively first: They treat the text subjectively or relatively or assume what the passage text means. And they ignore the fact that a text cannot mean today what it never could have meant to the original authors and original readers. Exegesis is often contrasted with “eisegesis”; the Greek preposition εἰς means “into,” and hence eisegesis means reading your own meaning into the text. Bible study is not reading your personal theology into some biblical passage. Bible study is letting the text talk to us; we are the listeners, not the talkers. Many Christians just want to know what the Bible “means to me.” If you stop to think about it, this just is not possible. We must do the hard work of learning the author’s original meaning first, and without that we can’t ever know “what it means to me.” A text cannot mean what it never meant.
​
\*Feelings and experiences rule:
​
There is a focus by top management on personal experiences and feelings instead of a studied period of reflection: Emotional, simple, popular teaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise teaching. Bible studies go straight to the question, “What does this passage mean to me?” while bypassing the prior question, “What does the passage say and why do I think my interpretation is correct?” Management promotes and allows employees to get away with applying an understanding of a passage that is based on vague feelings or first impressions and not on the hard work of reading the context, verifying with commentaries and using study tools such as concordances, Bible dictionaries, and the like because a careful exercise of reason is not important in understanding what the Bible actually says for management. Besides, it takes work! For management, Christianity is identified with subjective feelings, sincere motives, personal piety, and blind faith. Management tests the truth not by a careful application of our God-given faculties of thought, or even by biblical mandates (for example, 2 Corinthians 10:5), but rather by private subjective experiences. For the most part, theoretical reason is just not part of the culture at FCBH. In fact, top management will often spiritualizing normal, everyday things like advice, facts, common knowledge:
​
Example during a meeting, the CEO said he saw a full moon, then clouds formed & covered the moon, then clouds dissipated. He then said he felt God say: "I can turn nothing into something; something into nothing; turn this ministry into something & if it goes thick & blocks Jesus; it has to diminish.”
​
So, personal, subjective experiences that top management shares equals truth that employees must agree with or at least accept as true.
​
Also, time is money, but management uses their mandatory meetings to discuss controversial or complex topics (e.g., fasting, communion, tithing, personal stewardship of money, helping the homeless, how to create more interaction with remote workers, how to retain employees, how to hire more Gen Z employees, past trauma), most of which are unrelated to the actual work. Then they ask employees (most of which have no authority to get things changed/done) what their opinion is about the controversial or complex topic, instead of consulting with professionals or experts.
​
So, top management will read a bible verse (not a paragraph, not a chapter, a verse; usually out of context) using a version of the Bible that is almost a paraphrase. Then share something personal that happened to them, something they did or saw or experienced or a personal conviction that is not related to the verse. Then explain how they felt about it, how they interpreted it. Then they will ask employees (especially internationals) to share similar experiences. And, then if no one shares or comments or speaks, management makes employees feel guilty: Along the lines of “So, God is not working in your life?”
​
Example: “I felt God give me this verse about gossip. Let me share with you some personal stories about gossip…. This is how I see it. Now, in the last 5 min of our time, I want people to share. I especially want input from internationals. Does anyone have anything to say about this? No, one? Is God not speaking to you? How can God not be moving and speaking? This is unreal….”
​
Top management will often use a reader response or subjective biblical interpretation: “This is what I think this verse means. What do you think this verse means? What stood out to you? What did you learn? What is God asking you to apply?” This is a very self-centered way to interpret Scripture. The focus is all about you. What you think. What you feel. But, “The Bible is not about you.” - Timothy Keller. And this leads to people looking at the same verse and coming up with completely different interpretations. Everybody seems to have an opinion on what the Bible says/teaches.
​
So, instead of discovering what the original author said to the original readers. They will take Biblical concepts (e.g., called to ministry; felt led by the Spirit; God spoke to me; felt peace) and then add new meanings to them which the original author did not intend. This is dangerous since it leaves employees with doubt, disillusionment, disappointment, discouragement, and false hope and can leave them with unmet, unrealistic, and false expectations. Top management will also take subjective, unclear biblical principles or non-essentials, or personal convictions and make them scriptural authority and then judge other Christians who do not agree. They will treat the Proverbs as promises. They will also not make an effort to distinguish between Biblical principles and practices which are relative, time bound, culturally subjective, Biblically illustrated (not commanded). They will often make hasty generalizations. They will beg the question. They will commit special pleading, dictionary simpliciter, reductive, faulty analogy and many other fallacies. They will also allegorize promises in Scripture and spiritualize all principles. They assume that all historical narratives have individual identifiable moral application. God’s word should be taught clearly, not in a distorted manner. Top management will proof text and use religious words to promote their agenda.
​
And top management will encourage others to have this view/philosophy of Bible interpretation. Many incorrectly interpret the Bible and do not even realize it.
​
I pray to God that this bad method of interpretation is not being taught to internationals, to people who have never had bibles, who do not have biblical discernment, who don't know any better.
​
\*Inductive Bible study and internationals:
​
Hermeneutics has been defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics helps us understand the Bible. It is a science because there are specific rules the interpreter must follow. It is an art because it takes years of practice to develop the ability to employ those rules properly. There is a difference between a novice and a seasoned interpreter. Hermeneutics has two basic steps, finding what the text meant to its original audience, and then seeing how it applies to our current situation. Unfortunately, many people (Americans included), impose their own personal experiences, theology, and modern culture on to the Biblical text.
​
Fortunately, God has allowed us (especially Americans) to have Bible dictionaries, commentaries, handbooks, atlases, etc., to help us with correct hermeneutics, to understand the essential historical and cultural information - the context of the original author and readers of the Bible. We have tools that shed light on the text and help us to arrive at the correct interpretation. When you read a commentary, it will provide checks and balances against your possible mistakes. They can answer questions that a reading of the text can never provide or ask questions that you may never think of asking. Unfortunately, many international people groups do not have access to these tools (or even access to mature, trained, and experienced Christians and pastors). And even if they do have access to resources, they may not know how to use them properly (i.e., limitations of commentaries).
​
Grammatical-Historical Method or Inductive Bible study can easily be done with printed or digital Bibles. But how can a person do this with audio and video Bibles? This is critical especially for international people groups that do not have access to (and may never have) print Bibles.
​
False gospels and heresies are popular in illiterate people groups because they are not taught discernment or how to evaluate Scripture and the thoughts of others for themselves. People with ulterior motives misuse Scripture and end up influencing the illiterate.
​
If these Bible Films and audio Bibles are considered to be actual Bible Translations – video and audio translations of the Bible and the equivalent to and sometimes a replacement for print scripture – then should we also make it a point to teach people who are watching and listening to our video and audio Bible translations Biblical hermeneutics (historical-grammatical interpretation)? How to study the Bible properly for themselves?
​
My experience has been that many non-Christians (and Christians) misquote or misinterpret the Bible because they do not know how to actually read and study it on their own to find out what the text actually meant to the original author and audience and seeing how it applies to their current situation.
​
There are many ways to study the Bible, and there are many excellent study aids available to help you with specific books of the Bible. But the most important thing you need to remember is that to find out what the Bible says, you need to read it yourself in a way that will help you discover what it says, what it means, and how you are to apply it to your life. And the best way to do this is through the process called inductive study. Inductive study doesn’t tell you what the Bible means or what you should believe. Instead, it teaches you a method of studying God’s Word that can be applied to any portion of Scripture at any time.
​
Inductive Bible study draws you into personal interaction with the Scripture and thus with the God of the Scriptures so that your beliefs are based on a prayerful understanding and legitimate interpretation of Scripture.
​
\*Artistic freedom concerns:
​
Another concern is with the artistic freedom or personal preference when it comes to audio and video Bible media (when these function as replacements for print Scripture). How much can be taken before you compromise the historical accuracy or the meaning and understanding of the original message? A good translation must be faithful to the historical situation and not change the cultural background. In Bible Translation, the translator’s first job is to study the text carefully to discover the correct meaning (what the original author wanted to communicate). Do international people groups understand that the “artistic freedom” (e.g., how the film is lit, the key shots, angles it shoots from, close-ups, point of view, sets, locations and props, editing, the dialogue and the actors’ performance and emotions, wardrobe choices, soundtrack, visual transitions, reference shots), the visuals and sound, are all NOT inspired?
​
Biblical and Orthodox Christianity teaches that All Scripture (not just some) is inspired by God who utilized the human element within man to accomplish this without error.The very WORDS (not just the ideas, even parts of letters, and sometimes the tense of verbs) are a result of the mind of God expressed in human terms and conditions. The Bible IS fully true in all that it teaches or asserts to be true (including historical and scientific matters). Only the original documents (autographs) are completely free from error. Does FCBH make an effort to explain this to people groups? If not, then there will be conflict when the visuals and sounds that are added do not match the Biblical text. There will be confusion, doubt, disillusionment, disappointment, discouragement, false hope when people are confronted with unmet, unrealistic, and false expectations.
​
So, using audio and especially video as Bibles should come with some teaching of the basic principles of film criticism, the doctrine of inspiration (difference between artistic freedom and the Word of God), and inductive Bible study or Bible interpretation.
​
\*Communicating the truth:
​
They employ a presuppositional and fideistic/experiential approach to evangelism: In the many testimonies that are shared, many of the people who receive the audio bibles say they believe in Jesus because FCBH gave them bibles that are in their native language. Makes you wonder what would happen if the audio was from the Quran or book of Mormon. Would they believe in anything as long as it was in their own language? FCBH does not seem to make sure people are actually believing facts. There seems to be no appeals to evidence and reason for the truthfulness of the Christianity. One should become a Christian and believe that Jesus is God because it is true (from reason, historical evidence, archaeological evidence, theistic arguments) and not because the Bible one reads is in a certain language. You should follow Jesus because He is God and proved it; not because He speaks your language.
​
\*Hearing from God?
​
Many in management practice “hearing from God” and then claim God said something specific and personal to them and to the ministry. This practice uses God's name in vain. And often use God to avoid personal responsibility - “I heard from God; God told me; I felt led; God spoke to me…” They then put what happens on God, so they avoid any personal responsibility if it does not come to pass. They make Christianity out to be personal, private, and a matter of “how I feel about things.” Many Christians actually feel spiritually sub-standard and defeated because for them “the heavens have been silent”. This can be debilitating, and it’s profoundly unfair to employees if their only shortcoming is entertaining a false expectation of what a relationship with God entails. Conversations are often littered with casual references to one’s latest revelations without any sense of the gravity of the assertion, or any sense of responsibility to justify the claim. Even Jesus Himself didn’t presume to speak for God without compelling evidence. But, management takes personal opinions and spiritualize them as if they were God’s word to give divine authority to impulses or thoughts that drift through their minds. To say “God is telling me” gives feelings an authority the Scripture does not justify and virtually ends debate. You can’t argue with the person if God supposedly gave the command. Trusting inner feelings is not biblical. It’s confusing at best, and dangerous at worst.
​
And with certain requests from employees, when top management does not want to do something, they will respond by saying things like: “I need to pray about it first. Sorry, I do not feel led. I need to get confirmation first. I need to have peace about it first. I need to hear from God first.” But with other things, with things they want to do, they do not need to pray about it first, do not need to feel led, do not need to get confirmation first, do not need to have a peace about it first, do not need to hear from God first. When management does not want to do something, they pass the responsibility off to God (“We cannot…. because God didn’t tell us to do it. Didn't get confirmation.”); but when they do want to do something, they don't seek God and do what they want (“We have decided and are going to… and we don’t need to ask God for guidance or permission”).

"Human, thy armies spring not from the heavens, but of the soil, and it is not the property of the soil to remain thirsty for long. Proverbs of Arienta."
"Translated from Cyanji, this old written language that serves doubly as musical notes for the Blue Light Watchers." Eshka said, sounding vaguely bored.
"And it means they anticipated we would one day build our war machine again, but this time it would have religious significance. The redemption of humanity, the salvation of the Milky Way and absolution for the horrors humans have inflicted in order to become the absolute undeposable masters of defending our galaxy, a sacred duty." Jinar ordained, with a hint of militant facetiousness in her voice.
"Who sent this?" Osowl asked the communications software. It wasn't sure.
"We've received hail from a ship nearby that isn't on any of our readings. They are cloaked. I didn't know there was such a thing." Skipper McCain said.
"It's a Cave Gods ship. They have over a million years more levels of technology than ours. Ask them what we can do for them out here." Jinar determined.
"They have sent instructions to patch them through on our communications monitor." Skipper McCain said.
"Okay, it's talk they want." Jinar mocked surprise.
The face of a young-looking Cave Gods appeared, and he spoke using his own voice in English, but very slowly and with the fermented accent of a Cave Gods.
"He's a juvenile. He's not even an age-old. Must be the Cave Gods's Youngest. They rarely reproduce, and the youngest is exiled between half an age and an age old. All the Cave Gods will be watching what he does during these centuries, he must accomplish great things before returning home. He will be well equipped with many gifts from his people, including defensive tools. We should ask his help in your war effort." Osowl Fitten realized with little effort.
"She's right, I was going to say so, but first, let me say to him how handsome he is." Eshka hissed.
"He is rather." Osowl agreed.
"What are we saying?" Skipper McCain asked.
"Patch me through to him." Jinar stood in front of the webcam.
"I am Nyctoth, this is my vessel Fly-By-Night and I seek great adventure in the stars. Admiral Jinar, I've caught up to you at last. My current quest is complete. Now I must communicate with you successfully what I have witnessed. I have seen the destruction of Pacifica by the Unknown. While I was unable to prevent this, I have decided that my way will be to do whatever is necessary to prevent such destruction from happening again. I have many refugees on my ship who are human, and while they are comfortable right now, they need a home. I was hoping you could take them." Nyctoth had said.
"We are on a mission to prepare the galaxy for the Unknown. We are building a war machine, a defense industry. When it is complete, the association and the Combine will be as best prepared for the invasion by the Dark Beings as possible. It is what we do, after all, make war." Admiral Jinar told Nyctoth. "It would serve this cause if you burdened the Combine with those refugees. We are orchestrating a war in a galaxy asleep with peace. There's gotta be some wake up calls."
"See? She knows how to use idioms properly." Eshka hissed quietly to Osowl, who realized she ot to take notes.
"Very well, Admiral. I will take the refugees from Pacifica to the Combine. When we meet again, allow me to partake in your efforts, under your command, so that we might defend the Milky Way together." Nyctoth's bat face looked eager, and Admiral Jinar caught the expression.
"You could be killed in battle, or required to kill. Is that an acceptable circumstance?" Admiral Jinar asked the Cave Gods Youngest.
"I have already lived many lifetimes past the lifespan your people enjoy and I am not even an adult. My people permit me to adventure and grow and experience the galaxy during this time, and if I should die, then that is the adventure, the experience, that I shall have. All living creatures die, but few carry the responsibility to entertain a soul. That is what all of us truly are, parts of the whole, pieces of the One. We are the sum of all things in this galaxy, and we do what we know we should do and we avoid doing what we should not do. No other circumstances are for me." Nyctoth explained.
"Very well, soldier. I hereby recruit you to special command in the New CUF. You will report directly to me and you will act autonomously while carrying out all errant missions towards our cause. If you fail in your duties, combat or otherwise, you will be discharged from our service, no longer part of the New CUF."
"Do I salute?" Nyctoth grinned with his curved fangs, his squinting eyes widening with the smile.
"No. Special command doesn't salute. You report directly to me informally and constantly. You can by my ears in the Combine. You have no idea how messy this political chapter of our war is going to get. I'm not sure I want to anticipate it myself."
"What about black ops, like sabotage or assassination?" Nyctoth asked weirdly.
"You're kidding, right?" Admiral Jinar asked.
Nyctoth laughed.
When Fly-By-Night had departed for the Combine the rest of the trip through the Basilik system was quiet. Meeting a Cave Gods Youngest felt like a big deal. Nyctoth's volunteer conscription was worth more than the prospects before them. At Basilik they were hailed.
"Exalted Inquisitor Eshka Layenna, a living legend, on my shores? I am beyond honored. Please, welcome to my city of Basilik." Said Administrator Ihanna Kelele.
When Phoenix Hawk had landed and Admiral Jinar and Osowl Fitten had emerged from the ship's parking ramp they looked to see Eshka Layenna was taken into custody by security droids. Several more such machines surrounded them and they were ordered to surrender to detainment.
"You three will remain my prisoners here. You thought you would start some kind of war using Sunder weaponry, human, but think again. We are not some munitions factory you can scout out and try to seize later. My colony will not be a pawn in your sick human war games." Administrator Ihanna Kelele chastised them in English, her voice sounding masculine and confident.
"I have diplomatic immunity, I was given the ancient signal that my visit would not be impeded in any way. You cannot detain me under these circumstances." Osowl Fitten said after she had thought for a moment. "It is illegal."
"Let her go. Capture the human on board Phoenix Hawk and then let her go."
The droids tried to enter the ramp, but Skipper McCain opened fire with an assault rifle, the high velocity bullets stinging the armored machines before burrowing in and exploding. One by one the droids came rolling down the ramp on fire.
"Surrender human, or we'll be forced to use exterminating tactics on you instead of trying to capture you." Administrator Ihanna Kelele turned up the volume on her translator and shouted into the open ship's docking compartment. The response was a spray of bullets in her general direction, a few getting a little close as they exploded on the floor around her.
"You serve no purpose to me or your commander if you are eliminated during this maneuver. I am not going to stay here and be shot at, but I'd prefer you surrender. I don't want your life on my hands." Administrator Ihanna Kelele shuddered in fear, but held her ground, insisting on capturing him alive, even at her own risk.
Admiral Jinar respected that and ordered her soldier to stand down.
"Very good. I was able to take you all alive. You will remain prisoners here indefinitely." Ihanna Kelele decided. "We are not arms dealers, you humans might be associated, but you have a lot to learn."

The Purpose of Life for Man

One of the most direct verses on the subject of "the meaning (or purpose) of (human) life" in the Bible can be found in Revelation:

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."-Revelation 4:11

This, of course, should prompt us to ask what exactly does God take pleasure in?
Conversely, what doesn't He take pleasure in?

"Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"-Micah 6:6-8

God does not take pleasure in mere outward religiosity and ritual, but rather finds honest acts of love towards Him and others as more important when pertaining to our fulfillment of what God expects from us as His creation. God takes great pleasure in us doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with Him. This is what He requires of us. In other words...

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."-Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

The Book of Ecclesiastes is an existential treatise on the futility of finding any meaning or fulfillment in life apart from God. In it, "the Preacher" (or "Teacher" in some translations) explores the limits of human experiences which may provide meaning or fulfillment in this life before the author of the book inevitably concludes that the only thing we can do that has any kind of meaning or permanence in the end is fearing God and keeping His commandments. The reason for this is because the march of time and our own mortality effectively make most human endeavors hevel. The Hebrew word "hevel" is translated as vanity in the King James.
The following is taken from BibleProject:

In Hebrew, hevel literally refers to “vapor” or “smoke.” The teacher uses this word 38 times throughout the book of Ecclesiastes as a metaphor to describe how life is temporary and fleeting, like a wisp of smoke, but also how life is an enigma or paradox. Smoke appears solid, but when you try to grab it, it’s like nothing is there.

[...]

The author’s basic goal is to target all of the ways we try to build meaning and purpose in life apart from God and then let the teacher deconstruct them. The author thinks that people spend most of their time investing energy and emotion in things that ultimately have no lasting meaning or significance. And so he allows the teacher to give us a reality check.

The Preacher gives us a "reality check" by demonstrating how time and death effectively make things like scientific and artistic discovery (1:10-11), mirth (2:1), alcohol (2:3), architecture (2:4), amassing property (2:7-8), and luxury (2:8) all hevel. Materialism and hedonism fail to fulfill, and though wisdom and righteousness are acknowledged by the preacher to be advantageous, the righteous and wise are still often victims of injustice and unfairness in the world while the wicked get to prosper and have longevity at times (1:13-18). Generally, your life will probably be better by living in the wisdom given in Proverbs (Ecc. 7:11-12; 9:13-18), but it's no guarantee that you will have a good life as bad things still happen to good people, and good things still happen to bad people. This isn't entirely "hevel" but it's confusing and disorienting because things don't always work out the way we think they should in this life.
Again, from BibleProject:

So what’s the way forward in the midst of all this hevel? Paradoxically, the teacher discovers that the key to truly enjoying life is accepting hevel, acknowledging that everything in your life is totally out of your control. About six different times, at the bleakest moments in his dialogue, the teacher suddenly talks about “the gift of God,” which is the enjoyment of the simple, good things in life such as friendship, family, a good meal, or a sunny day.
You and I can’t control the most important things in our lives. Nothing is guaranteed, and, strangely, that’s the beauty of it. When I adopt a posture of complete trust in God, it frees me to simply enjoy life as I actually experience it and not as I think it ought to be. In the end, even my expectations about life, my hopes and dreams, are all “hevel, hevel. Everything under the sun is hevel.”
The teacher’s words come to an end, and the author takes over, bringing the book to a close. He says that it is very important to hear what the teacher has to say. He likens the teacher’s words to a shepherd’s staff with a goad, a pointy end that will hurt when it pokes you. But that pain can ultimately steer you in the right direction towards greater wisdom.
The author warns us not to take the teacher’s words too far. You can spend your entire life buried in books trying to answer the existential puzzles of human life. Don’t exhaust yourself, he says. You’ll never get there. Instead, the author offers his own conclusion that we should “fear God and keep his commands; this is the whole duty of humans. For God will bring every deed into judgment, every hidden thing, whether good or evil” (Ec. 12:13-14).

Fearing the Lord doesn’t guarantee success in this life, but it is the right thing to do, and ultimately God will clear the "hevel" and bring His justice on all we have done. Therefore, we ought to keep God's commandments.
Through Jesus, we see the Bible clearing the confusion many have, and still have, about God's commandments and what exactly they are (in essence, at least):

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."-Matthew 22:37-40

The apostle Paul puts it like this:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

The apostle John, like this:

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."-1 John 4:16

In other words, the first and second greatest commandments can be seen as inextricably intertwined, as one cannot truly love God without loving their fellow man, and vice versa.
So, to put it bluntly, the meaning, or purpose, of (human) life according to the Bible is simply love.

"What Does It Mean to Love Biblically?"

But, what exactly is love anyway? We know that, according to the apostle John, God is love. But, what does that mean exactly?
The ancient Greeks had anywhere between four and eight different words for love (depending on the source):

• Storge: affection
  
• Philia or Phileo: friendship
  
• Eros: sexual, erotic
  
• Agape: unconditional, divine, selfless
  
• Ludus: flirtatious, playful, casual, uncommitted
  
• Pragma: committed, long-standing
  
• Philautia: self-love
  
• Mania: obsessive, possessive, addictive, dependent
  

The word translated as "charity" in the KJV's rendering of 1st Corinthians 13 is agape. A more accurate translation of the word would be "love," more specifically, the love of God. In this passage, Paul talks about the importance of having this kind of love for others compared to all the things we might typically obsess over concerning the things of God. Even things like charity to the poor itself, if not motivated by agape, does not impress God! Our motivations and heart matter to God just as much, if not more, than our actions themselves.
This is what the Bible defines as true love, or at least, is the kind of love it's most concerned about.
In order to demonstrate to another that we love them, we sacrifice something. For God, He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins (John 3:16). For Jesus, he sacrificed himself to save us from our sins:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."-John 15:13

In essence, true love is self-sacrifice. Putting others before ourselves is the greatest kind of sacrifice.
God didn't have to send His Son, but He did. Jesus didn't have to accept the mission, but he did.
God loves you, and Jesus loves you.
We demonstrate to others that we love them by sacrificing our wants and desires for them. These sacrifices can range from really small, to really big. Loving others is a daily practice of making greater and greater sacrifices.

“You can will to love people. Love is not a feeling. Love is a willing, and the Lord says to love people. He did not mean [to merely] feel love for them” — A.W. Tozer

A stumbling block for many in their walk with God is the inability to love one's enemies and to love unlovable people as Jesus did. It’s difficult for us to show love to people we don’t feel love for; to people we despise or dislike. We also tend to struggle with extending grace and mercy to those who’ve hurt us. I myself often wonder whether I am even capable of loving everyone the way Jesus does.
As I grow in my faith, I realize it’s not that I’m incapable of loving like Jesus; I’m just not always willing to. My unwillingness to love indicates that I am unwittingly adopting the worldly view of love, which is based on feelings and merit. I am choosing not to love people I feel are underserving of my love. The more I study Scripture, though, the more I realize Biblical love is not a feeling or an emotion; it’s a decision. It is an action, and it’s sacrificial. It’s not something you feel; it is, again, something you practice.

“Biblical love is a choice to do good for another person regardless of what we feel. It is a decision to compassionately and righteously pursue the betterment of another person. This is why you can even love your enemies according to Christ’s command.” — Tony Evans

Jesus commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). He also said, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” (John 13:34). Since the Lord commands us to love, that means it is within our power to do so; therefore, love is a decision we make. Although feelings will accompany love, it’s not an emotion; it’s the decision to love regardless of how we feel.
As believers, we’re taught to love our enemies, and do good to those who hate us, and if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, "turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). It’s not easy to do; hating our enemies comes naturally to us because of our evil nature. It is impossible to love our enemies on our own strength; we need the help of the Spirit of God.
The decision to love your enemies arises from the decision to obey the will of God and the desire to be Christlike. We choose to love our enemies because God said so and loved us first. Jesus said we are to love as he loved us.

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”-Romans 5:8

So Biblical love is sacrificial love. It is not a feeling but an act of will; the desire to put the welfare of others above your own. This type of love is not a love based on affection or emotion. Instead, it’s agape love, a love that is not concerned with self but is concerned more with the good of others.
We are not going to like everyone, nor are we called to; we are called to love everyone regardless of how we feel about them. It’s possible to love someone without feeling love for them when we decide to love everyone the way God loves us. The more we love through our actions, the decision to love will become a choice the heart is more willing to make.
Again, this doesn’t mean you will like or feel love for everyone, but when you put your trust in the Lord and pursue wisdom and holiness through prayer and Scripture, you will naturally develop a love for others.
To put it succinctly: Biblical love seeks the best interests of others, even our enemies, often to the detriment of ourselves. "Best interests" here doesn't necessarily mean what the other person thinks are their own best interests. It just means we do for them what we know or believe is best for them, and what we know or believe is best for them should be informed by an active participation with the Spirit of God and by His Word (the Bible) itself. Feelings may or may not accompany this, but how we feel towards the other is not what determines whether or not we're exhibiting the love of God, in the view of Jesus and the apostles. In their view, it's about whether or not we can still decide to seek the best interests of those who might harm us, or who we might not even like.

What the Real Heavenly Treasure Is

Now, this all brings us to an important question that needs to be answered: Is it wrong to love God and others while making a reward the objective for doing so?
We must ask this question, because all throughout Scripture we are told that the faithful followers of God will be "rewarded" some day for everything they've done to merit this. Giving an exhaustive list of passages that proves this point would be endless, but here are some examples of just a few:

"Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."-Luke 14:12-14
"I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."-Acts 20:35
"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."-Luke 6:35

The answer to this question depends on what we define as "rewards." Most will typically adopt some vague idea of material possesions that await the believer when they get to heaven as one's reward for faithfulness towards God, or that the reward is simply an escape from punishment for one's own sins, or perhaps even some combination of these things both.
However, none of these are the "rewards" the Lord is promising to those who obey the first and second commandments. If they were, our motivation to love God and others would ultimately be selfish. Think about it. Our motivation for rewards would inherently be me-centered, and not other-centered.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ gives the following command:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."-Matthew 6:19-21

We know there are heavenly treasures, because Jesus says so, but what are they? The issue of heavenly treasures or eternal rewards is riddled with question marks. It’s a subject that has been abused by some (“Store up treasure by giving to my ministry”) and left in the too-hard basket by others.
But the answer here is simple, and two-fold. One of our rewards are God Himself:

"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward."-Genesis 15:1
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."-Hevrews 11:6

What is the reward of the seeker but to find that which is sought? If you are searching for God, you will find Him and He will be your very great reward.
Now, if you are the newest believer or the eleventh-hour worker, you will be as richly blessed as the oldest, most faithful saint. Eternity will not be divided into the haves and have-nots, for we are all one in the New Jerusalem.
But we can distinguish God our reward from the heavenly treasure that Jesus said can be stored up. You cannot "store up" more of God, after all.
So what are heavenly treasures? The answer may surprise you, but it’s people.

"Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward."-Psalm 127:3

What is the only thing you can take with you? People, a.k.a. eternal friends, a.k.a. spiritual offspring. This Psalm is not just talking about biological children. God has bigger plans for you and they involve spiritual children. Lots of them. Dozens. Hundreds. Thousands. Millions. Don’t limit God.
So much time and effort is spent debating heavenly treasures as though they were some great mystery. What are they? Jesus makes it plain: it's people.

• Just as Abraham was called to be the father of many nations, so are you.
  
• Jesus said those who followed him would be fishers of men. What is a fisherman’s reward? It’s fish, or people in this case.
  
• What is the reward of the one who sows and waters the good seed? It’s a harvest of people.
  
• What is treasure that never wears out and cannot be stolen? It’s people.
  

God's heart cries, “I treasure children. The more, the better!” In Matthew chapter 5, Jesus introduces God as our heavenly Father. In Matthew chapter 6, Jesus says God is a Father who rewards us. And what is a father’s reward?
It is children.
“Sounds great, but I am no evangelist.” You don’t need to be an evangelist to win eternal friends. Believers can live such godly lives that unbelievers will be won to the kingdom (1 Pet. 2:12; Matt. 5:16).
God's desire is to grow the world’s largest family and He treats people like treasure. This is obvious once you see it. Indeed, it’s a theme that runs throughout Scripture:

"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."-Deuteronomy 7:6
"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."-Deuteronomy 14:2
"And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;"-Deuteronomy 26:18
"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;"-1 Peter 2:4-9

Like Jesus, Paul eagerly gave to the poor (Gal. 2:10). He did not give out of religious duty or to put a shine on his reputation. He did it because he loved people and wanted to share the love of God with as many as possible (1 Cor. 13:3).
Life is a gift that is easily wasted. We can waste it running after inferior rewards that rust, or we can do what Jesus and Paul did and invest ourselves in the only reward that lasts: people.

God Is Faithful

Someone once asked me, "Why would God be concerned as to whether or not we 'have trust and confidence in him' when He's judging us and when He determines what our fate will be?"
Having trust and confidence in God, according to the Biblical authors, is required for us to fulfill His commandment that we love Him, and thus also love others. (See Hebrews 11.)
As with a spouse, you cannot truly love them if you do not have some level of trust or confidence in them, and vice versa. All relationships require trust, from both parties. God wants us to trust Him that He will keep His promises towards those of us who love and follow Him. He also wants to trust us that we will enter the kingdom of heaven with a righteous and loving character. He doesn't want another rebellion in paradise, so He's trying to see if we truly love righteousness for righteousness' sake. A truly righteous person wouldn't want to rebel against Him when the time comes that they enter the kingdom of God themselves, because a person with a righteous character wouldn't ever do such a thing.
As Open Theists, we believe we're being consistent in our belief that God, at times, puts trials before us to test whether or not we will remain trustworthy enough in our character to be deemed worthy of entrance into His kingdom. The Classical Theist doesn't have the luxury of being consistent if they have this same belief.
In the Book of Job, Satan makes an accusation towards someone God has deemed as truly righteous: Job.
Satan assails God’s wisdom and character in running the world by alleging that people only serve Him because of what they get out of it. God protects them from disaster and blesses them in other ways. Their obedience, he is suggesting, isn’t really a free choice. "There is no genuine virtue in the world," Satan is claiming. "There are only self-serving bargains, and obedience for the sake of being protected and blessed is one of them. Hence, true holiness and virtuous obedience are an illusion." "Take away a person’s protection," Satan insists, "and let me have my way with people, and they will stop living for God" (Job 1:9-11; 2:4-5).
God has so much faith in Job that he will not succumb to proving the false accusations being levied towards him and God's way of running things in general that He ends up accepting the challenge. For God, this is as much a test of His faith towards His servant as it is for Job for his Lord. The adversary, we see, was assailing God’s integrity and wisdom in overseeing the creation. Satan was, in effect, accusing God of being a Machiavellian ruler. In the context of this narrative, it was an assault that could only be refuted by being put to the test.
Had God simply forced Satan into silence, without proving him wrong, it would have simply confirmed the accuracy of Satan’s charge. It would have shown that there is no integrity or wisdom in how God runs the world after all. "There is only the exercise of power, used to manipulate beings into obeying Him. People serve God only as a bargain, not out of genuine love."
No, the challenge had to be answered by having it put to the test. The most righteous man on the earth was thus chosen to be tested. If Job failed, the narrative suggests, then Satan will have made his point. If he succeeded, however, then God’s wisdom and integrity in running the cosmos will have been vindicated. Hence, the protective fence around Job is removed and Satan is allowed to afflict him.
In the end, Job proves faithful to God and is even referenced in the New Testament as an example of the kind of faithfulness He expected of first century believers facing persecution and trials:

"Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy."-James 5:11

While most of us aren't dealing with the life-threatening kind of persecution that believers faced in the first century, for the very fact that the eschatological end of physical Israel and the Old Covenant system was fastly approaching for them (and already has approached), we still each face our own trials that God puts in our lives as individuals to see if we truly love Him. Job is simply the ultimate example of one who loved God because they chose to, not because God forced them to.
After all, you never know if your love is pure if it isn't tested...

CMM.World & CMMTheology.org
The Great Harvest is here. Christ's Mandate for Missions and CMMTheology build strong, organic relationships globally as we worship, grow and equip together. Like Joshua and Caleb and the Apostle Paul, we see with faith what He sees in each person (to help each reach fullness), group (many streams and backgrounds in unity) and nations (sheep vs. goat nations). Our passion is to love, connect, equip and send with the simplicity, fullness, and power of the Gospel.
The Uncompromising Blissful Extravagance of His Presence! Inbox
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - November 10, 2022
Dear Mighty One,
I see the Lord's eye upon us we discover by revelation the 'new thing' He is doing in our lives and of those of us who, beyond the present darkness, gaze into His eyes. The 'tuning fork' of Yahweh is orchestrating the sons and daughters of our living God in growing holy remnant unity to withstand as we stand with Him fearlessly in the boldness of the faith of God in this hour. Egypt is behind us, and the covenantal promises and prophetic words we have received (1 Tim. 1:18) empower us by His Holy Spirit to advance in warfare, humbly growing in the spirit of wisdom and revelation.

Yesterday as I encouraged some friends, I said, 'stay in the blissful extravagance of His presence.' Today I saw in Psalm 34 His eyes are upon us in vs. 8 & 9 and v:15 about the 'uncompromisingly righteous.' We are to be holy as He is holy. That leaves no room for any more compromise or seeking to please man or the traditions of men, being free of the fear of man, the religious spirit, and any demonic activity. We are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus. Lord, help us understand by revelation to walk in all the authority we have been given by Jesus Christ.
Psalm 34:8-9 'O taste and see that the Lord [our God] is good! Blessed (happy, fortunate, to be envied) is the man who trusts and takes refuge in Him. O fear the Lord, you His saints [revere and worship Him]! For there is no want to those who truly revere and worship Him with godly fear.'
v. 15 'The eyes of the Lord are toward the [uncompromisingly] righteous and His ears are open to their cry.'
Chuck Pierce shared this amazing word from Penny Jackson that is right on for this season: https://christsmandate.blogspot.com/2022/11/chuck-pierce-shares-powerful-word-from.html
May YOUR November be full of Thanksgiving and Praise for you and yours as YOU enjoy The Uncompromising Blissful Extravagance of His Presence!
Thank you for praying for CMM and all your fellow CMM Global Family worldwide. Pray for all the missionaries, schools, and students in CMM College of Theology in the US, Ecuador, Canada, Cuba, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Thailand.
Pray for the new wells and the living water and safe water recently drilled or soon to be drilled in Tanzania, India, Malawi, and Pakistan.
Pray for our upcoming Christmas gift campaigns to bless children and youth in many nations. Many of them are precious, beautiful children (orphans). As the Lord leads, pray about giving any amount to bless dear CMM children this Christmas. https://cmmworld.kindful.com/
Pray for each other, dear friends. We all know we each need prayers going up to Heaven for all those on the front lines. We each are on the front lines!
Please pray for me as I speak tomorrow online to a crusade with 8,000 expected to attend in Pakistan. In December, I will speak at conferences in Liberia and Kenya with fellow CMM Ordained ministers Robert Bimba (Liberia), Tom Omukhobero, and Daniel and Christine Oyoko (Kenya).
We are working on plans and trips for 2023. If you would like to have some of our awesome CMM family speakers for a conference in your area or would like to join or lead a missions trip, we would love to hook you up with dear friends in many nations.
Please join me in welcoming Dr. Louis Blom of Judea Harvest as Associate Director of Missions at CMM. This strategic alliance multiplies the efforts and impact in building the Kingdom of our God, for His glory. https://youtu.be/HXfP8tCySRc

Many blessings and shalom from us all here at the home office and around the world.
Popular posts from this blog
Honoring and Celebrating the Class of 2022's 196 Graduates of CMM College of Theology Global Schools
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - June 15, 2022

We are rejoicing! We just celebrated two of our six schools' graduations on June 4th in the US and June 11th in Ecuador and we thank the Lord for all He has done in their lives and will do in this new era. We honor the faith in action of each of the seventy-eight students (in the USA and Ecuador schools this year)of all ages and from different streams and backgrounds. We thank the Lord for the hunger, perseverance and faith to finish strong. Each one encountered the Lord in fresh new ways as their hunger and perseverance in faith reaped eternal change as evidenced in their dissertations and heavenly encounters. In the last few months we have graduated 196 students from our global schools. All glory to the Lord as we enter our 16th year of offering affordable, life changing accredited degrees around the world. Each year our school is led by the Holy Spirit to go higher and deeper in excellence in academic standards and spirit-led equipping in a truly experiential, interactive, a
READ MORE
Prophetic Encouragement for 2022 by Jorge Parrott
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - January 02, 2022

Prophetic Encouragement for 2022 By Jorge Parrott (all scriptures NKJV) (Graphic art by Nancy G. Daniel) Despite the impending wars, division, chaos, calamity, and deceptive controls we hear the voice of our Lord at times speaking, or roaring, or whispering, and breathing on the sons of God. Are we listening yet? Heaven’s roar is clear to those with an ear to hear what the Spirit of the Living God is saying. This year holds untold opportunities, many answered prayers, and the cries of many hearts if we arise to walk obediently in His fullness, not growing weary in well-doing, nor fainting in the heat of this fiery battle. Deut. 6:4 ‘ The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.’ Jesus was asked many questions. What should you ask
READ MORE
Highlights Of Our Amazing Trip To The Holy Land With Chris Reed And Bart Peacher
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - July 19, 2022

Highlights Of Our Amazing Trip To The Holy Land With Chris Reed And Bart Peacher Prov. 16:9 ' A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps and makes them sure.' We are continually blessed and in awe of how the Lord breathes and moves in our lives. As we press into the high calling of Jesus Christ and we grow in intimacy and trust by faith, His love, grace, and mercy unfold in surprising ways. I had not been to Israel since 2017. So much has changed in the world since then as we see the tremendous acceleration of the times and seasons. Chaos, control, and corruption are increasing at an alarming rate. Our only hope is in Jesus Christ and His righteousness. Divine Encounters Abound As We Are Led By Holy Spirit And Make Ourselves Available Many churches are led by their pursuit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil instead of the knowledge of the Tree of Life. As we surrender fully to the Holy Spirit, we learn to walk in deep humility and attenti
READ MORE
Powered by Blogger
Theme images by merrymoonmary
Copyright 2021 CMM
CMM Vision and Mission
CMM WORLD
CMM.WORLD CMMTHEOLOGY.ORG
NANCYG
Subscribe by Netvibes below
  Posts
  Comments
Translate
Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAssameseAymaraAzerbaijaniBambaraBasqueBelarusianBengaliBhojpuriBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDhivehiDogriDutchEsperantoEstonianEweFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGuaraniGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIlocanoIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKinyarwandaKonkaniKoreanKrioKurdish (Kurmanji)Kurdish (Sorani)KyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLingalaLithuanianLugandaLuxembourgishMacedonianMaithiliMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMeiteilon (Manipuri)MizoMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianOdia (Oriya)OromoPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiQuechuaRomanianRussianSamoanSanskritScots GaelicSepediSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTatarTeluguThaiTigrinyaTsongaTurkishTurkmenTwiUkrainianUrduUyghurUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu
Powered by Translate
Archive
Labels
Report Abuse
Strategic Links
A-Donate for CMM Urgent Needs
CMM College of Theology
CMM Facultad de Teologia
CMM Global Website
CMM MissionsCast (podcast)
Strategic Connecting Toward Freshness and Fullness in God
CMM is strategically positioned with proven, trusted, indigenous friends in many nations activating, equipping, connecting and releasing the saints to reach their people and nation with the love of Father God.
CMM is cross-denominational. We are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus and the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross assures us of victory, through trials, as we are trained to rule and reign with the Father's heart and love of justice and mercy and walk humbly before Him.
CMM is a 501c3 founded in 1978. We also handle donor relations for approximately 500 missionaries globally, ordained ministers, as we enjoy the Lord in fellowship, offering Christian accredited degrees globally, church planting, healing, counseling, orphanages, and prayer centers, creative arts, prophetic, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, medical, stopping human trafficking, leadership training and creative incubators for entrepreneurs, disaster relief, and connecting destinies.
Call 704-225-3927 or email office@cmm.world to learn more or to have one of our many CMM amointed, itinerant ministers speak at your church or group, in person or online.

Can you tell me an Arabic proverb that you think it would be hard to translate to English?

Chapter 8 - Hawks
Therru is back, Sparrowhawk had agreed to leave that night. Tenar rejoices, but later it hits her that she's essentially sent him away friendless. She even rationalizes that maybe he'll just hide out for awhile and come back. Aunty Moss arrives and uncharacteristically sits down uninvited, saying she sent Ged off with some food. Oddly, she starts asking questions about the Art, and confirms, despite Tenar's previous doubts, that Ged was now powerless. But there's things that Aunty Moss wants to relay that she knows, things that even Tenar with her learning as a dark priestess and a great wizard's apprentice doesn't know. Tenar doesn't quite add things up, talks about his shame, his thinking he should have died, how one's use and livelihood is tied up into their worth. But Aunty Moss is actually talking about kind of an anti-love spell wizards do, and she even talks outright of love spells (and how they're mainly bunk) a bit later. The anti-love spell kinda goes both ways, to others and to the wizard. Here quite a bit is relayed about Aunty Moss, her love life as well as her history here (in particular, beside Townsend's father there's an interesting part of about a non-commoner in Gont Port). Aunty Moss highlights a difference in how witchery and sorcery work here, even though Tenar says it should be the same Art (or art). Again, the metaphor of deep roots comes in here, with men being more like a fir tree, strong and grand but which'll blow down in a storm [ed: this is more asian philosophy likely, a section of the Tao Te Ching chapter 74 was translated as, "A tree that is unbending is easily broken". A Japanese proverb is "Yanagi ni yukiore nashi" which translates to "Willow trees don't break under the weight of the snow". It's also a classic Aesop fable!]. Aunty Moss says it might be better that Ged is gone, since there was bound to be talk, and that would hurt her reputation. Tenar takes that and the "woman taking" metaphor and compares themselves to selfish dragons. Aunty Moss says Tenar would understand if she lost her reputation. Tenar asks Aunty Moss if she'd rather be respectable or be a witch, and Aunty Moss truly doesn't know. Tenar embraces her which causes Aunty Moss some confusion, she half-embraces her back and asks if she should stay with the odd men around. "'Go on,' Tenar said. 'I'm used to foreigners.'"
Another dream of flying, wind, and light, though this light was as dragon-breath. No voice calls in it. In the morning Tenar brushes her hair, the static electricity (which Therru sees as fire in the sky) brings Therru to an excitable, odd happy state. Tenar can't understand how Therru (she calls her "birdlet" now) sees the world, and Tenar brushes her hair more vigorously. Tenar goes about her chores, including laundry, and it is revealed that Therrus is about eight and with much greater constitution than as of late due to healing. Tenar decides to visit town to get cloth for dresses and to actually visit the village which the situations with Ogion and Ged had kept her from doing. Tenar kind of feels they had kept her from worldlier things, and even imagines a scenario where Ged has to learn what it is to be common. In her imagination, it somehow blurs to Ged running across the men who were looking for him, particularly the "youngish man with a leather cap, the one who had stared hard at Therru". Suddenly she realizes she is seeing this man in reality near her old lodgings, going to the mansion of the Lord of Re Albi. Tenar follows him a little bit and he goes that way, not the way in which Ged would have taken.
Tenar visits old Fan, the weaver, named after a treasure a sea-pirate had given his grandfather for making sails quickly in an emergency. A little game happens where he wants to show the fan to her. The outer side of it is laid with lords and ladies of Havnor Great Port. This time, however, he shows her the other side, which is covered with dragons. And then he tells her to hold it up to the light, and it is as if the two are merged, with winged people and human-eyed dragons living in a city of peaks and clouds. Fan had meant to show it to Ogion but never got around to it. A quick overview of the place, and then Tenar buys some fine linen from him. She has a notion that Tenar might become a weaver (if possible with the hand), not a bad living and one of respectable solitude. Musing on the negatives and then she is hit with the remembrance of what Ged said, "Knowing what her life must be..." She puts it out of her mind and thinks it would be overall pleasant for Therru to have a nice dress, something unplainly.
Tenar arrives back home, calling Therru. But Heather, who was more or less left with Therru, doesn't know where she is. In fact, the whole nannying situation kind of rings flimsy to Tenar all the sudden. Tenar searches everywhere, even the cliff edge. Not even Aunty Moss knows where she is (though she starts to prepare a finding spell). Tenar searches everywhere (and sees the kestrel hunt something, for its young), and believes she caused this to happen, not just her recent fancy of dressmaking, but by more or less ignoring what Ogion said about Tenar teaching her. Tenar is distraught, and only after a long time when she is home do the staves become disturbed and Therru subsequently announces herself.
Why did Therru hide like that? Therru can't cry, but it's just as horrible. The man in the leather hat had come, and, as hinted, he was also from the camp by the river where Therru was burned. Tenar becomes enraged, dragonish, but she also must comfort the child. She even brings up the joke from before about how blushing turns her a shade like the Gontish, Therru answers, saying, "'Yes. You are a red dragon.'" A disgusting thought comes to her that perhaps the man is looking to "improve" on his "handiwork".
Tenar does many soft hard things here, she feeds Therru, she won't let her be alone, she tells her she needs to be strong and to continue having a life (including work) and to be seen, that the man (if so evil) would want her to be scared and withdrawn. As such (and to stop her spell making) they go to Aunty Moss's. Aunty Moss says her finding spell went wrong, she searched for the child and found dragons, and now Tenar had that aura about her too. Tenar says it's not dragons but a monster that's the problem, and explains that it was the young man (who is now being hired for haying at the Lord's mansion) who had been part of the group and that told Lark that Therru had hurt herself. It's even possible (though unlikely) that he could be her father and could claim her as his property. Asking why he would come here, another "eating" metaphor is used, bring to mind the dark ones from the second book and the rite Tenar went under. Tenar says she is going to the manor house tomorrow, and when asked by Aunty Moss why, basically says the men will see what happens when one wrestles with pigs.

Disclaimer:

Despite how the title and intro may look, I am not here to dunk on feminism. If you came looking for a post that said, "Feminist Soy! Am i rite?" Sorry, got to disappoint. Conversely, this isn't a sermon about why you should convert. Believe whatever you want to believe bro. Also, Not a Christian, but I do like Wendigoon talking about it. Finally, Mods plz don't nuke my post this isn't about religion but about the mythology around the figure.

Why Post This Here:

Lilith has been involved in literary discourse for a while as well as being seen as a Feminist Icon in literature. This post is meant to debunk these claims and misreading of the Abrahamic Myths.

Intro:

This really isn't a specific work of fiction, but rather, a general fictional trope I guess., Ever since the release of Hazbin Hotel, discussion has increased on Lilith being a sympathetic/feminist icon, and this is the most laughable idea to me as a guy who is currently studying Christian Mythology for a project. Today, I am going to debunk this claim of Lilith being sympathetic or any sort of feminist girlboss or even being anyway relevant to the Abrahamic Mythos. I'll try source all my arguments, so it doesn't look like I am talk out of my ass.

In The Bible:

Ah, the Bible. It is amazing how such a small book can cause so much violence, but we are not here for a religious debate (well not really). We are here to discuss Lilith. For context, I am going to be used the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) & English Standard Version (ESV). This is because NSRV and ESV and considered the most popular when it comes to the Bible Versions.
Let's start with NRSV, and Lilith shows up...once? Hell, she doesn't even show up. She's just mentioned.

Isaiah 34:14: "Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose,"

You can read the full chapter here, but the full chapter really doesn't change much. From what I could gleam (admittedly I ain't a theologian so I could be missing stuff), the dude in this chapter is talking about God's Judgment and is more focused on the natural disasters that would happen. Lilith isn't even really that important. She seems to be at best a higher demon with some power, but this same chapter says an undead apocalypse will happen. She is a footnote at best.
Okay what about ESV? It is even worse there. She doesn't even show up.

Isaiah 34:14: "And wild animals shall meet with hyenas; the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there the night bird settles and finds for herself a resting place" (Source)

Okay, but I am clearly cherry-picking though right? What about the other versions? Well, it get even more nebulous. In certain version, it isn't even Lilith but an unnamed night-demon (Source). In others, it isn't even a demon but just a creature of the night/ animals of the night (Source). Hell one of them there are no demons instead an unnamed ogress (Source).
You'd think that Lilith, being the first woman and rebelling against Big G himself, should get more than one very sketchy mention. I mean Eve the mother of humanity is mentioned between 2,000 -2,500 times (Source), Mary the mother of Jesus Motherfucking Christ himself gets around 40 times (Source), hell Queen Sheba, whose existence I only know because a sword in KCD is name after her, is mentioned nearly 70 times (Source)(obviously this varies on which version you take as some books are just removed but the point stands). You mean to tell me a fucking side character is mentioned more than literally Female Satan. Funnily enough, Satan is only mention like 30 times in the Bible (Source).
Okay, so already the foundations of Lilith are shaky, but what do the other Abrahamic Religions say?

In The Quran/The Tanakh (IMPORTANT):

The Quran. She never shows up. Weird since both Eve and Mary get mentioned.
Okay, but what about The Tanakh? (For those who don't know the Tanakh is the "Hebrew Bible". A lot of people say that's the Torah, but the Torah is just the compilation of the first five books of the Tanakh.) Well, yes.

Otzar Midrashim, The Aleph Bet of ben Sira, The Alphabet of ben Sira, (alternative version) 34 - He said to him, "The angels appointed for healing: Sanoy, Sansanoy, Semangalof. When the Holy Blessed One created the first Adam alone, They said, (Genesis 2:18) 'It is not good for this Adam to be alone.' They created for him a wife out of the Earth like he had been, and called her Lilith. Immediately they began to challenge each other. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one…

So case closed - STOP. I ain't done cooking yet. See, I got to apologize a bit to you reader. I kind of lied, but to understand how I lied. You got to understand the Jewish Faith first, specifically their holy texts.
Okay, all Holy Jewish Texts fall under Sifrei Kodesh (aka Holy Books). . Within the Siferi Kodesh, there are two main categories texts fall into Tankah and Rabbinic. The Tankah is The Hebrew Bible. It is the considered the canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures and is comprisied of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. (Source and Source). Meanwhile, the Rabbinic is Jewish Rabbis studying and interpreting the Tankah (Source, Source, Source). The Alphabet of Ben Sira is squarely in the Rabbinic.
Most of you have already seen a problem, but for those of who didn't, let me spell it out. When you are quoting this passage, you are not quoting from the Tankah. You are quoting a Rabbi's interpretation of the Tankah. This would be equivalent to me using My Immortal to critique Harry Potter (No offense to any Jewish Rabbis. This comparison is meant to be extreme).
Ah, but ain't done yet reader, I have saved the biggest bombshell for last.
The Alphabet of Ben Sira is a shitpost. It a satire. It isn't real.
The reasoning is several. This reddit comment sums it up. And This. Also This
From The Jewish Virtual Library:

There is no reason to doubt the unity of the work as a whole, despite the fragmentary character of the different versions. All the versions share a special, satirical, and even heretical, character, and this indicates that they all were written by a single hand. They seem to reflect varying degrees of censorship on the part of editors and copyists. The complete work contains four parts. The first part is the biography of Ben Sira from his conception until the age of one year. This story, omitted in many editions, explains how Jeremiah, the prophet, was simultaneously Ben Sira's father (the numerical value of Ben Sira's name equals that of Jeremiah), and grandfather. Ben Sira's mother was Jeremiah's daughter. The old prophet was forced to an act of onanism by wicked men, and his daughter conceived from his emissions when she came to bathe. The form of this story is based on a biblical verse that tells the glories and wonders of God's deeds; thus the story satirizes not only Jeremiah, but God's deeds as well.
The second part is more sophisticated in form. It tells how Ben Sira, now one year old, meets with his teacher, who tries to teach him the alphabet. Instead of repeating each letter of the alphabet after his teacher, Ben Sira responds with an epigram beginning with that letter. The epigrams lead the teacher to tell the story of his life. It may be assumed that the original structure of this part was 22 + 12 paragraphs, each containing a letter, an epigram, and a part of the story.
The third part is the longest and contains most of the narrative material in this work. It recounts the story of Ben Sira's life and adventures in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia. It also includes stories told by Ben Sira himself as answers to the king's questions. These stories often include pornographic elements, as well as derogatory descriptions of biblical figures, like King Solomon or Joshua. Some of the stories in this section contain motifs from international folklore and may be based on folktales, but they were adapted to the special framework of the work and satirical elements were added to them. Examination of the various versions indicates that here, too, there were 22 stories, arranged according to the letters of the alphabet, to which 12 other stories were added.
The fourth part, which is found in most versions and gave the work its name, contains 22 alphabetically arranged epigrams attributed to Ben Sira that serve as material for discussion and interpretation by Ben Sira's son, Uzziel, and his grandson, Joseph b. Uzziel. The contents are satirical and even heretical. It may be assumed that this part was constructed in the same manner as the two previous ones – 22 + 12 sections. The work, therefore, displays elements of unity both in structure and in its ideological aims. It is all but impossible, however, to discover the background upon which such a work could have been written. Some scholars (L. Ginzberg and others) believe that it aimed at ridiculing the story of Jesus' birth; but the basis for such a conclusion may be found only in the first part, and even this is not very clear, for the irony seems to be directed more against God than against Jesus. It is hardly possible that the author was a Karaite, as some of the abusive stories are directed against biblical figures, and not only against the Talmud and Midrash. It seems likely that the author did not belong to any organized group or definable ideological movement, but was merely a writer with an anarchistic tendency who used satire to ridicule all the institutions of established religion in his day.
Another difficult problem is the relationship between this pseudepigraphal work and the original proverbs of Ben Sira. Some of the proverbs and epigrams included in the work are originally in the work of Ben Sira, but many such proverbs are found in talmudic literature, and the author probably took them from there. The author of the pseudepigraphal work did not even know Ben Sira's first name. There is only one slight connection that might be accidental: the Wisdom of *Ben Sira has a preface written by the author's grandson, who edited the work, and in the pseudepigraphal work the figure of a grandson is also present.

Buh buh But thats just a reddit comment and some random websites. Whu Whu What are you gonna do OP? Analyze the entire text to prove its a shitpost.
Yes.
Mods turn the music on.

Analysis Of Alphabet of Sirach/The Alphabet Of Ben Sira:

The text we will be using.
We are going to skip most of it and just jump straight into the section with Lilith, but if you do chose to read it, have a good time. Shit is funny as hell. Let's start of with Lillith's Birth. Many like to potray Adam and Lilith's first interaction like this.
1, 2, 3
It is often either stated or implied Adam either tried to force Lilith into a s*x position she didn't want or that he he stated that she was inferior to him and she spit back. While this nicely fits into the "yas Queen SLAYYY" interpretation, its not the truth...mostly.
Here is the actual text:

When the Holy Blessed One created the first Adam alone, They said, (Genesis 2:18) 'It is not good for this Adam to be alone.' They created for him a wife out of the Earth like he had been, and called her Lilith. Immediately they began to challenge each other. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the Earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the world's air.

So first, no she wasn't going to be sexually assaulted. Secondly, it was just a couple arguing with each other. Yes, Adam shouldn't have said that about Lilith, but we shouldn't take a statement said by an angry man as gospel for the religion. Plus, how on earth is blaspheming your Father and then running away from an argument an appropriate reaction to the situation? God didn't do anything wrong. Why you picking a fight with him? We will discuss this more, but lets continue.

The Holy Blessed One said to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' They departed and pursued her, and overtook her in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians would ultimately drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.' She said to them, 'Let me be. I was created only to cause illness to infants. I have dominion over them for eight days after birth if they are male, and if female, after birth for twenty days.' When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted on taking her. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God, 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day.

There is much to go over here. First, WHERE ARE THE HUNDRED CHILDREN COMING FROM! These are the first man and woman. THERE ARE NO CHILDREN. Who is he talking about? And don't give me that bullshit that he mad a mistake. HE IS GOD. IN THE TORAH, HE IS OMNISCIENT. This makes no sense.
"I was created only to cause illness to infants. I have dominion over them for eight days after birth if they are male, and if female, after birth for twenty days." I am sorry fucking what? Who said that? God? No. Adam? No. The Angels? Definitely not. No one told Lilith she had to cause illness. She is just being a toxic bitch and offloading her problems. What the fuck?
Finally, "She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day." At this point, who has sympathy for Lilith? Lets objectively look at Adam's sin. Yes, he was sexist. Yes, that was wrong. Can't Lilith convince him to change? We know it is possible for a woman to convince Adam because EVE CONVINCED HIM TO EAT THE APPLE. So, clearly the man can develop his thoughts. Instead, Lilith just runs away from her problem, knowing that a hundred innocent children (HER CHILDREN BY THE WAY- hang on does that mean she fucked Adam and Eve's Sons. Isn't she like their aunt? I am pretty sure that's still incest) will die. Yes, God is partly to blame as well, but if I had to choose between a Misandrist Wife or dead innocents, I will go with the Misandrist Wife. Nothing shows Adam as violent just a dick, and she clearly has access to powers he doesn't cuz he can't fly.

Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write their names on the amulets of young children, and she sees them, she remembers her oath, and the child is healed

I guess that's nice? But does she even really heal them? She just takes away an illness she caused. This is like saying I put out the fire, but I am the arsonist who started it. There wouldn't be a problem if I didn't create one. And that's how the story ends. Seriously.
There is more, but it doesn't really matter. Ben Sira cures a girl of farting everywhere, talks about hair follicles, slanders David, explains why Donkey Urine is important, and ends with a raven cucking an eagle. Its pretty funny.

In Conclusion:

So, TL;DR: Lilith's entire existence is based on a shitpost. In said shitpost, she isn't even that great of a person and isn't even a feminist.
So yeah, that's all I got. There is more to this Rabbit Hole if you are willing to go down, but that is the gist of it. I don't see how a woman who runs away from responsibilities, blames others for her failures, and would rather kill babies than do something hard is a feminist icon, but here we are. I don't really know how to end this. Uh, were you entertained?
Addendum: If you are of the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish Faith please comment below and clear up any misconceptions I wrote in this post. I will try to edit it to make it better. Feminists please try to be respectful in the comments. Sup Mods. Uh yeah, cool.

Addendum #2 - Mesopotamian Lilith:

Some people have been saying that I should analyze Lilith from Mesopotamian Origins as this would give her a more sympathetic view. Very well. There are three main sources: Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Burney Relief, Arslan Tash amulets
Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh (Text we'll use): Lilith, a snake, and a bird steal a tree from a goddess and squat in it. Gilgamesh comes around kills the snake. The Bird flees. Lilith chimps out, destroys her home, and runs. Tbf, this is Gilgamesh, so I guess Lillith W?

The dyer (?) had not dyed his leather with it (?)
At its root the serpent, 'that knew not silence (?)' had made its nest
At its top the storm-bird (Zû) had put his young
In its midst Lilith had built a house
The shrieking maid the joyful
The bright Queen of Heaven tears for them (?) wept
His lady said a word to him
'Warrior Gilgamesh, its .... will thee'
The ibbaru garment that was of 50 minas from his loins he removed
What was 50 minas 30 ... . he made
His (?) brazen axe a road (?) his ....
1 talent 50 minas his in his hand he seized
At its root the serpent ' that knew not silence (?) ' he slew
At its top the storm-bird (Zû)
took his young (and) went away to the mountain
In its midst Lilith destroys (her) house

Burney Relief (Source): Yeah no

Even so, the possibility that the Queen of the Night plaque, with its high degree of skill in craftsmanship and attention to detail would be a representation of a lilitu is highly unlikely. According to the Hebrew tradition, Lilith was the first woman made by God who refused to submit to Adam's sexual demands and flew away, thus rebelling against God and his plans for human beings. She was thought to have then occupied the wastelands and, like the lilitu, to have preyed on unsuspecting men ever since. In either tradition, the lilitu was not a popular enough figure to have been portrayed on a plaque such as the Queen of the Night. Dr. Black notes, “Evil gods and demons are only very rarely depicted in art, perhaps because it was thought that their images might endanger people” (62). The mountain range depicted at the bottom of the relief is also thought to suggest lilitu identification in representing the wilderness the spirit inhabits but the headdress, the necklace, the rod-and-ring symbols and the significance of the plaque all go to argue against Lilith as a possibility.

Arslan Tash amulet (Source):

Whispering-incantation against the Flying-one, the oath of Sasam, son of Pidrišiša, god, and against the Strangler of the lamb: “The house I enter, you shall not enter And the court I tread, you shall not tread!He has made an eternal contract with us. Assur made a pact with us, all the sons of El,, and the great council of all the holy ones,With the oath of heaven and earth With the oath of Baal, lord of the earth With the oath of Horon, whose utterance is true,His seven concubines and the eight wives of Baal Qudš”[Written around and between the images] Oh Flying one, from the dark room pass away!Now! Now, night demons! [Written on the Sphinx figure] From my house, O crushers, go away! [Written on the wolf-like figure] Oh Sasam, let it not be opened for him And let him not come down to the door-posts The sun is rising for Sasam. Disappear, and fly away home.[Written on the axe-wielding figure](modified from Cross and Saley 1970 and Berlejung 2010).

So where the fuck is Lilith? Well the text in its original language features lly- which if you add a "t" could be llyt [Lilith], but it also can be ll wyn which means "night and day." So, yeah not exactly a Lilith W. And that's it. I don't know how this makes her sympathetic, but to each their own.

Addendum #3 - Lilith R*ped Adam?

u/howhow326 said that there was a tale about Lilith raping Adam and being thrown out of Eden. This intrigued me to search for it, but unfortunately, I can't find a source for this anywhere. The closest I get is this Blogpost, but this seems to be more of a hypothetical than anything. Frankly, I don't think this should be part of the debate.
Edit 1: Originally, there was a line that said : "Hell fucking Jesus gets mentioned the prophet of the ENEMY, but not Lilith." I have since been informed that this is a gross misrepresentation of the Muslim Faith, and it has been removed.
Edit 2: Spelling and Formatting Errors Corrected
Edit 3: Mesopotamian Lilith added. Lilith's Rape Accusations.

Can anyone share any Punjabi sayings/proverbs/aphorisms/kahawats for working hard or being successful? Would prefer English transliteration and translation as well. Context is for a graduation

Six months ago I posted about the release of Prisoners of Class by Chan Samoeun, the English translation of the oldest and most detailed account of life in Democratic Kampuchea written in Khmer. At the time, it was only available in countries with access to distribution networks like Amazon, which does not include Cambodia. A number of you living in Cambodia expressed interest, but unfortunately it was not available... yet.
Now, as of tomorrow, Saturday May 11th, the Cambodia edition of Prisoners of Class is for sale in Monument Books on Norodom Boulevard. I think this is the nicest version available yet, with full-color maps and photographs.
Sometime next week it will also be available in the Relay travel shops in the Phnom Penh and Siem Reap airports, and soon (I'm told) it will be available in a museum in Siem Reap (I'm not sure yet exactly what museum they were referring to).
Within the next two weeks there will probably be a launch event in Phnom Penh, where both the author and I will be present to speak about the book. I'll post more about that when the details are finalized.

u/B-1-1, u/Aphilosopher30, u/Zestyclose397
Job 9:

9 He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

The Hebrew names are ‘âsh (‘ayish ch. Job 38:32), keseel, and keemah. These names may possibly denote the Bear, Orion and the Pleiades or seven stars; there is, however, considerable uncertainty.

There was not much ancient Hebrew documentation for these constellation names.
Brenton Septuagint Translation:

Who makes Pleias [Πλειάδα], and Hesperus [Εσπερον], and Arcturus [Αρκτούρον], and the chambers of the south.

How did LXX get these Greek names from their corresponding Hebrew names?
It was guesswork. Pulpit explained:

The rendering of the LXX. (ὁ ποιῶν Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ Ἀρκτοῦρον), supported, as it is, by most of the other ancient versions and by the Targums, has caused the stellar character of these names to be generally recognized; but the exact meaning of each term is, to some extent, still a matter of dispute.

Pulpit gave more details:

Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades; literally, which maketh 'Ash Kesil and Kimah. The rendering of the LXX. (ὁ ποιῶν Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ Ἀρκτοῦρον), supported, as it is, by most of the other ancient versions and by the Targums, has caused the stellar character of these names to be generally recognized; but the exact meaning of each term is, to some extent, still a matter of dispute.

It was not 100% certain, but they were reasonable guesses:

On the whole, it seems most probable that 'Ash or 'Aish (Job 38:32), designates "the Great Bear," called by the Arabs Nahsh while Kesil is the name of the constellation of Orion, and Kimah of that of the Pleiades.

Great Bear:

The word 'Ash means "a litter," and may be compared with the Greek ἅμαξα and our own" Charles's Wain," both of them names given to the Great Bear, from a fancied resemblance of its form to that of a vehicle.

Orion:

Kesil means "an insolent, rich man" (Lee); and is often translated by "fool" in the Book of Proverbs 14:16; Proverbs 15:20; Proverbs 19:1; Proverbs 21:20, etc. It seems to have been an epitheton usitatum of Nimrod, who, according to Oriental tradition, made war upon the gods, and was bound in the sky for his impiety - the constellation being thenceforth called "the Giant" (Gibbor)' or "the insolent one' (Kesil), and later by the Greeks "Orion" (comp. Amos 5:8; and infra' Job 38:31).

Pleiades:

Kimah undoubtedly designates "the Pleiades." It occurs again, in connection with Kesil in Job 38:31, and in Amos 5:8 The meaning is probably "a heap," "a cluster" (Lee); which was also the Greek idea: Πλειάδες, ὅτι πλείους ὁμοοῦ κατὰ μίαν συναγωγήν (Eustath., 'Comment. in Hom. II.,' 18:488);

The LXX translators studied these Hebrew names, their meanings, and the related Arab and Oriental traditions. Then, they associated each name with its own Greek constellation name and traditions. It was based on scholarly and somewhat scientific guesswork.
By the time the English translations were made, these three Greek constellations were well documented in Greek. It was relatively easier for them to translate them to English from the LXX names.
If the LXX names were incorrect translations, the English names would also be incorrect.

Hello readers, I'm really upset that Mangamtl There is a problem, I am not good at English, so I use Mangamtl to translate to my national language(Khmer), but now Mangamtl has a problem, I'm really upset.

Introduction

One of the biggest issues brought up with the Bible is the Mosaic Law, within the Old Testament.
Why would God command certain forms of capital punishment for minor offenses?:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."-Exodus 35:2
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."-Leviticus 20:9

Why does the Law contain odd commands that rarely apply?:

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."-Deuteronomy 25:11-12
"Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small."-Deuteronomy 25:13

Does this reflect God's moral character, and reveal His insecurity?
Well, the problem is we're trying to understand the Mosaic Law with our cultural context in mind. The Torah was not assembled in our modern western culture, but with the cultural mindset of the ancient Near East, and therefore, God's intentions and the Torah must be understood with that cultural world in mind.

Legal Collections

The first thing we must note is when we read through the Torah and the Pentateuch, we assume we're reading a Law code, which is why we refer to it as the Mosaic Law. But scholars routinely note we're not really sure if this is the case. In fact, many scholars believe this was not the purpose of the Torah.
Christine Hayes summarizes the issue:
"We would do better to under understand these materials as legal collections and not codes. I know the word 'code' gets thrown around a lot. 'Code of Hammurabi' and so on. But they really aren't codes. Codes are generally systematic and exhaustive and they tend to be used by courts. We have no evidence about how these texts were used. In fact, we think it's not likely that they were really used by courts, but they were part of a learned tradition, and scribes copied them over and over and so on. They are also certainly not systematic and exhaustive. So for example, in the code of Hammurabi, we don't even have a case of intentional homicide. We only have a case of accidental homicide, so we really don't even know what the law would be in a case of intentional homicide. We can't really make that comparison with the Biblical law." (Professor at Yale University)
Similarly, John Walton refers to ancient Near Eastern legal collections as "treatises on judicial wisdom" (The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority, pg. 218). What we have here is not an attempt to necessarily lay down universal moral laws to follow, or national legislation, but to teach one how to understand justice and to reason through judicial wisdom.
Essentially, when we look at ancient Near Eastern legal collections like the Mosaic collection, we find that they are more didactic (as opposed to prescriptive), meaning they are trying to teach judicial lessons and expressing the importance of order and justice. There is no indication ancient Near Eastern legal collections were prescriptive or understood as national legislation.
Delbert Hiller says:
"There is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws function as a written code that was applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them." (Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, pg. 88)

The Code of Hammurabi

Let's spend some time taking a look at how other ancient Near Eastern legal collections functioned. Because our culture is so far removed from the ancient world, it will take some time to fully understand what is going on with these legal collections, like the Torah.
Jean Bottéro has studied the code of Hammurabi extensively, an old Babylonian law code that predates Moses. However, it is erroneous to even call it a law code. The king did not set laws, he gave decrees. Bottéro notes:
"It was the Greeks who have taken us further, to the universal concepts, the absolute formulations, that allow us the clear perception and the distinct expression of the principles and the laws in all their abstraction." (Mesopotamia, pg. 178)
But prior to this in the ancient Near East, they didn't really have the concept of universal legislation:
"...a fundamental distinction can be discerned between essentially legislative (e.g. classical Athens) and essentially non-legislative (e.g. the cuneiform writings) law writings." (Collections, Codes, and Torah: The Re-characterization of Israel's Written Law, pg. 22-30)
Michael LeFebvre refers to the cultures of the ancient Near East as non-legislative societies. So the code of Hammurabi is not prescribing laws, and a word for 'law' doesn't even exist in their language, so no one read this inscription and assumed it was an attempt to enact universal legislation for all people who lived under Hammurabi. This is not to say there were no laws as we understand them, but Botérro notes they were "unformulated," just like they had a folk understanding of the "principles of science," even though they "remained unformulated" and unspoken (Mesopotamia, pg. 181). What mattered and what everything centered around was order, and the king's job was to establish and maintain order. How ever the king could establish and maintain order through his decrees is what his subjects had to follow.
So the concept of justice was a means to an end. They didn't care about justice for justice's sake or ethics for the sake of doing good. They cared about establishing and maintaining order. All else was a means to that end. For example, in today's world, we would rather forsake order for equality under the law if the president was guilty of murder. We would rather him go on trial and suffer the consequences of the law. Such a process would create disorder as the nation would go into turmoil. In the ancient Near East, order was the highest good. They would consider such a modern process a disaster because of the disorder it created. It would be better for the leader of the nation to get away with a crime than to go to prison because of the disorder it would cause. Again, there was no sense of justice for ethical means. Justice was a way to promote and keep order. It was more of a sin for a prostitute to leave the brothel and find honest work because that disrupted the order of things and her place in society, whereas today we would consider this a good thing, even if it disrupted societal order. This is why the Babylonians use two words to express justice (kittu u mêšaru), which combined would most likely mean "to establish firmly, to be in order."
The king made decrees to keep order because the gods demanded it, and so ancient Near Eastern legal collections are not really prescribing legislation for the people to follow. Botérro says "the 'Code' of Hammurabi is essentially a self-glorification of the king" (Mesopotamia, pg. 178-183). His subjects would have read it as descriptive, not prescriptive. It was meant to display his wisdom by explaining what justice looked like through what are most likely hypothetical cases or "models" to be considered in the spirit of analogy.
Some scholars have suggested the laws came from actual cases and actual decisions that were made instead of merely being hypothetical cases. This is plausible, but this also doesn't mean they establish universal laws for future cases, but merely served as models for future judges to learn from. Walton says:
"[Legal treatises] serve as manuals that are compiled to teach principles to practitioners through paradigms. They instruct by circumscribing the field of knowledge with examples." (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible, pg. 271)
It might best be explained by comparing it to elementary school math questions. When we were children and learned math, it would be taught to us through hypothetical cases like, "If Jim has 12 apples and sells 4 to Sally and 5 to Jake, how many does he have left?" Such a question in a math textbook is not trying to teach you economics, or prescribing actions. It is not even a story about a real event. It is teaching and describing mathematics through hypothetical cases.
Another and more similar example to ancient legal collections would be a collection of modern wisdom sayings, like:

• "Do not count your chickens before they hatch"
  
• "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"
  
• "Do not keep all your eggs in one basket"
  

If these things were collected and put into a book, we would not look at them as prescriptions or laws to follow. They are wisdom sayings to get you to think. If you saw a person with all their eggs in one basket instead of separated into two baskets, we would not think they broke a modern law or committed an ethical violation. This saying is not meant to prescribe an action, even if it's formatted like one. It is meant to teach one how to be wise. The code of Hammurabi functions more like this and not like modern legislation. It was meant to inspire someone on how to think about justice and what justice looked like.
Botérro says:
"A law applies to details; a model inspires— which is entirely different. In conclusion, we have here not a law code, nor a charter of a legal reform, but above all in its own way a treatise, with examples, on the exercise of judicial powers."(Mesopotamia, pg. 167)

The Torah

When it comes to the Torah, it most likely functioned in a similar way. We translate 'Torah' as law, but this is not what Torah means. It refers to 'instruction' or 'teaching.'
Walter Kaiser says:
"...[Torah] is much more than mere law. Even the word itself does not indicate static requirements that govern the whole of human experience. The meaning of [Torah] then is directional teaching or guidance for walking on the path of life." (Five Views on Law and Gospel, pg. 192-193)
So it's more about guidance given to Israel on how to be holy and orderly, not prescribing actions or consequences. John and J. Harvey Walton argue it is better to understand the Torah like we understand the book of Proverbs. Proverbs is not necessarily prescribing actions, it's teaching us how to be wise and how to think about morality. One of the most famous proverbs is in chapter 26:4-5:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (vs. 4)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (vs. 5)

These two sayings are obviously contradictory, but neither is a prescription on how to deal with a fool. This saying is teaching about the nature of a fool, and a wise man will know you cannot win with a foolish person. A person who is truly wise will know what to do in circumstances where one has to deal with a fool.
Proverbs 13 is also a place where people assume prescriptions are in play but this is not necessarily the case. Verse 22 reads:

"A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just."

This does not mean you have failed if you cannot leave an inheritance for your grandchildren. For some parents, it might be better to will their inheritances to charities, especially if their children are corrupt or better off than they were. It is merely a wisdom saying that cannot apply to all real-life cases, nor is it prescribed to all people. Likewise, a few verses later it reads:

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (vs. 24)

This is not prescribing that you beat your son with a rod. It is metaphorically teaching that if you're wise, you will discipline your children in the proper way. The surrounding context should show this, as it contains numerous verses that are metaphorical. The very next verse is:

"The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want." (vs. 25)

This is not teaching that sinful people are always hungry, but metaphorically teaching it is better to be content with what you have than to be greedy and constantly chasing after the next best thing.
So Proverbs is not necessarily prescribing actions. Instead, Proverbs is teaching one how to think and how to understand morality and wisdom. We are meant to understand Proverbs holistically. You cannot take select sayings out of Proverbs and only apply those. You are meant to apply the whole book to understand how to be wise. Circumstances will always factor as you apply the wisdom of Proverbs to your life. Likewise, given the ancient Near Eastern cultural context, the Torah is teaching what justice looks like, not prescribing actions. It is a description of what justice and order looks like for Israel in their cultural context, and like Proverbs, it's also supposed to be understood holistically, meaning the author did not intend for you to pick certain sections out. You cannot understand the sections on slavery without reading them in the light of loving the stranger and caring for the poor and underprivileged. Israel was meant to understand the Torah in whole, not as individual sections.
Skeptics will often note there are sayings in the Torah that contradict, but this is not an issue if the stipulations are not prescriptive but didactic. For example, Leviticus 23:22 says that when you harvest a field to not harvest it all, but leave the edges for the poor and the foreigner to harvest. But in Deuteronomy 24:19, it implies you should harvest your whole field and leave some of the collected bundles for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, but it doesn't mention the poor. However, neither of these are really prescriptions on how to harvest, so they don't contradict. Both verses are just trying to teach a general way to live, namely to find ways to make sure the less fortunate are fed.
This is the mentality you should have when reading the Torah, not looking for specific laws on what Israelites were to do in specific circumstances. Just like Jean Bottéro notes the code of Hammurabi was didactic, the Torah was also most likely understood as didactic, meaning the sayings within it expressed the moral importance of something (Mesopotamia, pg. 177). These sayings were not necessarily prescriptive in how to act when a certain incident mentioned in the Torah arose. Walton concurs:
"...One can propose that these are not laws (i.e., legislation) but selected samples that can serve the intended didactic function. It is in this sense that they offer model justice ... They offer sample wisdom; they do not prescribe laws." (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible, pg. 273)
So for example, Exodus 35:2 is not necessarily prescribing the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath. It lists the maximal punishment that could be applied and it also is expressing the importance of the Sabbath to God and what justice would look like if Israel were to break it, but it is descriptive of justice. It describes how the Sabbath should be treated to Israelites in covenant with God. It does not intend to mean Sabbath breakers are to be killed left and right. It intends to describe how important the Sabbath should be treated by the Israelites. Remember, as Hillers notes, these legal collections gave "considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them" (Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, pg. 88).

Obey

This is all supported by a Hebrew word we have often mistranslated.

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:"-Exodus 19:5

The word 'obey' is used in our english translations, but the Hebrew word more likely refers to 'hear' and "take heed." The one being instructed is repeatedly enjoined to heed the wisdom that is being conveyed. Much like Proverbs gives guidance on how to live a moral life, Torah is also laying down guidance, not laws. In other words, "in order to live in covenant with God, take heed this wisdom and ignore it at your own peril." The expected response to the Torah is far different from a response to legislation. Legislation carries a sense of "you ought," instruction carries a sense of "you will know."
Now, this does not mean one was never supposed to feel as though the Torah never prescribed rules of conduct, or punishments were never applied. That would be taking things too far in the opposite direction and imposing a simplistic view in that setting.
One could obtain prescriptions for proper conduct from Proverbs, but once you understand the whole wisdom of Proverbs, you know how and when to apply it properly. Likewise, one should apply the wisdom of the Torah and know how to act properly in each circumstance, especially if certain commands were to contradict.
One could see the law as setting an ideal standard, but that comes with the understanding that the ideal can hardly ever be realized. For example, the Bible notes God was slow to anger instead of enacting punishment on Israel immediately, as He would have had the right to do (Exo. 34:6, Neh. 9:17, Nah. 1:3). Allowing a period for Israel to repent suggests that it was possible that the punishments were not always carried out when they could have been. So in other words, Exodus 35:2 as part of the Torah is trying to say, "take heed and listen, the Sabbath is so important that to break it is worthy of death." But that doesn't carry the prescription to always kill Sabbath-breakers, even though the maximal punishment listed could be applied if the judge felt it necessary for those specific circumstances. Instead, it mostly expresses the moral importance, so Israel would understand how important it was to God within their covenant with Him, but that ideal did not always play out in reality.

Later Interpretations

We can also see this reasoning in action in a later narrative. In 2nd Samuel 12, when king David commits adultery with Bathsheba and has Uriah killed, he isn't prescribed the death penalty, even though the authors demonstrate knowledge of the Torah and that is what is taught in the Torah as the proper punishment for murder and adultery:

"And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity."-2 Samuel 12:6
"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep."-Exodus 22:1

So it doesn't appear later Israelites understood the punishments of the Torah as universal laws or necessarily prescriptive.
This understanding of the Torah is also supported by the teachings of Jesus. He also appears to have understood that, at times, the laws could not always have applied because of circumstances. It was the Pharisees of his day that interpreted the Torah as unbreakable legislation, but Jesus understood that at some times certain aspects were more important than others.
In Matthew 12, Jesus allows his disciples to go through grain fields to gather food on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, believing Jesus has broken an unbendable law, state, "Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day" (vs. 2). But jesus replies by quoting narrative passages outside of the Pentateuch on how early Israelites understood the teachings about the Sabbath. He said to them:

"Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (vss. 3b-8)

There are two important points we can see here from Christ's teaching.
The first is that he didn't understand the Torah as prescribing unbreakable laws regarding the Sabbath that always required capital punishment. He seems to have understood it as providing wisdom or guidance which was meant to point to something more important, like living properly with God. It was about drawing the proper principles from the Torah, not laws. As J. Daniel Hays remarked, "In essence, the Pharisees criticized [h]im with the details of the Law, but Jesus answered them with principles drawn from narrative" (Applying the Old Testament Law Today, Bibliotheca Sacra, 158). Craig Keener adds:
"Jesus appeals instead to inspired narrative to show how god expected the legal statements to be qualified in practice, 'a precedent for allowing hunger to override the law' (Sanders 1990:20)... Jesus challenges not merely their interpretation of the Sabbath but their entire method of legal interpretation." (The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, pg. 355)
Second, Jesus reminds the Pharisees the need to remember mercy when applying the Torah. The torah was merely descriptive of what justice and holiness looked like, but justice was not always supposed to be applied. God reminds us that we ought to apply mercy whenever able, not assume that Torah demanded endless justice through unbreakable laws. Keener says:
"Not merely human life but human need in general takes precedent over regulations. Kindness towards others genuine need — for example, that of hungry disciples — precedes rules whose purpose was to please the God who values such kindness more highly (12:7; 9:13; cf. 4:2)." (The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, pg. 357)
Israel was meant to read the wisdom of the Torah to understand what justice and holiness look like, but Jesus reminds us God desired Israel to apply mercy and understanding when able to, and not assume the Torah demanded endless punishments to be doled out. Again, the Torah expressed the moral importance of something so Israel would understand how important it was to God within their covenant with Him.

The Suzerain Treaty

The key to understanding the Torah is to understand it was about being in covenant with God. What we read are covenant stipulations, not the establishment of a moral code for all people in all times and all places. It contains things we can say are moral, but they are only there to aid Israel in holding to the covenant between them and God.
Unlike other ancient Near Eastern legal collections, the Torah is part of what we would call a "Suzerain Treaty." Delbert Hillers notes that in the Pentateuch, it teaches that Israel had become the vassal of God (Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, pg. 46-71). A Suzerain Treaty is where a king would take on another nation as a vassal. The Suzerain or Lord would establish what the vassal would now need to do to please their new overlord in the form of stipulations; which would then be followed by the sections where the stipulations were met, what blessings they would receive, and what repercussions would ensue if they did not keep the stipulations.
However, like with wisdom literature, treaty stipulations do not legislate. They provide instructions in the wisdom on how to be a loyal vassal. Suzerains took on vassals to glorify themselves and to make their name great. Vassals were seen as extensions of him, and what they did reflected the character of the Suzerain. When the Suzerain imposed his stipulations, he was not asserting law. He was extending his identity and realm through the vassal, and so the stipulations were instructions in how to reflect his character. The stipulations were not extensive and exhaustive in order to cover all aspects of life. They were designed to get the new subjects to understand how to be loyal vassals in all ways by giving certain examples. But a vassal's loyalty was meant to extend beyond what was stated.
It is like if i'm going to teach you martial arts, I would teach you how to properly kick, punch and block. But i'm not attempting to teach you specific motions or only things you can do if you're attacked, and i'm also not teaching you that you have to go out and start fighting. I would be trying to teach you how to think about fighting if a potential fight arose.I would want as your instructor for you to know how to act, whether to defend or call the authorities. I would not be prescribing fighting, but teaching you how to think about fighting.
Likewise, to be a loyal vassal extended beyond the stipulations. It was about teaching one how to think and how to understand what it meant to be loyal. The Torah was mostly trying to describe and teach skills, namely the skills on how to be a holy people, and how to properly represent the Lord before the nations of the ancient Near East. God expected them to do certain things, but also have the knowledge on how to properly apply these skills. And by becoming a vassal, Israel became an extension of God and they were meant to enhance and make the name of the Lord great to the surrounding nations. And the Torah was the instructions on how to exemplify the character of the Lord to those surrounding nations of that time period. It's not a moral code for all times and all people. It was not given as an ideal system. It is a culturally situated system. It was meant to bring enhancement to the reputation of the Lord among the nations of the ancient Near East.
In other words, the Torah was meant to teach Israel how to enhance the character of the Lord within the cultural world of their day, not our modern culture; what could they do so the other nations would see how great the Lord was. The Torah doesn't address issues like if slavery is wrong because it's not attempting to create the perfect moral code, and it was not written to our modern sensibilities. Issues like this were not being addressed in the world yet.
Remember, to the world outside of Israel in that time period, order, not ethical laws, were what the ancient culture is focused on. So the Torah is how to be a light to those nations of that time period, about what would get their attention so God could eventually bring them back into the kingdom. In other words, it is working within the culture to enhance the name of the Lord. It is not trying to set up an ideal system for all people at all times in all places.
So essentially that means Torah is how Israel is to order itself so they can live in God's presence in the land of Canaan. It provides hypothetical cases which describe, not prescribe, what an orderly and holy way of living would look like for Israel as God's vassal (Lev. 20:26).
"If the Torah gives illustrations of ways that order can be maintained in the society of ancient Israel—covenant order defined by preserving the sanctity of sacred space as God's—it is all culturally relative."(The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context, John H. Walton, pg. 100)

The Imperfect Mosaic Law

If you read through the Torah, you will find some verses that appear pretty awful. Israelites are allowed to keep slaves and women are not on an equal level with men. Skeptics often bring up these verses to show there are horrible things permitted in the Bible, so the word of God contains some pretty immoral ideas. Most believers will retort that these passages can simply be explained by looking at the cultural context or what the original Hebrew meant, but then skeptics often reply that it is the believer who is misunderstanding what the passages are saying. So as a believer myself I propose a compromise: let's just say the skeptics are right. The Torah does contain numerous passages that contain immoral ideas, but also God admits the Torah was never meant to be the ideal.
As now revealed, the Torah was not a prescriptive law code or legislation. It was more akin to didactic wisdom literature and was set up as a Suzerain Treaty. But why would God still allow the Torah to contain verses that appear to be okay with slavery, or treating women as second-class citizens? Well we need to remember the Bible implies in many places that the Torah was not a perfect moral code from God. It contained concessions for stiff necked Israel, and the Bible even admits this.
First, in Matthew 19, the Pharisees come and attempt to trick Jesus by asking him a question about the law of divorce. They ask why moses allowed them to give a certificate of divorce and send their wives away (vs 7). But Jesus replies:

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (vs. 8b)

This is a very important point made by Jesus. The law of divorce only existed because the hearts of the ancient Israelites were hard. God only allowed this for the time being because Israel was not at a point yet where they could be given more ethical marriage guidelines. Considering scholars note the Torah was to be understood holistically and not as individual sections, this implies some of what is in the Torah was included due to a compromise between God and Israel, and this can be seen in other places as well.
In 1st Samuel 8, the people approach Samuel and demand that Israel be allowed to have a king instead of being led by God directly. God warns that this is a bad idea but allows it anyway, and gives Israel a king besides God Himself. Again, remember that the Torah functions as stipulations of a Suzerain Treaty where God was seen as their king and ruler. By allowing an earthly king to mediate between Him and Israel, God allowed the covenant to be modified between Israel and Himself, but based on input from Israel. So although God was in charge, the stipulations of the covenant were not entirely from God. If He approved, He allowed the people of Israel to modify the covenant, even if God preferred another way (vs. 9).
Likewise, in Numbers 27 we see members of Israel offering changes to the Torah and getting them approved. The daughters of Zelophehad point out their father had no male heir and do not want the inheritance taken away from them and given to one of his brothers. They bring this issue to Moses and God allows this teaching to go into the Torah. So not everything we see in the Torah was directly given by God. He allowed Israel to include teachings they saw fit, with His permission. Additionally, God implicitly admits the failure of the existing law among the Israelites. It was not providing justice for these daughters, so God suggests the need for the rules and the wisdom of the Torah to be updated when justice was not being obtained for the people of Israel (vs. 7). This is the most explicit passage when it comes to an example of updating the Torah but we can see it in other places.
For example, Richard Averbeck draws attention to Deuteronomy 15:12-18 which updates and revises stipulations found in Exodus 21:2-11 concerning the treatment of slaves. He says:
"It simply adds a feature to the law that is in keeping with the theology of Deuteronomy. Yes, there is revision here, but not subversion." (Exploring the Composition of the Pentateuch, pg. 40)
So the evidence suggests the stipulations of the Torah could be revised and expanded upon when justice was not being achieved. So from these passages, we get the implication the Torah was not a perfect moral law given by God. It was put together as a compromise with a stubborn people. It could be modified in ways that God did not initially want, or could be modified for just reasons. And some of the passages come from requests by israelites.
Now, because Israel was a high-context society, it is not always stated if God approved of each passage or if He was allowing something to be included to compromise with Israel; but the passages I highlighted imply the Torah as a whole contained concessions for Israel, included things God didn't want, and was put together with input from Israel, which essentially means the Biblical texts admit the Torah was never meant to establish God's ideal moral system. The Torah was a temporary guardian meant to provide wisdom from God on how to properly live and represent God to the cultural world of the ancient Near East. It was supposed to teach Israel to trust and depend on the Lord, what it would look like to be a holy people within their cultural background, and some things that would be pleasing to a holy God. It was not laying down a universal moral code. Humanity was not ready for such a revelation yet, so God established the Torah to be our guardian for the time and to point to a need for something greater to come.
Notice, we're not saying that because the Torah was not a perfect moral code that it was necessarily bad. We are simply noting that Torah was not meant to be universal moral legislation, and it was cultural wisdom for that time and place. In other words, it was 'perfect' for where the people were spiritually in that time and place within that culture (Psa. 119:7), but not meant to be moral wisdom or rules for all people or all cultures.

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."-Galatians 3:23-25

Now the question might arise as to why God couldn't just make Israel better by giving them an ideal moral code right away. Well, probably for the same reason we wouldn't expect a sociopath to be able to run an orphanage unless we somehow removed his free will. People and societies need time to progress towards a more virtuous way of thinking. If you expect too much at first from a morally depraved mind, you're actually more likely to hinder them instead of helping them progress to a better place. The implication in the Bible is the cultures of the ancient Near East had become so corrupt that comprehending an ideal moral code would have been practically impossible. Israel was selected to be a light to these nations to hopefully help in bringing them a step closer to God. Israel herself also is not ready to fully represent the ideal life God desired, however God could offer a culturally situated system to be the first stepping stone in bringing humanity back towards Him.
This would be analogous to a parent working with their young child. You may want your kid to eat all their vegetables and watch less tv, but as a parent you might understand kids just aren't mature enough for this yet. So we compromise, let them have something they like in exchange for their cooperation in eating something good for them. Attempting to force too many strict rules and high expectations will only result in utter misery and little to no results. In fact, often when parents are too strict and demanding, it can often make their kids worse off instead of helping them. Likewise, Israel and most of humanity was simply not ready for a perfect moral law from God. So God used the Torah as a stepping stone in revealing Himself to humanity without removing significant human freedom. So we don't need to defend the Torah as if God intended for it to be an ideal moral system.
Jesus was constantly trying to explain how the Pharisees had misunderstood the purpose of the Torah. It was not meant to be prescriptive law or the rules for God's ideal system. It was meant to demonstrate how sinful humanity was, and to point to the need for something greater to come. As Jesus said in John 5:39:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus points out righteousness goes beyond just keeping certain laws but having your heart in the right place (Matt. 5). Jesus demonstrates how just following the prescriptions of the Torah fall from the righteousness that God actually demands. So for Christians, the Torah was meant to be fulfilled in something greater, not be an ideal moral system.
So the Torah was not prescriptive law for Christians. Paul and Jesus point out what Christians were commanded to do is to believe in Jesus (John 14:1 ), love God (Luke 10:27), and love others (John 15:12). The New Testament teaches that Torah served the purpose of preparing humanity for the new covenant established by Christ. It does not teach the Torah was God's ideal moral system but merely a stepping stone pointing to something better to come, demonstrating the moral depravity humanity had fallen into. Paul even says the purpose of the Torah was to increase sin (Rom. 5:20).
The point was to teach us that we needed to be saved from our sins through the grace of God. The Torah demonstrated humanity cannot be holy through our actions and ways of thinking, and in trying to properly live the life Torah laid out, we would fail and sin even more. God provided a covenant which was a compromise and Israel could not even properly live by it. Instead, the Torah demonstrated how sinful humanity was and how incapable we are living in a way that would have pleased God.
So the Torah served its purpose in showing that Israel could not live in accordance with it, in the need for a better covenant based on grace to take its place. The Torah was merely our guardian, laying the groundwork for something better, not an ideal system that got established. So we don't need to pretend everything in the Torah is necessarily morally good. The Biblical texts do not state this, and instead teach that it was culturally situated and would be fulfilled one day. So when confronted by verses in the Torah that seem unethical, there is no need to try to rationalize them to make them sound better. Instead, it should simply be pointed out what the Torah was and that God never intended for it to be an ideal moral code

Conclusion

So the Torah itself is culturally dependent and descriptive wisdom on how to live as God's vassal. We should not wonder why it doesn't address certain moral questions that we have today. That was never its intent, as its intent was to teach Israel how to properly represent the Lord before the ancient nations of the Near East who were not asking the same moral questions we are asking today. It was not intended to be prescriptive, but more akin to Proverbs in teaching them how to act and think of justice, and how they can maintain order in God's presence. And most importantly, it's not a law code or legislation. What we have here is a treatise on judicial wisdom for Israel's ancient cultural context. It taught them what it meant to be God's representative to the ancient Near East and what an orderly and holy people looked like.
So once we understand the main purpose of the Torah, we can better grasp how it fits in the overall Biblical narrative. It was never an ideal moral code or intended for all people of all times. It was culturally situated and must be read with that context in mind.

Introduction

The term 'cosmology' refers to the way one understands the structure of the world around us. Biblical cosmology is very different than what modern scientists say about the 'universe.'
A lifetime of indoctrination has given us a knee-jerk reaction to certain terms. Because the heliocentric globe is all we have ever known, when someone suggests that our creation is flat, we imagine some disc floating in outer space, perhaps with water flowing off the edge.
This is not Biblical cosmology.
Such a conception is circulated by misinformation agents as a way to ridicule and discourage investigation of the subject. When it comes to how vastly different Biblical cosmology is to the spinning spaceball, an absence of curvature is just the tip of the iceberg.
In this post, we'll be discussing five key aspects of Biblical cosmology.

1. The Firmament and the Waters

There is no "outer space" in the Biblical model. The first chapter of Genesis, and other Scriptures, describe our world as being encased within an immeasurable body of waters (1:6-8). These vast waters are referred to as "the deep" (1:2). On the second day of creation, God made the firmament to divide the waters which were below from the waters which were above, allowing for an inhabitable expanse in between. Even after the flood, these waters remain, for the psalmist David declared in his day

"Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens."-Psalm 148:4

Isaiah describes the firmament as being of a solid material that was stretched out as a curtain over the earth. The fact that the firmament is indeed a domed structure is confirmed by Isaiah's use of simile, comparing it to a tent to dwell in (Isa. 40:22). Elihu described the sky as strong, likening it to a molten mirror (Job 37:18). Such terminology proves that the Bible writers understood the firmament to be solid.

2. A Circular Face with Ends

The Bible repeatedly mentions that the earth has 'ends' (Job 28:24), and further, that it has a 'face' (Gen. 6:1). A sphere does not have ends, and it is the only shape without a face.
The face of the earth is described as a circle when viewed from heaven above (Isa. 40:22). The Hebrew word for circle, ḥūḡ, does not indicate a sphere, as many would argue, for Isaiah used another Hebrew word, dūr, when referring to a ball (Isa. 22:18).
The Hebrew word ḥūḡ is elsewhere translated 'compass.' During our world's creation, God set a 'compass,' or engraved a circle, upon the face of the depth (Pro. 8:27).

3. Fixed Upon Foundations and Pillars

While modern science claims that the earth is moving through space at unbelievable speeds, the Bible declares that the earth is presently 'established,' or fixed, and that "it shall not be moved" (Psa. 96:10). God Himself said to Job that He "laid the foundations of the earth" (Job 38:4). It is also written that "the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them" (1 Sam. 2:8).
Pillars and foundations are structural components that must be firmly set in order to serve their purpose. This raises the question:

"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?"-Job 38:6a

The Bible answers:

"For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods."-Psalm 24:2

This seemingly impossible feat of engineering, the earth being founded upon waters, was marveled out by Job who declared, "[God] hangeth the earth upon nothing," that is, nothing which affords stability as far as man is concerned (26:7).
The structure of the heavens, the firmament, is also set on pillars, which are said to 'tremble' at God's 'reproof' (Job 26:11).

4. The Divine Dwelling

God's throne sits directly above the firmament. Just as the pillars of the earth are struck in the waters below, God likewise layeth the beams of His chambers in the waters which are above the earth (Ezek. 1:26, Psa. 104:3).
It is written:

"The LORD sitteth upon the flood;"-Psalm 29:10a

Being literally enthroned above our world, the heavenly Father looks down from the height of His sanctuary (Psa. 102:9). To illustrate the vertical vantage point God occupies, Isaiah states that men are 'as grasshoppers' from God's view (Isa. 40:22).

5. Geocentric, not Heliocentric

According to Scripture, the sun moon and stars are not millions of miles away, but are simply "lights in the firmament of the heaven" (Gen. 1:15). Far from being a cluster of space rocks and burning gases roving in their own courses, the Bible teaches that these mysterious luminaries were made for the sole service of the earth, to give light upon the earth. Besides dividing day from night, the clockwork procession of these celestial wonders was to allow man to reckon seasonal changes and to mark the ages as they passed (Gen. 1:14).
During his battle with the amorites, Joshua did not bid the earth, but the sun to stand still (Josh. 10:13). David likewise understood that it is the sun which moves. He likened the sun to a strong man running a race who untiringly circuits the heavenly track above (Psa. 19:4b-6). this fact is also supported by Solomon, who stated that after the sun goes down, it "hasteth to the place where he arose" (Ecc. 1:5).
What are called 'planets' are simply wandering stars. These luminaries traverse the heavens irregularly, wandering in retrograde motions above the earth. Not being mentioned specifically during creation week, the wandering stars fall under the general category of 'stars,' which God made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16, 19).
## Conclusion
In short, the Bible teaches an enclosed system, where the earth is flat and covered by a solid dome called the "firmament." All the stars and heavenly bodies are under the firmament. Water surrounds the dome (firmament), and above that is heaven (the throne room of God). Hell (sheol/the grave) was beneath, or deep inside the earth. Below sheol are the "pillars" upon which the earth and the dome rest. In a Biblical cosmology, there are no planets or galaxies. Mars, Venus, etcetera, are just wandering stars under the dome.
So, imagine a snow globe, sitting on pillars or foundations of some sort, and all of it submerged in water. Above that would be you, looking down upon it, as its ownecreator. This is not a perfect analogy, but it captures the essence of what the Biblical authors believed about the earth, heaven, and the relationship thereof.
Unlike the cosmology of science falsely so-called, the creation model that the Bible describes needs no theoretical physics to support itself. It is so simple that a child can understand it, yet Bible truth requires the faith of a child to be received. While the simple Biblical model is in complete harmony with our own personal experience, its wonderful simplicity in most cases does not appeal to the pride of a grown man, and he passes it by seeking some great thing in its place.

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"-1 Corinthians 1:27

Finally, I will be ending this post with a comprehensive list of passages that one can study out on their own, and thus determine for themselves the veracity of this teaching:

• Genesis 1:1-19; 2:1; 7:18
  
• Exodus 32:12; 33:16
  
• Numbers 12:3
  
• Deuteronomy 28:64
  
• 1st Samuel 2:8, 10
  
• 2nd Samuel 22:8
  
• 1st Kings 13:34
  
• 1st Chronicles 16:30
  
• Job 9:6; 26:7; 37:10; 38:4-5, 13-14, 18, 30
  
• Psalms 19:1-6; 33:9; 75:3; 82:5; 93:1; 96:10; 102:25; 104:5; 119:89-90
  
• Proverbs 8:27, 29; 17:24; 25:3; 30:4
  
• Ecclesiastes 1:6
  
• Isaiah 11:12; 13:13; 14:7; 40:21-22, 28; 41:5, 9; 42:10; 43:6; 45:18, 22; 48:13, 20; 49:6; 51:13, 16; 52:10; 66:1
  
• Jeremiah 10:13; 16:19; 25:26, 31, 33; 28:16; 31:37; 51:16
  
• Ezekiel 1:22-26; 7:2; 10:1; 34:6; 38:20; 39:14
  
• Daniel 4:22; 12:3
  
• Amos 9:6, 8
  
• Micah 5:4; 6:2
  
• Zechariah 1:11; 5:3; 9:10; 12:1
  
• Matthew 5:35; 12:42; 16:3
  
• Luke 8:17; 11:31; 12:56; 21:35
  
• Acts 7:49; 13:47
  
• Hebrews 1:10
  
• Revelation 4:6; 6:12-14; 7:1; 20:8
  

Introduction
Does baptism save? Physical water-baptism? Some people think so. But that is not the Biblical teaching. Ephesians 2:8-10 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” We are not saved by works, or even by a combination of faith and works. Some believe that faith and good works together lead to salvation, but the Bible teaches instead that faith alone leads to both salvation and good works. We are saved by grace through faith, which is a gift from God, becoming a new creation, for the purpose of doing good works. Physical water-baptism is by definition a work (there is simply no way of escaping that obvious fact, though many Baptismal-Regenerationists do ridiculous mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to get around it), and thus physical baptism cannot be required for salvation.
However, some Bible passages are misused to defend the idea that it is. But as with any single verse or passage, we must discern what it teaches by filtering it through what we already know the Bible teaches on the subject. Any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that physical baptism (or any other work) is necessary for salvation is of necessity a false interpretation. Passages that I commonly see misused and abused include:

1. Mark 16:16 – “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.”
   
2. John 3:5 – “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
   
3. Acts 2:38 – “Repent, and each of you be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins.”
   
4. Acts 22:16 – “Rise up and be baptized, and wash away your sins.”
   
5. Romans 6:3-4 – “All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death … we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead … we too might walk in newness of life.”
   
6. I Corinthians 6:11 – “Such were some of you; but you were washed.”
   
7. I Corinthians 15:29 – “What will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
   
8. Galatians 3:27 – “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
   
9. Ephesians 4:4-5 – “There is … one baptism.”
   
10. Ephesians 5:26 – “He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water.”
    
11. Colossians 2:12 – “Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God.”
    
12. Titus 3:5 – “He saved us … through the washing of regeneration.”
    
13. I Peter 3:21 – “Baptism now saves you.”
    

In this essay, I will exegetically show that all twelve of these passages are being misused by Baptismal-Regenerationists, and I will demonstrate the correct interpretations of each one in context. Some of the verses mention baptism explicitly and others do not, but upon closer inspection, not even one of them actually supports Baptismal Regeneration in the slightest, and some of them actually refute it. It is a patently unbiblical (and borderline heretical) false doctrine.
Passages in Which Baptism is Explicitly Mentioned
There are several passages that directly reference baptism which at first glance seem to indicate Baptismal Regeneration. Because baptism is explicitly mentioned, instead of just possibly alluding to it like in some other passages, these verses are misused far more frequently.
Ephesians 4:5
Ephesians 4:1-7 says, “Therefore I, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you to walk worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”
At first glance, this may seem like a particularly difficult verse. Baptismal-Regenerationists take the phrase “one baptism” to mean that spiritual baptism and physical baptism must be the same thing. How can spiritual baptism/regeneration be a separate event that happens before physical baptism if there is only one baptism? The answer is that we just have to pay attention to the context to know what Paul actually means here.
In verses 2-3, Paul urges the Ephesians to be patient with each other and to diligently remain unified. To get across the importance of this, in verse 4, Paul reinforces the fact that there is only one body of Christ, not multiple, and only one Holy Spirit who dwells in all true believers. Then in verse 5 he says there is only one Lord that we all worship, and only one true faith that we all share, not multiple faiths, and in verse 7, he says grace is given to all Christians according to the measure of the gift of Jesus. Likewise, he says all Christians share the same of baptism. But why exactly would he need to say that?
Well, I Corinthians 3:1-9, 21-23 says, “And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are still not able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. … So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.”
Additionally, Acts 19:1-7 says, “Now it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper regions and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. And he said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said to him, ‘No, we have not even heard if the Holy Spirit is being received.’ And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Then Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. Now there were in all about twelve men.”
As you can see, some people in Ephesus, among those being addressed in Ephesians 4:5, had been followers of John the Baptist and had received his baptism of repentance, but had not received Christian baptism yet. Then Paul told them about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and then gave them the Christian baptism. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul addressed division in the Corinthian Church, saying it doesn’t matter whether you are a follower of Peter, Paul, or Apollos, since we are all followers of Christ. Likewise, Paul was clearly addressing disunity in the Ephesian Church in his epistle to them, emphasizing that all Christians share the same baptism. Not the baptism of John the Baptist, or Apollos, or Peter, or Paul, but one Christian baptism and faith and Lord. Ephesians 4:5 does not teach Baptismal Regeneration in the slightest. It simply teaches unity, in the same way that Galatians 3:28-29 does: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” We are “one” in Christ Jesus, so we share one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.
But spiritual baptism and physical baptism are two separate things, with the latter being a sign representing the former. Spiritual baptism is spiritual birth, which is the new birth, which is regeneration. Physical baptism is an outward symbol of the inward spiritual baptism, and is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant. We should not confuse the sign with the thing signified.
I Peter 3:21
Perhaps the most-commonly misused verse is I Peter 3:21. I Peter 3:18-22 says, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring you to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.”
So Peter does say “baptism now saves you” but then he immediately clarifies that he is not talking about physical baptism. He specifically states that the baptism he is talking about is an “appeal of a good conscience to God” (which is what spiritual baptism/spiritual birth/the new birth/ regeneration is), and not just literal water making you physically clean (“the removal of dirt from the flesh,” which is what physical baptism is). I find it extremely annoying when I see Baptismal-Regenerationists quoting the first part of this verse, arrogantly thinking that they have instantly, easily, and irrefutably proven Baptismal Regeneration, while completely ignoring the second half of the verse (as well as the rest of Scripture) which clearly teaches the exact opposite. To try and misuse this verse to support Baptismal Regeneration is just blatantly dishonest and obviously false. Such a dishonest and deceptive abuse of God’s Word is infuriating to me.
Mark 16:16
Another verse I have seen Baptismal-Regenerationists use is Mark 16:16, and it does indeed seem to support it. Mark 16:16 says, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” There are two important things to note here.
Firstly, while it does say that people are saved if they believe and are baptized, it does not say that people who are not baptized are not saved. Interestingly, it actually specifically says that those who disbelieve shall be condemned, but it leaves out any mention of those who believe but are not baptized. Surely, if this verse was teaching Baptismal Regeneration, it would say “he who has believed but has not been baptized shall also be condemned” or “but he who has disbelieved or who has not been baptized shall be condemned.” But the text doesn’t say those things. It is simply expressing the expectation that all who believe (and thus are saved) will then be baptized.
Secondly, and far more importantly, we shouldn’t forget that this verse falls within Mark 16:9-20, which is called the “Longer Ending of Mark.” It is an addition to Mark’s Gospel that Mark did not write. It was wrongfully added to the book later on by a scribe, and thus it is not divinely-inspired Scripture. It does not belong in the Bible, it is not infallible or inerrant, it is not the Word of God, and we cannot glean any binding doctrinal teaching from it whatsoever. So even if this verse taught Baptismal Regeneration (which it does not), it still wouldn’t matter anyway.
Acts 2:38 and I Corinthians 15:29
Two other commonly misused verses are Acts 2:38 and I Corinthians 15:29. Acts 2:37-39 says, “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men, brothers, what should we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.’” I Corinthians 15:29 says, “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
While at first glance, Acts 2:38 may seem to clearly teach Baptismal Regeneration, since it says to be baptized “for” the forgiveness of sins, the Greek word “eis” (often translated “for”) can be legitimately translated “because of,” and even the English word “for” can itself already be understood with that same meaning. There are other places in the New Testament in which “eis” is used this way, and such usage is not uncommon in Koine Greek generally. No one can insist that “eis” in Acts 2:38 indicates that bringing about forgiveness of sins is the goal of baptism.
Matthew 12:41 says, “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” The word “at” in the phrase “repented at the preaching of Jonah” is “eis” again. It certainly can’t mean they repented in order to obtain the preaching of Jonah! It means they repented due to the preaching of Jonah, when they heard it.
Matthew 10:40-42 says, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” The word “in” in the phrases “in the name of a prophet,” “in the name of a righteous man,” and “in the name of a disciple” is the Greek word “eis.” In these verses, the meaning of “eis” cannot indicate a goal, since “receiving a prophet for his name” makes no sense. It instead indicates the grounds. Righteous men are received because they are righteous.
In Acts 2:38, Peter is telling those who had already repented (and thus had already received forgiveness, due to their repentance) to be baptized, because they had been forgiven. An objectively better translation of “eis” in this verse is “because of,” which not only doesn’t support Baptismal Regeneration, but directly refutes it! What Acts 2:38 really says is, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins.” Baptismal Regeneration is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures. I Corinthians 15:29 is also better translated this way, saying “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized because of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized because of them?” There isn’t a hint of Baptismal Regeneration in this verse, either.
Acts 22:16
Acts 22:14-16 says, “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Now why do you delay? Rise up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’”
The Greek words for “rise up” and “calling” (“anastas” and “epikalesamenos”) are aorist participles, and the Greek words for “be baptized” and “wash” (“baptisai” and “apolousai”) are aorist imperatives. These words form two distinct pairings: the first being “Rise up and be baptized,” and the second being “wash away your sins, calling on His name,” which is more literally translated as, “wash away your sins, having called on His name.”
Due to this distinction in the literary construction of the Greek in this passage, it is clear that the washing away of sins (regeneration) is simply the result of calling upon the name of the Righteous One, and this forgiveness is then outwardly represented by physical baptism. The text does not indicate that baptism washes away sins any more than it indicates that rising up washes away sins. Ananias is simply telling Paul to rise up, to call upon Christ’s name in faith to wash away his sins, and to be baptized.
And let’s not forget about Acts 9, a parallel passage. Acts 9:17-20 says, “So Ananias departed and entered the house. And he laid his hands on him and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord sent me—that is Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming—so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he rose up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’” Ananias laid his hands on Paul, saying it was so Paul could regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Collating the two passages, it is clear that Paul regained his sight, was filled with the Holy Spirit, calling on the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of his sins, and then was baptized. Baptismal-Regenerationists may argue that Paul wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit until he was baptized, but that makes no sense given what happens in the very next chapter.
Acts 10:44-48 says, “While Peter was still speaking these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the word. And all the circumcised believers who came with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone refuse water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for a few days.” It is indisputable that these people were regenerate before physical baptism!
Colossians 2:12
Colossians 2:8-14 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and in Him you have been filled, who is the head over all rule and authority; in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you being dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive with Him, having graciously forgiven us all our transgressions. Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us, He also has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
So Paul is referring to “a circumcision made without hands,” which is obviously spiritual regeneration, and he compares this to being “buried with Him in baptism” and “raised up with Him through faith.” Paul is obviously talking about spiritual baptism! We are saved by grace alone through faith alone, and the Holy Spirit regenerates us, which is what spiritual baptism and the “circumcision made without hands” are. Physical baptism is only a symbol of this, and a sign of the New Covenant, just like how physical circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, but was separate from the circumcision made without hands, which is spiritual.
Romans 6:3-4
Another verse some have used is Romans 6:3-4, once again out of context. Romans 6:1-7 says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died has been justified from sin.”
In the context, it is clear that Paul is primarily referring to the spiritual baptism that is regeneration, not physical baptism, since the language closely parallels Colossians 2. This passage provides no warrant for the idea of Baptismal Regeneration, since Paul is speaking symbolically throughout the passage (since we haven’t literally died or been buried), and physical baptism is an outward symbol that represents the inward spiritual baptism (spiritual birth/the new birth/regeneration) that is salvation.
Galatians 3:27
Galatians 3:23-29 says, “But before faith came, we were held in custody under the Law, being shut up for the coming faith to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor unto Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”
The text does indeed say that everyone baptized into Christ has been clothed with Christ, but there are three separate reasons this passage actually hurts Baptismal Regeneration rather than supports it. Firstly, the mental gymnastics that Baptismal-Regenerationists often do to get around the fact that physical baptism is a work usually involve saying that it is a work of God and not a work of man. But the text here says that “you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Physical water-baptism is clearly a good work done by the believer (and whoever baptizes them).
Secondly, the text technically never indicates that baptism is necessary for salvation. If Paul was teaching Baptismal Regeneration here, he should have said, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ, but you who have not been baptized are not clothed with Christ.” But Paul doesn’t say that. He doesn’t strictly limit salvation to those who have been physically “baptized into Christ.” Certainly everyone who has saving faith is regenerate whether they have been physically baptized yet or not, but like in Mark 16:16, the text expresses the normative expectation that all true believers will be baptized.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear once again, like in Colossians 2:11-12 and Romans 6:3-4, that Paul is talking symbolically about spiritual baptism, and not about physical water-baptism at all. “Faith” is referenced repeatedly in the passage, and right before Paul mentions baptism, he says “you are all sons of God through faith.” He didn’t say, “you are all sons of God because you have been baptized,” or, “you are all sons of God through faith and baptism.” Paul is once again talking about spiritual baptism here, and we should not confuse the sign of physical baptism with the thing it signifies: spiritual baptism/spiritual birth/regeneration.
Passages in Which Baptism is Not Explicitly Mentioned
Many passages that Baptismal-Regenerationists use simply refer to “washing” or “water” without directly referring to “baptism.” They assume that these verses refer to physical water-baptism when they really do not. Baptism did not exist in the Old Testament, but the same exact language is used symbolically in the Old Testament many times.
For example, Psalm 51:2, 7 says, “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. … Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” Proverbs 30:12 says, “There is a generation that is clean in its own eyes, Yet is not washed from its filthiness.” Isaiah 1:16 says, “Wash yourselves, purify yourselves; Remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes.” Jeremiah 4:14 says, “Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, That you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts Lodge within you?” Ezekiel 36:25 says, “Then I will splash clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols.” Obviously these cannot possibly be referring to any physical act (except perhaps for Isaiah 1:16, but certainly not the others), much less water-baptism, which did not even exist at the time. Thus, when the same language is used in the New Testament, there is no reason to think it refers to physical water-baptism.
In fact, there is one passage like this which would actually hurt Baptismal Regeneration if it was interpreted that way. Hebrews 10:19-22 says, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”
If this refers to physical baptism, it doesn’t say it is necessary for salvation or is the means of saving grace. The writer says we already have confidence to enter the holy places, and that Jesus already inaugurated a new and living way for us, and that because we already have a great priest, we should have our bodies washed with pure water. If this is talking about physical water-baptism, then it says we are saved before it, not through it, which contradicts Baptismal Regeneration. But clearly it is just symbolic language anyway. “Bodies washed” is simply an an idiom showing the thoroughness of the cleansing of the conscience by God. Because Jesus thoroughly cleansed us of our sins, we can have peace with God and enjoy fellowship with Him. In light of these facts, lets now look at the rest of the Scripture passages that Baptismal-Regenerationists misuse.
Titus 3:5
Titus 3:5-7 says, “He saved us, not by works which we did in righteousness, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by His grace, we would become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
The text says we are saved “through the washing of regeneration,” which Baptismal-Regenerationists think refers to physical baptism, which they believe is what regenerates us. But immediately before that, the text says we are not saved “by works which we did in righteousness” which obviously includes physical baptism. The context clearly indicates that “washing of regeneration” is just the spiritual baptism done by God in our hearts, and nothing more.
I Corinthians 6:11
I Corinthians 6:9-11 says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
Even if “you were washed” refers to physical water-baptism (which I have already shown it does not), that doesn’t mean the verse is implying that it is necessary to be saved. It would simply mean that the people who had been committing those sins were justified and sanctified, thus being saved, and were also baptized as well. This passage once again reflects the expectation that believers will be baptized, just like Mark 16:16 and Galatians 3:27 do.
And let us not forget what Paul says elsewhere in this same epistle! I Corinthians 1:14-17 says, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ will not be made empty.” Then I Corinthians 4:15 says, “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” It is clear that the Corinthians were saved through Paul preaching the Gospel to them, even though he didn’t baptize them, and a clear distinction is made between the Gospel and Baptism. The Gospel is about salvation, so if physical baptism is necessary, this distinction would not have been made, and Paul certainly would have baptized them!
Ephesians 5:26
Ephesians 5:25-27 says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless.”
Again, like in Titus 3:5, I Corinthians 6:11, and all those Old Testament passages, this is obviously symbolic language that has nothing to do with physical baptism, especially given the phrase “with the word,” which clearly refers to the Word of God, who is our savior Jesus Christ. It is He who has cleansed us in spiritual baptism in the new birth.
John 3:5
John 3:3-8 says, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again.” The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.’” (Note that “born again” is more literally translated as “born from above.”)
First, if Jesus had actually wanted to say that one must be physically baptized to be saved, He obviously could have just said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized in water and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” But that is not at all what He said. Baptism is never mentioned a single time in the context of this passage.
Second, it is important to note that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the Christian sacrament of baptism hadn’t even been instituted yet. Baptismal-Regenerationists are extremely inconsistent here, since they say that the reason why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved is because he was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to Christian baptism, and was saved like everyone else under the Old Covenant. Not only is that simply false (since he was under the New Covenant by the time that he died), but Baptismal-Regenerationists also insist that Jesus here is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized in order to be saved, even though he was inarguably under the Old Covenant! But obviously neither Nicodemus nor the thief on the cross needed to be physically baptized to be saved.
Third, the Greek grammar indicates that “being born of water” and “being born of the Spirit” are a single of action, not two different things. Jesus is not speaking of two separate births, but of one birth from above, which is spiritual birth, or spiritual baptism.
Fourth, Jesus later rebukes Nicodemus by asking him: “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” (John 3:10). What Jesus had just told him was something Nicodemus should have known and understood from the Old Testament. Ezekiel 36:25-27 says, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to do My judgments.” Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to remember and understand one of the most important Old Testament passages that pertains to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). Nicodemus should have been expecting this, so why would Jesus rebuke Nicodemus for not understanding baptism, when baptism is literally never mentioned in the Old Testament?!
The phrase “born of water and the Spirit” describes two different aspects of what it means to be spiritually born again from above. Jesus was not referring to literal water, but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. It is symbolic washing language representing the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings forth spiritual life to dead sinners.
There are more examples of this later in John’s Gospel as well. John 13:5-11 says “Then He poured water into the washbasin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel which He had tied around Himself. So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, ‘Lord, are You going to wash my feet?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘What I am doing you do not realize now, but you will understand afterwards.’ Peter said to Him, ‘You will never wash my feet—ever!’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.’ Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.’ Jesus said to him, ‘He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.’ For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, ‘Not all of you are clean.’” John 15:3 says, “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.”
The work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying a believer, whereby God cleanses and purifies the believer’s heart or soul, is compared to water in Isaiah 44:3 and John 7:37-39. Isaiah 44:3-4 says, “For I will pour out water on the thirsty ground And streams on the dry land; I will pour out My Spirit on your seed And My blessing on your offspring; And they will spring up among the grass Like poplars by streams of water.” John 7:37-39 says, “Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ”From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.”’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were going to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The water that one must be born of in John 3:5 is this living water, which is the Holy Spirit! Jesus reinforces this truth when He restates that one must be born again and that this newness of life can only be produced by the Holy Spirit (John 3:8).
The Barclay Daily Study Bible explains it thus: “There are two thoughts here. Water is the symbol of cleansing. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, when we love Him with all our heart, the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten. The Spirit is the symbol of power. When Jesus takes possession of our lives it is not only that the past is forgotten and forgiven; if that were all, we might well proceed to make the same mess of life all over again; but into life there enters a new power which enables us to be what by ourselves we could never be and to do what by ourselves we could never do. Water and the Spirit stand for the cleansing and the strengthening power of Christ, which wipes out the past and gives victory in the future.”
Thus, it is evident from the immediate context of the passage, the wider context of the entire Bible, and even the Greek grammar itself that Jesus is not talking about physical water-baptism. After considering all of this evidence, there is no reason to believe that John 3:5 (or any other verse in the entire Bible) teaches that physical water-baptism is required for salvation or is the means of saving grace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is absolutely no biblical basis for the idea that physical water-baptism is necessary for salvation. The New Testament is abundantly clear that we are not saved by works. The baptism that is necessary for salvation is spiritual baptism, spiritual birth, the new birth, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration. The Holy Spirit regenerates us and gives us new hearts, and gives us the desire to do good works, which can be used as evidence of true faith and repentance and salvation.
Physical water-baptism is a symbolic public declaration of our faith, and it represents spiritual baptism as a sign of having entered into the New Covenant. God commands Christians to be physically baptized, and we should desire to do it for that reason. It is not a means of saving grace, but only a means of sanctifying grace. Spiritual baptism is salvation, and physical water-baptism is an outward symbol that sanctifies us.
Sources and Further Reading
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/reformed-apologetics/a-brief-rebuttal-of-baptismal-regeneration/
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/buried-and-raised-in-baptism-through-faith
https://versebyversecommentary.com/2019/06/11/hebrews-10-22
https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html
Please tell me if you notice any typos, so that I can fix them. God bless! :)

​
https://reddit.com/link/1cm9wpz/video/yc87009frzyc1/player
Hi all,
I am working on this idea that i came up with yesterday, sorry for the recording i used my potato phone.
Lyrics :
Sometimes i feel numb,
so i start walking alone,
Whenever i feel down,
I’m always humming the same song,
No distance is,
enough to escape from who you are,
and if you insist,
try and go to other places,
Have you tried to run ?
What have you ever been chasing ?
Always the same song,
make sure to tighten your laces,
When the wind blows,
it might take you where you want to go,
And if you get lost,
All wishes can’t be granted.
------------
So it's this last part that i am struggling with, it is inspired from an arabic proverb that goes : "تجري الرياح بما لا تشتهي السف" which would translate to "the winds do not blow as vessels wishes". I'm i can't seem to make it right and it's bugging me.
Also, i would love feedback to the rest of the tune and some ideas. I might add a bit with a more joyful resolution. There is a comeback to that proverb which is "تجري الرياح كما تجري سفينتنا نحن الرياح ونحن البحر والسـفـن", which would translate to "The winds move as our ship moves. We are the winds and we are the sea and the ships"