Answering Your Hebrew and Greek Questions

We're going to dig into the Hebrew and Greek scriptures today on the Line of Fire. It's time for the Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and president of Fire School of Ministry. Get into the Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Hey friends, this is Michael Brown, delighted to be with you. Great to spend this hour together digging into the Word of God. You know, we often take questions on the air. We get calls from all points of view. We talk about politics, culture, Bible theology, you name it. Then every so often we just dig into the scriptures.

We don't even think about what's happening in the world, the news around us. And that's what we're going to do today. I'm not taking your calls, but I solicited these questions a few days back.

I just asked, Hey, give me your best Hebrew or Greek questions or questions about a specific verse in the Bible. And we will dig into the word together and we'll open up the scriptures. So that's what we're going to do.

And I'm going to see if I can go a little more quickly in some of my answers. Those that need to be more in depth, we'll get into more in depth, but if I can give you a shorter answer and cover more of the questions that have been submitted, I solicited these on our Facebook page and on Twitter. So that's, ask Dr. Brown. If you don't follow us on Facebook, please do.

We post day and night to edify, bless, stir, encourage, strengthen with links to all of our recent articles, videos, radio shows. So that's A S K D R Brown on Facebook. Then Twitter is at D R Michael L Brown. Make sure you have two L's in the middle.

Michael L doctor D R Michael L Brown. That's our Twitter handle. Okay. Let's go over to Facebook and we'll start with this question from Dave Genesis one, one through three in the beginning, God created can or should the word created be translated to fill like made fat. No, absolutely not. 100%.

No, it's completely separate route. Bara means to create. It is unrelated to a root having to do with fatness or anything like that. So absolutely categorically. No, it doesn't mean fill. It doesn't mean make fat. It means create. So that's an easy one.

Okay. Uh, David Lee asked, explain first Corinthians 1437 again, this one I can give you a pretty quick answer to as well. Paul writing to the Corinthians, setting things in order, dealing with things that need to be corrected, some moral, some theological, some practical. He says in verse 37 of 14, if anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I'm writing to her command of the Lord.

So he's dealing with issues of dispute in the congregations, different perspectives on different things. And the Corinthians were flourishing, thriving in the gifts. He commends them for that in first Corinthians, the first chapter, but there were abuses or there were things that were practiced out of order in particular tongues. And what he's saying is, Hey, I'm giving you what I'm teaching you is what the Lord has shown me. And if you're so spiritual, then you'll recognize it. If you're really a prophet, you'll recognize that what I'm speaking is from the Lord as opposed to, well, Paul's trying to mess up our phone or Paul's not spiritual or no, no. If you're spiritual, if you're a prophet, then you should know what I'm saying is from the Lord, because you should be sensitive enough to his voice, to his truth, that you should absolutely affirm and say yes and amen. Paul is speaking for the Lord. And it's the same thing when it comes to scripture. If you're so spiritual, if you're so Jesus loving, if you're so full of the spirit, if you're so sensitive to the voice of God, then you better believe that everything you do must be in harmony with scripture. That what you teach and preach must be in harmony with scripture. That the whole testimony of the word is going in a certain direction. And if you are walking in the spirit, then you will be going in that same direction.

All right, back to our Facebook questions. This from Lubega, Zechariah chapter 12, verse 10. Now, Lubega did not give the details of what exactly he was wondering about, but I'll break down a few of the key issues in Zechariah chapter 12, verse 10. Now, we are very familiar with the Christian translation that commonly says, they'll look to me whom they've pierced and they'll mourn for him. But it's interesting when I look, for example, in the, excuse me, the New Jewish Publication Society translation, it says this, but I will fill the house of David, the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion. And they shall lament to me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a firstborn. So the first thing they shall lament to me is clearly not what the Hebrew saying.

The NJPS is trying to interpret differently and, well, there's something else going on there. We should understand a certain way. But the question is, are you looking to the one that you pierced or are you looking to the one that others pierced?

Are you looking to him because of those who were pierced? There are traditional rabbis that will say this is misinterpreted in Christian Bibles. It should not say they shall look to me whom they pierced, but they shall look to me on account of those who were pierced, namely in war. That's why there's lamentation and they'll mourn over those people.

The problem is the most natural grammatical reading doesn't say that. You've got in the plural, they will look, they pierced, they will mourn. All right, so they will mourn, they will lament.

So you have they, they, they all third person plural. So v'hibitu, they'll look to me, dakaru, they pierced, dafu, they'll mourn. So the most natural way of reading it is that the ones who are looking are the ones who pierced and the ones who will mourn. Now, the question is v'hibitu elai and they will look to me, et asher dakaru, they will look to me whom they pierced. There are those who argue that the Hebrew there, et asher, does not identify the one being pierced.

But again, to me, that is the most natural way of reading it. You say, well, they will look to me whom they pierced. Is that saying they pierced God? Well, it's either saying that God in his identification with his son was pierced. Then rejecting the son, they rejected the father and piercing the son, they pierced the father. Or with some manuscripts, but it's a minority reading v'hibitu elav and they will look to him whom they pierced and mourn for him because that's what we see as we go on in the verse.

But the interpretation that sees this is messianic, that sees this at the end of the age, the Jewish people turning to the Lord because of the one they had pierced, I believe is the best and soundest rendition of the Hebrew. Just turning in, not taking calls, don't post questions. Now I solicited these a few days before. I said, man, I wish I knew. Hey, we'll have phone lines open through the rest of the week.

And if you follow us on Facebook or Twitter, when we do post questions like this, you can get in with your questions. All right, let's see here. Okay, a Greek name here. So, Philae, what is the best rendering of Psalm 51.5 from Hebrew to English? Psalm 51.5 from Hebrew to English. So, let's take a look at Psalm 51.5. And here we go.

Okay. Kippishai ani, excuse me, kippishii ani edah v'chatati negdi tamid, for I acknowledge my transgression. I know it, meaning I acknowledge it. And my sin is ever before me.

Now, I just want to check one thing. You may be asking about a different verse, actually, because in the Hebrew, the numbering is different than in the, yeah, you're probably asking about this. Probably asking about a different verse.

So, let me look at this. Probably in your English Bibles, you're looking at verse 7 in the Hebrew, hein b'avon cholalti. So, I was conceived in iniquity, uvechet yechamat ni imi, and in sin, my brother, my mother brought me forth. So, the NJPS indeed, I was born with iniquity, and with sin, my mother conceived me. Does that mean that David is saying I was born in sexual immorality? Is he saying that my mother had me out of wedlock?

This is my history. I'm a sinner. I committed adultery with Bathsheba, but this is part of who I am. Hein b'avon cholalti, indeed, I was born with iniquity, or conceived with iniquity, uvechet yechamat ni imi, and with sin my mother conceived me, or brought me forth. No, I don't believe it's talking about David being conceived out of wedlock.

We have no scripture that points to that in any way, him being illegitimate. I don't believe he's saying I was born in illegitimacy, and I'm a sinner now. I believe he's saying my very nature, even at conception, was sinful, was tainted. That this is a verse that rightly describes the fallen state of human beings. That even at our conception, we are tainted. That we are created in the image of God, and hence the lofty desires and goals we can have, the honoring of what is right, the hating of what is wrong, the sense of purpose, destiny, so many things that are in us from being created in the image of God, the ability to understand morality and make moral choices, and yet we are all fallen from birth, from conception, so that we are born to sin naturally.

It is who we are. You could raise a child in a perfect environment, like Adam and Eve, right? And that child now put in that perfect environment after the fall will inevitably sin. It's just the way that some have tried to read it differently, to say, well, no, it's pointed to David being born and sexual immorality. One, there's nothing else in the Bible that corroborates that or even hints at that.

Two, there's no reason to read it like that, because this is a description of human nature. We are born with a sinful nature because of the fall, just like we're born and physically we're going to die. From the moment you're born, you are physically heading towards your day of death, right? That the human body, even in a perfect environment, is going to break down at a certain point and people will physically die. It's the same spiritually. It's just part of our nature, which is why we need a redeemer, which is why we can't save ourselves, which is why we can scrub and scrub and scrub and cry out and cry out and cry out and ask for mercy, mercy, mercy, but without God giving us a new heart that will always be our dominant nature to sin, to rebel, to disobey.

And it will take going into the eternal age with resurrected bodies in an environment with no sin, no devil in the world, for us to live in holy perfection without sin forever. Alright, we will get back to your questions. Be sure to check out my latest articles at AskDrBrown.org, our latest videos posted there. If you don't get my emails, we send out some really important stuff, edifying stuff, special offers and things like that.

Go to the website, AskDrBrown.org, get you 30 seconds, fill out the email form there, and you'll get a free ebook. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Hey, friends, welcome back to The Line of Fire. We're digging into the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I asked actually over the weekend, I said, hey, if you've got a specific question about Hebrew, about Greek, about a specific verse, post it.

I'll get to as many as I can on Facebook, Twitter. So we've got scores and scores and scores of responses. I wish I had time to answer every one, but we'll do our best to get through as many as we can. Make sure we answer adequately and then move on.

All right. So Nelson Crystal asked this over on Facebook. In John 1930, we read the word Tetelestai in the Greek manuscript. I understand that one Hebrew translation uses the root kalah, which is to finish in terms of like to exhaust something to finish. And another uses the word nishlam. That's from the root shalom. So that would mean it is completed. One would mean finished, the other completed.

Which Hebrew word would best represent the idea of paid in full? Okay. When I read nishlam, I can't help but see a connection to Isaiah 53 five, the chastisement of our peace.

Right. Shalom was upon him. And would Jesus have said it in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic?

Thank you and Shalom. Okay. Most likely Aramaic as his mother tongue, but certainly possibly Hebrew, least likely Greek. Okay. So possibly Hebrew, most likely Aramaic, based on another utterance that we have in Aramaic from the cross. But there's a healthy debate about it. So let's just say either Aramaic or Hebrew, least likely Greek.

That's the first thing. The second thing is, even though nishlam could theoretically be paid in full and can be used in other contexts in that way, that's not what John 1930 is saying. It's not what it's saying.

Nor would I, excuse me, see a connection to Isaiah 53, where it speaks of the chastisement of our peace, the chastisement of our peace being upon him. Okay. Which I just butchered the Hebrew quote there. My apologies. All right. So here's why I'm quite emphatic on this. Let's take a look at John chapter 19.

All right. John 19. And you're going to see something very interesting. John 19 verse 28. After this, as Yeshua was hanging on the cross, knowing that all was now finished, said to fulfill the scripture, I thirst. Verse 30, when Jesus had received the Sarawak, he said, it is finished. Now here's what's interesting. That Greek form there that you wrote out occurs only twice in the entire New Testament or substitution to the entire Greek Bible. Only twice. Where?

John 1928 and 1930. In the same few breaths, it's spoken. The meaning is obviously the same. Doesn't mean paid in full. It means it's finished. Everything that I had to do, Yeshua is saying, everything I had to do to pay for your salvation, to pay for the work of redemption, to bring you into a place of fellowship with God through forgiveness of sins, everything is finished. And now he's vindicated by the resurrection. Yes, our sins were paid in full at the cross, but that's not what the Greek is indicating. Just as everything had to be done according to the scriptures, he fulfilled everything had to be done. It is finished.

He finished everything that had to be done in terms of our redemption. That's what the scripture is saying. That's what the Greek means.

All right, let's go over to Karen. Karen has a question based on Leviticus 14, 17 and 1 Kings 13, 11 through 25. So Leviticus 14, 17 says this. Leviticus 14, 17.

Again, if you just tune again, no calls today, no breaking news today. Just getting into the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. When he examines the plague, the plague in the walls of the house is found to consist of greenish or reddish streaks that appear to go deep in the walls. So it's talking about negat sarat, the plague or the infection of leprosy in the body or severe skin disease in the body or mildew in the house.

It's talking about mildew. All right. So that was the first part of the question. And then the second part of the question is 1 Kings chapter 13. Okay. And 1 Kings 13.

Yeah. So unrelated to Leviticus 14, 17. So Leviticus 14, 17 is just about treating mildew in the house and what the priestly rules were for that. 1 Kings 13, 11 to 25.

It's a really, really interesting account here. And what happens is there is a prophet sent by God to speak words of judgment against Jeroboam I and as a sign of the judgment that his hand withers, the king's hand withers as he wants to get this prophet. Now an old prophet hears about this and basically decides to test the younger prophet to see if the prophet will obey the word of the Lord or not because God had said to this first prophet, don't stop anywhere, don't eat and you go right back.

You speak and you go back home. So the prophet comes meets him, hey, hey, I'm a prophet too. And the Lord wants you to come here and eat and drink. Well, God's a hungry long journey and all that. God's a prophet and sounds good. So he disobeys the word that he received, obviously because of a physical hunger and because this guy claims to be a prophet as well.

And of course he gets judged for it. Now there are a lot of lessons to learn and it's, it's an odd passage in that the old prophet deceives the younger prophet and then mourns over him when, when the guy gets killed subsequently for disobeying the Lord. But it's a very simple thing. If you have an explicit word from God, say in scripture and someone else comes to say, well, the Lord showed me something else. There is no something else. If there is an explicit word spoken by God, an unconditional explicit word spoken by God, there is no something else. Well, maybe I'm getting it differently. No, no, that, that's not an option.

I'll give you the classic example. Balaam, right? Who's called greedy elsewhere. New Testament, second Peter and Jude speak of him as his ways of greed and the old Testament condemns him as well for his sin. So what happens is Balaam king of Moab hires him out, tries to hire him out. Numbers 22 sends emissaries says, Hey, we'll give you all this money. Just come and curse Israel. And he goes to the Lord and, and this guy's a soothsayer and he'll just try to go to different deities and get different revelations, whatever. He goes to the Lord and the Lord says, don't go, don't go. Don't curse them because they're blessed.

It's a threefold. No, don't go. Don't curse them.

They're blessed. No, no, no. Balaam says, sorry, I can't do it. They go back. Tell the king, he's furious. He's telling him, I'll give him everything up to half of my kingdom.

They come back and he says, Hey, I can only do what the Lord tells me. I'll go ask him. Why are you asking again?

Balaam? Cause they offered you more money. Well, how did that change things? You know, I got this amazing job opportunity and I, I, I, I'm going to have to compromise. I mean, the Lord very plainly told me five years ago, never to get in this work environment.

It's detrimental to me. He never wants me to be in that again, but you know, I've been offered so much money and it can help the family. You go pray and you feel the Lord says, go, go do it. Do it if you want.

Oh, I guess he gave me different questions. No, he's saying you want to sin, go ahead and sin. You want to disobey, go ahead and disobey. And that's what happens with Balaam. He, the Lord says, go, go ahead. Just don't speak what I tell you to speak on the way. The angel of the Lord almost kills him.

Well, why Balaam was in blatant disobedience. You don't go to, I know it says don't steal, but they offered me a lot more money if I'll do this heist at the bank and if I'll participate in this bank robbery with my expertise, opening safes, that can be so much money. I could put my kids through Christian school and university. No, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Sin is sin.

It doesn't matter how much money you get to commit this. Well, pray about it. Pray about maybe that adultery is acceptable.

It's not acceptable. So that's what happens with Balaam. And, and ultimately what we understand is when he's unable to curse Israel and bless them, that afterwards he counsels the king and says, look, I can only bless them, but here's the deal.

If you'll get them worshiping idols and sleeping with your women, then God himself will judge them. And that's the counsel he gives, which is why Balaam is then subsequently killed by the Israelites. Yup.

So some interesting lessons there. All right. I took a little extra time on that because of the moral issues, right? Vicki, can you please explain Daniel 9 27, who is the person making the covenant? Is it the Messiah or is it the antichrist?

Thank you. Daniel 9 27 culminates a very important passage in Daniel 9 24 to 27. And it is a clear redemptive passage is a clear passage pointing to the work Messiah does on the cross and the culmination of the work of redemption ending with the destruction of the second temple.

You might argue that there is kind of a recapitulation of the 70th week, the last week that will happen at the end of the age, just like the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 have a an application to the destruction of the second temple in the generation after Jesus and a final destruction with the Lord's return, that you could argue that that there is a dual understanding of the 70th week there. And it's it's difficult to understand because of the the he who is the he spoken of? Is it the Mashiach that's cut off the Messiah that's cut off?

Is it the ruler that comes in the Roman ruler? And then ultimately antichrist figure if you interpret it in that way, it seems most natural to interpret it in terms of an antichrist or the destructive figure there. It is possible that what's being said is the covenant is made to abolish sacrifice and offering through the cross.

And that's what's being spoken of there. And the Messiah does that in the middle of the week. But given the final destruction of the second temple that is emphasized there, it seems more natural to understand it in terms of antichrist in terms of or Roman ruler that then brings this destruction about so covenant is made with the Jewish people and then the covenant is broken. And then with that temple sacrifices ceasing, you know, future temple sacrifices spoken of as well. And final destruction, which is part of God's plan of redemption. Thanks so much for joining us on The Line of Fire as we dig into the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

I know you may want to talk politics, you may want to talk culture, but we're getting into the word. We're digging into the scriptures. I asked on Sunday if you had questions specifically about Hebrew or Greek issues or interpretation of specific verses to just post them on our Facebook page, Ask Dr. Brown Facebook page or our Twitter page, which is at Dr. Michael L. Brown, Dr. Michael L. Brown. We've got tons of questions, scores and scores of great questions. So what I'm doing my best to do is answer them in the order in which they came in. I can do that a little more easily on Facebook than on Twitter.

So I apologize if I can't get to more questions, but the quicker people post, we try to honor that and respond to it. So with that, let's go over to we've got another Vicky on Facebook, Matthew 15, 26. I heard a Christian preacher say that the Jews in Yeshua's time were racist and considered the Gentiles as dogs and used this verse as his proof. When I looked up the Greek, I found the Greek word used here was kenarion, meaning small dog or pet dog. This is a completely different word from the term kuon used to refer to unspiritual people to an unclean animal. The same preacher said that the word goi means dog, but of course we know it doesn't. It means people or nation.

My question is when Yeshua used this terminology in Matthew 15, 26, was it a metaphor or was it a racist comment as accused? All right, so you obviously can't take this person's knowledge of the original languages seriously to say that goi meant dog. Goi means nation or people. In Genesis 12, God says to Abraham, I'll make you into a great goi.

He says it to Abram there. So goi itself just means nation. So the goiim are the people of the nations.

Now over the centuries, goi could take on a negative connotation to just a goi, just a Gentile. But the word, excuse me, the word itself is just, just what it is. Nation, people, that's it. Am, people, goi, nation. All right. So that's, that's the first thing. As for the word, it's definitely an insulting word, but the whole thing is in Matthew 15 parallel Mark 7, Jesus takes a journey, 60 miles round trip on foot.

Think of that. Goes to this Arian tire. There is a Syrophoenician woman, Canaanite woman. She comes to him. Could you heal my daughter? She's grievously tormented by a demon. And Jesus puts her off, puts her off, puts her off. And then finally says, look, it's not appropriate to give the children's bread, throw it to the dogs by the table.

And she says, yes, but even the dogs didn't get the scraps. And he says, woman, great is your faith and heals her. If the purpose was to show that Jesus was a racist, why is this in the context of Jesus challenging the traditions of his people about clean and unclean laws? In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, he's just said that what goes into your mouth doesn't to file you because it goes out of your system. Therefore, even though there are clean and unclean animals and things like that, in terms of your own purity, what you eat does not make you impure.

What makes you impure is the thoughts that come out of your heart. And he now illustrates this by going basically right a 60 mile round trip. You can compute it exactly. Could be more about a 60 mile round trip to heal this woman's daughter and then comes back. That's the only thing he does there. He is going out of his way to go into Gentile territory and to show that the clean, unclean distinction between Israel and the nations is something he's going to break down through his work as Messiah and bring the two into one family.

So what he's doing is drawing out of it. She knew how they would have been viewed by the Jewish people. Yes, there are Jewish traditions that say that a righteous Gentile can have greater access to God or just the same access to God as a high priest in Israel. And there are Jewish traditions that say the righteous of all nations will inherit the world to come.

But there are definitely texts that that look at Gentiles in a lesser way that certainly exists. And that was this woman fully understood how she would have been viewed by a Jewish teacher and what he's doing. He's going out of his way, this whole journey, just to heal her daughter and to demonstrate God's grace for Gentiles and drawing faith out of her.

Yeah, you may just look at us like dogs or something or lesser people are not on the same plane as you, but we can receive the benefits. This woman, you've got a lot of faith. He's drawing something out of her. And remember, the writers of the gospel portraying this are portraying him in a good light, not a bad light. And Mark also in this mission, as you know, he's putting the woman off, putting the woman off. Mark is writing especially for Gentiles as well, just to make that clear. All right.

Let's see. Craig, can you explain the Jewish customs behind Psalm 23 five? What is the significance of anointing with oil? What is the cup filled with oil or drink? I've heard the Jewish customs to fill a visitor's cup in proportion to how long you wish them to stay.

So an overflowing cup indicates you do not wish them to leave. I'm not familiar with that custom if it exists. I've never heard that. So I'm fairly confident to say such a custom was not a known thing that we can demonstrate from the time of David or the Psalms Old Testament times. So normally those are just Internet myths, things like that, to be honest, or later customs that are then reflected back. But the overflowing is overflowing. I mean, just there's there's no custom with it. It's just an overabundance.

All right. And anointing with oil. Remember, you were not taking a bath or shower every day.

You didn't have shampoo for your hair. So to anoint with oil was something celebratory. It was it was a sign of blessing. It was favor, grace associated with it. So and then, you know, for royal service or for priestly service, anointing was important. But if you think in Matthew six, when Jesus when you're fasting, don't let anyone know, you know, anoint your head with oil.

So this is you take the best care of yourself, look the best you can hear. This is what God does. The presence of our enemies. He anoints us with oil and our cup overflows.

In other words, we have more than enough. Nick, have you watched the YouTube video Br'Sheet? If so, please comment.

I was impressed by it. No, I haven't. But if it was arguing for a paleo Hebrew alleged paleo Hebrew meaning that points to the cross, throw it out nonsense.

But I don't know the specific video of which you are speaking. All right. Isaiah eight twelve. Do not say it's a conspiracy. This is used to say we shouldn't talk or be concerned about conspiracies today. Can you break this verse down?

I love it. OK, so should we understand Isaiah eight twelve to be telling us don't listen to conspiracy theories today? Let me say this first. I would just caution you about getting caught up with conspiracy theories in general. I was talking to pastor and author Rodney Howard Brown about some of his recent books, you know, killing of the planet, killing Uncle Sam, Phantom Virus. And he says, oh, they are conspiracies, but they're true. In other words, conspiracy theory is false. But there are conspiracies that are true. The thing is, you've got to do your research, things you've got to do your homework and you've got to connect the dots. And to really do it adequately might take years, to be honest. I'm talking about a major alleged conspiracy theory or alleged conspiracy about, you know, some worldwide issues and things like that. It may take you years to investigate a single one. So, you know, when I'm getting sometimes five or 10 or 20 sent me weekly, sometimes daily of you've got to see this, you've got to see that if I was going to take them seriously, then you wouldn't hear from me for 20 years because I'd just be locked away researching and digging. So I'm very, very cautious.

Oh, yes. I agree with Rodney that the ultimate conspiracy is the devil wants to destroy the human race and is working in many different ways through many different people, some knowingly, some unknowingly, to carry out his nefarious plans. But Isaiah 812, lo to'mrun kesher l'chol asher yomar ha'am ha'zeh kasher, ve'et mo'o lo'tir u v'lo t'ar gitzu. So Isaiah 812, new JPS version, you must not call conspiracy all that people call conspiracy, nor revere what it reveres, nor hold to it in awe.

Numbeth the Lord of Hosts, verse 13, shall you account holy, give reverence to him alone, hold him alone in awe. I do not believe it's talking about my conspiracy theories here. I believe it's talking about uniting together for a wrong cause. In other words, entering into a conspiracy together against God or against his royal anointed one or against his purposes, what the people are doing as they are conspiring together to do evil. You don't conspire with them. That's what I understand the verse to be saying, not don't listen to the latest conspiracy theory, although you have my views about the latest conspiracy theory.

All right, grab another one on Facebook, then we'll go over to Twitter. Angelika, can you talk about learning the scriptures from a Jewish heart and perspective? Learning the scriptures from a Jewish heart and perspective. Obviously, it's a broad question and broad concept, and there is not just a Jewish way of doing things as opposed to a Western way, but a few things. One is that Jewish understanding is often corporate.

There is the understanding of us and we being part of a people that this is not as individualistic in thinking as we often think. Jews commonly are praying together when they pray their prayers, praying with groups of people, and there's a constant emphasis of we and us. Just think of the Lord's Prayer, our Father in heaven. So even when you go and close the door behind you so no one sees you, you are praying our Father in heaven. So you're praying within us, give us this day our daily bread, right? So that's one thing there, okay?

A corporate mentality, much more. Another is, in terms of Jewish study, repetition, speaking out, reciting, thereby memorizing, getting in the heart and the mind is greatly emphasized. So you will find when you deal with religious Jews that they have memorized a vast amount of Torah and of rabbinic tradition, and that's part of a repetitive study method, spending hours but reading the text, speaking the text, and then also there is in Jewish study a give and take.

It's called shakla v'tarya. You're often learning together with someone, studying together with someone, and arguing points, especially with Talmud and rabbinic tradition. So the sense of kind of wrestling with the text, something else that is commonly done in Jewish study. Hey, get my Job commentary and you'll get some perspectives as to how Jewish rabbis, teachers, through the centuries have wrestled with the text of Job and the God of Job. That's my commentary, Job, the faith to challenge God, a new commentary and translation. We'll be right back. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us, friends. We're going to switch over to Twitter questions now. We're not taking calls, not catching up with latest events in the news around us.

We're digging into the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I solicited questions on Sunday on Facebook and Twitter. We're going to switch over to Twitter now. That's at Dr. Michael L. Brown, if you want to follow me on Twitter. And we alert folks on Twitter and Facebook to our latest articles, videos, but Twitter will often just post individual quotes or I'll interact in different ways there.

So it's good to follow me on both of those different places. OK, so here's a question from Truth is Truth. Why do so many Bibles mistranslate John 1 1 C? The Greek is clear. The correct translation is not the word was God.

The Greek differentiates between Hathaas in John 1 1 B and Thaas in John 1 1 C. Why is this difference not carried out, carried over in most Bible translations? Because it's not a difference. It is a syntactical thing.

What short Granville rule that when you have when you have the the subject first and then the verb versus the verb versus the followed by the subject, the definite article can be dropped. Right. So Anarkai, Anhalagas, in the beginning was the word, right? The Logos was with God, Kaithaas, Anhalagas and God was the word. That's the right way to translate it. Or as some would say, what God was, the word was, is what's being conveyed. So the reason you see that overwhelmingly in English translations is because that's the right way to understand the Greek. See, if if you have a certain knowledge of the Greek and you can recognize, OK, ha, the word is there the first time and not the second time.

So I guess it shouldn't be there. You end up with a barbarous thing like Jehovah's Witnesses would think the word was a god. Also, you have two gods now. You have two gods.

Obviously not. No, the word was God is the right way to translate with capital G or to again, get the substance and fullness with the Greek was saying what what God was, the word was. That's the that's the emphasis of what's being said there. So it's just a matter of of understanding Greek grammar and syntax even more deeply. OK, Kevron.

Hi, Dr. Brown. Greetings from Jamaica, where Jesus said in Matthew seven, verse twenty three, I never knew you depart from you, worker of iniquity. Was he being literal or figurative? These people saved or thought they were there.

There are two possible ways to read it. One way is that he's saying I never knew you never had any relationship with you. You were never my people. We were never in fellowship. You think you worked all these miracles.

You think you were being used in all these ways, but you're a completely self-deceived. I never knew you. The other way, which is the way I understand it, is in keeping with Jewish excommunication formula that we have clearly recounted in the centuries that follow. Lo Yidaticha, I never knew you, means get away from me. Separation.

You are now being rejected. That they once did work with the Lord. They once were used in the miraculous, but they chose sin, disobedience, iniquity. They turned away from God. They rejected him as Lord. Matthew seven, twenty one. Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my father. So there he is rejecting them using a typical Jewish excommunication formula where you're taking someone that was part of your spiritual family and now rejecting them, saying, I never knew you. That to me is the more logical way of reading it. The first is possible, but the other is more logical.

OK, let's see here. William asked this. What is the significance of the Masoretic text Hebrew structure of Daniel nine, twenty three to twenty seven? There are one hundred words centered around Sheva. So seven Shavua week or period of seven. Forty nine words before and forty nine after.

Also two hundred four letters before and after. Do you believe this was divine genius or human? I've never seen it. Never seen it.

Never had anyone mention it to me before. So I'm just going to pull up the Hebrew here for one quick second. But I don't know what to make of it.

I'd have to really look at it carefully. The passage starts in terms of the revelation in verse twenty four. But here's the word from Gabriel starting in verse twenty three. So my question would be, why am I starting in verse twenty three? That would be my only question. Why am I starting in verse twenty three?

It's a little arbitrary. Either I would think I was going to start maybe verse twenty while I was speaking, praying and confessing my sin, the sin of my people Israel, et cetera. Then the man that I'd seen previously, Gabriel the angel, comes. Maybe I'd start in verse twenty or start in verse twenty four with the actual revelation. So why am I starting verse twenty three?

That would be my only question. But I have to look into it. I've never seen that.

If someone has shown it to me before, I've never caught on to them saying it. So I have to look into it. But very, very interesting. I will happen to look into it. Let's see. Tim says that he had a question for me over ten years ago and unfortunately I didn't answer it. Hey, Tim, if you wrote to the website, we do our best to answer every question that comes in.

If you post on social media, ninety nine percent, I'm not going to see. But when we do ask for them, we do our best to answer. So I'm sorry that we didn't get you that answer. It had to do with the correct translation of Matthew twenty seven, forty forty five and forty six. The Orthodox Jew had a point about the translation and I couldn't rebut him. So Matthew chapter twenty seven versus forty five and forty six. Matthew twenty seven, forty five and forty six. Well, just typed it in incorrectly there.

Let's try it one more time. Matthew twenty seven, forty five and forty six. Now, from the sixth hour there was darkness over the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Nothing controversial there in the least.

Zero. If you look in the Targum, the Aramaic translation of Psalm twenty two, you'll find Eli, Eli, my God, my God. It's not even in the allahi allahi, which would have been a normal Aramaic form, but Eli, Eli, my God, my God, lama, and then in Aramaic, shabachthani.

So why have you forsaken me, which is the equivalent of the Hebrew, asafthani, forsaken me. So there's no controversy. There's no question in terms of what's being said.

Some say, no, no. He was saying, zabachthani, why did you sacrifice me? No, that would come out differently in the Greek.

And there's no reason to even think that. He's quoting from Psalm twenty two. We we know obviously he's drawing our attention to Psalm twenty two.

That's that's part of what's happening here. He hangs on the cross. You say, but why is it shabachthani in Aramaic, but zabachthani in Greek? Because you don't have a sh sound in Greek. That's why that's why you have sha'ul becomes Saul.

All right. And shmuel becomes Samuel. Shlomo becomes Solomon because you don't have an sh sound in Greek. OK. And the rest of the transliteration, the minor differences you have are none. So there's really no controversy. So whatever the Orthodox Jew was raising was was not valid if it was if it was questioning that. All right. Let's see here. Ah.

OK. Just try to look for some that came in a little bit earlier. Denise, the book mentioned in Numbers twenty one fourteen. Why is it non-canonical? The book mentioned in Numbers twenty one fourteen.

Why is it non-canonical? So Book of Yashar, assuming is your question there. Check out our video. Why were some books left out of the Bible? Or consider this video. So go to AskDrBrown.org.

Consider this. Why were some books left out of the Bible? The fact is, it was never part of the Bible. It's never intended to be part of the Bible. We don't have it.

It's been lost. The version of what you can get online, the Book of Yashar, is something completely later, unrelated to what's in scripture. So it's quoted, but it was not in God's will to preserve it for us. Therefore, we don't have it. Ah. OK. Adam, I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the translation of Genesis one one.

You hold the title view. Verse one is the title of the passage, the temporal view when God began to create the heavens or the traditional view. Verse one is the first creative act and why?

Although I'm, of course, deeply familiar with the arguments about this. Is it bereshit bara Elohim in the in the beginning God created? Is it bereshit as if Baro in the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth?

And then it goes on in a complex phrase from there. Does that echo other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts? Despite all types of massive linguistic argumentation, the fact that the oldest versions understand Genesis one one as the creative act in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the fact that that's how the Greek Septuagint understood it, as mirrored in John one one, the fact that that's how the Aramaic Targum understood it. And in fact, even the various Targum traditions understood it in that same basic way. Even if they understood reshit with a different meaning and associated with wisdom as opposed to beginning, they're still understanding it as the first creative act. If there's a temporal clause, then it would start in the second verse. As for the earth, it was this, this, this and this. So the monotheistic majesty of Genesis one one, coupled with the understanding and the ancient versions and reflected in John one one indicate to me that this is the first creative, comprehensive act and everything else flows from there. Again, there's massive linguistic debate over this and top Hebrew scholars differ. But I do believe it is best to translate it with in the beginning or by way of beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

As for the earth, it was and goes on from there. But Adam, as I remember your name, you've got the linguistic background to be able to have a in-depth discussion with me on that, which would be too intense for our radio broadcast. All right, friends, thanks for joining us. We'll be back with you. Phone lines open tomorrow on Thoroughly Jewish Thursday. Can't wait to be with you.