Pen of Iron

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:2 is not a part of the creation process. The six days of creation following Genesis 1:2 are actually six days of recreation. During those days God restores the original creation of v.1 which had been destroyed in v.2.
So what you have is the following:

A) God creates the original heaven and earth in v.1. Everything is complete and we are not told how he did it or how long it took him.
The anointed Cherub is Lucipher who’s God’s right-hand over the universe.
According to 2 Peter 3:5 that earth was standing in the water and out of the water. So it was like a ball floating in the waters of space with probably half of it sticking out of the water like a dome.
I realize this looks like left-field to most readers but if you will read on you might find out that the whole thing is a lot more scriptural that you thought.

B) At some point, Lucipher rebels as described in Isaiah 14 and decides to overthrow God. The whole thing ends in a debacle, God floods the universe and turns off the lights.
Genesis 1:2 is a snapshot of that.

C) In Genesis 1:3 God turns back on the lights.

D) In Genesis 1:7 God restores the water-damage, revealing the universe.

E) In Genesis 1:9 God restores the water-damage, revealing the earth.

F) In Genesis 1:27 God replaces Lucipher with Adam, only smaller, because
the last free-willed son of God ruined the universe.

Amongst believers who deny the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, I personally have met very, very few who have actually taken the time to sit down and sketch out the creative process of Genesis 1 while satisfying all verses. That includes preachers and teachers. The careful reader will soon find himself in a Gordian knot that only the gap can untie. I attempted enumerating a few strings of that knot but found it so bewildering that I just thought it best to leave it to you, gentle reader, to make sense of the account without the gap.

I am thoroughly aware of all objections. I will not here concentrate on meeting them, but on proving positively that Genesis 1 is so written as to present an account of the recreation of the universe. Whatever objections you have left, or new ones that might arise, I will be willing to meet specifically.
Above all arguments, towers the inspired system of studying the word of God, which is comparing scripture with scripture as outlined in Isaiah 28:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 2:13. So if I want to know if “without form, and void” is a positive or negative expression, I search out those words as they appear in the rest of the Bible in order to understand the connotation.
And those are things which “cannot be spoken against.” (Acts 19:36)

Let it lastly be said that I do not believe in the gap because I’m looking for a way to reconcile what “science falsely so-called” presents as a ridiculously old earth. I believe it because that what the scriptures present.
After all, I do contend that there’s a gargantuan body of water North of deep space that separates the universe from the third heaven. I further believe that the earth is recreated before the sun. So with positions like these, I hope it will be obvious to the honest reader that I am not pandering to the scientific world.

Scripture With Scripture

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void,

If God’s word does not return unto him void, how could the earth have been created void by his word?

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Three elements match Genesis 1:2; lack of form, void, and darkness.The words without form, and void; are used in the context of destruction, not creation.

Nahum 2:10 She is empty, and void, and waste:

The word void is used in the context of destruction. It is associated with waste, i.e. the destruction caused the void.

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

It's not that Jesus Christ didn't have a shape, for in Isaiah 52:14 he is said to have a form.
But he had ¨¨no form¨¨ in the sense that he had no comeliness, no beauty.
Similarly, it's not that the earth had no shape at all, but it was without form in the sense that it was a jumbled up, beat up, unrecognizable mess; just like Jesus' face and body were after the beating he went through. (See Isaiah 52:14!). Yet again the context is judgment and the idea negative.

This is nobody's private interpretation but the Holy Spirit's own comments on the words.

The World That Then Was

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

That he isn’t speaking of Noah’s flood is apparent from the following:

1. In the overflow Peter is referring to, the heavens also perished, implying that the heavens of today (v.7) are not the heavens that were there then, hence he calls them “old”.
The problem is that:

A) The heavens did not perish in Noah's flood, only the earth did.

B) The heavens is always a term that includes space. The atmosphere is called “heaven”, but never “heavens”.
Peter is saying that all of deep space perished in that particular overflow. That certainly did not happen in Noah’s flood.

2. Nor did the earth perish in Noah’s flood. We still have the same earth as Noah, as evidenced by the residual oceans. For earth to perish would mean for it to disintegrate. According to Peter in the same chapter, there will come a day when the heavens and the earth shall be so destroyed that God will have to make what is termed as new heavens and a new earth because the former will have perished.
That destruction is so complete that the earth is said to be dissolved (vss.10-11). It is in comparison to that kind of destruction that the next earth is termed ``new``. No such destruction befell Noah’s earth. It just got washed of its filth.
So today’s earth is a not a new earth compared to Noah’s in that sense, nor is it ever called "new".
Today's earth is the same earth that Noah walked on and cannot be termed "new" in comparison. But it can be termed new in comparison to the earth of Genesis 1:2 which was "without form, and void".


3. Peter is then drawing symmetry between the destruction of Genesis 1:2 and the destruction of 2 Peter 3:7,12.

C.I. Scofield's notes remain some of the best notes on the Bible ever published. It is remarkable that a man could have so little and relatively minor errors in such a large work. Scofield was an honest and courageous dispensationalist who never flinched on the doctrine of the 1000 years reign of the Lord Jesus Christ on this earth and never confused Israel with the church of God. The Lord gave him special insight into many other areas of scripture. This list is a work-in-progress seeking simply to alert people to some mistakes in his notes.Given the popularity of the Scofield Bible, and the fact that no list of errors exists on the internet that I could find (only the ramblings of poor students of the word who seek to destroy the man and his work) I thought it useful to write it.


2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Genesis 6:4

A) « Sons of God » is only used of angels in the Old Testament.

B) They are not spoken of in a sexless way; they are spoken of as males.
(See Scofield’s own note in Hebrews 1 :4)

C) They may not marry but they can still take on physical form and fornicate with human women.
Moreover Matthew 22 :30 refers specifically to angels « in heaven ».

D) Whether « the uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain » is for one thing questionable and for another, irrelevant in light of scripture.

· Exodus 29:33, Leviticus 16:6

The word « atonement » is the correct translation.

· Leviticus 11:2

The dietary regulations are primarily for the sake of teaching the people of God about the
holiness of God.

· Leviticus 11:6

The arnebeth and the hare are identical. To this day “Arneb” in Arabic means hare. The error is due to Scofield’s assumption that they’re different.

· Numbers 22:22

In v.12 God forbids Balaam to go with the messengers of Balak. In v.19 Balaam tries once more to get an O.K . In v.20 God tells him that if the men come to call him again, then he could go. The men never do and Balaam never waits for them to do so. He automatically packs up and leaves with them. That was not what God had told him to do, hence God’s anger.

· 2 Samuel 18:18

The second view is the correct one. Absalom is a type of the antichrist who
loses all his children.

· 1 Chronicles 11:5

The word Sion in Hebrews 12:22 is most certainly not used symbolically but quite literally, as in all other passages of the Bible.

· Job 32:2

Job 38:2 is not God’s judgment of Elihu’s words but of Job’s.

· Job 38:1

God answered Job, not « for Job ». The paraphrase is wrong and confusing.

· Psalm 2:12

(3) The titles of the Psalms are exactly where the Holy Spirit wants them.


· Psalm 8

(1) Again, the title is in its right place.

· Psalm 19:9

The « fear of the Lord » means the FEAR of the Lord, not « reverential trust, with hatred of evil ».

· Psalm 22:27

It wasn’t partial but complete nudity.

· Song of Solomon 2:14

Yet again, the A.V. text is correct. The way to God is not a process and hence the translation cannot be « the secret of the stairs ».

· Isaiah 2:2

A mountain, in Scripture symbolism, means a mountain.

· Isaiah 26:19

Eliminate Scofield’s correction to the A.V. text.

· Isaiah 63:16

No Old Testament believer was ever « born anew » in the scriptures.


· Ezekiel 8:3

It’s not « as if he were transported back to Jerusalem ». He was transported back to Jerusalem from the river Chebar, just like John was transported into heaven from the island of Patmos.

· Ezekiel 28:12

It’s the king of Tyre that’s being addressed indirectly, not Satan.

· Ezekiel 37:1

The resurrection of the dry bones is a literal resurrection, not merely a symbolic one.

· Daniel 7:2

The sea, in scripture imagery, stands for a sea.

· Daniel 7:17, 8 :1, Revelation 13:2

The vision of Nebuchadnezzar does not cover the same historic order as the vision of Daniel. Daniel identifies the head of gold as Nebuchadnezzar and therefore as the Babylonian kingdom. But concerning Daniel’s own vision of the beasts, he is told by the angel that these are four beasts « which shall arise ». The Babylonian kingdom was already there at the time of Daniel’s vision. It was present, not future. The four beasts are four kingdoms that come after Babylon. That makes the last beast, which is divers from the first ones, the kindgom of the antichrist, not the Roman kingdom, although the former derives from the latter.


· Daniel 7:26, 8:9-10

(2) The little horn of Daniel 7 is the little horn of Daniel 8, which is the antichrist. Antiochus Epiphanes was nothing more than a historical type, just like Hitler was a historical type of the antichrist and not the antichrist himself.
Daniel 8:10 is Revelation 12.

· Daniel 8 :13

The fulfillment of ``the transgression of desolation`` is only that of the beast’s. All others were mere historical types.

· Daniel 9 :24

V. 25 is a reference to Messiah`s crucifixion, not birth, for the 69 weeks terminate the very day Jesus Christ is crucified.
V.26 is fulfilled by the destruction of the city by the antichrist, not by Titus in 70 A.D. That was, yet again, a historical type.

· Daniel 9 :27

In Daniel 11 :31 the reference is the the act of the antichrist and is yet future. Once more, the act of Antiochus Epiphanes was a mere adumbration of the real thing.

· Daniel 11 :2

Just forget about Antiochus. The personage who here occupies the vision is the antichrist himself.


· Daniel 11 :35

It had always been the little horn, way before v.36.
The expression ``God of his fathers`` does point to a Jew and this does not conflict with Daniel 9 :26 because the antichrist will be a Roman Catholic Jew.

· Joel 2 :11

The army of his v.11 is the same army of verses 1 to 10.

· Micah 4 :1

In scripture, a mountain is the symbol for a mountain. See Isaiah 2:2.

· Micah 5 :1

Revelation 12 :2,5 is not a reference to Christ. See reference for note.

· Habakkuk 2 :5

Scripture reveals hell as a place of sorrow and fire.

· Zechariah 1 :20

They’re four carpenters and they’re literal ones too.

· Zechariah 8 :14

God doesn’t just seem to change his mind. He really does. That doesn’t contradict
James 1 :17. Where God binds himself to a position, he never changes his mind.
Where he doesn’t bind himself, he repents himself based on man’s free will which he gave him.

· Zechariah 10 :4

The past tense is correct. The scriptures wherein the past tense is used for a future event are too numerous to list.

· Zechariah 11 :11

The church, corporately, is in Old Testament prophecy. It just isn’t revealed until the New Testament. Like Bullinger, Scofield is confusing revelation with origin.

· Zechariah 12 :1

The ``latter rain`` is a literal expression. There’s a supernatural rainstorm associated with the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Under (d), where he says ``absolute equity will be enforced``, beware not to read
``equality``.

The majority of earth’s inhabitants will be lost, not saved. Revelation 20 :8.

· Zechariah 14 :4

The earthquake is caused by the foot of the Lord Jesus Christ coming into contact with the soil.

· Malachi 3 :6

Note (6) is utter rubbish. That which exists ``in the infinite being of God and answers to these things- eyes, a hand, feet``; happens to be actual eyes, and hands and and feet.

· Matthew 3 :2

Note (b) The fulfilment of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven takes place at the end of the tribulation and not at the end of the present church age.

· Matthew 4 :21

Not two but three persons are called James in the New Testament. James the Lord’s brother, was just that; the Lord’s brother by Mary, not his cousin. And he isn’t the author of the epistle of James. James Zebedee, brother of John, martyred in Acts 12 :2, is the author of the epistle of James.

· Matthew 5 :22

Hell and the lake of fire are not identical. Hell is the temporary holding cell before unforgiven sinners are locked up eternally in the lack of fire. You can never be saved from the second death once you’re in hell. You just go out of the fire and into the frying pan.

· Matthew 7 :22

The Bible doesn’t use the word ``demons`` but ``devils``, which reveals the fact that they are spawned by the devil. These are different than fallen angels. Some are human, like Judas Iscariot, while some are mere spirits which may have been disembodied. The locusts of Revelation 9 are not devils.

· Matthew 10 :2

Note (4) The keys to the kingdom of heaven are not just given to Peter but to all twelve disciples in Matthew 18 :18, including Judas.

· Matthew 13 :11

If Scofield wanted to name all things spoken of as a mystery in the Bible, he would have had to add a few more such as ``the mystery of the faith``(1 Timothy 3 :9) ; ``the mystery of his will``(Ephesians 1 :9) ; etc...

But the Bible presents 7 mysteries per se. As Scofield lists them these are :

(2) The mystery of Israel’s blindness (Romans 11 :25)
(3) The mystery of the translation of living and dead (not just living) saints of the church age ( 1 Corinthians 15 : 51-52, 1 Thessalonians 4 :13-18)
(4) and (5) are one and the same. That one body composed of Jew and Gentile is the body of Christ.
(6) The mystery of the inliving Christ (Colossians 1 :26-27)
(8) The mystery of Godliness ( 1 Timothy 3 :16)
(9) The mystery of iniquity ( 2 Thessalonians 2 :7)
(11) The mystery of Babylon (Revelation 17 :5,7)

· Matthew 13 :17

In wasn’t only ``what manner of time`` that the prophets searched to understand but also ``what`` the Spirit meant. 1 Peter 1 :11

· Matthew 17 :2

(2) The explanation of the types is good but should be applied to the tribulation saints who get raptured, living and dead; and not to the church, whose type is Enoch.

· Marc 16 :9

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two most corrupt manuscripts ever found. One of them was found in a garbage bin. The contain uncountable emmendations, internal and external contradictions. The case has often been made, even through books, for the last 12 verses of Marc.

· Marc 16 :14

It is rather ironic that one should deny the literal reading of a verse whose very authenticity one has just doubted. The Holy Ghost said eleven because he meant eleven. He is referring to the twelve disciples minus Judas, which makes eleven.

· Luke 11 :13

Many forget that Martha also, not just Peter, confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. John 11 :27.

· Luke 16 :23

Hades always was a reference to the burning sector where the dead go and not an overall term designating both the abodes of the saved and lost.
``Hell`` is the Holy Ghost’s translation of ``Hades``and in every case refers to that part of the underworld where the lost go and are in torment in flames of fire.
Christ never adopted a single Talmudic designation a day in his earthly life.

· Luke 17 :21

The « within » is wrongly contested because it is assumed that saying that the kingdom of God is within a group of people is equivalent to saying that they’re saved and therefore how could a bunch of unregenerate Pharisees be saved?
For one thing, salvation is when someone enters the kingdom of God, not when the kingdom of God enters them.
The « within » of the A.V. 1611 is shown to be accurate if one simply remembers the english meaning of the word « kingdom ». A kingdom designates a particular area or sphere of dominion.
All that the Lord is saying here is that the sphere of the kingdom of God is on the inside and not on the outside as is the case with the kingdom of heaven. This is clear for Paul defines the kingdom of God as follows in Romans 14:17 “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
Those are all things whose sphere is “within”, not among. The Holy Ghost comes into believers, not among them or in their midst.

The Lord is taking the Pharisees for a ride, because they did not divide between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, just like most of modern Christian scholarship. They specifically asked “when the kingdom of GOD should come” not the kingdom of heaven. So the Lord takes the opportunity to teach them a lesson in rightly dividing the word of truth by pointing out, in his own unique way, that that kingdom is spiritual and hence its targeted area is within them: their spirit and soul. That’s why it can only be entered by a spiritual, inner birth, as the Lord taught Nicodemus.

· Luke 21 :20

Verses 20 to 24 in Luke are just as much a reference to the final tribulation siege of Jerusalem as Matthew’s are.

· John 1 :18

Not quite. Some men had seen the Son whom in the trinity, stands for the body, as the Holy Spirit stands for the spirit, and the Father for the soul. God’s soul no man has ever seen at any time.

· Acts 9 :20

Scofield is a way off here. For one thing, though the truth that Christ was God was plainly taught by Isaiah, it wasn’t believed, just like many other teachings of the prophets. Scofield’s note also creates the impression that everyone naturally believed that the Christ would be God the Son and that the only problem was identifying who’s the Christ.
Such an assumption is inexplicable given the gospel narrative. Contradicting the sense of the Authorized Version is a fundamentally spiritual problem rather than intellectual one. See Hebrews 5 :6 note.

· Acts 19 :2

The A.V. words are correct. The second part of the note is accurate.

· 1 Corinthians 1 :8

See also 2 Thessalonians 2 : 2 note.
The day of Christ does not relate exclusively ``to the reward and blessing of saints at His coming``. The expression covers the rapture of the church before the tribulation as well as the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ at the end of the tribulation.

· 1 Corinthians 2 :13, Revelation 22 :19 (3 superscript)

Here Scofield ignores the scriptures’ own testimony concerning the matter and buckles under scholarly pressure. See Hebrews 5 :6 note.
Watch how the credit due the Holy Ghost is transferred unto men and observe the inherent contradictions :
``The writers of Scripture invariably affirm, where the subject is mentioned by them at all, that the words (emphasis in original) of their writings are divinely taught. This of necessity, refers to the original documents, not to translations and versions; but the labours of competent scholars (emphasis mine) have brought our English version to a degree of perfection so remarkable that we may confidently rest upon them as authoritative.``

A) Why it is of necessity is not explained, only assumed by natural reasoning, not taught by divine revelation.

B) In more than one instance the scriptures bear testimony that a translation and a copy can be as inspired as the original authographs. If that were not the case, than the inspiration of the original document would be futile. Why would God inspire something he wouldn’t preserve?!

C) What may be rested upon as authoritative according to Scofield are ``translations and versions``.
Yet ``the writers of Scripture affirm`` that their WORDS, not only the document as whole, are inspired, not simply ``authoritative``. There’s a huge difference between words and versions, and between inspired and authoritative. There’s a giant chasm between inspired words and authoritative versions, which chasm God would never allow to separate us from his words given his insistent emphasis that we need every word that proceeds out of his mouth to live!

D) Why God would go through the trouble of inspiring the writings of ``holy men of old`` that people may read his pure words but leave scholars to fend for themselves in extracting those very words, without guiding them by his Holy Ghost in the process, is a mystery no scholar dares discuss. Maybe because those scholars weren’t ``holy men``...
Christians believe that they can’t get to heaven despite their best efforts, that they can’t live the Christian life outside the grace of God, that they can’t survive without the sustenance of God, and that without Jesus Christ they can do nothing; and yet, marvel of marvels, when it comes to God’s words, the subject dearest to his heart, they believe that God gets the ball rolling, then forever abandons men to rely on their own intellects and education, and efforts in order to retrieve his words which he allowed to fall by the way side some hundreds of years. That is nothing short of spiritual madness.


· 1 Corinthians 10 :8

While there may be discrepancies in some Hebrew manuscripts, there aren’t any in the A.V. 1611. If there wasn’t a flawless Bible on earth today, the scripture would be broken (Psalm 12 :6-7, Matthew 24 :35, Mark 13 :31, Luke 21 :33)


· 1 Corinthians 15 :52

To understand Scofield’s note one must remember that the ``first resurrection`` of Revelation of 20 :5 is compared to a harvest which has three phases : one resurrection of the first fruits, which took place after Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27 :52-53). That was a resurrection of SOME of the O.T. saints. Then there’s the main harvest which is the resurrection of the church ONLY. Finally there are the gleanings, which is the resurrection of the tribulation saints plus the rest of the O.T. saints who weren’t resurrected in Matthew 27 :52-53.
So Scofield is wrong in saying that the O.T. saints are raised up with the church. See also 1 Thessalonians 4 :17 note

· Ephesians 1 :3

The note is completely arbitrary. Heaven is a literal, physical, geographical dimension, not an experience or a state. The born-again Christian is somehow literally represented in the third heaven, geographically (see Ephesians 2 :6) even while he lives bodily on the earth; similarly to Jesus Christ during his earthly life. See John 3 :13. The ``places`` is especially leading.

· Philippians 1 :1

Strictly speaking, it is not the local church that is the temple of God but the bodies of the believers.

· 1 Thessalonians 4 :17

Only church saints have a part in this resurrection. The first resurrection is not limited to the church’s resurrection. See 1 Corinthians 15 :52 note.


· 2 Thessalonians 2 :3

(3) The classic interpretation has been that v.7 refers to the Holy Spirit who’s refraining the manifestation of the antichrist until he is taken out of the way.
But there’s no reference to the Holy Spirit in the context. According to Ruckman, there’s a cog in the wheel that’s keeping the man of sin from showing up as the son of perdition.
(2) The apostasy is not that of the professing church, which is inconsequential and senseless, but of the true church, hence Laodicea. See 1 Timothy 3 :15 note; 2 Timothy 3 :1 note.

· 1 Timothy 3 :15

Apostasy is never restricted to nominal Christianity in the Bible. To restrict apostasy to unbelievers is unscriptural, smacks of the fear of man, and underestimates the deceitfulness of the old nature in true believers. In fact, apostasy is exclusively used of saved believers who knowingly reject revealed scriptural truth. See 2 Timothy 3 :1 note; 2 Thessalonians 2 :3 note.

· 2 Timothy 3 :1

In ``professed Christians``, cross out ``professed``. There’s no apostasy in the passage because Paul is talking about lost men. Scofield inserts his note on apostasy here because he limits apostasy to lost professing Christians, which is exactly the opposite view of the Bible. How apostates can ``depart from the faith``, which faith they never had to begin with, is not explained. Scofield simply has in mind lost people who once spoke as Christians and quit doing so. But revealing one’s true colours and apostasy are two widely different things.


The greatest apostasy within English-speaking Christianity today is the forsaking of the King James Bible and of the promises of God that he would preserve all his words through time and translations. See 1 Timothy 3 :15 note; 2 Thessalonians 2 :3 note.

· Titus 1 :5

(2) The bishop is the pastor. The elders are deacons. That one man was head is clear from the sheer fact that Paul charges one man, even Titus, to ordain the elders and does not leave their ordination to the elders themsevles. Moreover, Philippians 1 :1 mentions bishops and deacons. That the persons and their respective office is not meant but in fact two different offices, is obvious,. There are to be sure ``differences of administrations`` (1 Corinthians 12 :5) but Scofield’s Brethren affiliation is a little too evident.

· Hebrews 1 :4

Scofield is correct in drawing attention to the varied uses of the word ``angel`` in scripture. Another usage is that of appearance or representation.

· Hebrews 5 :6

Here we have a stupendous example of how the fleshly intellect of even a Christian of Scofield’s eminent stature can cause a man to disbelieve and over-rule the words of the living God. Scofield gives the interpretation of Melchizedek as being ``My king is righteous``. Yet the Holy Ghost himself defines it as first ``king of righteousness``, then ``king of peace`` in Hebrews 7 :2. The reason why Scofield gives ``my king is righteous`` is because he trusts secular etymology more than the revelation of the Holy Ghost. There can be no other explanation.
Arabic is this writer’s native tongue. In Arabic, a Shemitic language, as Hebrew, Melchizedek, as it stands, could mean ``my king is righteous`` but more so it could mean ``my reign is righteous``.
But Scofield might not have had access to that. The point is etymology which is not inspired is never completely authoritative because it is always controversial and shifting, so it is irrelevant when faced with the Bible’s own God-given definition.
The reference he gives, Isaiah 11 :5 is actually closer to Hebrews 7 :2 for the word there is ``righteousness``, not ``righteous``. But why Scofield gives Isaiah 11 :5 as a cross-reference instead of Hebrews 7 :2 is utterly bewildering. Truly, the problem is a spiritual and not an intellectual one.

· Hebrews 6 :4

Scofield fails here where most of Christianity does because of a lack of division.
Hebrews 6 :4-8 and Hebrews 10 :26-39 do indeed teach loss of salvation but not for the church age dispensation. Those passages deal with Jews who believe during the tribulation after the church has been raptured. The tribulation is a period wherein loss of salvation is possible because the law comes back just as it was in the Old Testament.
Failing to rightly divide the word of truth, Scofield had to explain away the passage since it clearly conflicted with the Pauline epistles and John’s gospel, which make it abundantly clear that a man cannot lose his salvation. But Paul is writing there to a church age believer, not a tribulation Jew as in Hebrews.

· Hebrews 10 :5

The note is essentially correct. The last sentence however is wrong. The variant form is simply adapted to the dispensation in question.
For instance : Isaiah 28 :16 says
``Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. ``
Paul quotes that in Romans 9:33 as
``As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.``

There Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, applies Isaiah 28:16 to the salvation of Gentiles from hell by obtaining the free righteousness of God by faith.
However that is not ``the deeper meaning``of Isaiah 28:16. Isaiah is referring to the fact that Jews who believe the testimony of Jesus Christ during the tribulation won’t have to literally run away from ``the overflowing scourge`` of v.16 whereas those who covenanted with hell will.

· Introduction to James

James is not an epistle to Christians by any stretch. It was written before the Pauline epistles to ``the twelve tribes`` (James 1:1) of Israel. The context is Jewish and is doctrinally addressed to Jewish believers during the tribulation.
The author is James Zebedee, brother of John, who is martyred in Acts 12:2, not James the Lord’s brother.

· 1 Peter 1:2, 1 Peter 1:20

``But scripture nowhere declares what it is in the divine foreknowledge which determines the divine election and predestination.`` is another whopper. Scofield missed it because it was too simple. The criterion determined by God for election is faith in Jesus Christ. God decided before the foundation of the world that his criterion for choosing who gets saved would be faith in his Son. So those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ get forgiven and get predestinated to escape hell, get adopted as sons, end up in New Jerusalem in a mansion with a new body with Jesus Christ. ( John 1 :12, Romans 10 :13, Ephesians 1 :13 etc...)
So Scofield unwittingly answers himself when he says that ``this election is certain to every believer by the mere fact that he believes``.

· 2 Peter 1 :19

It is not more sure because it is fulfilled in part. That interpretation doesn’t make sense of the passage. Peter is comparing words. He’s saying that the written word in your Bible is more sure than the word he heard with his ears on the mount of transfiguration.

· Jude 11

(Balaam) Scofield says that Balaam figured he could curse Israel because ``he was blind to the higher morality of the Cross.`` You can blame Balaam for a lot of things but that isn’t one of them. The cross wasn’t till 1500 years after Balaam. Scofield uncharacteristically here adopts that peculiar mindset of non-dispensational Christianity which makes salvation uniform throughout all the Bible. Nobody was ever saved by looking forward to the cross in the Old Testament. The disciples were missing the cross almost till they saw it, all the while being foretold by Christ.
If anyone was in effect so saved in the O.T. that would mean they differentiated between the first and second advent of Christ, which would contradict 1 Peter 1 :10-11 which states that they didn’t.
As far as God is concerned, when it comes to Israel’s enemies, Israel is sinless. Period. Yes all sins could only bee taken away by the blood of Christ 1500 years later, but many in Israel perished in that episode with Moab, and died lost because of their own sins. Knowing that would happen, God still refused to uphold Balaam’s curse against them.
Balaam was blind to the higher morality of God’s unconditional covenant with Abraham.

· Revelation 13 :2

Rome is the leopard. The three beasts preceed the kingdom of Antichrist which is Daniel’s 4th and divers beast and stems out of the Roman empire. See Daniel 7 :17 note.

· Revelation 13 :16

Scofield’s note is a bit confusing. The spirit of antichrist according to John denies that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and denies the Father and the Son.

· Revelation 14 :6

(2) The gospel of the grace of God is defined in 1 Corinthians 15 :1-4. The reference is surprisingly missing from such a long paragraph.
III. In Colosse the human merit which is mingled is not fanaticism but asceticism.


· Revelation 18 :2

The note is questionable. Larkin also differentiates between political and ecclesiastical Babylon but Ruckman doesn’t. One thing is sure, Babylon is a literal principality in the heavens and has a literal counterpart on earth. Revelation 17 clearly teaches that Babylon is Rome.

. Revelation 19 :8

True, but here the verse is clearly referring to ``the righteousness of saints`` which is not saving righteousness but good works wrought by believers AFTER salvation. God’s righteousness clothes the inside, the righteousness of saints clothes the outside. (Psalm 45 :13-14)


. Revelation 19 :17

Armageddon is actually where the battle ends, not begins. The Lord lands first at Sinai and goes up fighting to Armageddon, which is the last and final clash before the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ is established.

. Revelation 19 :19

``The day of the Lord`` has more than one application in the Bible depending on the context. It can refer to the great tribulation, the second advent, the end of the millennium, and sometimes even encompasses the rapture of the church before the tribulation.

. Revelation 20 :11

This is another such case as ``the day of the Lord``. ``The day of judgment`` can refer to the great tribulation, the second advent, or the great white throne judgment at the end of the millennium depending on the context. ``The day of destruction`` shows up once in Job 21 :30 and is a reference to the second advent.

. Revelation 22 :19 (4 superscript)

(3) The recipient is not a ``new creation`` but a ``new creature``. He isn’t recreated he’s reborn.

Posted by Revelation 2:17 at 1:46 PM | 1 comments    

Labels: bible studies

The consistency of numerical patterns in the Bible is one of many infallible proofs of its inspiration. Remember the Bible is made up of 66 books written by 38 authors across 1800 years in 3 languages on 3 continents, by people of all walks of life writing against their own people and government. With this said, observe:

1. The 5 kings rebel against Chedorlaomer king of Elam in the 13th year. (Genesis 14:4)

2. 13 is Ishmael’s age when he was circumcised. Ishmael was “born after the flesh” (Galatians 4:29)

3. Haman’s commandment “to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, […]and to take the spoil of them for a prey.” was written on the 13th day of the 1st month. The day for carrying out the commandment was to be year later to the day, on the 13th of the 1st month, according to (Esther 3 verse 13).

4. Nimrod, a type of the antichrist, is the 13th from Adam (1 Chronicles 1:10)

5. Manasseh, the most evil king of Judah, is the 13th king from the division of the kingdom.

6. It took Solomon 7 years to finish the house of God (1 Kings 6:38). He spends 13 years on his own house. ( 1 Kings 7:1)

8. Jesus lists 13 evil things that proceed out of a man’s heart in Mark 7:21-22

Posted by Revelation 2:17 at 9:49 PM | 2 comments    

Labels: bible studies

So you've seen how God used Jeremiah 22:30 to set-up such a predicament as necessitated a supernatural birth to be solved. Interestingly, that is precisely the issue wherein the Jews dishonoured Jesus Christ when things got heated between them; his birth. Observe:


John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; (i.e. like you are) we have one Father, even God.

And

John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

Now God in his mercy had made it easier for Israel to believe the fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14, as we've seen before, through the very bind in which he put them. By taking away the kingdom, and rejecting the seed royal, he put them in such a bind wherein their only hope out was to believe the supernatural birth of Jesus as the Christ, the King of the Jews.



Now here's where it gets even more interesting for today's dispensation.

What God did to Israel with the kingship, he's done today with the priesthood.

Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days (try 2000 years on for size) without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:

No king = no kingdom.
No sacrifice, no ephod = no priesthood!

Today the Jews have no temple-service, no priests, no sacrifices, no levites. They've got Rabbis galore, but no priests.

Now watch this

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Compare that rejection with Coniah's

Jeremiah 22:24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Hosea 4:6 is to the priesthood what Jeremiah 22:30 is to the kingdom!

Allright so when did Hosea 3:4 and 4:6 get fulfiled? Not in Hosea's time. Israel continued to have temple-service and a priesthood well after Hosea. So when did those verses come into play?

Follow the thread carefully.

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down


John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

The false witness that precipitates Jesus' condemnation had to do with John 2:19 IN RELATION TO THE TEMPLE.
See Matthew 26:59-66

Soon thereafter Jesus Christ was led out and crucified. That was 33 A.D. Not 40 years after, in 70 A.D. , Titus came up against Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, fulfiling Matthew 24:2.

Enter Hosea 3:4 and 4:6.

They rejected Jesus as King so they lost the kindgom and the land.
They rejected Jesus as Priest so they lost the priesthood and the temple.

Now think about this my Jewish friend, and ponder well. If Jesus was born of fornication, as many Jews still believe today, then the Lord God sure went out of his way to make a bastard look like the Christ by making him fit all the SCRIPTURAL prerequisites for the kingship and priesthood!

God today has placed you in a predicament where the only place you could find a high priest is by receiving Jesus Christ as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron, as prophecied in

Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Compare that with "thou shalt be no priest to me" Hosea 4:6

Already the change of priesthood was foreshadowed so that when it came you'd recognize it, just like he did for the seed royal!

He's forcing you to look to heaven. That's God's mercy again at work. Do you know what your problem is, my Jewish friend? It's that you're a Catholic at heart. Just like Catholics read and believe the Catechism instead of the Bible, you read and believe the Talmud instead of the Bible. You don't know the writings of your own prophets.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge,

I'll close with Coniah.

Instead of calling him "Jeconiah" like he does in 1 Chronicles 3:16 and 2 Chronicles 36:8 the Lord simply calls him "Coniah" in Jeremiah 22:24,28. He takes the "JE" out of his name, as in "JEhovah". The next time "JE" shows up in the royal line is in "JEsus"! Meaning "JAH saves".

Food for thought.

So here's the conclusion of the matter, dear Jewish friend:

instead of the seed of Coniah, God gave you the seed of the Holy Ghost, and instead of the order of Aaron, God gave you the order of Melchizedek.

Posted by Revelation 2:17 at 12:55 AM | 0 comments    

Labels: bible studies

The problem is solved in Matthew 1:16 though the hint to the solution was given about 700 years prior.

Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

That's the kind of verse that's loaded with 7000 tons of TNT, made in heaven.

This was written by the prophet Isaiah some years before Jeremiah ever wrote what he wrote concerning Coniah. And that's part of the beauty of the word of God: it sometimes gives you the solution to a problem that hasn't come up yet. Here's what you want to notice:

1) The attention of the house (family) of David is specifically requested. Not of the whole world, not of Israel, not of the priests and Levites, but that of the "house of David". So the house of David is especially concerned. You are to understand that it wasn't written just for the house of David that was then, but to all those who are of the house of David that should come in the future.

2) It's a sign. That means the hebrew scholars who told you that the hebrew word correctly translated as "virgin" can and should be translated as "maiden", aren't too bright.
Last I checked, it wasn't a SIGN that a young woman should get pregnant. It is however when a virgin conceives while remaining a virgin.

3) It's a sign given by "the Lord himself". Moses and a bunch of prophets gave signs, but this one is special. It's directly from God, no intermediary.

So do let us imagine for a moment that you're a Jew (as abominable as the thought may be to you) living in...oh, 15 B.C. You sit down and begin to read the prophet Isaiah. And you hit this passage there. What's a believing Jew expected to get out of it? Well, you're supposed to be looking for a virgin who's in the lineage of David, and therefore of the tribe of Judah, who gets pregnant without knowing any man. She's supposed to bear a man-child whose name means God is with us (Matthew 1:23). Get it? GOD, G-O-D, GOD, is with us.

Now here comes your gentile friend on his dromedary. "First off, that a virgin should conceive is crazy. If she did, I'd worship her and call her queen of heaven, full of grace, co-redemptrix, queen of angels, mother of God, er... I mean mother of believers, all-holy, all-blessed, save me at the hour of my death amen.
Besides, I know where you're going with this, but many men in the Bible had the name of God as part of their name, yet none of them was God himself, otherwise you'd have 1000 gods".

"True", says you, "but that's because they had human fathers who gave them their human nature. This 'Immanuel' here doesn't. Who's his father?"

"Don't you know that in 2100 years we'll have the know-how to allow a woman to conceive a child on her own, without the help of any man?!"

"So you believe that WE could get a virgin to conceive, yet God couldn't? Am I understanding you correctly?"

"Ehem..."

"Besides, that know-how only allows women to bear women. This virgin conceived a man-child"

"Listen, friend, the sun is a burning and my dromedary is chewing his tongue for thirst, catch you later"

So you get the picture...no dad, yet he's "God" with us. Where did he get his divine nature from?
Mary! Cry the cardinals. Nice try. She wasn't divine and a woman has no seed. Biology 101.

You go on to read the entire book of Isaiah over the week, and the following week you get into Jeremiah, writing some decades later.

And you hit Jeremiah 22:29-30.

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

The dead end of the messianic line. The dreadful, forbidden verse of every Bible disbelieving, Catechism-reading Pharisaical Jew on earth. And this time, it ain't only the house of David that should listen up but the entire EARTH EARTH EARTH.
Shem, Ham, Japheth. Now you begin to scratch your head. Why is it of such concern to the entire planet that the messianic line of the kings of Judah has reached a dead-end?

It's not like the messiah was supposed to be God himself...

Capich?

A shimmer of light has pierced through the darkness of your soul.
Quickly spiritual darkness attempts to reflood the path that was blazed.

But how could the messiah be God if he is the seed of man?

He isn't. A) He is "OF the seed of David" - 2Timothy 2:8
B) He is "MADE OF the seed of David according to the flesh" - Romans 1:3
C) He "COMETH OF the seed of David" - John 7:42

Physically, Christ got his body from David through Mary. The end.
Spiritually, he got his nature from God, being God's seed.

Your mind goes back to Isaiah 7:14 under a new light. He said it's a sign. That a virgin should conceive is a miracle, granted. But then what? You're missing the point (thrust, sign) of it if you only stop there. What is that virgin birth pointing to? I don't pretend to know the full answer. In fact I'm pretty sure I'm missing something. But here's what you have: if messiah is born of a virgin, then he is no man's seed. Remember Isaiah said "the Lord himself shall give you a sign".
Isaiah 9:6 says
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Who gave that "son", Isaiah? "the Lord himself".

How shall this be, asked Mary, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

So here's the import of the sign of Isaiah 7:14:

The messiah was God's seed, not man's seed. So it didn't matter if Coniah's seed got cursed.

YOU WOULD HAVE HAD HALF A PROBLEM HAD YOU INITIALLY BELIEVED IN THE DEITY OF THE MESSIAH.

The house of David would've recognized its import when they hit Jeremiah 22:30, if they had believed Isaiah 7:14 to be begin with. The sign was given to them. It's not just that some Jewish virgin somewhere got pregnant on her own; it's that that pregnancy is the answer to the establishment of the Davidic covenant, so don't worry about Coniah, God will come through.

(The Roman Catholic gentile mind-set is simply dazzled by the miracle itself. If you fail to see the fulfilment of God's words therein, and the establishment of his plans, you're missing the boat. And when the antichrist shows up with his miracles, you'll just be dazzled by the phenomena and enquire more of them than of the words of God. And you'll damn your soul to hell by believing antichrist's SHOWbusiness.)

After Jeremiah 22:30 all of Israel, let alone the house of David, should've been busy praying, fasting and searching for a pregnant virgin having understood its relevancy to the kingdom of Israel. If you think I'm stretching things I've got 2 names for you: Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:25,36)

Now for the other half: to be the Christ (messiah) Jesus still has to be in Coniah's line. So how does Jesus, being Christ, lay claim to the throne of David? Simple: adoption. He lays claim to the throne through Joseph, who is the son of Coniah in Matthew 1.

God put in place 2 safe-guards to make sure no other human being could ever rightfully lay claim to David's throne except Jesus Christ.

1) He killed one branch of the royal seed (Zedekiah and sons) and cursed the other (Coniah and sons). So one way to be disqualified was to actually be qualified. That's God's wisdom. And it works.

2) And just in case anybody else got the idea of getting adopted to escape the curse on Coniah's seed, God said that the Messiah had to be the seed of God himself. (Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, Psalm 2:7, 110:1)

Now I could add 3) here just for overkill.

Technically the true King of Israel is God himself.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

So simply by virtue of being God's Son (see Psalm 110:1) Jesus Christ could have superseded any claimant from any angle.

But God always honours his word, the Bible, and so as he prophecied, so he fulfiled.
The Lord God ALWAYS honours his word, his words, and his Word.

One last installement coming.

Posted by Revelation 2:17 at 12:18 AM | 10 comments    

Labels: bible studies

Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
:29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

The man here called Coniah is Jehoiachin, also called Jeconiah; he was of the seed of David, was one of the last kings of Judah, did evil, and was carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar.

According to the covenant God made with David, only the seed of David could rightfully rule on the throne of David, the throne of Israel, for ever. 2 Samuel 7:11-29.

The line of kings which rightfully ruled on that throne is referred to as "the seed royal". (2 Kings 11:1, 25:25; 2 Chronicles 22:10; Jeremiah 41:1).

The messiah was to be of the seed of David (Psalm 132:11; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15; John 7:42; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). He was to be king of Israel according to numerous references like Isaiah 9:7 and Jeremiah 23:5. So he had to come from the line of the seed royal, not just from any seed of David, in order to have claim to the throne.

Now watch how the Lord worked to create an air-tight Biblical "problem text". You read right. He designed it.

He has Jeremiah "curse" king Coniah's seed from ruling over David's throne. So from whence will the messiah come? Not to worry. Coniah wasn't the last king of Judah, his father's brother, Zedekiah was. (2 kings 24:15-17). And he had sons! Praise the Lord! One of Zedekiah's sons will reign and the messiah's line will not be jeopardized by Jeremiah 22:30. Glory.

2Kings 25:6 So they took the king (Zedekiah), and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him.
2Ki 25:7 And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.

Ouch. The last official king with any sons remaining is now Coniah, who had 7 of them (1 Chronicles 3:17-18). Yet with Jeremiah 22:30 the Lord God barred all of them from ruling in Judah on the throne of David.
He deliberately set-up the extermination of all of Zedekiah's sons and the abdication of all of Coniah's sons in order to seal the paradox!
That 7 stands for a perfect dead end.
No way out of that one. Wonderful.

Now this plot is even more intricate for the Lord uses the devil’s wrath to get his set-up (Psalm 76:10). The devil had had the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 in mind ever since it was said to the serpent.
“And I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed (the serpent’s) and her seed (the messiah); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

It's been a while since the last study on Bible doctrines. I hope it'll increase your faith.

42 years, 42 stations, 42 months, 42 chapters

Posted by Revelation 2:17 at 5:03 AM | 2 comments    

Labels: bible studies

I've posted an audio sermon in the Bible Studies by James Modlish on the raptures; you read right, it's plural. In the near future I hope to continue the thread on the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, but for now this is a great interlude. Look for the Lord Jesus Christ's coming to take you away if you are saved. May this blessed doctrine run your life.

Which Rapture?

Posted by Revelation 2:17 at 10:20 PM | 3 comments    

Labels: bible studies