Hebrew Voices #40 – Hebrew Manuscript of the Book of Revelation: Part 2

door nails as descried in the Book of RevelationIn Hebrew Voices, The Hebrew Manuscript of the Book of Revelation: Part 2, Nehemia Gordon, AJ Bernard, and T-Bone, unlock the original meaning of the "keys of death", and reveal a message for the 10 Lost Tribes that was lost in translation. Make sure you first listen to  Part 1 of The Hebrew Manuscript of the Book of Revelation

Please leave a comment below!

Download A Hebrew Manuscript of the Book of Revelation: Part 2

Download the Hebrew text and English translation

View the Hebrew manuscript (turn to f.1v)

Nehemia's Wall Podcasts
Subscribe: iTunes | Android | Google Play | Stitcher | TuneIn

 

Related Posts:
The Hebrew Manuscript of the Book of Revelation - Part 1
How the New Testament Interprets the Tanakh
The Name Yeshua in Ancient Babylon
The Ass Speaks Out
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Hebrew Yeshuah vs the Greek Jesus A Prayer To Our Father Book Cover
The Naming of Jesus in Hebrew
Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence

64 thoughts on “Hebrew Voices #40 – Hebrew Manuscript of the Book of Revelation: Part 2

  1. Hi, my names Joshua Keith Hard one of my ancestors is Hadrian from Hadrians wall. Intresting. Inspiring I’m going Hard, baby.

  2. Very interesting conversation. If Yeshua is saying that His nails are the keys to get into the kingdom (which seems to verify the prophet’s writings), then what is He actually saying? Wouldn’t the concept itself already be in the prophet’s writings? Why is the door going to open only by this nail?
    The nail obviously signifies the crucifixion and death. Why is Yeshua’s death the important factor to open the door to the kingdom of God? His death is declared in the first part of the verse tying this event to the nail (or key). Isn’t it because the House of Israel, as a divorced wife, cannot come back into covenant with YHVH as long as her husband is alive? Torah states this. Paul restates this in Rom 7. It is the all encompassing dilemma that the someone must answer because only living in the words of the OT would mean that YHVH says He will regather His lost sheep but He also says it is against Torah to do so. So how in the world is this going to happen without a violation of Torah? The husband cannot take the wife back, it is forbidden.
    ……..unless He dies……and releases the wife from the previous marriage covenant. Then and only then can she return to her first husband. Death is the key. Death is by the nail. Death of God (YHVH’s salvation) is the “good news” to the northern tribes who desire to return. That is why Yeshua “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” It is the regathering that the prophet’s wrote about and how it is accomplished. It is probably the sermon subject on the road to Emmaus when Yeshua says that the prophets wrote of His suffering/death because it is the ONLY WAY the regathering can happen according to Torah.

    • Yes indeed,
      Very interesting conversation.

      Romans 7 is of great interest, it also makes clear that the commandments were not nailed to the cross. I think this to be a crucial issue in connection to the nails. It would not make sense for sins to be nailed to the cross as the commandments of God are binding in connection with the covenant made with the House of Israel. Although both Houses went into captivity, the promise of a new covenant with both Houses had been established going back to Jeremiah

      Jer_31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the “house of Israel, and with the house of Judah”:

      This of course is a confirmed understanding in the book of Hebrews.

      Heb_8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
      Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
      Heb_12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

      Jeshua being :
      The mediator, The book of Galations chapter 2,3,8,9,12

      High priest, Gen_14:18 (Interesting side note Joh_11:51 )
      Heb_5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. Psa_2:7, Mar_1:11 ,Luk_3:22

      lamb of God ect. Gen_22:8 Exo_12:5, Joh_1:29 Rev_5:6 Eze_45:15

      The question arises ‘How can a NEW COVENANT be established when the covenant on mount Sinai had been broken because of the breaking of the laws?’ What sort of human anointed high priest could establish this ? (without taking away the sin , which had separated Israel from their God in the first place? )
      Interestingly and the only explanation I can find of how it is possible for the Father to take back a backsliding wife is as follows..

      What are all Things?
      Joh_13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
      Joh_16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
      Joh_17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

      In my understanding, it can only be through the ‘Mediator’ of all things (physical) as Yehovah is the Most High God and cannot break his own laws. The mediator stands in between, just as he stood in between in the time of Abraham…

      At least this is the only way it makes sense to me so far!

    • I have had similar thoughts and the immediate answer is Jesus is the second husband that YHVH provided to his divorced wife Israel, so that his people could return to Him through His Son. But concerning the people of Israel alive at the time of Jesus, it does not look very good for them. Its almost as if Jesus rejects them himself, and starts over with whoever will receive him, to include the gentiles.

      but God is not dead and his commandments have not been done away with, but they are fufilled.

      additionally, we have the difficulty of at least one (and likely dozens of others) of the 613 commandments were given to Israel out of the hardness of their hearts, and God seems to acknowledge those laws but says it was not so in the beginning.

      for example, Jesus says what you eat does not make you unclean, that does not mean its not sin to eat unclean meat, it merely means that eating unclean meat does not make you unclean. this throws a big of a monkey wrench in dozens of Torah laws if i’m not mistaken. for example, i cook milk and meat in the same dish, no problem. but i don’t boil my first born goat in its mother’s milk and bury it at the corner of my field as a sacrifice to whoever.

  3. As far as the keys and the nails translation go, it seems obvious to me that they are the same thing, in that Yeshua’s death (being NAILED to the cross) is what unlocked the gates to Sheol. The entire bible old and new, is and points to, God in flesh dying for sinful man, by being nailed to a cross, which saved men from the gates of Sheol. Yeshua is The Word ‘Aleph’ (which is God) He is the ‘Tav’ the cross. Beginning and End. First letter of the Word and last letter of the Word. The end was declared from the beginning, as stated in Isiah. Literally the end was declared in the Hebrew word Bereshit, ‘in beginning’. If you look at the Pictograph of the Hebrew letters that make up the word ‘Bereshit’ it says something like this depending on how you translate the picture, it can vary a little but the meaning remains the same, “The son of God will be pressed by his own hand on a cross” So so cool!!! Praise Yehovah!! Amen

    • first thought on keys and nails was that the tomb was sealed with a big nail which kept the stone locked in place.
      also Yeshua cannot be YHVH but his son and they both have a holy spirit in accordance with each other.
      also ..doesnt satan mean adversary therefore ha satan , the adversary?

  4. What do you think Nehemia about the nails having something to do with the nails put in a coffin to seal it ?! As I was listening, this came to me, I believe it’s got a connection but I’d like your guys take on this ??

    In the pictogram Hebrew nails are represented as Tent Pegs. To fix something, a tent, the body/flesh down or as they did to Yahushua, to something, that being a tree. ??!!

    Waoh all that which has been hidden will be brought to the light. Amen

    Also the once saved always saved is NOT the truth. We’re told to seek out our salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING.

    Baruch and Love

    • In this period they didn’t use wooden coffins in Israel. They primarily used ossuaries, small stone boxes to place the bones after the body decayed for a year. Sometimes they also had sarcophagi, stone coffins. Then again, maybe the wood coffins just decayed.

  5. In reference to the nails of Sheol and death:
    You made reference to door nails. Is it possible that the implication is that Yeshua not only unlocked the door/gate of death & Sheol; but He actually completely destroyed the door, since He had possession of the nails that held the door together?

    • That could be the case, John.
      Also for the sake of clarity, Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, A Library of Essential Knowledge and other sources define door-nail as “the nail on which, in ancient doors, the knocker struck.” It makes no reference to the common nails used to bind together two or more planks specifically for a door like a box nail is used in making boxes.
      I cannot find any reference explaining the phrase, “dead as a door-nail.” But I suggest and admit I could be far off, the phrase may refer to the (dead) dull thud sound that results from striking a door-nail.

  6. Have you considered the expression “nailing shut”? In history when a boat was sinking and had prisoners or insignificant people below deck, they would nail the opening shut so they could not get out and die/drown.

  7. Hello Nehemia and thanks for your fascinating Revelation

    You wanted to know what they shall mean, the letters to the seven Kelihot in Asia-Minor? Here I’am with my part, what may be the most important message you have ever received in your life. I don’t want neither to put me up nor to put you or anybody else down, but only to share in the most honest way what I found in the book of revelation. And if you get it as serious as I’m giving it to you, you will have to confirm, to have found the most important key for any understanding.

    My Background:
    My skill is of the elementary school, and a professional education in automation, very technical and logical oriented with very little knowledge of ancient linguistic and culture. My honour to you and many more persons who are teaching and sharing such things, also to attend all context as good as possible, you are the ones who opened my eyes. My own native language is German, is a little bit better than English, and much better would be Russian, and then Greek, and then Latin, why the medicine faculty could not exist without Latin. Without knowing any Greek, I’m using different dictionaries for the wording. As Keith Johnson required in an Open-Door, he wants to see in the future more Nehemias, Michaels and Keiths bringing more and better light into the story, here is my part [fanfare].

    I don’t remember why, I found it necessary to do my own translation of the Revelation, am still working on it, and it is is confirming itself more and more to be the key to the main door. I care for the wording over all in the manner of unification, to translate one and the same word always in the same way, as far as ever possible. For example ‘desire’ is a strong feeling, can be of positive or negative nature. I let it be as it is in all its occurrences, anything else would be a personal interpretation, what I want to exclude. The bible is speaking of ‘god’s wrath’, and this seems to be more than only a personal interpretation, and more than only an evil lie, but in fact a terrible fearmongering. The primary sense is a strong feeling, any secondary I don’t want to know: If it is ‘desire’ at one place, it has to be ‘desire’ at any other place as well. It shall be as neutral and standardised as possible, and any exception needs compelling linguistic reasons, or would be a failure. If you believe or not, Im getting a very beautiful text, making perfect sense, much more than everything I ever knew. We must learn to distinguish between what is in the bible and what is in the Revelation, they are entirely different stories.

    The strengt that I can bring in as an automatizer is in the really powerful Greek grammathematic or grammathelogic (not theologic) or how you wat to call it. In this category English is one of the most downgraded languages of the world. In modern digital texts there are after the Strong-Numbers also the grammatical adds for each and every word. I red some literature about it, found some contradictions, and also wich of them can be true and wich must be wrong. The truth must make every perfect sense, an everything else must produce problems of any kind.

    One can not use only one single standard text, they are all containing errors, what easily can be seen in grammatical inconsistence. The solution is in the world of today to use a compilation of all of them, showing all the differences and variants. Observing a perfect grammathematic it is not a hard decision wich variant to choose, either one gets a perfect sense or is dealing with nonsense. Following such things, the Greek Revelation is reviling itself to me as an absolute masterpeace, up to 99% error free. So Im contradicting Michael’s theory after that it must be a translation from the Hebrew, or if so, the translator must have been much better than the author. If you maybe find hebraisms, Yochanan was a Hebrew speaking and thinking person, and he could have written Hebrew wordpans in the Greek Language, why not.

    I’m giving you some Ideas of what I mean, and that I know what I mean, and that I mean what I know. And as a professional you will be familiar with the grammar-system of modern source texts.

    A simple example:

    what is commonly translated as ‘behold’ is in the source see[V-2AAM-2S]

    Verb ‘see’, 2nd Aorist tense, Active, iMperative, 2nd person Singular

    This is precisely to be translated as ‘you-must-have-seen’.

    The difference in its understanding is huge: If you look without seeing anything, then forget it, and continue reading, or if you understand that you’re failing, if you can not recognize its meaning.

    Many verbs are much more complicated, are unfolding half up to entire sentences, if they are implying future tense, semi-activity and indicative or subjunctional mood all at once. Semi-activity needs at least two subjects, and one can be known, and the rest can only be guessed. This makes it very hard to translate, very difficult to express in neutrality. I’m rendering such sentences out of one single word bound by dashes. It is keeping clarity of the source of every word, and is giving a lot of freedom of expression, to imply descriptions for words that have no equivalent. And my expression shall count less than to know the lexical form and the grammatical add, [] is to be displayed in small superscript.

    that-what-has-been-sacrificed-to-idols[A-APN] (adjective with no equivalent)

    in-the-future-they-would-be-made-known-and-know[V-FDI-3P] (to-know+[add])

    At least one thing seems to be even impossible: The eagle is flying in the semi-active voice, what in no way can be expressed, in an understandable manner: Either one is a passenger and lets himself fly, in the passive voice, or one is a pilot and flies, in the active voice. In the assumption that an eagle is not having a double seated cockpit, and no copilot can fly it semi-active, this way of flying seems to be an impossibility for our understanding. On the other hand, this is proving that the eagle has to be taken as a symbol, and must be understood as a semi-active flying eagle, to get right what it has to mean. Seek for verbs in semi-active voice and/or in any indirect mood, and you will be surprised what treasures you will find. And you can’t find such things it in any version of the bible, but only in the original revelation.

    Another important aspect is the genitive case, what is often used where we would expect dative or accusative. One has to accept it how it is, one can not transform it according to the own imagination. If upheld the genitive a while, it begins to offer much more depth and precision, and you will be impressed what can be found. As western degenerated warhorses we would say that we stand before the house, in dative case. In the Greek understanding this would also imply that we must be bigger than the house, that we are hiding it entirely, when we stand before it. So in Greek it is expressed more sensitive, one stands before the house in genitive. Correct translated one stands before ‘of the house’, before a part ‘of the house’. This is an important part of honesty, to imply that one is in measure not bigger than a house, in wich one could find place up to many hundredfold or thousandfold. The clue of this topic is the throne of יְהֹוָה by this way you can find out exactly what it is made of, and who made it, a very powerful revelation.

    One more other and not less important aspect is the nominative case in combination with active and/or semi-active verbs. Passive verbs can not have a suspect or doer if you will, the object is nominative. Active verbs must have one, that must be found as the nominative case of the same gender and number. In the so called bible, most of the deeds are just happening without implying any suspect doer. But if you read out of the true revelation, you will find many many more, they are known for most of the deeds implying activity, and you can get understanding instead of raising questions. Sometimes the subject and the object are not only disconnected from one another, but even turned upside down. The resulting difference is about the same as either if you burn something, or you will be burned, or if you destroy something, or will be destroyed. If you don’t believe me, translate as a sample the trumpets 1+2, only four verses, and you will be convinced in a shocking manner, I guarantee you.

    But the most important thing, that all the Jews must know, regardless of their believes, is the so called image of the beast: YOU MUST KNOW AND UNDERSTAND IT, and make it known among your people, in the described precision. I must warn you, when you understand, you will have eaten the little roll, that tastes sweet as honey, but hurts in the entire belly that you would wish to die. When I began to understand, it had hurt me that hard, that I cried to our creator to let me either serve in healthy, or take me away from this world. In addition you must imply Enoch 17-19, and the most basic things of Steve Quale’s latest book. Then you will have explained everything, the entire history, and it is much more and much harder than you would ever wish to know. But you must know and share it, I guarantee you, and ask for help if needed.

    With highest respect and best wishes

  8. Wonderful teaching. Nehemia, you hit it out of the park this time. I laughed until I cried when your Methodist Pastor friend tried to explain the unexplainable, the Trinity. Kudos to you, Nehemia.

    The Trinity is not Christian. It is Catholic. The Trinity is total plagiarism from paganism. The Trinity is a lift from a very old idea in many pagan religions — Baal/Dagon/Hadid (Canaanite – sometimes Baal/Yam/Mot), Zeus/Poseidon/Hades (Greek), Jupiter/Neptune/Pluto (Roman), Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma (Trimurti, Hinduism) and many others. The main pagan idea here is three in one. What is really hilarious is when Catholic or post-Catholic adherents (like your Methodist friend) try to meld Trinity doctrine with the monotheism of scripture. This, of course, cannot be done and the result is a mixture of embarrassment, hilarity and humiliation, just as we heard on your podcast.

    What early Christians sources, such as the four gospels, teach is quite different. YHVH, who is One God, sent out His Breath (or spirit, ruach) and it came upon a woman, Mary (Mariam) who conceived and bore a son she called Yeshua, or Yehoshuah. This is rather like YHVH stretching out his right arm (BRANCH) and putting on a Yeshua puppet (like the Spirit putting on a Zechariah suit – 2 Chr 24:20). YHVH, for the next 34 years, became a ventriloquist and spoke to men through the Yeshua puppet as though it was a man. Did this Yeshua puppet have a spirit of its own, aside from YHVH? It does not appear so. To all men, this puppet was very real and very human. YHVH interacted with, and taught, men through the Yeshua puppet. Often YHVH even spoke to Himself through the Yeshua puppet, as any good ventriloquist will do, to teach men how to pray to Himself. When some men took offense and killed the Yeshua puppet, YHVH drew back is right arm (BRANCH) to Himself. He didn’t even leave the empty puppet shell.

    How many gods are there in YHVH? Only one, of course. Using a puppet does not make YHVH two, and certainly not three, still just one. Sometimes the Yeshua puppet called Himself the Son of God, but it is no stretch at all to realize that a Son is a BRANCH of the Father. After all, YHVH did make the Yeshua puppet by birth through a woman. Seeing a branch of a tree does not make anyone think there are two trees, still just one. Seeing an arm of a man does not make anyone think there are two men, still just one. Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me? He that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Shew us the Father? (Jhn 14:9)

  9. I am so excited about these manuscripts! It’s like unwrapping birthday presents! I’m hopeful there is something written about chapter 7:4-8, because I have always wondered why aren’t the tribe’s of Dan and Ephraim mentioned as part of the 144,00.

      • Not sure I understand, but from what I read in Genesis 48 M’nasheh and Ephraim are counted as part of the tribe’s. M’nasheh is mentioned but not Ephraim in Revelation 7. Also, where’s Dan ?

        • You are right about Dan not being in the list. I believe the reason is that Dan left his inheritance, next door to the Philistines, and moved north. The story in Judges 18 says the whole tribe moved and became idol worshippers. Is this enough to loose status as a tribe? Not sure.

          Many times in the bible Ephraim is called Joseph. This began when Jacob crossed his hands and put Joseph’s younger son ahead of the older son – Gen 48. Joseph got the double portion blessing of the oldest son, even though he was the eldest son of the second wife. This is, presumably, because of Reuben’s sin, or maybe because of the sin of all the brothers in selling Joseph into slavery. Judah still got the birthright of the eldest son (Reuben sinned and Simeon/Levi murdered a whole town of innocents).

        • The two half-tribes of M’nasheh and Ephraim are listed as full tribes in the book of Revelation. Along with the loss of the tribe of Dan this makes the count remain at twelve.

  10. Greetings all,
    Very interesting ideas. Thanks for all your hard work researching and presenting these studies.
    Re: keys
    Here’s one more idea based on common sense as I see it.
    Keys usually or commonly refer to instruments used to open a mechanism like a lock or an understanding.
    Nails usually or commonly refer to instruments used to seal up or bind together like materials or ideas.
    Yeshua, it is written, has the keys to the Kingdom and has the keys (nails) to hell and the grave. He holds the keys to knowledge and understanding.
    He also has the nails to close up or defeat death and the grave. Perhaps death and the grave are bound together then sealed up – forever.
    By the way, put a nail in your pocket and see how long it takes to wear through and rub raw the flesh on your thigh. Coins have the same effect ergo wallets, pokes and purses.
    I wonder what a pocket crucifixion nail holder was called – hmmm.

  11. The concept Nehemia speaks of, “dual causality” is true and critical to deciphering this apparent puzzle. Parallel to this is the concept of “agency”. This simplifies things a great deal if we operate from that perspective.

    There are many reasons why the Father needed an agent to deal with the sin problem. One of these reasons is that It dwells in unapproachable light and cannot coexist with sin. Secondly, it appears that It has had to recuse Itself from this judgment process as It has been directly or indirectly accused of wrong doing. Psalm 51; 1 Timothy 6:16 We see this resolved in a stepped approach in Revelation 4 and 5. The Father is judged in chapter 4 and is found “worthy”. The Lamb, Yeshua, Jesus, the Son…is judged in chapter 5 and is also found “worthy”.

    Most people believe this drama ends at Revelation 22:21. This is incorrect. It ends when the “Agent” completes the task (resolution of the sin problem) and returns all authority back to the Father and then voluntarily subjects Himself to the One that gave Him the mission and the authority and wisdom to carry out the task. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 It follows if the agent gives back the authority, He must have been given it at some distant point in the past.

    He spoke of this mission and authority often, but He also spoke of where it came from and how He was dependent upon the Father. He came for many reasons. One was to demonstrate what submission looks like. Has anyone learned this lesson? Not likely.

    Applying the concept of agency/dual causality; He acted as God. Philippians 2:6; Mark 12:26; Exodus 3:6, 14, 15 The Pharisees knew what He meant and did the only thing that they could have done as long as the clung to their paradigm; kill somebody for blaspheme. Really, who says they are “I am”; “light of the world”; “the door”; the “way” to the Father. John 8:58; John 9:5; John 10:7; John 14:6.

    Another reason for coming is to give a sinful people a glimpse of the Father. John 14:9 In other words, this is a close as you will ever come to seeing It. The first law of created things says that: “All creators are outside of and transcendent to their creation.” Thus, the Father is outside of time and space. It can never be viewed in Its entirety, so this is “as good as it gets”.

    It is important, however, to realize that Yeshua never asked us to pray to Him; only to the Father. So you see that is the litmus test as to whether He was Son (agent) or supplanter.

  12. From Tehillim 110:1 we have this:

    The LORD says to my lord, sit at my right hand … (NRSV)

    Given that “LORD” in small capital letters in the translation is standing in for YHWH (yod hay vav hay) in the Hebrew text, we have this:

    YHWH says to my lord, sit at my right hand …

    The New Testament (NT) makes the case that it is Jesus who sat down at the right hand of God (see Mark 16:19), and writers of the NT cite the above passage to support this claim (see Acts 2:32-36; Hebrews 10:12-13). Therefore, it is the NT position that Jesus sat down at the right hand of YHWH.

    So, from the NT itself we can see that Jesus cannot be YHWH because it can’t have been Jesus instructing himself to sit down next to himself; hence, any “Godhead” description of YHWH is contradicted by the NT itself.

    The Tanakh couldn’t be clearer on this issue:

    I am YHWH, and there is no other;
    besides me there is no god. Yeshayahu 45:5 (repeated in verse 6)

    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1045.htm

    There is no mysterious “we” or “us” here. It is a single person claiming exclusivity as God. (If this is somehow a pre-existent Jesus talking, he apparently told a fib based upon his own words in John 14:28 where he said the Father is greater than himself (Jesus). You can’t have it both ways. It can’t be Jesus claiming there is “no other” in Yeshayah, yet later claiming the Father is the greater one. It’s a contradiction.)

    Yeshayahu removes all doubt who YHWH is in 63:16 and 64:8:

    Thou, O YHWH, art our Father;

    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1063.htm

    So what do you want to believe? The plain words of the biblical text, or the convoluted words of men contrived to prop up a doctrine borrowed from you know where?

    • Shalom,

      Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

      Yehovah says, Let Us make Man in Our Image..
      I would appreciate if this could be explained to me. If this is a wrong translation , I really would like to know. Thank you!

      • Elohim of Genesis 1:26-27 is plural and has both male and female physical forms. YHWH Elohim isn’t mentioned unitl Genesis 2, which is a continuation of the chronological account of the book of Genesis and is not a restatement of chapter one.

        Your text “Yehovah says, Let Us make Man in Our Image..” is a mistranslation.

    • I believe the plain text and trust in Yehovah alone because He gives warning to anyone who adds or reads into the text. (Proverbs 30: 5-6)

      Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 

      Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

  13. The first & the last means the Aleph Tav 4th word Gen.1:1. Example in Ruth her name is 12 times mentioned. The first 10 times mentioned no Aleph Tav. Then the last 2 times mentioned there are the Aleph Tav. This was after she was bound with the redeemer. Yehoshua is mans redeemer. The other example is Solomon at first his name had the Aleph & Tav then after worshipping Idols for his wife no more connection to the fathers house Aleph & Tav.

  14. If you ask me those rascally Nicolaitans are still ruling over the masses.

    Starting in the great Protestant Reformation many pushed back and re-examined the New Testament and rejected a number of later Catholic and Orthodox doctrines as being incompatible with common sense, reason. Many leaders of the Great Reformation initially de-emphasized the trinitarian doctrine and seemed unsure whether or not to confine it to the same waste bin as the doctrines of papal authority and transubstantiation.

    The two translations of John 1-1:4

    John Wycliffe is credited with giving us the first English bible around 1380 C.E. One of his many desires for his people was to give the common man a bible he could read and understand in his own language, he succeeded. It also appears he remained in lockstep with the pro-nicean consensus of his church fathers. As we see in his translation he defined the Word (Verbum) as a person or being rather than audible speech when he made reference to it as ‘hym’ (him). ‘Him’ being a translation of the Latin words “ipsum” and “ipso” which depending on the context in which it is used means he, she, or it.

    Jerome’s John 1:1. In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
    2. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
    3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.
    4.In ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum:

    Wycliffe’s John 1:1. In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
    2. This was in the bigynnyng at God.
    3. Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
    4. In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,

    Unfortunately for John Wycliffe his english translation and rebellion against what he saw as corruption in the clergy ultimately lead to him being declared a heretic, have his writings banned and he was put to death.

    Enter the next translator to make his mark in history, William Tyndale. He had access to and used something Wycliffe did not, the Greek text of Erasmus and the Hebrew texts. In Tyndale’s 1534 translation of John 1:1-4 concerning God’s ‘logos’ it reads as follows:

    John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
    2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
    3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
    4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

    The elephant in the room here is the seemingly little known fact that Tyndale did not personalize the ‘word’ (logos) instead referring to it as an “it” rather than “him”. “It” here is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, or it. By choosing to refer to logos as an ‘it’ tells me that Tyndale was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate, John Wycliffe or the pro-Nicene consensus. Nor were others influenced, those such as John Rodgers ‘Mathews Bible’. King Henry’s The Great Bible of 1539 or The Bishops Bible. Even Miles Coverdale eventually revised his 1535 translation and referenced logos as an ‘it’ rather than persona.

    History records that Queen Mary I resenting the earlier break with Papal Rome, ordered a stop to printing English language Bibles and strictly forbade their use in England’s churches. Tyndale was burned at the stake for heresy. His charge? A corrupt translation of the Bible. The reality? Papal clergy were afraid of something that he, John Wycliffe and others were not. That the common folk would see their hold on them and realize they did not need tradition and the decrees of old men’s imaginations to interpret the bible for them. These times of persecution gave rise to another bible known as the Geneva Bible, which for awhile became the Bible of the English-speaking nations and as I mentioned earlier ‘logos’ was not personalized in that translation either.

    Later with Queen Elizabeth’s rise to power she ordered the Great Bible again be placed in every church and encouraged its reading. The bishops in time made a revision known as the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 both bibles referred to the ‘word’ of God as an ‘it’ or a verbal expression of an idea or thought.

    In 1582 yet another translation was produced, one known as the Rheims New Testament entered into the ring. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin texts and earlier pro-nicean decrees. Once again these scholars chose to follow the pro-nicean consensus and personalize the latin word ‘Verbum’ in John 1:1-4 by referring to it as “him” in their translations just as previous Papal versions. From this point on many, and-I-do-mean-many, future English versions including one I own the famous 1611 King James version was influenced by the Rheims translation. It appears to have full circle, as once again the words God spoke is, in the great multitude of translations in circulation these days, referenced as persona (him). Instead of using the common sense God endowed everyone one of us with and defining the word ‘word/verbum/logos’ as an audible expression of information.

    Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines word as an articulate vocal sound or combination of articulate vocal sounds meant to express thought an idea or ideas.

    When God looked at creation and said it was good I include my brain and ability to reason as part of that thing He created and called good, it can be said I dont need anyone to tell me what things mean, though I think it is extremely beneficial to reason with one another. After reading the bible with my own eyes I made my own choice and find myself agreeing with Tyndales and other like translations of John 1:1-4 where the “logos” (word) of God in John 1:1 is defined as it is in Websters dictionary an audible expression of information, motive, thought, wisdom or idea pertaining to Yehovah. In that sense, ‘logos’ is an “it,” not a person, and being the expression of the thoughts of ones mind it is without gender or personality. ‘It’ fits the translation as ‘it’ aligns perfectly with passages found in Genesis chapter 1 verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20 and 24 where it is written “And God said…” In my Hebrew bible it quite clearly reveals by name who it was that created the heavens and earth in Genesis 2:4 ” it is written …Yehovah God made the earth and the heavens”. Further clarification how he created it is found in the Psalms 33:6,9 where it is written: By the word of Yehovah were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth… For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Nobody else was involved.

    Proverbs 3:9 Yehovah by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens.

    A king of flesh and blood has a father and a brother; but God says, With Me it is not so; “I am the first” because I have no father, and “I am the last” because I have no brother; and “besides me there is no God,” because I have no son’

    thats my opinion 🙂

      • In my opinion. All of creation, all matter in the universe is a product of God’s spoken word. What makes you or me different than the other guy?

    • so maybe the kehillat Yeshua needs to go over the manuscripts again and get rid of all the anti torah interpretations of the new covenant writings.
      re include books thats the anti semites of old took out. a fresh look at the hebrew book of matthew and revelation, maccabees etc.

      • If I understand your question correctly I offer you the words of Michah.

        “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does YHVH require of you, but to do justice, and to love loving mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”

        It is my understanding when you walk in darkness one should have a lamp to light the way. It is written: “Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.” But if you ask me even that has been twisted by the Nicolaitans and like lemmings the flock follows.

        Lets say you read a particular translation of John 1-1:4 and it defined God’s word as ‘him’. You might ask what that means and you would most likely be told by the professionals who parrot the pro-Nicean consensus of their church father, that ‘him’ is a reference to Jesus. Now I dont mean to speak for others but it would most likely lead you to believe if Jesus is the word described in John 1:1-4 then that must mean he is that light everyone must come too.

        Its been said the bible is its own best commentary. But there is nothing to back such an idea that Jesus is a light.

        There is another translation of John 1-1:4 which defines God’s word as ‘it’ an audible expression of His thoughts, will or ideas. You don’t have to ask anyone all you have to is look back in Tanach and you will find countless references to the words YHVH himself breathed and men wrote down, it is those words which are the light we are to follow, namely His Torah.

        It seems to me Tyndale was right unfortunetly he was put to death because of it.

        Thats my opinion 🙂

    • I’m not sure what difference it makes whether you call the LOGOS “him” or “it”?

      John 1:14 still says: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, …”

      Isn’t this still Yeshua either way? How have you changed anything?

  15. i thought (ha)satan meant the adversary and therefore able to manifest personally as a spirit in either one person or many as in a gathering of like minded people.
    I think that YHVH is God alone and Yeshua being the messiah is His son and are both One in spirit but seperate entities.
    the followers of YHVH are all one in spirit and messiah is the head (of the followers)

  16. Nehemia, I love your Hebrew Voices podcast. Please keep up the great work.

    I do have a question. I think you would agree that God appeared as a man several times in the Torah (for example, Genesis 18). If you don’t think that, please correct my assumption and provide your interpretation. On the other hand, if you have no problem with God appearing there as a man, and yet simultaneously not vacating his position as a spiritual being ruling the physical and spiritual worlds, why would the idea of God coming as a man, the Messiah, perhaps even Jesus of Nazareth, be a difficult concept for you? It seems to me that the model for the concept is already present in the Torah.

    Also, in Daniel 7, the “Son of Man” is described as “coming on the clouds.” Is this not a description that is reserved in the Torah, Psalms, etc., for Yehovah? I thought the use was basically a polemic against Ba’al (the cloud rider). Does this then name the Messiah as Yehovah in the Daniel 7 passage (again, referencing the previous concept of Yehovah present as a man, while still a distinct spiritual being)?

    Thanks in advance! Again, I love your content, enthusiasm, and willingness to make scholarly content accessible.

    Eric

    • Hi Eric, Jews generally believe that when people saw Yehovah in the Tanakh, they actually saw an angel. For example, regarding Moses in Exodus 3:2 and Gideon in Judges 6:11, it says they were speaking to Yehovah, but this is also described as an “angel”. The common Jewish understanding is that it was an angel representing Yehovah. This is based on verses such as Exodus 33:20, “for a man cannot see me and live” (what follows in Ex 33 is an exception to the rule). There is a concept called “Dual Causality” according to which the same attribute can be assigned both to Yehovah and one of His agents, whether it be an angel or a human. For example, it says there is no “savior” besides Yehovah (Isaiah 43:11), yet we can read that Othniel is a “savior” (Judges 3:9). Yehovah saved Israel through Othniel.

      • Doesn’t Exodus 33:20 say no man can see His “face” and live? I like to use the “two or three witness” rule, even within the Tanakh.

        I’m not saying I don’t believe things that only occur once, but I am a lot less convinced and I’m not willing to make a whole doctrine on something that only appears once.

        Basically, if something only appears once, I’m thinking I’m not translating correctly or not understanding fully.

  17. TWO PEOPLE ARE PRESENT besides John.

    Revelation 1:4…Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come (Yehovah is the one who is, who was and is to come), and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 AND from Yeshua ha Mashiach, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. (The Father and the Son are both mentioned)

    To Him who loved us and washed[a] us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings[b] and priests to**** His God and Father*******, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Please note: Yeshua has a God!
    [Also see John 20:17
    17 Yeshua said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to**** My God and your God****.’”
    (Also see: 1 Corinthians 11:3, Matthew 27:46, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Hebrews 1:8,9 ,John 14:28)]

    7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. (Yeshua)

    8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,”[c] says the Lord,[d] “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Yehovah)

    The Father is the one who was, who is and who is to come.
    Yeshua says: “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys (nails) of Hades and Death.

  18. Shalom Nehemia,

    May I just say a big Thank You for transcribing the manuscript. Also a big thank you to everyone in the discussion. It is nice that although we may hold different and various views, we can discuss with dignity. I find that by doing so all benefit and I certainly have learned quite a few things that I had not been aware of. Again thanks!

    This manuscript is amazing and it is more than likely written by a Jewish scribe with distinct understandings…

  19. As always Nehemia, the passion you have been given for The Word of Yehovah, to seek out truth where ever it may be enriches all of us. Thank you.

  20. These discussions are truly a gift. Revealing the hidden things so as to bring clarity to the Oracles of Yehovah as given to us by Moses & the Prophets.

  21. John 10:1-16 has a lot of the same concepts as this passage in Revelation. There are walls and a gate around a sheepfold, but I was imagining an orchard (garden, paradise), but maybe that’s a little too much influence from C.S. Lewis. 😉 But also a stranger (Nicolaitan), whose voice we should not listen to. Anyway, it’s fun watching all the themes continue throughout the Tanakh and then into the Apostolic writings. Thank you for this show!

  22. The nail/key discovery and it’s application to Yehoshua using similar nails used in the crucifixion to literally unlock the doors in sheol/hades/the grave to lead out those held captive there.. perhaps the ones witnessed by the living in Mat t27:52? Amazing!

    • This past week PBS aired a documentary titled “The Last Days of Jesus”. They discussed roman crucifixion methods and showed nails in museum collection that are bent and curled under like a fish hook. The expert concluded that this happened when the condemned was nailed to the olive wood as the execution stake was lying on the ground. Presumably bending the tip of the nail as it hit the hard rocky ground after passing through the wood. Giving a shape that generally could resemble a key. Possibly even function like a key in a primitive lock of those times.

      • I thought they bent the tips on purpose after nailing the victim to the cross so the nails could not come back out. In Mel Gibson’s film they turned them over after nailing them on, face down in the dirt, and purposefully bent the nails.

  23. I have a theory that “those who say they are Jews…” could be translated (though not necessarily literally) “those who say they are praisers of YaH….” The same could be applied to Romans 2:28-29

  24. I never thanked you for when you were in Stavanger, Norway and gave a most interesting talk. Thanks and may Jehovah continue to bless you in His work. I have three books that that you and Keith Johnson wrote to geather. May Jehovah bless you. Thanks again. Gerard R. Rasmussen.

  25. Sad that trinity stuff is in here, but I once believed that. Hopefully they will be delivered from it and understand it is the literal Father and literal Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father which is also in the Son, and in us all who are His. Not a third person, but rather the personal power and Presence of the Father.
    The Lord’s day is either the Sabbath or the day of His return. There is nothing Scriptural to suggest that this refers to the day He was resurrected.

    • I agree with you about those doctrines that have twisted the straight path of Yehovah.

      AJ does not realize how insightful his statement was when he alluded to Rev. 2:9 as being the perverted version of the church. I believe the evidence for this is the doctrine of the Trinity, worshiping a man as God and replacement theology.

  26. My thoughts on the nails/key…That Yeshua bearing our sins and having His blood shed through the crucifixion (very similar to Leviticus 10:17) IS the key to overcoming sin and death (meaning the second death). Hence the nails are the keys.

  27. A J mentions that keys and nails both close things, but also the Hebrew word mafteach has the root patach; to open.

  28. Shalom,
    I want to thank you for your work, it has help me much in my faith, as you have help bring understand to the word of YAH to me.

  29. First of all Thank you- Truly amazing and a delight to be able to study and ask questions without being made to feel stupid.. Shalom

    My thoughts on ” I am the first and the last. (18)
    And
    the one who lives, and I was dead and behold I live forever and ever. ”

    It didn’t make sense to me what was stated about this verse.
    The scriptures below .. and if looking at patterns in scripture, reminds me of ….

    Hosea 6:7
    But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

    Romans 5:14
    Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.

    1 Corinthians 15:22
    For as in Adam all die, so in Messiah all will be made alive.

    1 Corinthians 15:45
    So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

    http://biblehub.com/isr/1_corinthians/15.htm

    • Angela thank you for this, how interesting.
      I too have a few thoughts on those lines..

      The first Adam before the fall had the promise of eternal life and access to the tree of life, but failed .

      The last Adam holds the key (nails) to eternal life because he has not failed and had been in a position to put down his life because he could.
      Why?
      Because he did not have any corrupting seed as of the first Adam after his fall. His body therefore need not have died,(just like the first Adam before his fall) hence Yeshua put down his life on his own free will.

      He had been the only human being to be able to do so “The first and with it the last” , no other human is in a position for such action…

      first one who lives, and need not have died
      last one who put down his life and died.(and lives)

      And behold he lives forever and ever, therefore he holds the keys (nails) of death and sheol.

      I hope this makes sense..

  30. Firstly, Thank You so much for this post. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time with anticipation! How I wish that the Hebrew translation of this book could be found in it’s entirety.

    Of course, I was very much looking forward to hearing Nehemia’s take on the meaning of Rev 2:9. I’ve always found the modern explanations, at best, rather feeble and at worst, contradictory to the rest of what I hold to be scripture. It seems that this particular puzzle piece warrants further study for some historical context.

    I just need to cite one correction regarding Rev 2:13 and the letter to the church at Pergamus. AJ Bernard stated that this church only receives condemnation. The church at Pergamom actually receives one commendation,

    Rev 2:13 reads as follows “I know where you are living, where Satan’s throne is, Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you do not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one,who was killed among you where Satan lives.” (NAOB)

    Also, to shed more light on the meaning of “where Satan lives” requires a historical lens on the city of Pergamom and how it was renowned in antiquity for it’s political, cultural and religious influence. (intriguing side note – Pergamom contained a monument dedicated to the Olympian gods, primarily Zeus and it looked like a giant throne)

    With that said, Mr. Bernard’s statement can be astutely applied to Rev 3:14 – 22 in regard to the church of Laodicea, in which it only receives rebuke.

    Again, Many Thanks!

      • The meaning of the word Pergamom is very interesting as it would also suggest a word play that coincides with character flaws of this church as stated in Rev 2:12-16.

        Another school of thought suggests that the letter to the seven churches is a prophetic unfolding of church history from it’s beginning to modern times. The time period of the “Pergamom age” would coincide with the 4th century CE, when Constantine made Christianity the favored religion of the Roman Empire, the hierarchy of bishops was formed, a solar-planetary calendar was introduced (which replaced the scriptural calendar), pagan philosophies and festivals were assimilated into Christian theology and tradition and thus the Church received temporal power and benefits (not unlike a fortified and perverted marriage).

Please leave a comment.