WATCHMEN BIBLE STUDY GROUP "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." — Psalm 119:105  Contact Editor  | Bible studies  | Newer students  |  Bible Q & A's  |  Study tools  | Search our site Library/Bookstore  |  Statement of faith  |  New material on site  | Join our mailing list  |  Home Page

QUESTION LIST #15:

1. What denomination is Watchmen Bible Study Group?

2. Noah's flood and eating of flesh

3. How can I find a good church?

4. Why the various different names for Moses' Father in law?

5. How do we 'know' that the word "knew" in Hebrew (yada`) means "sexual intercourse?"

6. The 'one-third' souls of Rev 12:4 and the 'fallen angels'

7. Are the Two Witnesses to be flesh men?

8. Does God NEED the four beasts, the Zoon, to protect Him?

9. Did Moses marry a Kenite? 

| To list of all questions on Website |

Question #9
| Back to top |

Did Moses marry a Kenite?

John writes:

Greetings, if the kenites are the children of cain, then why did Moses, a good man of God, marry one of them?

Thanks, John

 

Answer:

Hello John:

Let's look at the Scripture in question:

Judg 1:16
16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.  (KJV)

children: Hebrew word #1121 ben (bane);  from 1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like 1, 251, etc.]): 

Moses' father in law is referred to as 'Kenite' because he was from the land of the Kenites, he was a stranger in a strange land:

Exod 18:1-3
1 When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt;
2 Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back,
3 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land: (KJV)

Exod 3:1
1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.  (KJV)

To be a priest of Midian, Moses' father in law needed to be a full blood Midianite.  The Tribe of Midian descended from Abraham, not Cain (thus not a Kenite):

Gen 25:1-2
1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
(KJV)

It is just like when an African becomes a German citizen, the African does not change race, he is still African (black) but his children are German citizens and properly referred to as Germans, not Africans.  By the same token, Moses' father in law lived among the Kenites, but by birth he was a Midianite, a Midianite Priest even.

I hope that helps.  God bless!

Nick

| Back to top |

Question #8
| Back to top |

Does God NEED the four beasts (the Zoon) to protect Him?

Bonnie writes:

Dear Nick, I have been reading on your site, Questions List#14, Question #8 on The Mercy Seat, [Why did The Mercy Seat need to be protected and guarded in Ezekiel 28:14?] and have a question. Cannot God protect Himself from attack?  Why does He need the four beasts, the Zoon, to protect Him?  I know the answer is, of course, God can protect Himself.  Why does He want them there?

God Bless You, I am learning so much with your website. Bonnie

 

Answer:

        Hi Bonny, thank you for the kind words.  I wonder if you don’t misunderstand, though; God does not NEED the "the four beasts, the Zoon," He created them to fulfill His will, to complete His tasks.

        God no more NEEDED the Zoon to guard the throne than He NEEDED Solomon to build Him a Temple.  But He had Solomon to build it.  God did not need to sent the angel Gabriel to tell Mother Mary what was going to transpire, but He did send him.  God did not need a man, Moses, to lead His people out of the Egyptian bondage, but He used and sent him. &c...

        All throughout the Bible, God has used His people and His created spiritual 'beings' (angels &c.) to fulfill His will and to complete His tasks.  Question: Is it really so out of character for the Creator to delegate tasks and duties to His creation?

        Bonnie, God created us because He desired companionship. What, they would say, God gets lonely?  Well, we are made in God's image, do we not feel lonesomeness?  Is it really so hard to realize that our Lord God created us for His pleasure and good company, and that He would have some of us to work under Him doing certain tasks as he saw fit?  After all, we are created for God’s good pleasure: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Rev 4:11).

        God always does 'stuff' through mankind when He can, and when man fails, He steps in to complete His will.  There is a reason for that.  Our Heavenly Father is not some 'un-reachable,' 'un-understandable,' 'mystery Spirit' floating around out in space somewhere; He is our Heavenly Father.  And yes He has emotions.  A quick look at Scripture reveals many of the emotions of God; and you know, they are the same emotions that we experience: "...saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury..." (Jer 7:20), "...the joy of the LORD is your strength." (Neh 8:10), "...God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth..." (Nahum 1:2), "Jesus wept." (John 11:35), "...the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy" (James 5:11), &c...

        If you want a deeper answer, I think that it would be this: Man (no gender implied) is/are God’s children, they are His souls, He created them "Behold, all souls are mine..." (Ezek 18:4).  And bearing that in mind, allow me to express it my own words thusly:  "Man, by man, fell; and now God wants us to help each other — He wants us to care."

God bless!

Nick

| Back to top |

Question #7
| Back to top |

Are the Two Witnesses to be flesh men?

James writes:

My question is this: Do you think it is possible for Enoch, Moses, and Elijah to reenter flesh bodies in order to accomplish God's will, since they were transfigured? I feel that Moses and Elijah are the two witnesses, and they must be born into this world in order to spill their blood, and accomplish God's will. I do not believe in reincarnation, however the transfiguration could allow it only with God's special approval. Christ was transfigured, and maybe that explains Melchezidek?

Also, what if the two witnesses happened to be Professional wrestlers? Jacob wrestled God in the beginning, could not the two witnesses wrestle the corrupt church in the end? Remember the two witnesses will die in an arena in Jerusalem.

James from Tennessee:

 

Answer:

        Hi James.  Well, no one knows for sure who the Two Witnesses will be, for it is not written other than that they are "the two olive trees" and "the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth" (Rev 11:4).  Some people say that the two Witness are the Old and the New Testament, but I agree with you in that they will be flesh men; for they are "clothed in sackcloth," they give "testimony," they are "overcome," they "die," they have bodies that "lie in the street," and finally, by God’s doing, the "Spirit of life from God enters them" again, and they "stand upon their feet" (Rev 11:3-11), this the inanimate Old and New Testament books cannot do.

        But reincarnation?  No way!  Reincarnation is a lie from satan to deceived people into thinking that they have a 'second chance' after death.  It is akin to the first lie in the Bible "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4).  And if Elijah or Enoch, whom were translated, were to be the Two Witnesses, then they would not need new flesh bodies, for theirs never died. As well, if Moses did not die, then the same would apply to him.  How could their flesh bodies be kept alive for thousands of years?  That would be such a small thing to accomplish for Him whom simply spoke and nothing became everything.

        I'm sure you jest about the Pro-Wrestlers, but rather than "wrestling the corrupt end-time church," I feel that they will witnesses to the deceived masses of the world (including the church) and perhaps some will be saved because of it; after all, the 144,000 are sealed in the very end.  Or perhaps the Two Witnesses must declare the truth whereby none can claim that they were not warned. God always sends warning first before He destroys. That is why the Prophets were never ‘welcome,’ they bring tidings of punishment.

        As far as Melchizedec, we have a piece on the subject at: Did Jacob wrestle with Jesus, and who was Melchizedec? 

God bless!

Nick

| Back to top |

Question #6
| Back to top |

The 'one-third' souls of Rev 12:4 and the 'fallen angels'

Brenda writes: [Bracketed text inserted by WBSG]

Dear Nick,

Your response to my query about Strong's #3045 [knew -yada`, referring to question #5 below], was a true blessing to my daughter, but I must tell you that I learned as much as she did.  A sincere God Bless You! 

And while I have your attention, the article that you posted "Facts are Facts" by Mr. Freedman blew me away. I hope everyone will take time out to do a study [Referring to: Facts Are Facts — THE TRUTH ABOUT KHAZARS (the so-called Jews).].  Again thank-you. 

I hope you don't mind but I have another question.  I study with Pastor (A fine Christian Minister) [The Shepherd's Chapel] on channel 62, today he said that he believed that the third of (Gods Children) [Rev 12:4a] that joined satan in the attempted take-over [The Katabolè, see "The Foundation of the World"] was living in this generation of the fig tree [Our generation, the final generation. Mark 13:28-30].  If this is what I understood, these are not the same ones as the fallen angels that seduced women [Gen 6:1-4], Am I correct?  My understanding was that the fallen angels were being held with satan, until they were [to be — future yet] cast out with satan [Rev 12:7-9] when he returns playing Jesus [2nd Thes 2:3-4].  Am I correct in thinking that, that third must be born of woman to decide whether or not to love God.  Now having said that, would this not be considered a second chance?

Sincerely, Brenda

 

Answer:

Hi Brenda, 

        I placed some helps in brackets in your above correspondence, as some newer students might not understand the things to which you refer to.  I agree with Pastor (A fine Christian Minister) about the one-third living in our generation. For one thing, it would only be fair to subject them to the antichrist (satan) that they followed the first time; for it is solely because of this that we are even in this flesh age.  And secondly, look at people, I mean look into their hearts.  You have 10 & 12 year olds raping and killing.  At ten 10 or 12 I didn't even know what a girl was, much less think to force her, and kill? And you have gangs (even girl gangs now) where the initiation is to go out and shoot someone.  Just for the hell of it!  And if they die, they die, if they don't they don't. These people are just plain rotten way deep inside.  There is no other way to explain it.

        But as you suspected, the one-third are not the fallen angels. The fallen angels are angels (spiritual beings, not flesh, per say), the one-third are people in the flesh now.  Allow me to make a quick explanation for the newer student:  In the world that was (2nd Pet 3:6 , Gen 1:1) all souls lived, we were all alive in the first earth age.  Then satan rebelled (Isa 14:12-14) and caused one-third of the souls (God's children) to join him in a rebellion and attempted take-over of the Throne of God (Rev 12:4a).  At that time, we were all alive yes, but we were in spiritual bodies (1st Cor 15:44).  

        God promptly destroyed that first earth age (Gen 1:2a, See also "The Foundation of the World" ) and recalled all souls back to Him, so to speak.  At that time satan (Lucifer, the devil, the dragon,... he's the same one entity) was judged to eternal death, "...and never shalt thou be any more" (Ezek 28:16-19).  This judgment has not yet been executed, but is written of in Rev 20:10). 

        God now had a dilemma on His hands, what to do with the one-third of His children who joined satan and rebelled against God?  Well God chose not to destroy those one-third of His children as He had sentenced satan to destruction.  look at it like this: "if you had three children, could you bring yourself to kill one of them, no matter how they had betrayed you?" 

        So God created this second earth age in where the souls would be tried again.  Is this a second chance, you ask?  Yes it is.  Will there be any more second chances in this age?  No, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb 9:27).  This entire age, this world, and the existence that we know is one big second chance.  But not all fell in the first earth age, not all followed satan.  But all must go through this second age, this flesh life, wherein every soul is born innocent into this world having no recollection of that first age, nor whether they stood or fell during that first age.

        Unfair?  Well, we know that God is not unfair!  And I wonder which of us would have resent it, or would have objected if God decided to give the one-third of our brethren a second chance by running this second age?  Not that I say that God acted by committee.  But we are all here nonetheless.

        And before we get into too much into finger-pointing at the one-third who followed satan — the other two-thirds didn't do so hot either.  For if all of the other two-thirds had remained steadfast, the rebellion would have been put down without requiring God's drastic intervention (the termination of an entire age).  Perhaps the great majority of those remaining two-thirds were like the great majority of people today; i.e., while they are not inherently evil, they are monumentally indifferent.

God bless!

Nick

| Back to top |

Question #5
| Back to top |

How do we 'know' that the word "knew" in Hebrew (yada`) means "sexual intercourse?"

Brenda Asks:

Dear Nick,
I've known for years that the word "knew" in Hebrew means "sexual intercourse".  I'm having a problem explaining this to my daughter.  [Hebrew word #] 3045  does not say sexual intercourse.  With the way you explain things I'm sure she will have no more doubt that this is what it means,"3045 that is".   Your help in this matter will be so appreciated.  Nick, you might think that this request is somewhat trivial,  and a waste of your time,  but I just don't have the words for her.

Sincerely
Brenda

Answer:

        Hello, I don't know how old your daughter is, so you can screen this.  I know what your daughter means, the problem lies in the fact that while the word 'know' can mean 'sexual knowledge' (as in carnal knowledge), it also has many other meanings in the Hebrew.  And while this indeed may appear trivial to some, the Homosexual Left and their sympathizers & enablers have an agenda to take that very definition away from the word (sex).  I know that this isn't the subject of your question, but allow me to take advantage of the opportunity to cover some other issues regarding this word.  The Homosexual Agendist's say that the below Scripture does not mean that the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to rape (sodomize) the men (Angels of the Lord really), but that these nice town folks simply wanted to be introduced to the men and to give the a big Sodom hello, and make them feel welcome in Sodom:

Gen 19:5-8
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [yada`] them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known [yada`] man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.  (KJV)

        Well, whatever they could have done with the virgin female inhabitants of Sodom (vs.8) they wanted to do to the men (vs.5).  And I'm quite sure that it wasn't to give them the 'key to the city.'  If we followed the verse down we would have seen that even after the Angels struck those men of Sodom blind, they still groped blindly for the door handle to 'know' the Angels.  Now either the men of Sodom were so far gone and wholly perverse, or they were one seriously dedicated welcome committee.  

        Enough jesting, They were completely spiritually perverted down to their very core and God killed every one of them the next day.  But today we have 'gay' Christian churches... The time truly must be near....  But anyway, as supplied above, the word in question is yada`, and as you know it is found in the Strong's:

Hebrew word #3045 yada` (yaw-dah'); a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) [as follow]:   KJV-- acknowledge, acquaintance (-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, [un-] awares, can [-not], certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be [ig-] norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have [knowledge], (be, make, make to be, makeself) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot.

        You observe that the word has multi-meanings, so while it can mean sex, it does not always mean sex.  I highlighted the references above that could be considered sexual in nature to show that yada` can mean sex.

        The word 'knew' or know' could be kind of looked at like our English word "had."  Please understand that I am just making an analogy here, I am not saying that the word yada` is translated into the English "had."  But rather I am illustrating the idiosyncrasies of the word.

        Example:  I could say to you that I had dinner.  Ok, fine, I ate dinner, right?  Or, I could say that I had a bad day, Ok, so work was a bummer, so far so good, right?  But what if I said that after work, 'my luck changed' and I went home to find my wife naked in bed, I then had her (sorry for the graphics), and what's more, nine months later, to the very day, she had our first child.

        By the context, and the picture that the surrounding words and thoughts painted, it is clear that I had sex with my wife that day.  In this same way we must determine the context of many Hebrew words.  The Hebrew language is set up on a 'different system' than our English language.  The Hebrew language is 'pictorial,' in other words, when you say a Hebrew word, it invokes an image in your mind.  That image is hard to put into so many English words, in fact it often takes more than one English word to describe a Hebrew word.  An excellent example of that would be the first word in the Bible.  In the Hebrew language the first word in the Bible is B^aree'shiyt, but the English must supply three words to translate that one Hebrew word, i.e., Hebrew word #7225 B^aree'shiyt = "In the beginning." 

        So then how do we determine the value of the word yada` when we encounter it in a Scripture?  We take the word in context with the passage.  There are many different uses of the word yada` and many (most) of them do not mean sex, for the verb appears 1040 times in the Old Testament (say's Vines Bible Dictionary).  But below I have supplied several passages where the meaning of the word yada` is unmistakably sexual in nature.  In the below, the word (and words) used to translate yada` are in bold underline: 

Hebrew word #3045 yada`

Gen 4:25
25 And Adam knew [yada`] his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.  (KJV)

Gen 19:5-8
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [yada`] them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known [yada`] man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.  (KJV)

Gen 24:16
16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her [yada`]: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. (KJV)

Num 31:17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known [yada`] man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known [yada`] a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.  (KJV)

        Another excellent thing about the King James Bible is that the Translators often give us clues to word meanings by their selection of certain words in the New compared to the Old Testament.  Whale the New And Old Testament are in two separate languages, the Translators built in a sort of dictionary by translating certain Hebrew and Greek words into the same one English word.  Our word "knew" is just such an example.  Observe how the translators kept the thought of the Hebrew word yada` even though they were translating the Greek word ginosko (knew):

Greek word# 1097 ginosko (ghin-oce'-ko); a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed): KJV-- allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know (-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

Matt 1:23-25
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew [ ginosko] her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.  (KJV)

        The real and main difficulty, I think, is that people do not realize that sometimes understanding certain passages in the Bible isn't as easy as just reading them in English.  That is why you have many people who have read the Bible 'cover to cover,' but very few who truly understand it in depth.  There is reason for that:

Matt 13:9-11 (Jesus speaking)
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.  (KJV)

        God is all-fair, and it is God's providence to give to whom He will, understanding; and to withhold it from whom He will, irregardless of any persons schooling or intelligence level.  If intelligence or schooling were prerequisite for understanding the Scriptures, the University professors would all be Christians, but sadly for them, it seems that the most intelligent men are least faithful.  So like the Poet's hell, they are lost in their 'gifts.'  " For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." (1 Cor 3:19).

1 Cor 3:18-21
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;  (KJV)

1 Cor 2:11-16
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  (KJV)

1 Cor 1:18
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)

        God bless, and I hope I helped (perhaps I rambled on a bit); and I hope it wasn't too 'racy' there for a moment (regarding the sex with the wife thing), but I wanted to give an example that was complete within itself, I trust that I have.

Nick

I'll close this with an Article from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words:

"KNOW"

yada` ^3045^, "to know." This verb occurs in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Arabic (infrequently), biblical Aramaic, and in Hebrew in all periods. This verb occurs about 1,040 times (995 in Hebrew and 47 in Aramaic) in the Bible.

Essentially yada` means: (1) to know by observing and reflecting (thinking), and (2) to know by experiencing. The first sense appears in <Gen. 8:11>, where Noah "knew" the waters had abated as a result of seeing the freshly picked olive leaf in the dove's mouth; he "knew" it after observing and thinking about what he had seen. He did not actually see or experience the abatement himself.

In contrast to this knowing through reflection is the knowing which comes through experience with the senses, by investigation and proving, by reflection and consideration (firsthand knowing). Consequently yada` is used in synonymous parallelism with "hear" <Exod. 3:7>, "see" <Gen. 18:21>, and "perceive, see" <Job 28:7>. Joseph told his brothers that were they to leave one of their number with him in Egypt then he would "know," by experience, that they were honest men <Gen. 42:33>. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the tree whose fruit if eaten would give them the experience of evil and, therefore, the knowledge of both good and evil. Somewhat characteristically the heart plays an important role in knowing. Because they experienced the sustaining presence of God during the wilderness wandering, the Israelites "knew" in their hearts that God was disciplining or caring for them as a father cares for a son <Deut. 8:5>. Such knowing can be hindered by a wrongly disposed heart <Ps. 95:10>.

Thirdly, this verb can represent that kind of knowing which one learns and can give back. So Cain said that he did not "know" he was Abel's keeper <Gen. 4:9>, and Abram told Sarai that he "knew" she was a beautiful woman <Gen. 12:11>. One can also "know" by being told-- in <Lev. 5:1> a witness either sees or otherwise "knows" (by being told) pertinent information. In this sense "know" is paralleled by "acknowledge" <Deut. 33:9> and "learn" <Deut. 31:12-13>. Thus, little children not yet able to speak do not "know" good and evil <Deut. 1:39>; they have not learned it so as to tell another what it is. In other words, their knowledge is not such that they can distinguish between good and evil.

In addition to the essentially cognitive knowing already presented, this verb has a purely experiential side. The "knower" has actual involvement with or in the object of the knowing. So Potiphar was unconcerned about (literally, "did not know about") what was in his house <Gen. 39:6>-- he had no actual contact with it. In <Gen. 4:1> Adam's knowing Eve also refers to direct contact with her-- in a sexual relationship. In <Gen. 18:19> God says He "knows" Abraham; He cared for him in the sense that He chose him from among other men and saw to it that certain things happened to him. The emphasis is on the fact that God "knew" him intimately and personally. In fact, it is parallel in concept to "sanctified" (cf. <Jer. 1:5>). A similar use of this word relates to God's relationship to Israel as a chosen or elect nation <Amos 3:2>.

Yada` in the intensive and causative stems is used to express a particular concept of revelation. God did not make Himself known by His name Jehovah to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He did reveal that name to them, that He was the God of the covenant. Nevertheless, the covenant was not fulfilled (they did not possess the Promised Land) until the time of Moses. The statement in <Exod. 6:3> implies that now God was going to make Himself known "by His name"; He was going to lead them to possess the land. God makes Himself known through revelatory acts such as bringing judgment on the wicked <Ps. 9:16> and deliverance to His people <Isa. 66:14>. He also reveals Himself through the spoken word-- for example, by the commands given through Moses <Ezek. 20:11>, by promises like those given to David <2 Sam. 7:21>. Thus, God reveals Himself in law and promise.

"To know" God is to have an intimate experiential knowledge of Him. So Pharaoh denies that he knows Jehovah <Exod. 5:2> or that he recognizes His authority over him. Positively "to know" God is paralleled to fear Him <1 Kings 8:43>, to serve <1 Chr. 28:9>, and to trust <Isa. 43:10>.

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)
(Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

| Back to top |

Question #4
| Back to top |

Why the various different names for Moses' Father in law?

Beth Asks:

Will you explain the various names for what is obviously one individual?

Exodus 3:1 - "Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midan; and ..."
Exodus 2:16-18 - "Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; ..... And when they came to Reuel their father, ..."
Numbers 10:29 - "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, ..."

Thanks in advance
Beth

 

Answer:

        Hello, you asked regarding Moses' Father in Law: "Will you explain the various names for what is obviously one individual?"  

        Perhaps.  But first let me point out that this is not the first time in the Bible that a person is known under two names.  One that everyone is familiar with is Peter who was called Simon.

Matt 10:2
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;  (KJV)

        As regarding Moses' Father in Law, we actually only have two different names, not three.  I know how the English reads, but both Reuel and Raguel are the same Hebrew word Re`uw'el, Strong's # 7467.  Below we supply every occurrence of #7467 in the Old Testament (they are not all the same people though they have the same name).

Reuel and Raguel:  Hebrew word #7467 Re` uw'el (reh-oo-ale'); from the same as 7466 and 410; friend of God; Reuel, the name of Moses' father-in-law, also of an Edomite and an Israelite: KJV-- Raguel, Reuel.

Every occurrence of Hebrew word #7467 (KJV)

Gen 36:4
4 And Adah bare to Esau Eliphaz; and Bashemath bare Reuel; (KJV)

Gen 36:10
10 These are the names of Esau's sons; Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau. (KJV)

Gen 36:13
13 And these are the sons of Reuel; Nahath, and Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah: these were the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife. (KJV)

Gen 36:17
17 And these are the sons of Reuel Esau's son; duke Nahath, duke Zerah, duke Shammah, duke Mizzah: these are the dukes that came of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife. (KJV)

Exod 2:18
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day? (KJV)

Num 10:29
29 And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel. (KJV)

1 Chr 1:35
35 The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah. (KJV)

1 Chr 1:37
37 The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. (KJV)

1 Chr 9:8
8 And Ibneiah the son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, the son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephathiah, the son of Reuel, the son of Ibnijah; (KJV)

        So that explains two out of the three.  As far as Jethro, it is just another name that the man was called.  Why?  Perhaps the answer lies in the name-meanings.  We know that in the Hebrew every name has a meaning, i.e., Lo-Ammi = "not my people," i.e., " Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God." (Hosea 1:9).  And Moses means "drawn from the water," for he was 'drawn from the water' by Pharaoh's Daughter, i.e., "And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water." (Exod 2:10).  

        Further light is shed on the subject by Smith's Bible Dictionary which gives the meanings of the two (three) names as:

Reuel and Raguel: = Friend of God.

Jethro: = Excellence.

• Dr. Smith handles the situation with a footnote as follows: "Reuel was probably his proper name, and Jethro his official title." — Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1979 edition, pg. 309
  
  
• Pastor Arnold (A fine Christian Minister) , in his commentary on Exodus 18:1, also states that the name Jehtro was a title (His Excellency), and Reuel being Moses' Father in law's proper name. — (another Ministry on TV) Exodus Tapeset.  
  
  
• E.W. Bullinger, in his Companion Bible, states of Jethro that he is Reuel with no further comment except a reference to Ex 2:18.  At Ex 2:18, under the name Reuel, Bullinger notes that the name in Hebrew means "friend of God," and that he is the same man as the Raguel of Num 10:29 and that he was "a true worshipper" (of Jehovah), referencing Ex 18:12 (where Jethro dutifully sacrifices to Jehovah). — Companion Bible, ppg. 75, 98. 

        That Jethro is his title name make sense, for the very definition of Jethro means means "his excellence."  May we read it therefore as "his excellency" in title form?

Jethro:  Hebrew word #3503 Yithrow (yith-ro'); from # 3499 with pron. suffix; his excellence; Jethro, Moses' father-in-law: KJV-- Jethro. Compare 3500.

#3499 yether (yeh'-ther); from 3498; properly, an overhanging, i.e. (by implication) an excess, superiority, remainder; also a small rope (as hanging free):  KJV-- + abundant, cord, exceeding, excellancy (-ent), what they leave, that hath left, plentifully, remnant, residue, rest, string, with.

        Another example of a title being used as a proper name in Scripture would be with Herod, for there are seven different "Herods" in the New Testament (See Appendix # 109).  It therefore may be said that Herod was somewhat of a family title.  Also, there are many different Pharaohs, Pharaoh being a title just as King is a title.

        One thing is sure, the Holy Spirit made certain that we would know whom it was that was being spoken of, for in addition to the man's name, several additional identifiers were given in the Scriptures, i.e., 

Exod 2:16-18
16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?  (KJV)

Exod 3:1
1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.  (KJV)

Num 10:29
29 And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel.  (KJV)

God bless!

Nick

| Back to top |

Question #3
| Back to top |

How can I find a good church?

David asks:

Good morning Nick. I know you only endorse Shepard's Chapel, but I was wondering are there any churches you would recommend in the Dallas metro area? God bless. (currently attending XXX XXXXX Bible Fellowship, pastor is XXXX XXXXX)

David

 

Answer:

Hello, we get asked this question quite often.  But without studying a Church's teaching for some time it would be impossible to recommend them.  For so often a Church will be correct about one thing, but then totally 'blow it' on another topic, that is why it is imperative for the student of God's Word to check everything out in their Bibles.  We can recommend Shepherds chapel because we have studied them for many years.  Perhaps E.W. Bullinger hit your answer for you:

God bless!

Nick

| Back to top |

Question #2
| Back to top |

Noah's flood and eating of flesh

Delores asks:

Why does God allow eating of flesh AFTER Noah's flood but not prior to it? No one seems to know the answer. thank you.

Answer:

Well, Delores, where ever did God forbade the eating of flesh?  Answer;  He did not!  What you are no doubt drawing from is where God said that the plants would be food for people and animals.  It does not forbid eating flesh.

Gen 1:29-31
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.  (KJV)

To say that because God told people to eat plants that He forbade eating meat is to read into the Scriptures that which is not there. For Paul documents that animals were indeed created to be eaten by people for food.  The below is expressing that Gentiles are not to be considered 'unclean' and 'common', but the fact remains that God created animals to be for food:

1 Tim 4:1-4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:  (KJV)

God does not change things on a whim, God created our flesh bodies with the capability to digest meats.  God also designed our teeth as the teeth of meat eaters.  Able was a shepherd ( a raiser of sheep), and Able sacrificed one of the flock to God.  man was not given dominion over the fish and animals for the sake of keeping them as pets; Able did not keep herds of sheep as pets, they were a food staple:

Gen 1:26
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 creepeth upon the earth.  (KJV)

Gen 4:2-4
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:  (KJV)

The 'Animal Rights' extremists and the mystical Eastern false religions try to make it look like God made us to be vegetarians.  This is a lie, for even Jesus Christ ate meat and fish.  The only foods that God told us not to eat were foods that were harmful to our bodies, like Pork and shellfish; these are called "Unclean Foods" as we saw that Peter refused to eat:

Acts 10:10-14
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.  (KJV)

It might also be noted that the Catholic teaching not to eat meat on Fridays during Lent is not a Biblical teaching, nor is the holiday of Lent contained the Bible.

God bless!

Nick  

| Back to top |

Question #1
| Back to top |

What denomination is Watchmen Bible Study Group?

Marilyn Asks:

I have a question for you. Can you tell what denomination you are?  I can't figure it out. thanks.

 

Answer:

     Hello, nice to hear from you;  I could answer by saying that we are in the same denomination that Jesus started, before man started 'divvying it up,' that is.   

    The idea of ‘different denominations' is foreign to the plan of God.  The very word "denominations" indicates "divisions," for you cannot have a second denomination lest it divides from the first.   Both Jesus and Paul touched on the subject:

Mark 3:24-25 (Jesus speaking)
24    And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25    And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  (KJV)

1 Cor 3:1-11 (Apostle Paul speaking)
1    And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2    I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3    For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4    For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5    Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6    I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7    So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8    Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9    For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10    According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11    For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.  (KJV)

      We at Watchmen Bible Study Group are a non-denominational Bible believing fellowship.  We ‘gather' over the Internet to study God's Word as it is written and leave off all the traditions of man that so often contradict that pure Word of God.  

      Example:  While you cannot find it in God's written Word, the Catholics have their mythical place called Purgatory, the Protestant/Baptists have their imaginary Raptures;  the Pentecostals and Charasmatics have their (evil) spiritual manifestations, i.e., babbling in ‘tongues' and ‘slain in the spirit';  the Orthodox have their Icons (idolatry) as does the Roman Catholic Church; the Lutherans, Angelicans, Church of England are starting to ordain homosexuals and marry them in God's House (as also an ever increasing number of denominations and Parishes are).  We say let them have at it, but we will not participate!  Well said the Psalmist and repeated by Apostle Paul:

Ps 14:2-3
2    The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3    They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  (KJV)

Rom 3:10-12
10    As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11    There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12    They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.   (KJV)

God bless!

Nick

| To list of all questions on Website |
| Back to top |

In His Service:
              Nick Goggin 
Editor;
WATCHMEN BIBLE STUDY GROUP

Contact Editor  | Bible studies  | Newer students  |  Bible Q & A's  |  Study tools  | Search our site
Library/Bookstore  |  Statement of faith  |  New material on site  | Join our mailing list  |  Home Page

NOTE: To insure quality and content integrity, these In-depth Bible Studies are © copyrighted  and may only be downloaded for study and shared private use.  They may not be reproduced or distributed for sale or publication without prior written approval.  Other Christian Web sites are welcome to link up to this Website or any page on it.