Hi Dave
Thanks for your letter dated May 8th, to start with though I would like to further comment on a couple of points in your previous letter dated April 30th. You are right that though Paul mentions one Lord, one faith, one baptism, this does not mean that only one of each of these actually exists. Jesus mentions his own baptism into his martyrs death and John the baptist's baptisms were in symbol of repentance which is different again from the baptism of Christians. Jesus commanded his followers to make disciples and baptise them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit, this is reported in the gospel of Matthew and not in one of Paul's letters. This kind of baptism was prescribed by Jesus for his followers, so Paul was referring to this as the "one baptism".
Also with "one Lord", you used the occasion where Jesus cited Psalm 110:1 as an example of 2 Lords being mentioned, but as you surely know the first Lord is an inaccurate translation of YHWH and only the second is really Lord or master from the Hebrew Adhoni. Jesus here was referring to himself as David's Lord and to YHWH as YHWH (He causes to become). 1 Corinthians 8:6 is also quite clear on the subject. I continue to cite Paul's letters because I view them as Scripture and even though you don't, I assume you have some respect for their veracity seeing that you thank God for them 5 times a day.
While mentioning your conversation with Dieter your barber about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood you brought up the subject of resurrection. From your writings I get the impression that you believe in a resurrection into spirit life. What are your thoughts on the resurrection back to fleshly life? Jehovah's Witnesses are firm believers in this as the Bible says that the Earth is mankind's dwelling place and speaks of the hope of eternal fleshly life on a paradisiacal Earth. Jehovah's Witnesses do not share the Orthodox Jewish point of view that our present flesh from this life will be resurrected, but I would agree with what Muhammad said, the one who made us at first will raise us up and He can do so creating new fleshly bodies as He can also create spirit bodies for those He chooses to resurrect to spirit life.
You said that the members of the 3 monotheistic faiths don't like to hear about what the other 2 consider to be Scripture. That is probably quite true in most cases. In my case I truly believe the Torah to be God's word as much as the Gospels and not only in specific messianic prophecies. My view of the Koran is probably something along the lines of your view of Paul's letters (though I still don't have a clear idea of your exact thoughts on that). As I don't consider the Koran to be inspired Scripture I would only agree with it or believe it to be the Truth in passages where it agrees with what I DO consider to be Scripture.
That letter also commented on your view that the 1611 King James version represents more accurately God's word as you have already stated elsewhere. I think that the language is very graceful and that it is a good translation, but I do not agree that ALL modern language translations are awful, though some have chosen the unwise path of paraphrasing, which may in some cases make the text easier to read but in doing so distorts God's word.
However, though I think the KJV is accurate, I also think that your exclusive use of it has aided your "chasing YHWH" interpretation, as you have often used the idiosyncrasies of the archaic language to ridicule YHWH, where a more modern but equally accurate translation would not have made that ridicule possible. Like the term "helpmeet" which is often translated "helper" in modern translations. If you had been using a more modern translation you couldn't have used "helpmeet" to ridicule YHWH's vocabulary. Also in Cerebus 281 where you comment on the story of Cain and Abel, it is the older language that confuses the text to make your very individual interpretation possible. The text is clearly showing YHWH warning Cain of sin crouching at the door and against the desire for sin, not desire between brothers.
While I'm commenting issue 281 I would like to add a few things which aren't necessarily related to which translation of the Bible you use. The Bible's use of "day" can refer to periods of time of varying lengths, so where YHWH God claims to have created "in the day" this is referring to the same "six day" period of chapter 1, which also is unlikely to be literally referring to 6, 24 hour days. In Genesis 3:15 you seem to have the head and heel thing the wrong way round, getting this interpretation right is important to understanding the whole Bible as this is the first prophecy we are presented with. So, we have the serpent and the woman, and the serpent's seed and the woman's seed (seed here refers to offspring as the Bible often does). It is the woman's offspring that would bruise the serpent's head and the serpent would bruise the woman's offspring's heel. You later mention that it was God's intention for both man and woman to enjoy endless life, if this is so will God not carry out this wonderful intention in time? You suggest that the Jews were to later pay the debt for millions of animal sacrifices, do you consider the holocaust as a consequence of this?
In Issue 282, have you ever thought that your she/he/it interpretation of Shem, Ham and Japheth only works in English, this applies to other interpretations such as the "women grinding" this is very specific to only English and only a very modern version of it. From what I can see you read an archaic English version of Scripture from which you make modern English interpretations and seemingly ignore the fact that neither the archaic nor the modern wording would necessarily apply to the rest of the non-English speaking world. For example my only knowledge of other languages is obviously in Italian and some very limited French (both of which help towards some comprehension of other Latin based languages such as Spanish) and the Italian word for "grinding" does not have any double meanings. Also the Italian for "he and she" is "lui & lei", "it" is usually translated "esso" but this isn't a true neuter like "it" is, "esso" is like a male version of "it". Where you have interpreted the "sons of God" as being men from Adam's offspring, this is surely referring to angels, one of the oldest existing manuscripts available actually has "angels" instead of "sons" in that position.
Getting on to your letter of May 8, I can understand the reasoning behind your avoiding ever getting a car. I also know very little about cars and I only have a very minimal liking for them, I like being able to get around quickly and comfortably but I also don't like the idea of putting myself into the hands of car mechanics. When I lived in London I got around on foot or bike or public transport but where I live now it wouldn't really be possible to do much without a car, for example I work about 12 km away from home and there is no public transport to take me there.
You commented on your "completely bland, harmless-looking advanced middle-aged man features and clothing", well I've seen recent photos of you and I have to say that I would personally leave at least the "advanced" part out of that. You look like you're in good shape and that you dress in a simple way but with style and good taste.
I have recently decided along with my family to move from my local Italian language congregation to an English language congregation. We had been asked to consider this change from time to time over the last couple of years but it has only really become feasible recently. It will mean a longer drive to the meetings and a lot of travelling around this part of Italy during our preaching work in search of those people who live here but do not speak or read Italian sufficiently to be able to study the Bible in Italian, but I view this very small sacrifice in time and resources as a further opportunity to do God's will more fully. As you don't believe in coincidences you could interpret this as a fortuitous situation as you will actually be able to understand the meetings you attend with us now, whereas I think you would not have got much out of an Italian meeting.
I'm glad I had the wrong impression of your being weighed down by your letter writing and that to some extent you actually enjoy it.
You mentioned the term Leviathan as used in the Bible as another name for Satan, do you think that every time Leviathan is used it refers to Satan and as you say YHWH? If so, I would like to read your comments on the verses where Leviathan is used?
I can't remember where, possibly in one of your letters, you have commented on the fact that John's gospel doesn't tell the story of the last supper. Though I have always read the Bible regularly I have now started up my own Bible reading schedule in which I read around 7 chapters per day, I am now reading John's gospel and I have come across the part where Jesus does comment on the need to eat his flesh which is likened to bread, what are your thoughts on this passage as it seems to be saying basically the same thing that is said in the last supper story in the other 3 gospels?
As usual I look forward to reading your reply.
Sincere regards
