Please always get the latest version of this document, from the Bible Pages web site, at this address: www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/ec03d.htm
Need larger text? Go to your browser's "View" menu and look for "Text size" or "Zoom".
Some believers have wondered about the concepts that are mentioned in the heading
above. They have tried to find out why the Old Testament contains so many different
"law-related" words – "statute", "decree", "precept" and so on, and what the difference
between them might be. Apparently, their interest in those words and concepts is
mostly connected to questions regarding which of things might apply today. In short,
they have wondered, regarding what they see in the Old Testament: What was the difference
between the concepts law, statutes, precepts, decrees, judgments, ordinances, charges,
commandments and testimonies? (Those are English words that appear in the 1769 King
James version. The Hebrew words in question will also be considered here.)
This essay endeavours to pour light on various things that are related to this subject, part for part and word for word. It will also be considered what relevance the above-mentioned words and concepts might have in regard to the New Covenant.
(For more on the two covenants, old and new, see the essays ec11c.htm, ec13c.htm, ec14b.htm, ec10c.htm and ec08c.htm, and also the other parts in this series on the two covenants. You can find links to some of them in the "Additional reading" section towards the end of this essay; look also under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm.)
This essay proceeds to show that even though a casual reader of the Bible might come to think that there were some clear and specific "groups" of things, such as "law", "testimonies", "commandments" and so on, that really is not so. It is important to know and understand that bible-translators, for instance the makers or the King James version, have not been not consistent in their manner of translating the Hebrew words in question. It is likewise important to know that the Hebrew words which are relevant in this context, were often used interchangeably, almost as synonyms – in other words, they cannot be seen as any clearly defined names or definitions of specific "groups" or "classes" of "law-related things".
There is also the phrase and concept "the Ten Commandments" which many bible-versions have in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. Even that phrase and its origin, and the meaning of the Hebrew wordings in question, will be discussed in this treatise.
Now, to the words in question.
What appears as "law" in the 1769 KJ version, was in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament such words as torah (towrah), chaqaq, choq, mishpat and dath.
But: On occasions, the KJV-1769 renders those same words (torah, chaqaq, choq, mishpat and dath), even as "statute", "ordinance", "decree", "commandment", "custom", "judgment", "decree", and more.
Later in this essay, there is more on the meaning of the Hebrew noun torah.
What appears as "statute" in the 1769 KJ version, was in the Hebrew text such words as choq and chuqqah.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 translated those same words (choq and chuqqah), among other things, also as "commandment", "decree", "ordinance", "custom" and "law".
As you read on, you will come to see that there really are no distinct "groups" or "classes" or "law-related" things, the way a casual reading of some English bible-translation might make one think.
What in the 1769 King James version appears as "precept", was in the Hebrew text such words as mitsvah, piqquwd and tsav.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 translated those same words (mitsvah, piqquwd, tsav) also as "commandment", "statute", "law", "ordinance", "precept", and more.
Point: If one only reads an English translation, one might come to think that there was a specific "class" of "law-related" things that was called "precepts", but that is not so. The same goes for the other words that are mentioned in the main heading of this essay.
What in the 1769 King James version appears as "decree", was in the Hebrew text such words as qayam, taem, maamar, dabar, choq, cheqeq and dath.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 translated those same words (among other things) also as "statute", "commandment", "word", "ordinance" and "law".
When the 1769 KJ version has in this kind of connection the word "judgment" ("judgments"), the Hebrew word in question is often mishpat.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 renders that same word (mishpat) also as "law", "ordinance", "custom", and more.
What appears as "ordinance" in the 1769 King James version, was in the Hebrew text such words as chuqqah, choq, mishmereth, mishpat and mitsvah.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 renders those same words (chuqqah, choq, mishmereth, mishpat, mitsvah), not only as "ordinance" but also (among other things) as "statute", "custom", "decree", "law", "custom" and "commandments".
What appears as "charge" in the 1769 KJ version, was in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament mostly mishmereth.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 renders that same word (mishmereth), also as "ordinance" and a few other things.
What appears as "commandment" in the 1769 King James version, was in the Hebrew text such words as mitsvah, tsav, tsavah, peh, dabar, maamar, piqquwd and dath.
But: On occasions, KJV-1769 renders those words (mitsvah, tsav, tsavah, peh, maamar, piqquwd, dath) not only as "commandment" but (among other things) also as "precept", "ordinance", "statute", "word", "law" and "decree".
The phrase and concept "the Ten Commandments" deserves special attention. Many bible-versions have that wording in three passages, Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. That phrase and its origin will be discussed later in this essay.
A note: The word "testimony" will considered a bit later in this treatise.
The makers of the KJ version, as well as other translators, have rendered Hebrew words into English without consistency, in different ways in different passages. The seeming division of things in the Old Testament into "categories" such as "law", "testimonies", "commandments", "statutes", "decrees", "ordinances", "charges" and "judgments", is not a real one. Most bible-versions use such words interchangeably, and are not consistent in their manner of translating the Hebrew words. Further: It appears that even in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, some of the words in question were at times used alternatively, interchangeably.
One could perhaps say that there was an initial agreement (the one made at Sinai), which later was amended. Some of the amendments could possibly be called "judgments" and "decrees". In a way, a part of the things related to the Old Covenant were slightly similar to what happens in our day, in the law systems of many countries: Initially, there is a law but in due time there tend to pop up specific matters which are not clearly defined in that law; those things are then clarified by decisions (judgments) in some higher court of law, or by a decree of some kind. Also: Often, regulations must be changed, as the situation changes.
However, a note: Some preachers have claimed that the in Galatians 3:19 mentioned "added law" supposedly was "an addition to the Old Covenant". That is not true. But, that matter cannot be included here. The essay ec10c.htm explains what Galatians 3:19 really means and refers to.
And again: Even though a casual reader of some English bible-translation might come to think that the Old Covenant's rules were divided into different specific "categories", the facts are that there was no such division the way many English bible-translations make it seem. The Hebrew text indicates a certain "categorisation", such as eduwth, torah, mishpatim, mishmar (mishmereth) chuqqim, piqqudhim, mitsvot, and so on. But then, sometimes even those words were more or less used as synonyms. And then – the Old Covenant was an indivisible package; ancient Israelites were to live by all of its rules. And anyway, an eventual "categorisation" of that covenant's rules is a matter of mere academic interest without any practical significance for believers in our day, because those things were not connected to the New Covenant but to the old one.
Again, for more on the covenants, old and new, see the essays ec11c.htm, ec13c.htm, ec14b.htm, ec10c.htm and ec08c.htm. Look also under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm. The essay ec12c.htm sorts out what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote that the saints were not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14-15).
Many kinds of ideas and dogmas have been formed around the word "testimony". It is important to understand what it really refers to, in the Bible.
The old Hebrew words in question, eduwth, edah and tauwdah, meant "witness", just as the Latin-based archaic English word "testimony" does.
Exodus 16:34 is the first bible-passage that mentions this kind of "testimony" (read: "witness"). That verse records how Aaron was to take a bowl of the manna and put it in store, "before the Testimony":
Exodus 16:33 And Moses said to Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. 34 As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. (AKJV)
A note: It seems that the wording of that passage was formulated and written down after "the Testimony" (the two stone-tables) and "the Ark of the Testimony" had been produced. Read on, for more.
The Old Covenant's two tables of stone, the ones stored in the chest ("ark"), came to be called "the testimony" ("the witness", Hebrew eduwth). Those tablets contained a written record – a witness – of what had been agreed upon at Sinai. The Old Covenant's first main points – its "ten words", the Decalogue – were engraved on them. (The other parts of the agreement at Sinai were written down by Moses, on some lighter material, perhaps on skins, parchment.)
The custom to call those tables of stone by the name "witness" can be seen in many bible passages. See Exodus 25:21-22, 26:33, 27:21, 30:6 and 26, 31:18, 32:15 and 29, 40:20, and so on.
In the book of Exodus, and in Joshua 4:16, the wooden gold-covered chest where the two stone-tables were stored, was called "the Chest of the Witness", or "the Ark of the Testimony" as the Latin-influenced wording is. The Hebrew word was arown which simply meant "a chest" or "a box". (The noun arown was even used of money-boxes, coffins and so on. See for instance 2 Kings 12:9, 2 Chronicles 24:8 and Genesis 50:26.)
From Numbers and onward, the chest with the tables of stone was instead called "the Ark of the Covenant" (arown, beriyth), and also, "the Ark of the Lord". (The word "ark" is copied from the Catholic, Latin Vulgate version which translated the Hebrew word arown as arca: Arcam testimonii, arcam foederis, arca Domini, and so on. The Latin noun "ark" simply meant "chest" or "box".)
Unfortunately, there have been formed strange ideas around that chest. Some people speculate about where it supposedly "is hidden", and some have even made "expeditions" in search for it. But, there is no reason to believe that that chest (or "ark") of the Old Covenant would have been stored or saved to our day, nor is there any need for that. Most probably, it was destroyed when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.
A note: In parts of today's "Christianity", the Old Covenant's "Testimony" – its tables of stone – have been made into an idol. That might explain some of the frenzy around the box in which those tables were stored. More: Even the wording has been changed, from the correct translation "the words of the covenant, the ten words" which is what the Hebrew text of Exodus 34:28 means, to "the Ten Commandments" (that changed wording was introduced in 1560 in the Geneva Bible). The essay ec06f.htm has more on the Decalogue, the deka logous or "ten words", and on what difference it makes what the wording is.
An important note regarding "law codes": The Old Covenant had an on physical things written "legal code", but the New Covenant simply does not. The physical things of the Old Covenant were symbols of what was to come, in connection with the New Covenant. The Old Covenant's torah ("instruction") was written on physical things; a small part on the two tables of stone but most of it on some other material, perhaps parchment. With the New Covenant, things are different. As the apostle Paul wrote, the New Covenant is written "not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone but on fleshly tables of the heart". In other words: The Holy Spirit is the New Covenant's "writing". The essay ec08c.htm has more on this.
One more "testimony" related note: Apparently, especially among some Baptist churches, there is a dogma that the collection of books which now is called "the Bible", supposedly was "canonised" by a supposed "true church". That dogma is based on a misinterpretation of Isaiah 8:16 where the 1769 KJ version contains the word "testimony". Some preachers have combined the "true church" dogma [A] with another dogma regarding supposed "church eras", [B] and claimed that some "era" of "the true church" supposedly "produced the final version of the Bible". But, anyone who has studied the real story of the "canon" in the actual records of reality-based history, should know that it was the organisation which today is known as the Catholic Church that compiled ("canonised") the collection of books and letters which we now know as "the Bible", especially regarding the New Testament part. But, that is something for a separate study.
[A] The essay
ea01d.htm has more on Matthew 16:18 and the "true church" dogma.
[B] The essay
ea03d.htm sorts out the "church eras" dogma. The essay
eg06b.htm explains the origin of the word "church".
The word and concept "commandments" was discussed earlier in this essay. But, many English bible-translations there occurs in three passages the phrase "the Ten Commandments". That wording deserves closer attention, especially because the meaning of the Hebrew passages in question is something different.
Many people may not know this, but the facts are that the phrase "the Ten Commandments" was coined in the Middle Ages and is a mistranslation. Earlier translations such as Wycliffe (1395) and Coverdale (1535) did not have that phrase; it was introduced in the 1560 Geneva bible which was then copied by the Bishops' bible (1568) and many later bible-versions.
The Hebrew text talks about (in translation) "the words of the covenant, the ten words", Exodus 34:28, or just "the ten words", Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. That is how it was even in the Septuagint (the LXX, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). It is from the Septuagint's Greek translation tous deka logous, "the ten words" (Exodus 34:28), that the English noun "Decalogue" comes. And, as anyone can understand, the phrase "the ten words of the covenant" (Exodus 34:28) refers to the covenant that was made at Sinai, the Old Covenant.
Here are the three passages in question:
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words. (JPS-1917, highlighting added)
Deuteronomy 4:13 And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded [C] you to perform, even the ten words; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone. (JPS-1917, highlighting and note sign added)
Deuteronomy 10:4 And He wrote on the tables according to the first writing, the ten words, which the LORD spoke unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them unto me. (JPS-1917, highlighting added)
Many preachers have claimed that those "words of the covenant, the ten words" supposedly were a "law that had always existed". But, if we stick to what the Bible says, we will find that the first mention of those "ten words" is found in Exodus 20 which records what happened at Mount Sinai. There is no mention or even indication in the Bible that "the words of the covenant, the ten words" would have existed or been known, prior to Sinai. Even that very phrase speaks for itself.
In short: Those "ten words" were not a "separate law". They were neither alone nor separate; they were an integral and inseparable part of the covenant that was made at Sinai – the Old Covenant.
Now – regarding the New Covenant – it is totally clear that the saints were not murder or steal or do any other kind of evil to others, but that is not the point here. The point is that those ten words were not alone and were not a thing for themselves. Again: They were an integral and inseparable part of the covenant which the Lord made with Israel, at Sinai. That fact has its consequences. It is important to understand that matter in depth. The essay ec06f.htm has more on that subject and considers the difference between what the Bible says, "the words of the covenant, the ten words", and the phrase and concept "the Ten Commandments" which was coined in the Middle Ages.
In this connection, it is likewise important to understand that the New Covenant is not a "renewal", "continuation", "modification" or "enhancement" of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is something totally new. The essay ec11c.htm has more on this. Likewise, it is important to note and understand that the Bible does not contain such concepts as "the spirit of the law" or "the letter of the Law". The essay ec13c.htm shows what the phrases "the Spirit" and "the letter" in 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Romans 7:6 really mean and refer to. The essay ec08c.htm shows what the New Covenant's "writing" is, corresponding to the Old Covenant's tables of stone. The essay ec14b.htm sorts out 1 John 3:4 which many bible-versions mistranslate.
[C] Regarding Deuteronomy 4:13 which was quoted above – some might wonder about the word "commanded" which the 1917 JPS version has in that verse. But, anyone who checks what really happened at Sinai, will find that the Lord was not forcing anything on the Israelites. One does not "command" anyone into a covenant. Three times, the Israelites were asked whether they wanted to make such a covenant with the Lord. It was only after they had, three times, given their consent to the covenant which the Lord was proposing, that they became bound by that covenant and its rules. Concerning the translation of that part of Deuteronomy 4:13 – the meaning probably was something like "and he showed you the covenant which he asked you to make [with him], the ten words, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone". Again, the essay ec06f.htm has more on Exodus 34:28 and the matter of the "Decalogue", including Deuteronomy 4:13.
The above-mentioned "words of the covenant, the ten words" are found in the Old Testament section which the Jews call Torah.
Some English bible-versions translate the Hebrew noun torah always as "law", but some use different words for translating it.
Word definition: The literal meaning of the Hebrew noun torah was "teaching", "instruction". It was related to the verb yarah which meant "to instruct" (and also "to flow", "to rain", "to shoot", "to cast"). The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (by Harris, Archer and Waltke) states,
"The word tora means basically 'teaching' whether it is the wise man instructing his son or God instructing Israel".
The NASB translates torah with such words as "custom", "instruction", "ruling", "teaching", "teachings", and also as "law".
The point right here is that the Torah (the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch, Genesis to Deuteronomy, including the "words of the covenant, the ten words"), was the writing of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant's "writing" is the Holy Spirit. The essay ec08c.htm has more on this. The essay eb01c.htm considers the matter of the distribution of the Holy Spirit.
It is important to understand that it was only by extension that the old Greek noun nomos meant "law". It was related to the verb nemô which meant "to divide", "to dispense", "to assign". In old Greek, the word nomos was used of anything that was assigned, such as "usage", "custom", "tradition" and "way".
A note: What Israel was "assigned" at Sinai (after they had three times given their consent) was not a "law", but a covenant. Yes, that covenant had rules, and yes, the Israelites gave their consent to those rules as well, but still, it was a covenant the Lord and Israel made at Sinai (a covenant which in many ways was similar to a marriage). (The essay ec06f.htm has more on this.)
Another note: The word nomos in Romans 13:9-10 is discussed and explained in the essays eo11b.htm, ec08c.htm and ec07d.htm.
Many things in the New Testament can easily be misunderstood. One of the things that are good to know in order to avoid misunderstandings, is that in the New Testament, the phrase "the Law" mostly does not refer to a "law" at all. For the most part, it refers to the Old Testament section which the Jews call Torah. That is, the five books of Moses (or, sometimes, even all of the book that we call "the Old Testament"). Those who have studied the Bible in more depth, should be able to understand the significance of this matter.
The Jews often call the Old Testament Tanakh. That is really "TNK", an acronym. The T stands for Torah (the five books of Moses); the N stands for Neviim, "the Prophets"; the K stands for Kethuvim or Kesuvim, "the Writings". Understanding this division of the Old Testament can also help one to understand the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole, in a better way. The essay ec01c.htm has more on this and on the concepts Torah, Neviim and Kethuvim.
One passage where that division of the Old Testament comes into expression, is Matthew 5:17-18. Some twist those verses, but in short: What Jesus was saying was that all promises and prophecies which are recorded in "the Law" (in the five books of Moses) and in "the Prophets" (in the books of the prophets), were to come to pass, no matter what. In other ways, Jesus was not saying that the Old Covenant's rules were to be followed. He was merely saying that the things prophesied and promised in the five books of Moses and in the books of the prophets, simply had to be fulfilled, to the smallest detail. The essay ec01c.htm has more on this.
Even Matthew 5:19 confuses many people. The essay ec02d.htm has more on that verse. A note: One must always look at the greater picture, that is, what the New Testament teaches in the clear passages. It would not be wise to pick out some single verse of the more difficult kind, or one which is in apparent conflict with lots of other passages, and produce a dogma out of such a single verse, ignoring or rejecting the clear passages.
Many preachers have caused people to believe that the Old Covenant did not come to its end but "was only modified". That is how they have "interpreted" for instance Hebrews 7:12. Many bible-translations twist things in that verse, by adding a definite article. But, here is a better translation:
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity a change of law also occurs. (ACV)
That is, not a "modification" of some existing thing but rather a change from old things, to something totally new. The essay ec11c.htm has more on that subject.
Preachers who want people to think the Old Covenant to be in force today, often quote Old Testament passages which (in some bible-versions) contain such phrases as "for ever". Those preachers fail to mention the fact that there is a translation-problem in those passages, and that the wording "for ever" is quite misleading.
Preachers of that kind have created many kinds of misleading dogmas. That is one of the reasons why so many sincere people worry about such questions as "what is the difference between commandments, statutes and judgments".
If one properly understands the matter of the covenants, then one does not have to wonder or worry about the details of the Old Covenant. But, for those who nevertheless are interested: The Hebrew noun that many have misleadingly translated as "for ever", was olam (owlam). That word did not mean "for ever" the way that English phrase is understood today. It is thought that the noun olam was related to the verb alam which meant something like "to veil from sight". Apparently, the logic behind the word olam was something like "of long duration, so that the end of the matter cannot be seen" (on the relatively short, human point of view). But not "for ever"; a closer study of the use of the word olam in the Old Testament makes that matter quite clear. The essay eg09b.htm has more on this. See even the essay ec02d.htm.
Many people are quite frustrated when they try to find a place in the Bible with the "rules of the New Covenant" spelled out. And, when they realise that the New Testament simply does not contain any detailed rules of that kind, in frustration they turn to the Old Testament which contains the Old Covenant's rules. Then they try to "sort out" which parts of the Old Covenant, or of its rules, supposedly are "in effect", and which not.
That matter is really very simple, but because of the prevailing, deceiving dogmas of the churches of this world, people fail to see or find that simplicity. Again, the essay ec08c.htm shows where the New Covenant's "writing" or "guidance" is found. For more on the old and new covenants, look under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm.
Table of contents – What's new here? – Key-word index – Search function – Goal and purpose – Contact, comment, question
If this page did not contain what you were looking for, see the links below, and the key-word index and the table of contents, or use the search function.
Additional reading at the Bible Pages, on related as well as other issues:
A clarifying explanation of the short names for the bible-versions quoted or mentioned at this site, such as that NKJV stands for New King James Version, YLT for Young's Literal translation, HCSB for Holman Christian Standard Bible, NRSV for the New Revised Standard Version, and so on. → es09c.htm
The New Covenant versus the Old Covenant, or the Old Covenant versus the New Covenant. Also, some notes on Matthew 5:17 and 18. → ec01c.htm
Several important points regarding the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. This essay ties in with its companion ec01c.htm (look above) which is about those two covenants and the difference between them. → ec02d.htm
What does the word "righteous" really mean? What does the Bible say about righteousness? → eg08b.htm
Is the New Covenant a "renewal" or "modification" of the Old Covenant? → ec11c.htm
Where can one find New Covenant's law or rules, in written form? Also, notes on Jeremiah 31:33 and the Holy Spirit. → ec08c.htm
Check your bible knowledge. A basic self-test with 15 biblical questions (with answers and commentary). → es04b.htm
The Ten Commandments – that phrase was coined in the Middle Ages and is a mistranslation. The Hebrew text talks about "the words of the covenant, the ten words". On the Decalogue, the "ten words" or eser dabarim as the Hebrew text has it, or tous deka logous as the Greek Septuagint or LXX translated it. → ec06f.htm
On the word and concept "commandments" in the New Testament. This essay is a complement to the essay ec06f.htm which is about the Decalogue, and is a part of a series on the matter of the covenants. → ec07d.htm
How to understand the Bible. Easy keys to interpreting and understanding Scripture in a better and deeper way, by avoiding certain fundamental but common mistakes and errors in bible study. These vital keys are really the basics for objective bible study. Knowing these keys will make many things easier to interpret and comprehend, and one will see several central matters in the Bible from a new and different perspective, especially in connection with the Gospels and the Epistles. → eg02c.htm
Many talk about "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law" – but those expressions are not found in the Bible. A detailed, down to the core study on 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and Romans 7:6 and what the apostle Paul really meant and referred to when he wrote about the letter as opposed to the Spirit. → ec13c.htm
Does the New Covenant have dietary rules – instructions or commandments regarding foods? What kinds of food did the saints eat? Should believers observe some kind of dietary laws or eat "kosher food"? → ef01b.htm – ef03b.htm
Galatians 3:17-19 – what did Paul mean by the term "added law"? What was the original thing? And, the addition that came 430 years later, was it some "extra rituals", or something else? Further: What did the apostle Paul mean when he in that same epistle wrote, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (3:2) and, "Tell me, you who want to be under the Law, do you not understand the Law?" (4:21). Those things in the letter to the saints in Galatia might seem confusing, but this essay makes them clearer and more easily understood, and shows what the apostle was talking about. → ec10c.htm
Romans 6:14-15, "For you are not under law but under grace", and Romans 7:6, "We are delivered from the law". What did the apostle mean? → ec12c.htm
For more on the two covenants, old and new, look under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm.
Matthew 16:18, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". What was Jesus talking about? What is the immortal assembly or ekklêsia which he said he would form, and where is it located? Is it an earthly religious organisation in this world – a church – or is it a heavenly assembly that has as its members the saints who have become immortals? → ea01d.htm
The origin and meaning of the word "church". → eg06b.htm
The meaning of the words Christ, Christian, Messiah and Messias. Also: Did the saints call themselves "Christians" – christianos or christianoi? → eg07b.htm
Church eras – do they exist? Are there seven "eras of the Church", as some have claimed – "Sardis era", "Philadelphian era", "Laodicean era" and so on? Is there any biblical basis for that dogma? The question in a nutshell: The seven assemblies mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3 – were they contemporary assemblies of saints in the days of John (as the book of Revelation describes them), or are they, as some have claimed, successive "eras of the Church of God" that exist in later times and continue to our day? → ea03d.htm
The Holy Spirit – an outline and a no-nonsense synopsis of the matter of the distribution of God's Spirit, in the past, today, and in the coming days of the future. Also: Whose baptism is valid? Churches and preachers baptise people, but they are not notably changed and no obvious signs or fruit of the Spirit are seen in their lives. Why is that? Is the Spirit of God at all given to humans, at this present time? → eb01c.htm
The apostle Paul and his teachings. Notes regarding certain passages in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts. → eo11b.htm
Regarding the misleading translations "for ever" and "everlasting" in the Old Testament. The actual meaning of the Hebrew word olam (owlam). → eg09b.htm
On 1 John 3:4 and the translation "whoever commits sin transgresses also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law". What was the apostle John really talking about, and what is the correct translation of the Greek word anomia in that verse? → ec14b.htm
Acts 15 and the matter of the covenants. → eo04d.htm
"Amateur bible students" versus "professional theologians". Some preachers have spitefully called people who actively study the Bible on their own, "amateur theologians". Indeed, many a clergyman seems to feel that a layman should not put his or her nose into theological studies but should rather leave those things to "experts". But, is that correct? This treatise sorts out that matter, and clarifies and explains in layman's terms the linguistic and historical background of the concepts "clergymen" and "laymen", and gives the definition and actual meaning of such words as "clergy", "laity", "scholar" and "scholarly". → es07c.htm
Info on the goal and purpose of this site, and a contact address.
→
purpose.htm
Table of contents for this site, including a synopsis or a short, summary description
of each essay or article. →
filename.htm
Search for specific words, phrases or bible passages at this site. →
search.htm
An alphabetical bible topic keyword index of the essays and articles at this site:
1-9
– A
– B
– C
– D
– E
– F
– G
– H
– I
– J
– K
– L
– M
– N
– O
– P
– Q
– R
– S
– T
– U
– V
– W
– X
– Y – Z –
Detailed index overview
If you find any of the essays or treatises at this site interesting and helpful, please provide a copy to other people as well. But before printing or distributing anything, make sure to get the very latest version, exactly as it is, directly from this web site. In regard to printable copies of these pages, for example as PDF-format papers, booklets or brochures or so – there are no specially printer friendly variants (except some bible puzzles), nor is there a need for that – simply, when you print an essay, set the margins and the text size to fit your needs and the paper you use, in the program you use for viewing these pages, and then send it to your printer. (This varies in different browsers and word processing programs. In web browsers, for setting the margin size and headers and footers, look for "Print Format" in the File menu; to set the text size for print-out, look under "Preview" or "View" in the same menu.)
Important: You are welcome to quote the documents at this site – the Bible Pages – provided that you mention the source, by giving the full web address to the page in question. Please link to these essays and give copies to friends. However, you may not re-publish any part of the contents of this site, as a booklet, brochure or on the Internet or in other ways, without a permission from the author; he retains the copyright. For more on copying and quoting, and a few words about the author and his religious education and credentials, see the page purpose.htm.
The essays at this site are not in "bible lesson" or "bible study course" format, nor are they meant as on-line "bible study classes" of some kind. Even though this site gives ready answers to biblical questions of many kinds, its main goal is providing food for thought on a variety of biblical subjects, and challenging and encouraging people to get started with deep personal bible study and then continue with that. (Many religious organisations and denominations have their bible lessons and correspondence courses; they are ready-made "studies" which are shrewdly constructed and written in such a manner that they lead the reader to conclusions that fit the dogmas of the group in question.) A careful, closer study of the books of the Bible with proper tools will help a believer to gain better and deeper biblical understanding. In that way, one will find out more about what the Bible really says, means and teaches. One can then, with wisdom, use that knowledge as a guide for one's life, instead of accepting as "biblical truths" whatever commercial religion – churches and their ministers (preachers) – have taught and want people to believe.
A more thorough, bible-based study with care and with thought will, not only help one to learn more, but also show one how many a popular belief has no scriptural basis or support but is altogether false and not biblical at all. This applies, not only to prophecy and "end time" related things, but also to many other subjects where prevailing dogmas are often taken "for granted". For this reason, it is extremely important for believers to personally study the Writings, and to thoroughly analyse them down to the smaller details, in order to find out the real facts. For doing that, it is not necessary to know the Hebrew, Greek or Latin languages (even though learning their letters and alphabet can be a good idea); there are modern, advanced tools which can help one to study in an effective way – see the pages es01d.htm and es02c.htm for more on this. The essay eg02c.htm supplies a number of easy, elementary keys to acquiring a better and deeper understanding of the Bible, simply by consciously and methodically avoiding certain usual errors and pitfalls.
This site is non-denominational and non-sectarian. It is not connected to any church, sect or religious organisation or movement. This site looks at things from a biblical perspective, and not from a dogmatic one. It does not claim to be without error or to "know it all" or to have a perfect or complete explanation to all things – it consists of an ongoing bible study that has been made public, and as the study goes on, the contents of these pages are revised and also expanded, with new topics and themes being addressed. Readers are invited and welcome to write to the author with thoughts and comments, or to ask questions or to point out a mistake if they feel that they have found one. For more on this, see the page purpose.htm.
The address to this page is www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/ec03d.htm
Please send or mention the address to this site to others, and link to these pages.
This page was created or modified 2010-03-11.