The Whole World Is Deceived

Rev. 12:9 says that Satan is deceiving "the whole world." Not part of it; but all of it, which means we are all being deceived. We have all been and are all still being deceived. Mt. 24:24 says, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." In light of Rev. 12:9, should we interpret Mt. 24:24 to mean God's elect cannot be partially deceived for a time, or that they will seek the truth and find it? Mt. 7:7 "He that seeketh findeth." To clarify, let us first consider the question, who are God's elect? Certainly God is inviting some who are now deceived out of darkness into light in Rev. 18:4, "Come out of her, my people," the Spirit says to God's Children who are now deceived, of course chosen only if they are willing to heed God's call. So, those who at some point choose to comply with God's will are His elect or chosen. Mt. 20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen."

By what or by whom are we being deceived? Satan performs his evil works through human agents, great institutions, powerful governments, etc. God's Children are His agents to do good works. But what on earth has such far-reaching power and influence as to deceive the whole world? God has revealed it to us; but to see the obscured truths, we must carefully consider His words. I began what I feel is a Spirit-led search for revealed truth back in early 1983; and God has revealed some wonderful things to me, which I desire to share with His Children. Come share with me these truths that form the down to earth (where we are) foundational principles and structure of God's Kingdom, until now obscured by Satan's flood of deception and lies.

For now lets talk about some deceptions that has been perpetuated by organized religion from the very beginning of the Biblical account. Religious organizations that have been deceived have an opportunity and are invited to step out of darkness into light and be God's agents (angels) of truth, rather than Satan's minions of deceit. We will also learn from God's words where His People of Israel really are and which great presumed invincible world power may soon cease to exist. I am not certain when, but have reason to believe that it looms menacingly on the horizon. We will consider the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, and what John may have seen in the vision that inspired him to write Rev. 9:19. We will locate and identify the Rev. 12:1 woman clothed with the sun with "the moon under her feet," and more.

The "Great Mystery" Revealed

As contrary as it is to what we've been taught, it is clearly biblically stated. Let us begin at the beginning, Genesis Chapter 1, and work up to the more urgent present and near future. We are all conditioned to always envision and refer to God in the masculine sense, specifically and exclusively in the masculine gender. But we all need to learn and accept that God is not one gender specific, but both gender inclusive, according to our best source of divine revelation. Maybe important for some to note: the word Spirit in Gen. 1:2 "Spirit of God" is translated from a Hebrew feminine noun. It is used variously over 350 times in the Old Testament.

I'm no Hebrew scholar but do have some resources for doing word study. And these are simple fundamentals, not some complicated grammatical peculiarities. Those who want to conceal their original meaning indicated by the context have obscured them to self-advantage. Significant or not, that Hebrew feminine noun piqued my curiosity and resulted in some other rather interesting discoveries. Some who fear and resent any careful attention to detail might refer to it disparagingly as obsessive-compulsive disorder; but I don't really care, if God's Children realize (as God knows) that it is with profound reverence and intended fidelity to God's Word that I seek truth for His advantage, not try to twist it to mine.

Gen. 1:26-27 is so simple and clearly stated that even a child, not brainwashed into unquestioned acceptance of the status quo, could easily understand. Mt. 11:25 "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Note: Gen. 1:26-27 says, "And God (Elohim, a Hebrew plural) said, Let us make man (adam = humankind) in our image, after our likeness." Note the plurals. God not only said "in our image" but also "after our likeness." Indicating that we are created not only in the visual image, but also patterned spiritually after the Deity. Image would mean to look like, while likeness would mean to be like. Consider it? Let us carefully read verse 27, "So God created man (mankind) in his own image, in the image of God created he him (singular group); male and female created he them." Note that "image of God" and "male and female" are synonymous here (Male + Female = Biblically accurate visual representation of God)

That explains the creation account first person plural "us" and "our" and challenges historical and current excuses for rendering other Hebrew plural references to God in the singular. Gen. 3:22 "the man (mankind) is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Arrogate God's power to decide what's right and what's wrong might well interpret that verse. But what's more striking is that God said, "as one of us," suggesting separate entities or duality. Why have we not noticed sooner? Because those to whom we have entrusted our eternal destiny, and are self-serving (or greatly misled) false prophets, have misled us for millennia. Those who are sincere but misguided are urged to consider the liberating truth and yield to it. Female existence alone confirms the Divine Feminine whom she's patterned after.

Now, if there yet remains an iota of doubt, stand in front of a mirror, a male and a female. What you will see (according to God's own words) is a clear physical representation (i.e., image) of the invisible God. How can anyone deny that being what is clearly stated, and why would anyone want to? Now let's continue logically. If God patterned us (male and female) after Himself and the one to whom He said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness," then our duality leaves no doubt as to God's, does it? It doesn't even remotely suggest that God was addressing the Holy Spirit or Christ, supporting the Trinity doctrine; though, it strongly suggests that He was addressing Feminine Deity.

Why would anyone want to obscure that fact? Was it an assumption based on ignorance, for lack of a better explanation? God's Holy Spirit is no more a separate entity than our own essence, being, mind, or influence is separate from us. The false prophets' three persons in one God theory is like distinguishing between me, myself and I. What practical purpose does it serve, except to obscure the truth, which is clear if we listen to what God clearly said and look at the indisputable result - male and female?

Those who would argue that this could not be true, there being only one God; because a female plus a male = two, are reminded that the Trinity (which some have tried to compress into one for millennia, even killing some who questioned their theory) = three. It is a contrived substitute for a clear explanation and obscures the obvious. If there were at all a Trinity, as such, the word Mother would have to factor in; and then which of the other three would we choose to exclude? May I suggest we simply rethink the whole matter, accept the most logical explanation, and exclude no one? Gen. 2:24 says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." There, a male plus a female does = one. That is one complementary whole in God's eyes. God's image is not complete in the male or the female; it is complete only in both, and Christ/Messiah is their spiritual Child, offspring, or extension, as are we all who pattern our lives in accordance with God's will.

Note carefully! In Eph. 5:31-32 the Spirit through Paul says, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife (woman), and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery (note "great mystery"): but I speak concerning Christ and the church (ecclesia)." In other words, clearly then it says, Christ shall leave His Father (God) and Mother (Goddess) and shall be joined to His woman (spiritual bride) the ecclesia (called out ones or true church). So what was a mystery is now clear, right? God's Word makes it clear when the right parts are connected. And, of course, Christ and his bride (the true church - the obedient ones) shall be the one body of Christ (with many parts), with Christ/Messiah as their leader.

Important to note is that the Hebrew (ishshah), in Gen. 2:24, translated "wife," as the Greek (gune) in Eph. 5:31, means simply "woman," not necessarily wife, as we define wife. The English translators (as some of the ancient Hebrews) have had a field day distorting the true meaning of God's Holy Scripture, with deliberate inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive translations. For those willing to accept what God said over what man said, the strongest case for the traditional Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Trinity doctrine is crushed by God's Word. What we clearly and simply have is a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother duality and plurality, who are one in Spirit, as God's Children are one in Christ

Very important here also, is the noun Elohim (plural) translated "God" over 2340 times in the Old Testament. Why did the translators render it singular? What do you think? When God first inspired the prophet to write that word, He chose the plural 2340 times; but the translators chose to change it to singular. Were they presuming to correct God's grammar by rendering it in the singular, or were they trying to hide something? And if so, what were they trying to hide? Some sources say that Elohim is the plural form of "El," a masculine singular used around 245 times, or "eloahh," this singular with a feminine ending used around 56 times, so God did have choices. Reason suggests that the plural is intended to represent God's dual gender, which would be consistent with Gen. 1:27. Jewish scholars say the plural for God is one of majesty or greatness. But whether to suggest intensity or number the plural ending -im is the same. So he who would deny and conceal Divine Femininity is free to use the plural of majesty defense; but he who interprets in the clear context of Scripture (Gen. 1:27, etc), will use the plurality defense. We do have a choice

One would expect a God-serving translator to be more faithful to God's Word, right? Isn't the plural being used roughly 2340 times overwhelming proof that the God who inspired it intended it to be written and interpreted in the plural? What was wrong with those guys and those who still knowingly perpetuate their ungodly deceptions? Did they just not believe in God at all, or what really was it that they just could not bear to reveal and refused to acknowledge? Maybe the clouds are lifting.

The Hebrew name for God was written some sixty-five hundred (6500) times in the Old Testament. It is a four-letter word sometimes referred to as the Tetragrammaton, transliterated into English as YHWH. Keep in mind that Hebrew was originally written without vowels. The Masoretic text has symbols to represent vowel sounds, but they were added by the Masoretes in around 800 AD, claiming it was to preserve the original pronunciation of Hebrew words. In normal writing the true definition and thus the correct vowel sound was determined by the context; for example, the English word dog written with only consonants, as Hebrew is, even today, would be dg. You would not know, except for the context, if it was dog, dig, dug, etc. Some Hebrew words, like English, have many distinct meanings depending on the context, made even more difficult by the lack of vowels.

A biased or mistaken translator might be inclined to change a few vowel sounds just a little here and there, right? By the simple change of a vowel sound, they could alter the meaning of many words anywhere from just a little to radically. By the time the Masoretes got around to adding the symbols, developed by Jewish scholars to represent the vowel sounds, they claimed that the true pronunciation of YHWH had already been lost. What a shame! Something as important as the proper pronunciation of God's Holy name that He inspired around 6500 times, lost!

They claimed that YHWH, the name of God, was too sacred to be uttered and relegated it to the footnotes, substituting the Hebrew masculine Adonai, which means Lord, and is no longer a name but a title. In the KJV (don't know how many others), that title is always written with all uppercase letters "the LORD. Every time you see that all-uppercase title, some 6500 times, remember that it is a scribal substitute for the divine name YHWH. Several other versions have restored YHWH and tried I suppose to render it with the proper vowel sounds. Some render it Yahweh and others, such as the American Standard Version, as Jehovah.

Again, I stress, the scribes changed it some 6500 times! Why would the Hebrew writers not leave God's name exactly as He originally inspired it (6500) times, if they truly revered His Word? What arrogance! How could they consider it too sacred to be uttered but not too sacred to be changed and the original meaning hidden until even the proper pronunciation of God's important name was lost? What could have been their true motive? Guess what! The final "ah" in Hebrew, as in God's name, Jehovah, usually denotes a feminine ending. It should also be noted that the variant Yahweh likewise avoids the feminine ending, and rather conveniently one might add.

Remember, the Hebrew word adam means "a human being" (or mankind); the Hebrew word ish means "a man as an individual or a male person" (Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon). But get this, the Hebrew word ishshah (note the feminine "ah") means "woman." Could that feminine ending "ah" in YHWH (rendered Jehovah) be what caused the ancient Hebrew scribes such unbearable pain that they had to relegate God's Holy name to the footnotes?

Could it be that they just didn't want to be asked to explain the feminine ending in the name of the God they wanted the world to think viewed women with contempt, justifying Jesus' censure in Lk. 11:52 and Mt. 23:13? What an un-Godly shame! No true Child of God (then or now) would deliberately change God's words for any reason; and any who know that they have been changed, as well do the scholars and many world renown pastors and evangelists, yet prefer to not make waves, are likewise not true Children of God. What a shameful, careless, and self-serving handling of God's Holy name!

They have obscured God's duality, gender, and proper name, but that's not all. What else have they tried to write out of the Holy Writ? We will explore that in a later chapter. For now let us try to understand why the translators have repeatedly changed a word meaning children to "sons" throughout all Scripture.

The Hebrew word "ben" is translated "son" around 2250 times in the Old Testament. In many cases offspring would be more accurate. It is not gender specific. Of course, often, the gender of the subject is made clear by the context. Where there is no clear indication, as in the many times it is translated "Sons of God," why wouldn't anyone not gender biased translate it "Children of God" instead?

The Greek word "huios" translated "son" around 380 times in the New Testament can mean "child, foal (the young offspring of a donkey, mule, horse), or son." Also, of course, daughter. It can mean remote descendents or offspring; hence, posterity or children. Almost every time the phrase "Sons of God" is used in Scripture, it should be translated "Children of God." Not only is it most often not gender specific, it is almost always both gender inclusive.

Most all Christian scholars and teachers claim to believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Some admit that the Bible is not inerrant and infallible, being a product of man's translation and interpretation, but claim to believe that the original manuscripts were. How can they both believe that the divinely inspired Scriptures are inerrant and infallible and yet that God inappropriately or accidentally used the Hebrew plural Elohim for God around 2340 times in the Old Testament when the singular was intended? How dare those who claim the Bible is inerrant and infallible in its humanly corrupted form conclude that in the original divinely inspired form God was mistaken and needed them to correct His mistakes (over 2300 times, this single word alone)?

It is shocking to me! Shocking that we could have allowed ourselves to be so duped by them for so very long! How could they possibly claim to believe that God is All-knowing and Almighty but that He doesn't understand the grammatical difference between singular and plural, masculine and feminine, and that it was wrong of Him to include the divine name in Scripture some 6500 times?

In Mt. 5:18 Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The word "jot" here is of Hebrew origin and refers to the Hebrew letter Yod, which closely resembles the English apostrophe ('), the smallest Hebrew letter. Tittle refers to the finest or smallest point - the teeniest little thing. Jesus was saying that not even the smallest thing in God's inspired words should in any way be changed, that God said exactly what He intended to say. Also, the Spirit through Jesus was referring to God's laws, all of which are subsumed under the one command that we love one another; not what man has added, much in the form of the 613 Judaic commandments and endless church doctrines, some of which limit even what a member is allowed to think.

God's commands are simple; man's very burdensome and impossible to fulfill. The Spirit gave strong warning in Rev. 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." When I referred to that passage in 1983, a relative wondered if that only applied to the Book of Revelation. Considered with Mt. 5:18, I would hate to take that gamble with eternity, wouldn't you? In Mt. 4:4 Jesus told Satan that "Man shall not live by bread (earthly food) alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Jesus reference was to God's words, not those of the scribes who detracted from and added to them; or of those who now perpetuate the false scribes' deceptions, for whom money is the bottom line.

As an end note, let me say that one important reason for the obscurity in Revelation, Daniel, other end-time prophecy, and just things in general, as we've discussed here, could be because God knew with certainty that if certain scribes understood them, that they would change them to support their particular agenda or remove them altogether. If they didn't understand them, they wouldn't know how to manipulate them. He pronounced woe on the scribes too many times to list here (Mt. 23:13-29). It should take but a little rational thinking to figure out why He was so incensed with them and what they did that elicited His repeated strong invectives against them." A scribe's job, among other things, was to copy, write, record, and in some cases interpret Mosaic and Judaic law.

Next, we will expand on the gender-bias deception..