FreeGrace

He was telling believers to grow up, be mature in the faith.

It was going just great. I provided interesting information, gathered from biblehub.com and explained why most of the translations put the end quote at the wrong spot, which made no sense. If you or anyone else who reads this thread can show how it makes sense, rather than where the 6 translations did put it, which does make sense, please proceed. It only goes nowhere when one quits posting.

No we don't. Nowhere does the Bible teach works for salvation, which your comment says. The ONLY WAY to have eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ. Trusting in His WORK on the cross on y0ur behalf. There is nothing you can to receive eternal life other than trusting in His work. Any and everything else is just a form of Pharisee salvation by works. Can you provide any verses that support your claims here: that doing any of these things will result in receiving eternal life? No, the Bible tells us plainly what qualifies people for hellfire here: John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 2 Thess 2:12 - and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. The words "have not believed" in both verses means "have NEVER believed". That is what qualifies people for condemnation and being cast into the LOF. And Rev 20:14,15 confirms that. James 2:14-26 has been rather poorly taught through the centuries. Even Luther failed to understand James, which he called a "right strawy epistle". biblehub.com quotes James 2:18 from 43 translations. Of them, only 13 do not include quote marks. Of the other 30, 6 translations have the end quote mark at the END of the verse, whereas all the other 26 only have the first part of the what James tells us what the "someone" said. Here is the verse from the NASB: But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” The 26 translations that have the end quote mark after "I have works", make no sense. It should be obvious that the "someone" SAYS the whole rest of the verse. iow, he may well say, "you have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works". If this "someone" only says "you have faith and I have works", what follows doesn't make sense. It only makes sense that he was challenging the one 'with faith' to show his faith without works, and he was clearly indicating that he himself HAD faith as well, not only works.

To be technically accurate, James was encouraging believers to demonstrate their faith by their works, per v.18. There are no texts that teach that works are a "side effect" of faith. Even Eph 2:10 doesn't say "will" but rather "should/ought". If works always followed faith, then there would be no need for all the commands for holy living, and all the encouragement to "keep the faith". I gave an example of the evangelist who mentored Billy Graham who left the faith after leading thousands to Christ. Please don't say he didn't have "real faith". And Jesus noted that there are people who "believe for a while" but fall away from their faith in times of testing/temptation. Luke 8:13

Thanks for this very important and thoughtful post! Believers can't be warned enough, or encouraged enough regarding our spiritual lives. I think of the spiritual life as having 2 sides, like a coin. One side is the command to "be filled with the Spirit" per Eph 5:18. On the other side are 2 commands: stop quenching the Spirit and stop grieving the Spirit, per Eph 4:30. It seems very few pastors even preach/teach on this subject. Almost as if assuming believers are generally filled with the Spirit by the things they do, otherwise known as the "spiritual disciplines". However, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates such a thing as being filled with the Spirit through lifestyle/behaviors. Since being filled with the Spirit is a command to obey (imperative mood), we must know HOW to obey that command. As a command, it is not either automatic or guaranteed. There are specific things that must be done in order to be filled with the Spirit. But first, we must understand the issue of being in fellowship with the Lord. 1 John 1 mentions "fellowship" 4 times in 3 verses, so this is a very important issue. Just like in a marriage, the couple out of fellowship with each other is a very poor relationship. We don't want that to be the case in our relationship with the Lord. And what causes a believer to be out of fellowship with the Lord? Sin. In fact, it's so serious that when out of fellowship, our prayers will not be heard! Psa 66:18 - If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. So sin offends the Lord. Not only that, but all "energy of the flesh", which can be all the moral and decent things people do also offend God. Isa 64:6 - Each of us has become like something unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all wither like a leaf, and our iniquities carry us away like the wind. The literal Hebrew for 'filthy rags' means "used menstral rags". So think about it. If believers are not confessing their sins regularly, they are out of fellowship and no matter how moral, upright and honest/etc they may be, and helpful around the church, that all comes from their own flesh, and not the Holy Spirit. So, both sin and morality from the flesh offend God, and put the believer out of fellowship. So the only way to restore fellowship with the Lord is to "keep short accounts" by confessing (admitting) our sins to God. That alone restores fellowship. Now the believer is in a position to obey the command to be filled with the Spirit. When Jesus was teaching the apostles how to pray, He ended by saying this, in Luke 11:13 - So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” To be clear, Jesus said this in an age when the Holy Spirit did not universally indwell every believer, but only those who had special jobs, etc. He was telling His disciples to ASK for the Holy Spirit. I believe this applies today for the filling of the Spirit. Every believer is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, who is given at the moment a person believes in Christ. 1 John 5:14 - And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 - And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. He only hears the believer when the believer is in fellowship with Him. So when we "know that He hears us" we also "know that we have the requests that we have asked of Him".

I find it interesting when people are presented with FACTS and see what they do with them. And sad.

Then why even bring up his "arguments" since they aren't mine and don't even address mine. Did you actually go through my comments? I took his claims/points one by one and commented. I argued against what HE SAID. He made mistakes, which I pointed out. Nno problem. But neither he nor you have refuted any of the FACTS I've presented from the text itself.

See above for my response.

I have reviewed the video and taken notes. What he argues against isn't my view and he makes a number of mistakes. First, he asserts that ALL views of creation "must account for all evil and death in the world that God made". This is just an opinion, because of the FACT that God left out all detail. He doesn't get to demand of God what God has not given us. He begins with human death in Gen 3 and refers to Rom 5:12. Fine, but since God gave no details for understanding "tohu wabohu", God doesn't account for whatever death occurred before God made man. He admits the Bible is silent about when Satan rebelled. However, we KNOW that he did. And where else can we place the rebellion? He acknowledges the millions of years of "geologic columns". He calls the gap "theory" (which I have NOT addressed) "reading between the lines. Bogus. My view comes from the wording of v.2. Then he attributes the gap to Satan "corrupting creation so God had to destroy it". Totally bogus. We DON'T KNOW WHO OR WHAT OR WHY the earth became a wasteland. Those who think God "had to destroy the earth" are speculating. Then he unflinchingly accepts the translation of "without form" as legit, when NO object is without form. Everything is 3 dimensional, and therefore HAS form. So he didn't do his homework on that point. Whatever "tohu" means cannot be "without form". Very lousy translation. He notes the verb in 'gap theory' should be 'became' and addresses the "linear approach". I wonder how many scholars agree with him, since it's hard to find scholars in mass agreement on anything. Then he deals with the "waw consecutive" and claimed v.1-2 includes a "set of conditions present for God's announcement in v.3". However, there is no "announcement" in v.3. So he's confused. He claims "no linear sequence" means no chronology of events. Another opinion, in my opinion. Then he notes a "reverse waw consecutive", and mentions it is a "waw disjunctive" but failed to explain. And didn't note how the Septuagint rendered it, which is the Greek "de" which means "but". So it is a conjunctive of contrast with the first verse!!! Then he claims this "reverse waw consecutive" rules out the verb meaning "became". Another opinion? Since the waw is translated as 'but' in the Septuagint, and it translates "tohu" as "unsightly", should be a clue as to what's going on. But Heiser seems clueless on that FACT. Then he makes another error by saying "linear sequence" means "one thing becoming another". How wrong could he be? The earth didn't change into something other. The earth is the earth. Seems he isn't aware of the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is a description of CONDITION of something. The earth didn't change into something else. It remained the earth. It simply became unable to support human life. Duh. Then he lists several "lethal problems" with gap. 1. judgment of Satan between v.1 and 2. Should be pretty clear from what the Bible does say that it was before God created Adam, since evil Satan didn't show up until A & E were created. Where else would you like to place Satan's fall? What else makes sense? 2. "tohu" suggests judgment, which is false. I've never said that and the word is merely a description of condition, REGARDLESS of how the condition occurred. So just more opinion. And then he admits "tohu" means 'wasteland'!!!!! His noe then brought up Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and admits the context in both are about judgment. But, so what? The point of "tohu wabohu" isn't directly about judgment, but the CONDITION of the land after armies storm through. So "judgment" isn't a part of "tohu wabohu". The words are descriptive of CONDITION. He admits "tohu wabohu" describes the RESULT of judgment, but that doesn't mean the words are about judgment. So he appears rather confused on that point. Then he claims we "can't import the meaning of "tohu wabohu" into Gen 1:2 because there is no context for it". Amazingly naive. In all 3 verses, "tohu wabohu" is used as a description of earth/land. Period. judgment has no bearing on the meaning of the words. He wrongly thinks that gap thinks that God destroyed the earth. Nonsense. Satan and his fallen horde could have, but that is speculation, and I don't speculate. So I leave all that out. All I know is that "tohu wabohu" describes an uninhabitable wasteland, which he actually acknowledged, but then insisted that meaning couldn't be "imported into Gen 1:2". Nonsense. Of course it WAS. Otherwise, Jeremiah was quoting from Gen 1:2 as a description of creation in a context where he was warning Israel of coming disaster and the total destruction of the land!!!!!!! How does creation and total destruction go together? Never. 3. 'darkness' in v.2 doesn't necessarily mean or refer to evil. Who says it does? Kind of a irrelevant comment. A very deep ice pack would obviously leave the surface of earth dark, since light doesn't penetrate deep layers of ice. So, there it is. An easy refutation of Heiser's ideas. Here is what he can't refute: 1. tohu wabohu means what it means in all 3 verses. It can NEVER mean "without form" or "formless". Reality dictates otherwise. 2. v.2 begins with a waw disjunctive, comparable to being a conjunction of contrast with v.1, and the Septuagint translated it that way by using "but". 3. The verb in that exact same form as in v.2 IS translated as "became" in a number of verses throughout the OT. 4. The English translation of v.1-2 contradicts Isa 45:18, which specifically says "God did not create (bara) the earth TOHU". Either He did or He didn't. Isaiah says He didn't. But all the English translations say He did. I guess you get to take your pick. I go with Isaiah and the true meaning of "tohu", which removes any contradiction.

Sorry, but I don't follow your claim. Why would Jesus have to "redeem that"? He died for humans, not planets, etc. Not even angels. Human history begins with Adam. Whatever occurred to the earth before Adam is irrelevant to human history. Some theorize the wreckage deals with fallen angels. But I don't deal with theories. I am only interested in WORDS and HOW they are used elsewhere in the OT in order to properly understand Gen 1:2. And the Septuagint gives us much help. Written by scholars who were fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek, unlike every translator from the 15th century and after. Here is their translation of v.2a: BUT the earth was UNSIGHTLY... I don't know about you, but for me, I reject that God creates that sloppily. I know from Psa 33: 6 and 9 that He speaks complete things into existence, not in stages, or by processes. And we see that in v.3: And God said, "Light, BE!" and light was. So that's how God creates. So when He created "the heavens and earth" He simply told them to exist, and they did, fully complete. I want to emphasize that I reject as much as Ken Ham does. While evolution demands a very old earth, a very old earth doesn't demand or require evolution. God simply restored (katartizo - Heb 11:3) things, for man's use.

What I have presented are ONLY FACTS. When did I even mention "syntax"?? I have shown that the most scholarly translation of Gen 1:2 comes from the Septuagint, and that's a fact. Those translators were totally fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek. And since then, the Koine Greek died as a language and no one is fluent in it. And it translates v.2 as: BUT the earth was UNSIGHTLY. So, if you want to argue that describes how God creates, that is your business. But I KNOW how God creates, from Psa 33:6 and 9. He speaks complete things into existence. The translators of the Septuagint clearly knew something that the 15th century and later translators obviously didn't. Why don't you take some notes and teach me what I have wrong then? All I've dealt with are WORDS, and how they were used elsewhere in the OT. Which is how language scholars LEARN what words mean. Of course the "gap theory" is unbiblical. ALL "theories" are unbiblical. And I haven't mentioned ANY theory at all. All I've focused on are WORDS, and HOW they are used elsewhere in the OT. And it seems to bug quite a lot of people, for no apparent reason. So all of your argument is false because I haven't done any of what you are accusing me of. Does Heiser deal with "tohu wabohu" in Jer 4 and Isa 34? Does he acknowledge how the Septuagint translates v.2? These are important questions. Does he acknowledge the obvious contradiction between the English translations of Gen 1:2 with ISA 45:18 Please get back to me AFTER you get these answers. Thanks.

The point should be glaringly obvious. God created the earth (v.1) but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland...(v.2). And God did not give us any details of WHY or HOW that happened. The only point is that the earth is therefore way older than Adam; not just 6 days. This does NOT effect any theology or doctrine. It is simply a fact. It does not support evolution because in the restoration, God was still creating life on the earth, plus man.

God did not include any details (context) for us. Seems to me this unknown history doesn't relate to man. However, the Holy Spirit lets us know how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4 and Isa 34, and since Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2 in his warning of coming disaster clearly links the 2 Hebrew words to disaster. It would make no sense to quote a verse about original creation in the context of total destruction. Please explain how I am saying that. What is clear is that after the earth was created (barah - Gen 1:1) the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland. But God didn't give details. So we don't know HOW or WHY it became a mess. But that is what the Hebrew indicates.

Gen 1:2 is the game changer. The Septuagint translates into English: "But the earth was unsightly..." That doesn't sound like God creating. We know from Psa 33:6 and 9 that God creates by speaking things into existence, described as "ex nihilo", which is to create out of nothing. Whatever "tohu" means cannot be "without form/unformed". The earth was created as a sphere and there is no evidence in Gen 1 that He began with something else. In fact, since 'form' by definition is 3 dimensional, all objects in the 3 dimensional universe are 3 dimensional. So it is impossible for the earth to be without form. "tohu" occurs 10 times in the OT: tohu - Gen 1:2 - formless 1 Sam 12:21 - futile things NASB ISB, useless NIV, worthless Christian Standard Bible Job 26:7 - desolation literal standard version, waste place Aramaic Bible in Plan English Isa 34:11 - chaos NIV Berean Standard Bible, confusion ESV KJV ASV, desolation NASB, Isa 45:18 - waste place NASB Christian Standard Bible ASV ERV JPS Tanakh, chaos ISV NRSV Isa 45:19 - wasteland NASB Berean Standard Bible Christian Standard Bible, chaos ISV Isa 59:4 - confusion (empty words) NASB Legacy Standard Bible, worthless words Christian Standard Bible Jer 4:23 - formless ISV, waste ASV ERV JPS Tank NAB NET NRSV New Heart English Bible World English Bible Youngs Literal Translation, chaos Aramaic Bible in Plain English Given how tohu wabohu is translated in the 2 other texts in the OT, it is obvious that it was not translated correctly in Gen 1:2. Psa 33:6 and 9 tells us that God creates through the spoken word. The context for each chapter is rather clear; the prophets were warning Israel of coming disaster; total destruction of the land, not the Day of the Lord. A 'ball' is a 3 dimensional form. So the earth was never "without form". The Septuagint indicates a change by using the Greek 'de', equivalent to the English 'but'. This is how a commentary explains the 'wa' that begins v.2: “The Hebrew particle wª - "and," which is used to combine the successive links in the chain of this narrative, does not indicate any necessary connection between the sentences it unites. Besides, so far is it from implying that the parts of a narrative where it occurs are connected by immediate sequence in point of time, a statement which it introduces may be separated by a considerable and even protracted interval from the course of events narrated in the preceding sentence, without any notice being taken of there being such a chasm. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) The warning in those 2 specific chapters is a clear warning of coming disaster to Israel. Jer 4 and Isa 34.

Once again, just worthless comment. The word is in the plural. How does that have any relevance to what we are talking about?

First, WHAT 2 letter word? You STILL haven't told me the word. What are you waiting for? As for either of your "two theses", that's the problem. Here's the definition of thesis: a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved: "his central thesis is that psychological life is not part of the material world"Similartheorycontentionargumentline of argument a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a college degree: It's only a theory. either one. I have given you FACTS, whether you realize that or not. Deal with FACTS, not theories or theses. And, I don't know the context for what you said in your post. And context does matter, when there is one. In this case, there are TWO contexts, both of which use "tohu wabohu" exactly the same; total destruction of the land. And you want me to believe that Moses was only describing God's original creation with those same two words??? And another problem with your quote above: "that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted" The meaning of words is very important. 'shape' is 2 dimensional and 'form' is 3 dimensional. So the quote is bogus. God didn't create shapes but forms. Learn that. Gen 1:1 is the statement about what God created: heavens (universe) and earth. And we know HOW He did that; He spoke them into existence per Psa 33:6,9. Those are IMMEDIATE actions. take Gen 1:3, for example. It says, And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. Not exactly. It's much more dramatic than the poor translation. Lit: And God said, "Light, be!" and light was. Poof. Or maybe a real big bang. Instant creation. That is how God created the heavens and earth. And the rest of ch 1 doesn't even address form. God didn't have to keep fiddling with the form of the earth. when He spoke the earth into existence, it appeared immediately as a sphere, with no further tweaking, fiddling, etc needed. And, the translation "without form and void" cannot be reality, for there is no such thing as an object having less than 3 dimensions in this 3 dimensional universe that we find ourselves in. So the word itself is bogus. No object is "without form". The English translators didn't think it through very much. All they had to do was see how "tohu wabohu" was used in every other passage in the OT, which they obviously didn't do. Of course, they didn't have biblehub.com to help them. And translations are done by groups or teams of translators, each being assigned sections of the Bible. No doubt the team/group that was assigned Genesis was not simultaneously assigned either Jeremiah or Isaiah, obviously. If they were, they would have realized how "tohu wabohu" was used because of the obvious context.

Well, here's the FACT. God left out context for Gen 1:2. But the Holy Spirit made sure everyone could fully understand the meaning of "tohu wabohu" by including context in Jer 4 and isa 34. You still have the challenge to explain HOW the 2 words can be used to describe God's original creation in 1 verse but is used to describe total destruction of the land in the other 2 contexts. That is NOT logical, reasonable or rational. It is illlgical, unreasonable and irrational. How about giving several examples? Can you do that, or do you just remember that littrle sliver of comment from Heiser?

Amazing! ignoring everything I posted, just to make a very vague comment that I can't access. btw, everything I posted is FACT. Since you don't think so, I invite you to address any point that you can and refute facts. Then we'll see who really has the facts. How about a web link? As to Heiser, how do you suggest I hear what he has to say? And why didn't y0u AT LEAST NAME that "one 2 letter word" that must hold such importance? It sure would be nice if your posters were more helpful. Or, you could have just summarized what you learned about this "grammatical issue" of Gen 1:1-3. Regardless of Heiser says, FACTS are FACTS. Did he address how "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe God's original creation in one place AND then describe total destruction of the land in another?? That would be interesting. And the FACT that both Jeremiah and Isaiah used "tohu wabohu" to describe THE SAME THING; total destruction. So how does Moses get a break if he was describing God's original creation?

So, like, a word can be used in describing God's perfect creation (Gen 1:2) which has no context, AND used in describing total destruction of the land by an invading army? How does that work, exactly? I think you are just trying to dodge the obvious issue.

Well then, I'll say it. The difference between Israelites and Gentiles is circumcision.

When comparing the Hebrew words "tohu wabohu" in Gen 1:2 with the only other 2 verses in the OT and see how they were used in those contexts, it is clear that Jeremiah and Isaiah were warning Israel of coming disaster to the land, leading to total destruction. The contexts are quite clear about that. No one has reasonably explained why Jeremiah, in ch 4 where he was warning of this total destruction of the land, would quote what Moses wrote in Gen 1:2, IF Moses was describing creation. How can 2 words that describe total destruction be used in a context of creation? That is unreasonable. One of the ways language scholars know what words mean is to study how they are used in other contexts. Which I have done. In no way do I even suggest that God made a mistake. The proper wording of Gen 1:2 is: but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland... Scroll back to my summary for friendofJonathan. It's all there. I've asked him if he wants more discussion to go to the Apologetics forum and "Science and Faith" subforum where earth age has been thoroughly discussed. It's sad how ruffled people's feathers get over earth age, when there is no theology or doctrine issues involved. It's just a fact. We know from Psa 33:6,9 how God creates. 6 - By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. And we know this is literal words. 9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. What we know from v.2 is that God restored earth for man's ability to live on it. It had become uninhabitable.

Can you explain why I would have to be? Do you only listen and follow "experts"? Do you not consider that website to be authentic and scholarly? Why not, if not? Also, I met a man once who could read both Hebrew and Koine Greek, and the Bible he carried to church was written in Hebrew for the OT and Koine Greek for the NT. And he highly recommended biblehub.com for its value in being able to study the original language words. If you think my views are only mine, and no one else thinks so, think again. Regarding why the Septuagint opens Gen 1:2 with "but" is explained here: “The Hebrew particle wª - "and," which is used to combine the successive links in the chain of this narrative, does not indicate any necessary connection between the sentences it unites. Besides, so far is it from implying that the parts of a narrative where it occurs are connected by immediate sequence in point of time, a statement which it introduces may be separated by a considerable and even protracted interval from the course of events narrated in the preceding sentence, without any notice being taken of there being such a chasm. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) a highly respected whole Bible commentary This is their commentary on the words "tohu wabohu" which occur in Gen 1:2, Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 - “The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'invisible and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take this view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz to be inadmissible, as being contrary to the rules of grammatical construction; but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayªtaah 'was,' is, in some twenty places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became,' and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following Lª - (preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18 “ (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc.) btw, if you want to continue with this discussion, please go to the Apologetics forum and the "science and faith" subforum where the subject of earth age has been thoroughly discussed, and if you put my name in the post, you can continue asking questions, making comments, etc. I don't want to derail my own thread. Thanks.

Why would I need to be an expert? I have compared words that occur in Gen 1:2 and researched how they were translated and used elsewhere in the OT. But you haven't even done that, even though I encouraged you to go to biblehub.com and see for yourself. Seems that you'd rather hide behind that phony "prove you're an expert before I'll believe anything you say" nonsense. Actually, even if a actual scholar told you I was correct, you wouldn't believe him.

And why "could it be wrong"? Are you aware that I have showed HOW "tohu wabohu" was in the only other 2 passages, both of which were in a context of total destruction of the land. Please read all of Jer 4 and Isa 34 and you'll see what I am talking about. So, Mr speculator/doubter, can you explain why Jeremiah would quote Gen 1:2 when describing the coming total destruction of the land IF IF IF Gen 1:2 was describing creation? Maybe you could clue me in on how that works.

Seriously? And after I have noted what is so obvious: God didn't give ANY DETAILS about why or when or how the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland. All of your questions need to be directed to God. He is the only One who has those answers. I fully expect to have all the details when I step into eternity. But what I do have now are the meaning of words by seeing how those words are translated elsewhere in the Bible.