What Happens When Truth is Targeted?

"What happens when truth is targeted? When speaking the truth comes with real consequences beyond just arguing with strangers on the Internet? When it makes you Cancel Culture's next target? When standing for truth costs you friendships, or relationships with family, or even your job? When the price of telling the truth means losing revenue for your business, or giving up your public video platform, or sacrificing a social media account that you spent years to build? What happens when telling the truth comes with a price? You say it anyway!

Truth matters. It does not wax and wane based on opinion or feelings or current fads. It does not change because an election is coming up or because Congress decides to outlaw it. It does not shift just because a political party does; even when that political party is yours. It does not stop being truth just because social media platforms have decided it's not fit to print. The foundation of truth was laid by a God Who spoke the universe into existence, whether you believe in Him or not. It does not cease to be truth because someone doesn't like it or because Facebook has decided you can't say it. I am not going to stop speaking truth, even when it hurts. Even when it comes with a cost. Even when people hate it and call me names and threaten me. Even if it means my career never gets past this point right here. Truth is truth. I will not stop speaking it even if I am the last person on Earth still doing so." —Brittany Hughes

Speaking the truth no matter the consequences is a matter of character, honour, and integrity. Unfortunately, most people nowadays do not possess any one of those three things. When truth is not your foundation, you cower from speaking it to others for fear of what they may think or say about you, you retract what you have said because you are more concerned with what others think or say about you, or you water down what you have to say because you are afraid of how the truth might be perceived by someone else or how they might "feel" about it.

Anyone who willingly submits to and goes along with "political correctness" is being intellectually dishonest, demonstrating intellectual bankruptcy, and committing intellectual suicide. This is the way of the hive-mind group-think NPC singularity zombies. When the truth is not on your side, you have to rely on denial, deflection, projection, manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, character assassination, intimidation, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality.

“Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” Galatians 4:16

Shun Them As You Would the Plague

by A. W. Pink 

"Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them!" 2 Timothy 3:5

There are a multitude of such today!

"Having a form of godliness" This means that they have a religious veneer. They bear the name of Christ, belong to some so-called evangelical church, and seek to create the impression that they are regenerate people. But like the foolish bridesmaids of Matthew 25, they "took their lamps—but took no oil with them." These professors are neither indwelt by the Holy Spirit, nor made partakers of the transforming grace of God.

It is said of them, secondly, "but denying its power." The reality of vital godliness is lacking, the beauties of holiness are not found in them. By their lips, they claim to be godly—but by their lives, they give the lie to it. "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good!" (Titus 1:16)

"Have nothing to do with them!" With such people, the children of God are to have nothing to do with—but are to shun them as they would the plague!

Assumption, Presumption, Supposition, and Lies

What is an assumption?

ASSUMPTION noun
1. The act of taking to one's self.
2. The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition.
3. The thing supposed; a postulate or proposition assumed.

ASSUME verb, transitive
To take for granted, or without proof; to suppose as a fact; as, to assume a principle in reasoning.

 

What is a presumption?

PRESUMPTION noun
Supposition of the truth or real existence of something without direct or positive proof of the fact, but grounded on circumstantial or probable evidence which entitles it to belief.

PRESUME verb, transitive
To take or suppose to be true or entitled to belief, without examination or positive proof, or on the strength of probability. We presume that a man is honest, who has not been known to cheat or deceive; but in this we are sometimes mistaken.

 

What is a supposition?

SUPPOSITION noun
1. The act of laying down, imagining or admitting as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved.
2. The position of something known not to be true or not proved; hypothesis.
3. Imagination; belief without full evidence.

SUPPOSE verb, transitive
1. To lay down or state as a proposition or face that may exist or be true, though not known or believed to be true or to exist; or to imagine or admit to exist, for the sake of argument or illustration.
2. To imagine; to believe; to receive as true.

 

What is a lie?

LIE noun
1. A criminal falsehood; a falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth.
2. A fiction. (That which is feigned, invented or imagined.)
3. False doctrine.
4. An idolatrous picture of God, or a false god.
5. That which deceives and disappoints confidence.

LIE verb, intransitive
1. To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design.
2. To exhibit a false representation; to say or do that which deceives another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

A Sober Admonishment

If God's Word is not our only rule of faith and practice, if it is not the foundation beneath our feet, if we do not believe everything it says, then we have no right attempting to call ourselves "Christians" or "Jesus followers." We are nothing more than liars, charlatans, and frauds, and we make Jesus to be a liar as well. Either God's Word grips our heart, mind, body, and soul, or it has no hold on us whatsoever. Either that word—"Christian"—informs everything about our lives, or it informs nothing. The person who professes to be a Christian and attends religious services on Sunday, but conducts their business affairs dishonestly from Monday through Friday by use of cheating scales is living a heterodox life. If we profess to be "Christians," then we are Christians before we are anything else (parent, sibling, child, employer, employee, etc.), and being Christian informs everything we will ever put our hands to. If it does not, then we are not Christians!

I Choose Jesus

by Samantha Russell

The Bible has a lot to say with regard to people and their thoughts. Often, we can see these verses come to life in our daily lives. As of recent, these are the verses that show loudly to me.

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:" Proverbs 21:2a

"For the love of money is [a] root of all evil:" 1 Timothy 6:10a

How often as of late have we heard these phrases?

• "I did it because I didn't want to lose my job."
• "I did it because I wanted to still go to restaurants with my friends."
• "I did it because I wanted to travel."
• " I did it because I wanted to fit in."

For some, we didn't agree with what happened, but we did it because we didn't want to miss out on what we were used to or lose what we have. For others, maybe they made their choices in life because they put themselves in a position where they really felt they had no choice.

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7

The problem I see happening right now is not right vs. wrong, because I think we all know deep down that what is happening isn't right on any level.

The problem is that we've placed ourselves in positions where we feel as though we couldn't possibly stand for truth because it would infringe upon our standard of living, whatever it may be. The stress of of having it taken away is too much. It places us in a position where we have no control.

So even when we feel something isn't right, we choose and justify it because it meets our standard, thus it must be right.

But what if we looked at the whole verses?

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Proverbs 21:2

God knows the reason you made your decisions.

"For the love of money is [a] root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10

Having money isn't wrong--never has been, but if our decisions are based on the want to have more money and not trust God will provide, we have erred. We have placed our finances in our hands and the hands of others, thus allowing ourselves to be moved by whoever has the power. Again, I reference Proverbs 22:7.

God didn't intend for us to be governed by anyone but him. Yet, we allow it and we put ourselves in positions to allow it to take place, and now it's become out of control.

One book of the Bible I like is Haggai. Within the book, God continuously asks the people to consider their ways. Consider what they are doing and why.

I think it's time we do.

For some of us, decisions were made because we wanted to teach our kids to follow those in leadership. Following God's word in Mark 12:17:

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render (give) to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

One thought I have heard to this is, "What if the story didn't end there and Jesus was asked, 'What things are God's?'" I know the answer would have been, "Everything is God's."

If we do something against what God has designed and told us to do just because someone in leadership told us to do it, we have erred. We have chosen wrong. Hopefully, God will give us a chance to consider our ways as well and change them.

We often do what is right in our eyes and what is pleasing to us with no regard of how others are affected. The reason I choose Jesus is for many reasons but some are because of these verses below. Because they reveal to me the life I want to live and the world I want to live in.  Only God can provide this.

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Exodus 20:3

This refers to God being above leadership, material objects and self. He should be the only one who moves us.

"Let nothing be done through strife (fighting) or vain glory (pride of self); but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." Philippians 2:3

Think of others' situations, not just focusing on what is best for you. And in thinking of them, help to raise them up.

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 13:34

Love people like Christ loved us. Are we willing to lay down our comfort for someone else like Christ left his throne in heaven for us? Are we willing to stand and help someone even if they have a different view from us, like Christ laid down his life for his enemies?

The time has come and passed, and is now needed more than ever... Will we, will you, will I choose to follow God no matter what, trusting his provisions rather than trying to control our situation, above following those we have enslaved ourselves to? Will we consider our ways, and in doing so, will we do what God tells us to do?

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24

I leave with this thought. If we choose not to, do we really believe God's Word? If we do, why do we not live it? What has more hold in our life than God?

The choice is always ours.

I have considered my ways, and I have made my decision. Have you?

Legacy Standard Bible Flaw #4: Fornication

Before addressing this particular flaw (that is not unique to the LSB), I want to stress that the Legacy Standard Bible is an excellent translation of the Bible and I highly recommend it for reading and studying. With that said, however, it still retains several flaws that modern translations have yet to address and correct.

"SEXUAL IMMORALITY":

Like many modern translations of the Bible, the LSB continues to retain the false interpretation of the Greek word porneia as "immorality," "sexual immorality," or "marital unfaithfulness." This word is correctly interpreted as "fornication." An examination of every passage where this word is used will show that if you let the Bible interpret itself—in context, in none of these passages does this word mean anything more than illicit sexual acts committed by unmarried persons (single, betrothed [engaged], or widowed). It does not include incest, homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution, harlotry, etc., nor does it include adultery.

There is a difference between fornication (porneia) and adultery (moicheia). Unfortunately, many false teachers lie and claim Jesus provided an "exception clause" for divorce with regard to adultery (marital infidelity). If this were so, why then does Jesus use the word porneia in this "exception clause" while every other reference to adultery He uses the word moicheia? Because of this glaring problem, these false teachers lie further and claim that the word porneia includes adultery. If this were so, why are there so many passages that use both words side-by-side (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4)? If adultery were included in the word porneia, it would be redundant to add the word moicheia. If the word porneia includes other sexual acts, such as homosexuality, why are both words mentioned alongside each other (1 Cor. 6:9)? Again, if homosexuality were included in the word porneia, it would be redundant to add the word arsenokoites. When this word is understood correctly, it keeps us accountable for our actions and restricts our behaviour. So let's get our terms accurate:

Adultery = Illicit sexual acts committed by married persons. (Post-marital)
Fornication = Illicit sexual acts committed by unmarried persons. (Pre-marital)

It is imperative to know that the Bible does not combine all sexually immoral behaviours, such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, prostitution, harlotry, etc., into the word "fornication." This is a false claim by many Bible teachers (found also in many dictionaries and lexicons). Look up the 7 occurrences of porneuo, the 10 occurrences of pornos, and the 25 occurrences of porneia in the Bible and let the Bible define the meaning of these words. Therefore:

Adultery is only applicable to married persons.

Fornication is only applicable to unmarried or single persons.

The Bible uses the terms adultery and fornication to address both physical and spiritual sin. When speaking of physical sin, adultery is illicit sexual acts committed by married persons (currently married or previously married [divorced]), while fornication is illicit sexual acts committed by unmarried persons (single, betrothed [engaged], or widowed). Adultery is only applicable to married persons, while fornication is only applicable to unmarried or single persons.

Legacy Standard Bible Flaw #3: Shepherds and Apostles

Before addressing these particular flaws (that are not unique to the LSB), I want to stress that the Legacy Standard Bible is an excellent translation of the Bible and I highly recommend it for reading and studying. With that said, however, it still retains several flaws that modern translations have yet to address and correct.

"PASTORS":

For all the consistency efforts in translation that the translators undertook with other words in order to clarify and connect things, I am utterly astounded that the LSB retains the error of mistranslating the word 'poimen' in Ephesians 4:11.

"And He Himself gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,"

Every single occurrence of the word poimen in the New Testament is translated as "shepherd" except here in this verse. Why? There is no reason for this alternate rendering. This leads to misconceptions and assumptions. The 1380 Wycliffe New Testament, the 1526 Tyndale New Testament, and the 1537 Matthew's Bible all translate the word correctly as "shepherds." Unfortunately, the poor rendering of "pastors" first occurred in the 1557 Geneva New Testament, and has been retained in every translation since (at least the ones that I am familiar with). "Shepherds and pastors" is introduced in the Greek with a single article. Teachers are shepherds. This is a single gift/function; not two separate ones.

"MESSENGER":

Again, for all the consistency efforts in translation that the translators did with other words in order to clarify and connect things, I am utterly astounded that the LSB retains the error of mistranslating the word 'apostolos' in Philippians 2:25.

"But I regarded it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need;"

Every single occurrence of the word apostolos in the New Testament is translated as "apostle" except in this verse. Why? Again, there is no reason for this alternate rendering. What is an apostle? The word means "a delegate, an ambassador, a messenger, one sent." Jesus first sent out the 12, then He sent out the 70. Anyone who is sent to preach the Gospel and plant a congregation is technically called an apostle. Therefore, technically, apostles still exist today (although we tend to call them "missionaries"). If you pay attention to Scripture, how many apostles were there?

List of Apostles

1. Jesus — Hebrews 3:1
2. Simon Peter — Matthew 10:2
3. Andrew — Matthew 10:2
4. James the son of Zebedee — Matthew 10:2
5. John — Matthew 10:2
6. Philip — Matthew 10:3
7. Bartholomew — Matthew 10:3
8. Thomas — Matthew 10:3
9. Matthew — Matthew 10:3
10. James the son of Alphaeus — Matthew 10:3
11. Thaddaeus, or Judas the son of James — Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:16
12. Simon the Zealot — Matthew 10:4
13. Judas Iscariot — Matthew 10:4
14. Matthias, the replacement for Judas — Acts 1:26
15. Paul — Galatians 1:1
16. Barnabas — 1 Cor. 9:5-6; Acts 14:4, 14
17. James, the Lord's Brother — Galatians 1:19
18. Silas (Silvanus) — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
19. Timothy — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
20. Epaphroditus — Philippians 2:25 [the Greek uses the word apostolos, but most English translations translate it as something other than apostle]
21. Apollos — 1 Corinthians 4:6-9; 3:22
    
22. Two unnamed apostles — 2 Corinthians 8:23

That is 23 apostles right there. There were clearly more than this because "[Jesus] Himself gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as [shepherds] and teachers," How can this be if there were only the twelve plus Paul? It is because we have a wrong understanding of what an apostle is and was. Titus was most likely an apostle, too (though Scripture never addresses him as such), because he had the same function as Timothy. Neither Timothy nor Titus were "pastors"; they were apostolic workers. Likewise, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are not "pastoral letters"; they are apostolic letters. Do not forget that Jesus was the Apostle (Heb. 3:1), sent from God.

Legacy Standard Bible Flaw #2: Unicorns

Before addressing this particular flaw (that is not unique to the LSB), I want to stress that the Legacy Standard Bible is an excellent translation of the Bible and I highly recommend it for reading and studying. With that said, however, it still retains several flaws that modern translations have yet to address and correct.

"WILD OX":

Unfortunately, the LSB continues to make the modern mistake of assuming that the "unicorn" is a mythical horse-like creature with a horn in the center of its head and choose an erroneous translation to render the Hebrew.

"God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of a wild ox." (Num. 23:22)

"God brings them out of Egypt, He is for him like the horns of the wild ox. He will devour the nations who are his adversaries, and will gnaw their bones in pieces, and shatter them with his arrows." (Num. 24:8)

"As the firstborn of his ox, splendor is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he will push the peoples, all at once, to the ends of the earth. And those are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and those are the thousands of Manasseh." (Deut. 33:17)

"Will the wild ox consent to serve you, or will he spend the night at your manger? Can you bind the wild ox in a furrow with ropes, or will he harrow the valleys after you?" (Job 39:9-10)

"Save me from the mouth of the lion; from the horns of the wild oxen you have answered me." (Ps. 22:21)

"He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox." (Ps. 29:6)

"But You have raised up my horn like that of the wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil." (Ps. 92:10)

"And wild oxen will also fall with them, and young bulls with strong ones; thus their land will be soaked with blood, and their dust become greasy with fat." (Isa. 34:7)

The Hebrew word rendered as unicorn in many of our older translations appears as riem (ראם), rieym (ראים), reym (רים), or rem (רם), which The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament writes, "A masculine noun indicating a wild ox. It refers to a large animal with horns that are powerful offensive as well as defensive weapons." However, this definition is wrong, as we will see in a moment! The fact is, English translators from the past chose to translate it as unicorn for a reason. Rather than assume, based on modern ideas and concepts of what a "unicorn" is, we would do well to find out why these translators chose this word and what it meant to them. I am quite certain it was not the mythical one-horned horse we see depicted today. Chances could be quite possible that they were referring to an animal that we no longer see today; a very real and non-mythical animal referred to as the unicorn. However, I believe that we do see this animal today.

The Webster's New World Dictionary says of the word 'unicorn': "A mythical horse-like animal with a single horn growing from its forehead." The 1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language says of the word 'unicorn': "An animal with one horn: the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros." Hmm... interesting. Notice how this definition says nothing about a "horse," a "horse-like animal," a "mythical animal," a "fictitious creature," or "Greek mythology"? It says this name is often applied to the rhinoceros. People frequently and erroneously think of rhinoceroses as having two horns. If you look up the word "rhinoceros" in the same dictionary, you read: "A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. ... There is another species with two horns, the bicornis." Noah's original dictionary was written almost 200 years ago. The KJV Bible was translated over 400 years ago. The Wycliffe Bible was first published in 1382 and used the word 'unicorn'. So if the definition of the word 'unicorn' has changed in the last 200 years from a rhinoceros to a horse, it does not make sense to take a modern definition of the word 'unicorn' and apply it to a 400-year-old and a 600-year-old translation of the Bible. That is illogical. The reference to the description of its strength should be noted; not just the name. This animal is obviously very powerful. What kind of strength does a horse have in contrast to that of a rhinoceros? 

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) translated these words as monokeros (μονοκερως), monokerotos (μονοκερωτος), and monokeroton (μονοκερωτων), which literally mean "one horn"; μονος "only, alone, without others" (i.e., "one") and κερας, "horn." Nearly 2,000 years before the Geneva and KJV Bibles were produced, the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek chose these words. The Latin Vulgate translates the first 5 passages as rinocerota, rinoceros, and rinocerotis (rhinoceros), while it translates the last 4 passages as unicornis , unicornes, and unicornium. The Douay-Rheims Latin Bible renders Psalm 29:6 as rinocerotis and Psalm 92:10 as monocerotis (Remember Noah Webster's definition? Remember the Septuagint's rendering?). Interestingly enough, the scientific name for the single-horned rhinoceros is Rhinoceros unicornis.

You see, in Deuteronomy 33:17, in the KJV, it says, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." The Hebrew word for 'unicorn' is singular, whereas the Hebrew word for 'horns' is plural possessive. Now, look closer at this passage and what it says: "his horns are like the horns of unicorns"; and it goes on to say "they are the ten thousands of Ephraim" and "they are the thousands of Manasseh." Back in Genesis 48:19, it was prophesied that Ephraim would be greater than Manasseh. In the Latin Vulgate, the word 'unicorn' here is rinocerotis; the two-horned rhinoceros. Ever examine the horns of a two-horned Rhinoceros?

Ephraim is compared to the larger horn of the two-horned Rhinoceros, while Manasseh is compared to the smaller horn. A "wild bull" or a "wild ox" is not a suitable translation for these passages. These translators have rendered it this way because, rather than believe the Bible and do their homework, they applied modern understanding of the mythical unicorn and feared the Bible might contain some kind of error. We can trust our Bibles, people! Something to think about.

Legacy Standard Bible Flaw #1: Daniel 9:24-27

Before addressing this particular flaw (that is not unique to the LSB), I want to stress that the Legacy Standard Bible is an excellent translation of the Bible and I highly recommend it for reading and studying. With that said, however, it still retains several flaws that modern translations have yet to address and correct.

CHIASM / CHIASTIC STRUCTURE:

The translators of the LSB sought to reveal several chiasms in Scripture in order to help the reader, yet they seem to have willfully ignored the most obvious chiasm: Daniel 9:24-27.

What Is A Chiasm / Chiastic Structure? The term chiasm comes from the Greek letter chi, which looks like our letter X. A chiasm (also called a chiasmus) is a literary device wherein a sequence of ideas is presented and then repeated in reverse order, frequently used to emphasize the idea at the center. This results in a "mirror" effect as the ideas are "reflected" back in the passage. It is similar to a palindrome, a word or phrase that can be read forwards and backwards (e.g., deed, civic, kayak, level, racecar, rotator, Hannah, "Was it a rat I saw?"). Each idea is connected to its "reflection" by a repeated word, which is often in a related form.

The structure of a chiasm is typically expressed via a series of letters, with each letter representing a new idea. The first idea corresponds to the last idea, the second idea corresponds to the second last idea, the third idea corresponds to the third last idea, etc. For example, the structure ABCCBA refers to three ideas (A, B, and C) repeated in reverse order (C, B, and A). Chiasms frequently include a main idea in the middle of the repetition, which by virtue of its location is emphasized. The structure ABCXCBA has the three ideas (A, B, and C) repeated in reverse order, but a fourth idea is inserted before the repetition (X). The middle idea is the central point of the chiasm, the main focus. It is what all the other ideas are pointing to.

The motto of Alexandre Dumas' Three Musketeers, "All for one, and one for all," is a basic chiasm. The words all and one are repeated in reverse order in the second half of the sentence. The same goes for the common saying "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." Benjamin Franklin's axiom "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail" is a chiasm, as is John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Some chiasms are so complex that they span entire poems. (Palindromes can do the same thing, as seen here.)

The letter to the Colossians is filled with chiastic structure. An example is 1:15-20.

A (1:15-16) — Everything in heaven and earth

B (1:17-18) — He is the head of the body, the church

A (1:19-20) — Everything in heaven and earth

There are many examples of chiasms in the Bible. Jesus' words in Mark 2:27 are in the form of a chiasm: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Genesis 6-9, Joshua 1:5-9, Isaiah 1:21-26, Ecclesiastes 11:3-12:2, Amos 5:4-6a, and Matthew 23:12 are other examples of chiasms. Joel 3:17-21 is an example of a longer chiasm, having seven parts, much the same as the chiasm found in Daniel 9:25-27.

Messiah cut off (v.26a)
Construction (v.25c) ——— Destruction (v.26b)
        Unto Messiah (v.25b) ——— Messiah covenant (v.27a)
Construction (v.25a) ——— Destruction (v.27c)

Viewing Daniel 9:25-27 in this way clarifies a great deal of confusion. The last part of verse 27 describes the destruction of Jerusalem, which corresponds to its construction in the beginning of verse 25. The he in the first part of verse 27 quite obviously corresponds to the Messiah in the second part of verse 25. The death of the Messiah is the great focus of this prophecy as His death would make atonement for all evil and, as a result, bring in everlasting righteousness (v. 24). Both the chiastic structure and poetic structure of Daniel 9:24-27 utterly obliterate the eisegesis and false interpretation imposed on this passage by Dispensationalists.

The Cult of Veganism

Animals are not "soulful"! They are soul-less! They do not have souls!

Only one species was given a soul, and that is man:

"Then Yahweh God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

No serious individual professing to be a Christian can call themselves a Vegan; the Vegan's god is the animals while the Christian's God is Yahweh.

If you choose not to eat meat, but only fruits and vegetables, that is fine. However, you are not a "Vegan"; you are a Vegetarian. Get your terms correct! Vegans are a cult who worship all animals. They do not just believe that we should not eat animals, but that we should not use them in clothing or in any other way. They do not believe that we should use honey from bees or silk from silk worms either. A true Vegan will not wear a leather belt or shoes because they come from animals. That is, if he/she is the least bit consistent and not a double-minded hypocrite.

If you are a Christian who chooses to be a Vegetarian, understand that Scripture calls you the "weaker" brother:

"One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only." Romans 14:2

Before you attempt any silly arguments or excuses, let me remind you that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). What Paul wrote here, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. Ergo, Paul's words here come directly from God, which means they are God's words. God called you the "weaker" brother. I encourage you to think twice before you attempt to argue with God.

Vegans, like most delusional individuals, are incapable of independent critical thought. They are unable to think logically, objectively, or even rationally. Like homophiles, transphiles, and the politically far-Left, Vegans are led about and controlled by their emotions. Their cognitive functions are intellectually void. Vegans will try to convince other humans that we should not eat fish or other animals by concocting ridiculous nonsensical illustrations, such as fish being close-knit families swimming around talking with each other when suddenly their brother or sister or whatever is snatched away forever. If Vegans possessed even an ounce of intelligence, they would try applying their nonsensical illustrations to the entire animal kingdom. Their close-knit family of fish are swimming around talking with each other when suddenly their brother or sister or whatever is snatched away forever by a bear or a raccoon, or a wolf, etc. Are these Vegans going to start telling all animals that they need to stop eating each other? Will they use the same pathetically lame illustrations? Owls eat rabbits and mice. Wolves eat deer and rabbits. How about spiders eating flies? What about anteaters eating ants? Oh no! How atrocious and devastating!

The entire idea of Veganism deserves to be mocked. They show you photos of these creatures and talk about how beautiful they are, but they refuse to open their eyes to the real world and look at images of animals attacking other animals in order to eat and survive. They attempt to call humans "inhumane" for doing so, and pretend animals doing so do not actually exist. They are attempting to live out their own fantasy world and demanding others submit to it, too, exactly the same as homophiles and transphiles. Try as hard as you want, but you cannot sweep reality under the rug and pretend it does not actually exist. It is one thing to be concerned with the inhumane treatment of animals (we should always take the best care of them, as God commanded us in the Garden), but it is another thing to say we should not eat them when nature itself is doing the eating. You can defend a worthwhile cause without going overboard and becoming a complete lunatic.