2. Witness of the Spirit: The Historical Process, Quoted As Doctrine In Scripture

1611 KJV Apocrypha Found or Quoted in Qumran and Historicity By Book:

The books of the 1611 Apocrypha prove mostly to have been treated by the true Temple Priests as inspired scripture at least by association in the cases of certain small books such as Susanna which actually belonged to the end of Daniel in the First Century era. By reclassifying those separately, scholars did not do anything but confuse the issue in willing ignorance. The truly odd thing is these credible texts, the ones that prove so, really do not offer any offensive doctrine except especially Maccabees and Esther which we will test those with Judith in Volume 2 and they prove not credible in whole. They were not found in Qumran and highly offensive if you truly research them.

Let’s assess the thinking in an analogy of more modern terms. One’s great, great grandfather wrote an account of their family history in 1850 in what was called the Wild West. He compiled this data in the form of letters and diaries written by himself, his son, a brother, 2 cousins, some unidentified authors, his mother, and other family. He left the documents in his barn in clay pots. If he were fortunate enough to have had a printing press as a modern scoffer would demand, he would have bound them all into one book but he was not. By placing them together in his library and the topic coalescing, it is obvious, this is one book in essence regardless. He passes away leaving the house including the history to the next generation.

This next great grandfather is attacked by thieves and the barn is burned down. The clay pots mostly survived, but portions are charred on the edges and incoherent. However, he also loses his only son. He rebuilds the barn and years later, he wills the estate to his nephew as he has no direct heirs. That nephew sold the house with barn to another family not related. He fails to understand the value of the information inside the clay pots and leaves them there in that barn.

The new owner notices the pots but, in his lifetime, never addresses them leaving them to his next of kin, an academic scholar, who becomes curious and opens the pots in 2020. When he does, he discovers portions charred, others rotting away and only small portions remain that are legible. However, there is enough to determine this is the legacy of the family who first built this ranch back in 1850. There are also other copies of these letters and diaries that survived with other family members who moved away which confirm these in whole though they were copies, not originals, from years later. If he were a scholar in the Dead Sea Scrolls today, he would take these writings from this same family and disconnect them. He would assume they were written by different families perhaps even from different states. In the case of the cousins, they must be speaking of some other mountains because they could not possibly represent the ones in full view of the ranch, of course. Some wrote in broken English which must mean they were foreigners of a completely different family not even connected. Of course, they were actually the same family, just some less literate in terms of writing.

One mentioned a stream that is not there anymore so he must have lived in another area though he did not. The grandmother could not have written in that age, which would be a lie but one they would propagate, and therefore, hers is written by a false author a century later than when she lived. They would know that because she would mention something that appears a refrigerator and they would, of course, ignore that history records the first refrigerators in the 1850s or so and claim it must be later in willing ignorance because the scholar doesn’t actually know nor represent history. She mentions violence as well and that must be WW1 because to a scholar, no violence ever occurred before WW1. They do that with these texts often on a host of topics they remain ignorant in order to claim they were all written during the era of Hellenism which is ridiculous and not even logical. Their reasoning is that no sin nor idols ever existed in any history of Israel or the patriarchs prior until the era of Greek Hellenism which is illiterate.

For one fragment, he would question whether the great, great grandfather was really who he said he was or perhaps someone else wrote that letter too. For the pot in which it was found is from a century later. It was found in a different cabinet in the barn as well. Even though it is the history of that same family in content with the author identified with date even, they would ignore that there was a fire that may have damaged that pot and it was replaced with one constructed at a later date but they cannot think in such common sense terms it appears. The pot does not determine when those contents were written other than at least to that era of the pot’s dating. We observe that in scholarship all the time in ignorance.

In a writing later in the great, great grandfather’s life, the scholar would assail that as a different author and not the same man because it was more intellectual reading more like what they wish to define as history which in their view must be written by an academic because of course, no other humans are allowed to write their observances without degrees. That is stupidity yet common place in academia. If they did, we are to ignore them because they were not good enough nor smart enough to tell the true events. That is ridiculous.

Another text by perhaps the brother, mentioned a creature akin to Big Foot thus, that must be discredited because modern scholars cannot capture and prove there is such a creature. Again, that is their paradigm and their shortcoming they then, apply to everyone else in a false paradigm blocking knowledge. That is as Pharisee as any behavior could be. They would ignore even former President Teddy Roosevelt as not academic enough nor credible enough for them when he wrote of an account of a Big Foot-like creature in Idaho and Montana in The Wilderness Hunter published in 1893. Another scholar would pile on in consensus noting that there were no known Big Foot legends in that area in 1850 but not until 1912.

In other words, that scholar would be claiming this could not be the first legend because other scholars already decreed the 1912 was the first. Do they even know that? No. Did Big Foot, or whatever creature this may have been mistaken, come into existence in 1912? Would not the very fact that it is reported in that area in 1912 prove this family history credible whether it was Big Foot himself or not? How could one call themselves academic and even think that way? They do.

This is the case with some who ridicule texts like Bel & The Dragon or even Tobit claiming dragons did not exist completely overlooking mass history defining dragons existed as even Alexander the Great had such encounters which he recorded. In the 1800s, science changed the name of many ancient historic dragons and they now call them dinosaurs in fact. Once again, they would scoff that even Roosevelt, nor Daniel, nor Tobit were academic enough to contribute to their paradigm of stupid and well, maybe that is a good thing for all of us. It exposes their agenda.

For Tobit, many forget or cannot actually research that fish bile and that of other animals was used as a remedy for certain types of blindness specifically that which originates from bird droppings even for thousands of years from the B.C. era even to the late date of 1949 in an encyclopedia even. They render that antibiotics is a better treatment, which is not even a point. Perhaps it is today but for thousands of years, we did not have it and doctors treated it with bile in many documented cases. It is unthinkable just how far some will go to dismiss credible knowledge. When they call themselves a scholar and demand we listen to them above everyone else including written history, yet they offer uneducated propaganda instead of logic, we would all be foolish to accept their rhetoric without testing it. It fails.

Therefore, because no one else wrote of it, that the scholar knows of, but he clearly knows little on the topic, he would conclude that portion was false because Big Foot cannot have existed until someone wrote the legend later and this could not possibly be an earlier account of the same. Why? Because he says so.

The mother’s writing seemed more contemporary as she wrote as one who lived in the 1920s because the poverty was so overwhelming it had to indicate the Great Depression. The scholar would forget some experienced a depression without even having a stock market. She mentioned a tribe of Indians she encountered who were friendly and the scholar cannot understand how this could be in that era because there was a band within that tribe recorded by the early American soldiers as unfriendly, yet he forgets, they were soldiers who posed a threat and this family was no such. So, he concludes she lived in the 1920s and that portion must be the fabrication of another author who threw it in to confuse people because this scholar says so but can’t actually read with comprehension. The same will call others conspiracy theorists when they spin such as a matter of routine.

By the time our new owner, an academic scholar, has assessed all in the clay pots, he determines this is not the family history of one family but thirty-one different families who some did not even live in the same state, nor the same time. Though they all truly lived together in reality. Others weren’t writing the family story because they did not have the same writing style as the grandfather whose style changed later in age so those fragments must not even be the same author either. Absent any scientific dating and ignoring history, this scholar deduces some were written far earlier than they even date themselves in the words and none of the authors were the actual authors because he doesn’t believe the family could be literate in that area in that age because no other books were found in the home, and no others in any ranches nearby. He forgets and does not bother to research that there were no other ranches in that area during that time but speaks to it as an expert in willing ignorance. Not being historians, he would claim they had no right to write history and thus, all must ignore everything these documents say, except the ones that fit his paradigm of thinking of course which he will selectively use. Are we the only ones who observe the doctrine of Pharisee agitation in such scholarship which applies to those today same as this analogy?

Finally, his friends in consensus would disassemble the pots into the works of 180 authors from criteria set in one paradigm after another that forgets the actual history of this family who lived together in the same area, actually wrote all of these and on the dates they claim. That is an entire complex paradigm of illiteracy created instead replacing actual facts with inept, unacademic speculation. This was a family history that any normal person could read and understand yet now becomes a jumbled mess incoherent and unbelievable. This is what modern scholars have done to the Bible and its texts and they have done even worse with the fragments found in Qumran.

No matter how intelligent this approach appears on the surface, it requires what seems insanity to even think in such a manner. This whole time, this was a consistent, preserved family history of one family and by the time they are done spinning it, it is some unconnected useless letters of no significance. That is no different from their marginalizing the Zadok family of Temple Priests and forgetting whom they were and what they represented. Of course, the actual family descendants who want to know their history, would read it and accept it at face value. When one of them reads all these letters and puts them together connecting them, as they should be, they realize this is a beautiful account. They could have understood this long ago if the man claiming to be a scholar did not confuse everything.

However, as they share their connected affirmed history, they are ridiculed for claiming their great, great grandfather compiled all this, and marginalized for trying to read for themselves when a scholar had already told them stupidly how they are supposed to read these or better, not to read them. Universities would shun this family’s interpretation of a straight reading in common sense and they would produce consensus that the scholarly findings were the only truth when the entire time, it was the lie and incredibly inept. But they had consensus... Indeed!

This is why we are publishing this series in layman’s terms as we have had enough of the so-called academic rhetoric that surrounds the Dead Sea Scrolls, and really the entire Bible. These supposed scholars cannot even connect the history of the community in Qumran even though there was a massive amount of local writings that identify this as the Temple practice continued by the Sons of Zadok exiled there who would prepare the way for the coming Messiah in the wilderness. Their writings directly admit that was their purpose and scholars ignore it calling them Kabbalist Essenes in the dumbest scholarship ever. That mission included preserving the Bible canon of the Old Testament and archaeology proves they did well. Immediately, upon these discoveries, the propaganda began. This is especially true of what is termed the “apocrypha” which is not even an accurate assessment.

DID YAHUSHA QUOTE ANY OF THESE BOOKS IN THE APOCRYPHA?

One can read so many conflicting writings from scholars claiming that Jesus did not quote the Apocrypha. This is a lie and extremely poor research not even bothering to look at the margin notes of the 1611 King James to see if that anchor is there. In this Torah Test, we will cover those in which the 1611 KJV translators anchor certain New Testament passages only to these apocryphal works and nothing else. That includes the words of Yahusha and means they are the only scriptural origin according to them.

In fact, we had one pastor attempt to argue vehemently that he owned a facsimile of the Original 1611 Authorized King James Version, and it does not have a margin note anchoring Yahusha quoting 2nd Esdras 1:30 in Matthew 23:37. He then, posted that page absent the margin, of course, which was cut off yet still there. We corrected that posting a photo of the actual page for him from the 16l1 King James Bible themselves which shows that margin note in 1611. It anchors Yahusha’s words specifically to 2nd Esdras and only 2nd Esdras for that passage which a quick reading is apparent to anyone who can read.

That pastor is a good man not intending to deceive people in our opinion but that does not absolve the fact that he was peddling control lines from seminaries without having done an ounce of research for himself. This is the behavior of many, if not most pastors as it is what they are taught. Thus, he and all pastors who do so are unqualified to even render an hypothesis as they are not educated on this topic and thus, it is just a poor guess at best. Any layman could do better. This was another “King James Only” pastor who needs to adjust his title to “King James Edited Centuries Later Only” as he does not know the original 1611 King James, even how to read margin notes, and does not embrace it. Again, it is not him. It is the scholars he has submitted to instead of proving their writings. If he did test their work, he would find, as we have, many poorly formed positions in ignorance.