Now here is something else to consider. When you look up a word, like woe, here is what it is and I hope we can learn something from this. You look it up and he says;
Woe - Strong’s #188 “oy, probably from H183 [’wish, desire, lust, longing] (in the sense of crying out after); lamentation [lament, grieve, sorrow]; also interjectionally, Oh! - alas, woe.”
Greek word for woe #3759, “grief… alas.”
What do you do with a word like that? Does it mean lamentation and grief or does it mean alas or oh - ‘oh, that I had got there sooner.’ I mean there is a big diversity in those two elements, isn’t it. Saying alas or woe, which is grief, lamentation, destruction or whatever. Well which is it? You say, ‘well it’s the context.’ That is true it is context, but you can’t always tell by context.
It is interesting to me, the word in the Hebrew for woe is ‘oy’ defined in extremely MILD terms: Lamentation - expressing, grief, sorrow, mourning, regret, but it can also be translated ‘oh.’ But ‘oy’ is translated ‘oh’ zero times, it’s never translated that. You will find the word ‘oh’ either singular with the ‘o’ or ‘oa,’ but never from this word.
‘Oh’ is said to mean lamentation, that’s what it says in Strong’s, but it is never translated lamentation. Zero times, it’s never translated ’lamentation’ in the Old Testament.
Strong’s says ‘oy’ means ‘alas,’ well now there is one in Num. 24:23 it does says alas. But it means woe as the Concordant has it, and it should be translated woe. So really it’s not translated alas either.
The Greek ‘ouai’ is translated ‘woe’ 35 times, it’s translated ‘grief’ zero times.
‘Alas’ in Rev. 18:10, 16, 19, in those three verses. But in all three it should be “woe.”
Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
It should be “woe, woe that great city…” not “alas, alas.”
So here we are given the definition of a word in the Hebrew and in the Greek by Strong’s Concordance and here’s what it means. But you can’t find one word translated from that the way he says it is translated, not one. You get the feeling that this word ‘oy’ is not that bad of a thing. So that’s why I put in here Num. 21.
Num 21:29 Woe to thee, Moab! you art undone…
Perish, destroy, make void of, no way to flee. That is the definition of the word. But what category is woe, I thought it was ‘oh’ or ‘alas’? No, this is pretty serious stuff in this verse.
v. 29 …O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites.
v. 30 We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba.
Now this is strong powerful destruction. But if you read the definition of woe you don’t get such a definition. You have to read how the word is used and then you will say, ‘oh this is a little stronger.’ Not that it doesn’t have places where it is more mild, but I’m saying this word can mean the very worse of everything.
Notice in Isaiah 3, here we have what God means by woe in a very negative sense.
Isa 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him…
Now “ill” sounds like a somewhat moderate word. You know like, ‘where is your wife today?’ ‘Oh she is ill.’ You’re not saying she is dying of some horrible disease, no she is just ‘ill.’ That’s kind of mild isn‘t it. But what does ill really mean in this verse? Ill comes from the word ‘ra,’ does that ring a bell with anybody?
Ra what does that word mean? Ra - evil. It mean to smash and pulverize. Now it has no moral bias, it just means to smash and pulverize. It means bad, this is what the word he translated from ‘ra’ means.
Strong’s: ill - ra, bad or evil; adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, +displease (-ure), distress, evil…exceedingly, great, grief, harm, heavy, hurt, ill, mischief, misery, naught (-ty), noisome, sad, (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wickly (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st), wretchedness, wrong.
Wow, I thought it was just going to be ‘ill’ with them. But wow, what that word can mean.
But if you look at the dictionary for woe, it won’t give you Strong’s definition of woe. It will give you God’s definition of woe, when He says it will be ill with you. So Strong’s definition of woe was;
Woe H188 'ôy - crying out; lamentation; Oh! - alas, woe.
But God says, their ‘woe’ is going to be ‘ill.’ So ill is what their ‘woe’ is and now I will see if my dictionary sounds like Strong’s definition or God’s definition.
American Heritage College Dictionary: woe, deep distress, misery, grief, misfortune, calamity, sorrow, dismay, deplorable, bad, wretched.
Wow, well that sounds like the definition that God gives for ra - evil, doesn’t it. It doesn’t sound like Strong’s definition of woe at all. Now I’m just trying to show you this because when you study the Scriptures and you read a word, sometimes you have a preconceived idea, which may be totally wrong or you go to Strong’s or one of these books and you look up the definitions and you say, ‘now I know what it means.’ Maybe you don’t.
That’s why when I really want to study a subject, I mean if that word appears 158 times in the Bible, thank God for E-Sword, because I’ll click on every one. I’ll do two things; I see how it is used in a sentence, in context and I’ll see if it is the same word. It may be translated from all different words and then you’ve got to take that into consideration. That’s one area where a concordant is really good.
They tried to be unbiased when they translated the Scriptures. So they came up with an equivalent of every Hebrew or Greek word. In other words they studied it and examined it in every way and found the very closest English equivalent to that word. Now sometimes because of idioms and other things you can’t go with that, but a lot of times you can. But then they would translate it to that and they would say, ‘well yea we think…’ but that’s your prejudice. That is the King James Bible talking, you see. No, they’ve already determined that word means this, so they would translate it to that. Now sometimes it comes out a little awkward, but it’s at least considerably more accurate.
So why does it seem like Dr. Strong watered down a word like ‘woe’? It does seem like to me he waters it down.
Well we have Jesus Christ and He used the word ‘woe.’ Where and how did He use the word woe? Well in Matt. 23, in one chapter he uses it eight times. Against who? The reverends, the pastors, the clergy, the men of the cloth, the leaders in God’s church! “WOE unto you.” Do you think He was saying, ‘Oh, you Scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. Oh, you generation of snakes.’ No, He meant WOE.
How do we know He meant woe? God shows when He put the woe on Moab or whatever that it was going to be “ill.” Ill comes from ‘ra’ and means misery, destruction and all of these things. ‘But you know Jesus was a mild mannered man, so He surely didn’t mean it that way, did He?’ I will give His parting words here to the Scribes, because it is eight times He says to them.
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
v. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
v. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
v. 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
v. 17 Ye fools and blind…
v. 19 Ye fools and blind…
v. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
v. 24 Ye blind guides…
v. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
v. 26 Thou blind Pharisee…
v. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
v. 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
v. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers…
So what did He mean by woe? Did He mean destruction, desolation, pain, misery? I think so. Let’s read this verse in Matt. 23... He’s has gone through all these things, you “whited sepulchers,” you “generation of vipers”…
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
So I think we know how Jesus Christ uses that word, He didn’t mean oh, alas or some mild lamentation.
STRONG’S #166 - AIONIOS: ETERNAL / EVERLASTING
We’re going to take up aionios. The reason I’m doing this is I want to come down to this most important thing… why did God repent of making mankind? All of this is going to help us understand that.
Aionios is translated in most all the King James family of Bibles as eternal or everlasting or ever more. You know what I mean by King James family of Bibles? Any Bible that was translated from the same Textus Receptus or whatever. Scriptures that are somewhat perverted, but they think is holy holy holy. So there are Bibles that pass on all these errors about eternal, ever more and everlasting which of course is not a Scriptural word at all.
So we learned that Strong’s Greek dictionary defines aionios as perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, forever, everlasting, world (began).
Now if you look up that word in Wigram’s concordance using Strong’s numbered words, it will show you every place that the adjective aionios appears and you will read eternal, evermore, everlasting, eternal, eternal, eternal, evermore, everlasting, eternal, eternal, etc… until you come down near the end and out of all those dozens and dozens of times it’s eternal, evermore and everlasting you find two Scriptures where they translate it “world began.” Where did they get that?
Why would the noun ‘aion’ which means an age, but by extension it means perpetuity, always, forever, for ever and ever, eternal? You know it’s just crazy.
But the first definition is usually the most solid definition and it means an age. Now if the noun means an age, how can the adjective mean eternity? Well they say, ‘it’s just one of those things.’ Since when does an hour which means 60 minutes, but if you were to work hourly which is an adjective…
I had somebody write me and say, ‘Ray where did you go to school? Hourly is an adverb.’
Check your dictionary, you’ve got an ‘ly’ and adverbs end in ‘ly’ right… strongly, rightly, hopefully? Wrong, hourly can be used as an adjective.
But the point is if an hour is 60 minutes, does hourly mean 60 days? Or 60 years? Or worse yet eternity? It’s bizarre, yet all great theologians and scholars on the Bible… well most all except a couple dozen that I know of and some of them go back a couple hundred years. You can’t turn an adverb into something that means totally the opposite of the noun that it came from, but they do it. They turn this word age into eternity. But for the two places in II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1.
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life (Gk: #166 aionios)…
Now that makes sense if anybody read that in English. I mean that’s a complete sentence and complete thought, you can understand what that is saying. There is only one problem with it, the Greek Scripture from which that is translated says no such thing. The word “eternal” is aionios the adjective of the noun aion. Aionios means pertaining to the aions - the ages, it doesn’t mean eternity, it means pertaining to. If you work for a hourly wage you work according to a wage that’s based on hours, not centuries.
v.2 …which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began (#166 aionios);
“World began” those last two, guess what those two words are translated from? The same word, ‘aionios.’ You look it up where the numbers are after each word in Strong’s or E-Sword, “eternal” - aionios, “world began” - aionios. What in the world does world began and aionios have in common? Well they are both wrong, the first one “eternal,” is not eternal, it should be eonian, pertaining to the age, age lasting or eonian. But the second one “world began,” why did they translate aionios as world began?
Well there is a word that comes before that which just throws a monkey wrench into all their pagan philosophy and theology. It’s the word ‘before.’ Now they could have just taken it out like they did the next word, which was ‘times.’ You get a Greek interlinear and you will see that it says ‘before times.’ They took the word ‘times’ out completely. I guess they thought if they took too many words out, somebody might get suspicious. So they left the word ‘before’ in and they took the word ‘times’ out completely. They didn’t translate that word, it is not there, they took it out.
Because it says before, how can they possibly translate this consistent with their pagan doctrines? How can they say that God promised eternal life before eternity? The only reason that Strong translates this in his definition, that aionios can mean world began, is because two times in the King James Bible they had to translate it that way. It would have exposed their pagan doctrines of eternal torment and all of these things or that wherever the word aionios is found it means eternal, it does not. But they had to, because they couldn’t say that God promised eternal life before eternity. That would be a flat out stupid contradiction, nobody would be that stupid… oh yea. This is amazing.
The American Standard Version at least translate all the words. They tried to stick in eternity anyway and they came up with this.
Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal;
What pray tell is that? “Before times eternal” that is nonsense. That’s just total poppycock, before times eternal, it should be eonian times. Both words should be eonian.
Concordant, Rotterham and Young translate all words correctly: “in the promise of eonian life, which God promised before eonian times.” The word ‘times’ is in there.
So why do we find such a stupid definition as aionios means world began? Because there are two Scriptures out of a hundred where they absolutely could not pervert the Scriptures. They couldn’t do it, so they just said, ‘well it had to mean something like the sun shines or it means he took a walk or it means he had breakfast.’ So it was just whatever you want it to mean, they just make it up.
Remember if you read my paper on ‘The Origin of Everlasting Torment,’ I went into this thing with soul. I showed where Dr. Strong so deceitfully tries to sneak in there the immortal soul. Now he throws a little doctrine right in the middle of the definition of a word and I exposed it. If you go back and read that, you will find it.
DOES GOD CHANGE HIS MIND, LIE, OR HAVE REGRETS?
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not…
Now I want to throw some more things in here. Because sometimes you read a verse like that and that is all you see. You can read that verse for fifty years and you can say, ‘is there a verse in the Bible that says “I change not”? Well if you are real stupid you will say, ‘yep, Malachi 3, I know where that is.’ Well what does the rest of that verse say? ‘What do you mean the rest of that verse?’ What does it say after that? ‘I don’t know.’ Well let’s read it.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not, therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Is God’s statement true? Does he at times change?)
v. 7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, said the LORD of hosts. But you said, Wherein shall we return?
Does anybody see a problem with those words? God just said “I change not.” Now read the rest of the verse and do you see a problem with that? [answer: He says if you do this, then I will change] He just said that He doesn’t change, but then He says if you will do this then I will change? Is that a contradiction?
That is why this Bible study today is very important. I’m not going to give you all the answers to the Bible, because I don’t have them. But I want us to start thinking. Things are not as elementary as first and second grade. They are more difficult conceptions in the Scriptures and in life that we do need to consider.
Doesn’t “return unto Me, and I will return unto you,” suggest that God really DOES CHANGE? Does not verse 7 contradict verse 6, where He says, “I change not“?
What’s the answer? God knows if they will or they won’t. He already knows that. So His response does not CHANGE. Do you see it now? His response will never change.
You say, ‘well if they do this then He will have to do this, but if they do that then He will have to do that, which is a change from what He would have done. He will have to change from the way He was, He will have to change and do this over here.’
Even there I could argue that no He is only changing the condition among men. God Himself is not changing. But since this is found with the very words “For I am the Lord, I change not,” the answer is, there is no change. There is no change that is going to take place here, because there is only one outcome to this. God already knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). He knows the end from the beginning.