December 02, 2007: First Sunday of Advent

First Reading: Isaiah 2.1-5

The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. In days to come the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established as the highest of mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths."

For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!

As far as prophesy goes, I am willing to give Isaiah 1/2 on this score.

Second Reading: Romans 13.11-14.

Brothers and sisters, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near. Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armour of light; let us live honourably as in the day, not in revelling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarrelling and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

One of Paul's least objectionable statements. But what has the guy got against gratifying fleshly desires?

Gospel: Matthew 24.37-44.

Jesus spoke to his disciples: "As the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marraige, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be left in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left."

"Keep awake, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour."

Is Jesus the Son of Man? If so, then why does he speak in the third person? It is interesting that the Son of Man here is likened to a thief. Why not just say that the arrival time is a random variable? If a metaphor is necessary, why not use something like the weather? And why does God impose this uncertainty over humanity? Isn't an uncertain lifetime sufficient? I suppose that a deterministic arrival date would give an "unfair" advantage to those living close to that date.

December 09, 2007: Second Sunday of Advent

First Reading: Isaiah 11.1-10

On that day: A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins.

The wolf shall live with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder's den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious.

Jesse was the father of King David (King of Israel from 1007-1005 BC and of Israel and Judah from 1005-967 BC). Hence, it was David who united the twelve tribes of Israel. Following the death of Solomon, the kingdom appears to have broken in two; with 10 of the 12 tribes forming the northern kingdom of Israel and the remainder (including David's descendants) forming the southern kingdom of Judah (which included Jerusalem).

Now, the prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century BC; just as the Neo-Assyrian Empire was emerging as a world force. At this time, the Assyrians were threatening Israel and Syria. The Judean king Ahaz refused to cooperate with these two kingdoms against Assyrian aggression. So Israel and Syria turned on Ahaz; and the latter then sought help from the Assyrian king (apparently in exchange for gold). The kingdoms of Syria and Israel were subsequently subdued by the Assyrians; and their inhabitants taken away as slaves (giving rise to the fabled ten lost tribes of Israel).

Ahaz was succeeded by Hezekiah, who was "encouraged" to rebel against the Assyrians (I presume that the Judeans were paying tribute in exchange for peace). Hezekiah entered into an alliance with the Egyptians; and this evidently triggered an attack from the Assyrians and Isaiah urged Hezekiah to resist them. Evidently, the Assyrians conquered many Judean towns but were unable to bring down Jerusalem. Naturally, both sides proclaimed victory; see Biblical account and Assyrian account. In any case, the kingdom of Judah survived until 586 BC; eventually succumbing to the Babylonians.

I have no idea when in this sequence of events Isaiah made the prophesy above; but it seems clear that he must have been influenced by the political events of his time (in particular, the growing threat of Assyria). Isaiah is prophesizing the arrival of a Messiah; someone similar in spirit to David and Solomon, who ruled in the glory years of Israel (two kings who appear to have been so obviously blessed by God). A literal interpretation of "roots" suggests that the Messiah will be a direct descendant of David (and biblical tradition asserts that Jesus was descended from this line). But given the obvious metaphors that are sprinkled throughout this prophesy, one need not take this literally. I think that Isaiah was (hopefully) looking forward to a future conquering hero whose roots were in the spirit of David.

And on "That Day" we are told, "he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked." Just what is "That Day" in reference too? The birth of Jesus (his first coming)? Clearly, this cannot be the case. Jesus may have struck the earth with the rod of his mouth, but I do not recall him killing anyone (again, unless "killing" is a metaphor or has been mistranslated somehow). We are also told that there will be peace and harmony on "That Day." That Day has not arrived.

Conclusion: this prophesy cannot taken to foretell the (first) coming of Jesus. It might be construed as foretelling the second coming of Jesus (consistent with Christian belief) or the first (and only) coming of an entirely different Messiah (consistent with Jewish belief). Here, one is tempted to side with Jewish belief; that is, unless there are explicit passages in the Old Testament that prophize two comings of the same Messiah.

Second Reading: Romans 15.4-9

Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant ou to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that He might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, "Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name."

Paul (Saul of Tarsus) evidently began his missionary work in around 47 AD. The "scriptures" he refers to must mean the Jewish holy books. These would have certainly consisted of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Christian Old Testament, written by Moses). I presume that they would have also consisted of the books of the Prophets and Writings (note that the Catholic Old Testament includes more than these).

There are, it appears, two main messages in this statement by Paul. The first one-stressed in Mass today-is that Christ's message is directed not only at the Jews, but at the Gentiles as well. Paul quotes from the Jewish scriptures to support his claim; in both 2 Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49 state:

Therefore, I will give thanks to you O Lord, among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name.

Note that both Samuel and Psalm were apparently written by David. It is interesting to note that 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 are virtually identical. Finally, note that the King James Version of the Bible does not use the word "gentiles;" instead it reads "heathens." (Same thing, I suppose).

If you read carefully through the entire 2 Samuel 22 or Psalm 18, you'll see that Paul's interpretation is questionable. These books are clearly David thanking God for delivering the Jews from their enemies (the heathens or gentiles). For example, 2 Samuel 48:50 reads:

It is God who has avenged me, and who brought down the people (heathens) under me. And who brought me forth from my enemies: You have also lifted me up high above them that rose up against me: You have delivered me from the violent man. Therefore, I will give thanks to you O Lord, among the heathen, and will sing praises to your name.

I am not sure why Christians should take comfort here. What was Paul thinking in referring to this passage? (Perhaps it was wishful thinking). Paul appears to deliver a similar message in Romans 15:10 which quotes from Deuteronomy 32:43. But if you read the latter, you'll see that this better read as a warning and not a welcoming; rejoice with the Jews or you will pay the price of God's vengeance. Romans 15:11 repeats the message; which is drawn from Psalm 117. This Psalm (which contains only 2 passages) is perhaps the one that best supports Paul's claim (it is so short as to provide no context; it is a straightforward command). But if you put this Psalm in context with what David wrote earlier, I think that it's best construed as a warning not to mess with the Jews (and if you can't beat them, you may as well join them).

In any case, even if these Old Testament passages are interpreted as welcoming the gentiles to worship the Jewish God, I fail to see how these passages might be construed as instructions to follow the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to any other rabbi teaching from the Jewish bible).

The second message in Paul's message-one not stressed in Mass-is subtle, but potentially very important. In particular, he states that Christ is a servant of the Jews (circumcised) in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs (elsewhere, he appears to claim the opposite). For those that are interested in pursuing this, refer to Covenant and Antinomianism.

Gospel: Matthew 3.1-12

In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.'"

Now John wore clothing of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

But when he saw many Pharisees and Saducees coming for baptism, John said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance.Do not presume to say to yourselves 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

"I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff will burn with unquenchable fire."

First question: What did John mean by "the kingdom of heaven" has come near? Unfortunately (or interestingly), this appears open to interpretation. First, John was a Jew living in the Roman province of Judea (an independent Judah no longer existed-having succumbed initially to Babylonian invaders in 586 BC; and subsequently ruled by Persians, Greeks and Romans). The Jews clearly believed that a Messiah-a descendant of David-would come one day to deliver them from foreign subjuctation. According to wikipedia,

The Kingdom of God is referred to frequently in the Tanakh (see 1 Chronicles 1 Chronicles 29:10-12 and Daniel 4:3 for example). It is tied to Jewish understanding that God will intervene to restore the nation of Israel, and return to rule over them. The Kingdom of God was expressly promised to the patriarch and prophet, King David, because he was a man "after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22); and God made the Davidic Covenant with King David, promising him that he would "never lack a man to sit upon His throne, forever" (1 Kings 9:5). Christians and Messianic Jews related this promise with Jesus Christ through His royal lineage recorded in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, thus positioning Jesus Christ as the eternal king on Israel's throne.

Is it reasonable to suppose that John the Baptist thought of the "kingdom of heaven" as anything other than the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty (by rightful heirs) over their homeland? John lived in a period of great turbulence. Following the death of Herod (an unpopular ruler, considered by many to be a Roman puppet) in 4 BC, a number of radical Jewish elements rose in revolt led by Judas of Galilee (who apparently did not like paying taxes to the Romans). Basically, the whole region was a hotbed of revolt and a big pain in the ass for the Romans (who finally ended matters in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem).

So let's think about John in this period. Was he forecasting the imminent arrival of a Messiah who was to die on a cross? If so, then is this what he meant by saying that the kingdom of heaven was "near?" Seems unlikely-where was the judgement day? Or did he mean by the "kingdom of heaven" some judgement day far off in the future (it has been almost 2000 years now; and no kingdom in sight)? The latter seems implausible to me; and is, in any case, inconsistent with supposing that Jesus was the Messiah that John was expecting at that time.

And what of Matthew's claim that the prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of John the Baptist? Here is the relevant passage from Isaiah 40. Both John Wesley and Matthew Henry suggest that this passage refers to the return of the Jews from Babylon (a region under Assyrian control at the time of Isaiah; see the discussion for December 9). Both commentators subsequently assert that the passage is primarily a prophesy concerning the arrival of John. You can read Isaiah 40 and judge for yourself. If you call this prophesy, then the standards applied to Isaiah are much lower than those that apply to economic forecasters!

December 16, 2007: Third Sunday of Advent

First Reading: Isaiah 35.1-6a, 10

The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom; like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with the joy of singing. The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it, the majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They shall see the glory of the Lord, the majesty of our God.

Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. Say to those who are of a fearful heart, "Be strong, do not fear! Here is your God. He will come with vengeance, with terrible recompense. He will come and save you." Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

According to my Sunday Missal, "This vision of the Messiah describes his work -- not only in restoring health and well-being to the infirm, but also in bringing the mercy and forgiveness of salvation." Is whoever that wrote this insane? This is Isaiah, giving comfort to his fellow Jews. Presumably he is speaking to those left in Judah; as the Kingdom of Israel was defeated by the Assyrians, and its 10 "lost tribes" swept away into the "desert" of captivity. Have courage, he is saying, your God will take vengeance on your enemies; the ransomed (10 lost tribes) will be returned; you will be given Lebanon and everyone (non-gentile) will be happy. And everyone (including gentile) will have their eyes and ears opened to the power of God.

Second Reading: James 5.7-10

Be patient, beloved, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and late rains. You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.

Beloved, do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors! As an expample of suffering and patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

James is presumably James the Just, the first bishop of Jersusalem and frequently referred to as the "brother" of Jesus. He may have been one of the 12 apostles (James, son of Alphaeus). If so, he was clearly not literally a brother of Jesus. In any case, James appears to have been popular among the people, but not so popular with other Jewish vested interests. A lack of imperial oversight emerged for a time as Roman procuratorships were changing. The high priest Ananus ben Ananus took advantage and condemned James on the charge of "breaking the law" and had him stoned to death (c. 62 AD). As usual, I am sure that the Romans were somehow to be blamed for this.

Gospel: Matthew 11.2-11

When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples who said to Jesus, "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?" Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you."

Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Wow. A lot of good stuff here. First, my Sunday Missal prefaces this gospel with: "Jesus applies the words of Isaiah to himself. He proclaims the good news of salvation, freedom, and joy."

The words of Isaiah? If they say so (see earlier discussions). Note that the scripture referenced to by Matthew is from Malachi 3 (one of the lesser prophets, who probably lived in the time of Persian occupation). We may as well take a look at it (Malachi 3.1-4):

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, says the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appears? For his is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

Is it not obvious here that Malachi is lamenting the passing of a glorious bygone era (David and Solomon)? Once the Lord comes, he will clean things up, making things as good as in the old days. He will purify the sons of Levi; that is to say, cleanse the priestly class (see Levite). And God will send a messenger to prepare his way in this endeavor. Who was this messenger to be? Curiously, the word Malachi might be interpreted as "my messenger;" so perhaps he was referring to himself. Could he have been referring to John the Baptist? How could this be consistent with Malachi's prophesy above--which has obviously not yet come to pass? I conjecture that Malachi, like Isaiah, were looking for a new David -- a Messiah to restore the lost glory of Israel. Is it any wonder why many Jews did not consider Jesus to be this Messiah?

Alright then, what are we to make of Jesus' reference to this scripture (assuming that Matthew recorded his words accurately)? First of all, note that Jesus is asked a direct question that he refuses to answer with a direct response (yes or no). Are you the Messiah?, he is asked. Look at my works and decide for yourselves, he responds. One might think that based on the evidence of his miracles, the answer should be obvious. But there were many before Jesus who have claim to similar miraculous works (e.g., see here). Clearly, his miracles would not by themselves have distinguished him as "the" Messiah. So then, why did he not answer directly? Instead, he goes on to say that John the Baptist is the prophesized messenger to be sent ahead of the coming of the Lord. And he appears to quote from the scripture of Malachi, where, as I remarked above, seems to be calling for a new David to restore Israel's lost glory -- not for someone to die on a cross for the salvation of mankind.

Finally, we might ask what the heck is John the Baptist doing in prison? Given the times in which he lived, he would have been put in prison by the local authorities if he was perceived to be some sort of trouble maker (potentially inciting rebellion, for example). The prophets regularly criticized local authorities (the Jewish ruling classes) and I presume that John was no different. As with many Jews, he was awaiting the Messiah -- someone to clean things up -- possibly through rebellion. It is too bad that John did not live to see the end of Jesus' ministry on earth -- I wonder what he would have thought?

December 23, 2007: Fourth Sunday of Advent

First Reading: Isaiah 7.10-14. The words of the prophet spoken to the king are applied to the birth of the Saviour.

The Lord spoke to Ahaz, "Ask a sign of the Lord you God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Abaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test."

Then Isaiah said: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God too? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

We've already encountered Ahaz (king of Judah) in our discussion of Dec. 9. The kingdom of Judah (ruled by the Davidic line) at this time was being threatened from all sides: the kingdoms of Syria and Israel, and the Assyrian Empire. Things were not looking good. Isaiah is essentially chiding the Judeans here, presumably for their lack of faith that God will protect them. You can read all of Isaiah 7 here; in particular, read 7.15-16: (King James Version).

By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong. But before he knows right from wrong, the kings of Israel and Aram (Syria) will both be dead.

That's all that's mentioned about this child: [1] There IS a young woman who IS with child; [2] She will name the child Immanuel (God is with us); [3] The child will quickly learn right from wrong; and [4] Before this happens, the threats from Israel and Syria will melt away (this latter bit apparently did happen, but all the rest of the prophesy appears wrong -- Judah did not succumb to Assyria -- as the prophesy appears to suggest).

This child is not mentioned anywhere else in Isaiah 7. And yet, as our Sunday Missal says, "the words of the prophet spoken to the king are applied to the birth of the Savior." Yes, but are they applied correctly? There is no mention here of this child being a saviour. Traditionally, this passage has been interpreted in this way. Presumably, this is because the "young woman" was earlier misinterpreted to mean "virgin" (see KJV). Was Mary a virgin?

The other thing I don't get is that the prophesy says that the child is going to be named Immanuel; not Jesus. But I must be missing something here.

Second Reading: Romans 1.1-7. The Messiah is a descendant of David according to the flesh and the Son of God according to the Spirit. His salvation is for all the people in the world.

From Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which God promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures: the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Through Christ we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Note that it appears to be important for Christians to assert that Jesus was descended from David. This is because earlier prophets, like Isaiah (see Dec 9) were calling for a Messiah descended from David. These earlier scriptures do not, however, support the idea that the Messiah was also to be conceived by God and a virgin (unless I am missing something, which may very well be the case). It is Paul that is making this claim, on the basis of what exactly, I'm not sure (it appears that Saul of Tarsus never even met Jesus when the latter was alive).

Gospel: Matthew 1.18-24. Emmanuel means God is with us. Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

The birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means 'God is with us'." When Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife.

Houston: we have a problem. If Joseph (a descendant of David) was not the natural father of Jesus, then in what sense is Jesus fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy that the Messiah will spring from the root of Jesse (see Dec 9)? It does not seem reasonable to claim that the lineage is traced through the female. For added commentary, see here and here.

Other problems: [1] there appears to be no support in the OT of a Messiah born of a virgin; [2] In the first reading, the scripture quoted referred to a "young woman" and not a "virgin." The former appears to be the correct translation, so why the switch around now? [3] Matthew quoting this part of the scripture appears to be totally out of context; again, see discussion of first reading. [4] The prophesy says Immanuel and not Jesus (saviour or salvation). Am I the only one who notices these things?

Question: why is it a big deal for Christians to believe that Mary was a virgin? I suspect that this must be linked to the belief in the Holy Trinity. Why is it a big deal for Christians to believe in the Holy Trinity? I'm not sure; perhaps we'll find out later. For now, you may want to consult: Nontrinitarianism.

The classic example is in Isaiah where an "Almah" is translated as a young woman shall give birth vs. a virgin shall give birth. If it were a virgin, "Beteulah" should have been written.

Another example is our translation one of the ten commandments. "You shall not murder" this allows a soldier defending his homeland or people to kill during a war. The wrong translation "You shall not kill" is used and then people have problems with soldiers and executions on death row.