My apologies! This is Chuck Misler's work. The translations of the names that he uses include several non-standard definitions; none of which are unfounded, but are unique.
Whomever you got them from plagiarized them from Dr . Misler, unless they gave credit.
I dont read the works/books of various religious men. I have purchased one book a couple of years back which was my first in over twenty years (one I still have yet to read, and will not likely be bothered). The extent of my exposure to teachings is what I might fall across or allow myself in forums, for the sake of some kind of interacting (given my position). And that, only if my eye is caught to a topic of interest or the poster might seem to know what they are talking about (or might need help) to be a little interested.
This wasnt the exact video I watched, but was the shortest version of the like videos, one of which I fell onto as one might from time to time from just being on a christian forum. I never thought there was much in it except retreiving a list of names given in the scriptures (and clicking on the name meanings, and roots all the rest of it) and lining them up in their natural order.
Sharing in the same Spirit of "as you have freely received freely give" in respects to the same. I wouldnt even think it really worthy of a book on it or even think to copywrite it and sell it, it just wouldnt come into my mind to think someone would think to do that on this.
Well, I at least hope the writer gave the credit to God for setting the same up like that ( if it be legitimately of Gods design). Im sure there were tweeks to get it to work better though, so it might be best to take that kind of credit then stick God with holding the bag on that one. But to some extent I do understand. There is also an unspoken rule (of common courtesy) among brothers to extend a little acknowledgement their way in things. Afterall giving double honour to those who labor in word and doctrine, which is rare. And I would suppose that would include what another brother ( Chuck in this case) had come to by the scriptures (even though by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost).
It just seemed more like pulling the woven thread out from the scriptures and lining up what might not appear so plain, and show something somewhat in accord with the gospel (as he was bringing it forth) which would likely serve as a tool to strike further interest (or investigation). If he is would be incorrect (here or there) that wouldnt diminish the truth of the gospel (which he might be attempting to show through this means of doing so). So cant hurt.
I too would have attributed the work to Holy Spirit (for the greater part) without thought of the man's name so much. Their names are rarely remembered by me, but Jesus Christ (if they show him with skill enough would be) and thats good enough, a mand reward is with God, and the name above all names is Jesus Christ (not the name for oneself so much).
I typically dont go off to research these things, such things as doctrines, especially not in the person of te men themselves (like where they might have originated) I would think scripture would be sufficient for that.
Quick question, since the issue of credit has come in, have they figured out who the writer of the book of Hebrews is? Or is that still somewhat of a mystery still? Does anyone know with a surety or is it still speculatory?
I was just curious on a side note
