The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.

That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.

Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.

The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.

Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.

For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!

It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.

Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.

Potential problem, eh?

Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.

We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?

Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.

Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.

Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places, but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.

It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean." But in other places, "jew" is used to mean "Israelite" -- possibly because the jewish translators were trying to change the story.

These "jew" translations happened about 200-300 or so years ago, as the word was not used (in English) before then.

This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.

Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.

But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."

These out-of-context translations cause problems.

So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...

• One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
• His descendants are the Semites
• Shem's great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
• Eber's great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
• Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel

Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.

But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.

These are today's jews.

OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.

So, jews are not Israelites.

Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."

Israelite Judean, yes.

Jewish Judean, yes.

Edomite jew, yes.

They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).

Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.

The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.

There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.

I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).

Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.

But logically, it cannot be true.

Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.

As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.

Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.

Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).

Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.

The jews today are not true Semites.

They lie about that, too.

Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.

It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.

He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.

"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.

And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.

Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.

Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.

Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, when considered in context.

The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.

That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.

Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.

The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.

Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.

For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!

It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.

Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.

Potential problem, eh?

Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.

We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?

Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.

Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.

Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places (NT only -- interesting, huh?), but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.

It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean."

This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.

Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.

But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."

These out-of-context translations cause problems.

So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...

• One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
• His descendants are the Semites
• Shem's great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
• Eber's great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
• Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel

Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.

But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.

These are today's jews.

OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.

So, jews are not Israelites.

Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."

Israelite Judean, yes.

Jewish Judean, yes.

Edomite jew, yes.

They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).

Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.

The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.

There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.

I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).

Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.

But logically, it cannot be true.

Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.

As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.

Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.

Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).

Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.

The jews today are not true Semites.

They lie about that, too.

Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.

It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.

He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.

"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.

And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.

Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.

Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.

Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, when considered in context.

The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.

That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.

Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.

The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.

Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.

For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!

It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.

Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.

Potential problem, eh?

Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.

We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?

Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.

Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.

Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places (NT only -- interesting, huh?), but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.

It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean."

This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.

Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.

But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."

These out-of-context translations cause problems.

So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...

• One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
• His descendants are the Semites
• Shem's great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
• Eber's great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
• Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel

Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.

But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.

These are today's jews.

OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.

So, jews are not Israelites.

Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."

Israelite Judean, yes.

Jewish Judean, yes.

Edomite jew, yes.

They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).

Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.

The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.

There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.

I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).

Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.

But logically, it cannot be true.

Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.

As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.

Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.

Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).

Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.

The jews today are not true Semites.

They lie about that, too.

Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.

It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.

He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.

"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.

And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.

Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.

Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.

Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, which considered in context.

The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.

That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.

Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.

The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.

Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.

For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!

It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.

Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.

Potential problem, eh?

Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.

We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?

Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.

Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.

Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places (NT only -- interesting, huh?), but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.

It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean."

This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.

Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.

But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."

These out-of-context translations cause problems.

So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...

• One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
• His descendants are the Semites
• Shem's great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
• Eber's great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
• Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel

Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.

But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.

These are today's jews.

OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.

So, jews are not Israelites.

Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."

Israelite Judean, yes.

Jewish Judean, yes.

Edomite jew, yes.

They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).

Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.

The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.

There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.

I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).

Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.

But logically, it cannot be true.

Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it start to make sense.

As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.

Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.

Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).

Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.

The jews today are not true Semites.

They lie about that, too.

Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.

It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.

He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.

"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.

And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.

Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.

Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.

Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, which considered in context.

The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.

That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.

Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.

The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.

Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.

For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!

It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.

Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.

Potential problem, eh?

Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.

We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?

Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.

Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.

Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places (NT only -- interesting, huh?), but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.

It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean."

This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.

Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.

But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."

These out-of-context translations cause problems.

So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...

• One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
• His descendants are the Semites
• His great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
• His great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
• Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom, and Jacob/Israel

Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.

But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.

These are today's jews.

OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.

So, jews are not Israelites.

Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."

Israelite Judean, yes.

Jewish Judean, yes.

Edomite jew, yes.

They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).

Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.

The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.

There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.

I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).

Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.

But logically, it cannot be true.

Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it start to make sense.

As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.

Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.

Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).

Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.

The jews today are not true Semites.

They lie about that, too.

Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.

It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.

He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.

"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.

And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.

Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.

Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.

Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, which considered in context.