Names of kings and cities in Genesis 14:2

The following is purely my speculation, I do not claim to know Hebrew or be a scholar.

Some of the names in the Bible are extremely symbolic and therefore possibly are not real names. No good parent would name their son "in wickedness." The names of the cities were likely given after the fact, we know this be the case with Zoar, as it is written:

Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.--Genesis 19:22

Genesis 19 was when the cities were being destroyed and here we see the city Zoar being named because of the events of Genesis 19, yet this city is named much earlier in Genesis 13:10.  Perhaps, the other cities were likewise. If the cities were named (or renamed) perhaps the names of the kings in Genesis 14 were likewise?

Genesis 14:2 the kings of the cities God would later destroy were named:

they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela--the same is Zoar.--Genesis 14:2

עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה, אֶת-בֶּרַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם, וְאֶת-בִּרְשַׁע, מֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה; שִׁנְאָב מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה, וְשֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צְבֹיִים, וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע, הִיא-צֹעַר

They had an ally, the King of Salem, the city believed to be the future Jerusalem:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. --Genesis 14:18

וּמַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן; וְהוּא כֹהֵן, לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן

Bera--בֶּרַע
 Bera--בֶּרַע who is called King of Sodom, his name seems to mean "in evil", as it is used in Exodus 5:

And the officers of the children of Israel did see [that] they [were] in evil [בְּרָע --b'ra]  [case], after it was said, Ye shall not minish [ought] from your bricks of your daily task. --Exodus 5:19 KJV 1611

וַיִּרְאוּ שֹׁטְרֵי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֹתָם--בְּרָע לֵאמֹר:  לֹא-תִגְרְעוּ מִלִּבְנֵיכֶם, דְּבַר-יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ.

Genesis rabbah states:

....Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa would [also] expound names. “Bera” – as he was a wicked son [ben ra]; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash:

They made war against Bera because he was wicked [ra' רַע] in the sight of God [literally heaven] and man; --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה אֶת בֶּרַע, שֶׁהָיָה רַע לַשָּׁמַיִם וְלַבְּרִיּוֹת. --Midrash Tanchuma

Concerning the city of Sodom, prior to its destruction, the scriptures call it "evil" and "sinful" using the same root word that the king's name has--ra'.

and the men of Sodom are evil [ra'im רָעִים], and sinners before Jehovah exceedingly.--Genesis 13:13

וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם, רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים, לַיהוָה, מְאֹד

Sodom סְדֹם

The name of Sodom סְדֹם s'dom is spelled the same as the Hebrew word for "their secret" or "their council," or "their deliberation." Modern Hebrew still uses the word sod to mean secret or mystery which is used in another context in Genesis.

Into their secret [b'sodam בְּסֹדָם], come not, O my soul! Unto their assembly be not united, O mine honour; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will eradicated a prince.--Genesis 49:6 Young's Literal Translation

בְּסֹדָם אַל-תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי, בִּקְהָלָם אַל-תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי:  כִּי בְאַפָּם הָרְגוּ אִישׁ, וּבִרְצֹנָם עִקְּרוּ-שׁוֹר  

Perhaps referring to the sin of Sodomy? However, by the time they were destroyed according to Genesis 19 it was out in the open.

Strong's Concordance claims it can mean "burning" or "scorched," but I cannot find evidence for this claim.

Birsha בִּרְשַׁע

The next name, Birsha בִּרְשַׁע the king of Gomorrah, his name seems to mean "in wickedness" or "in iniquity" as it is used in Psalm 141 

Incline not my heart to an evil thing, To do habitually actions in wickedness [בְּרֶשַׁע b'resha] , With men working iniquity, Yea, I eat not of their pleasant things.--Psalm 141:4 Young's Literal Translation

אַל-תַּט-לִבִּי    לְדָבָר רָע,
לְהִתְעוֹלֵל עֲלִלוֹת    בְּרֶשַׁע--
אֶת-אִישִׁים    פֹּעֲלֵי-אָוֶן;
וּבַל-אֶלְחַם,    בְּמַנְעַמֵּיהֶם 

Genesis rabbah states:

“Birsha” – as he was an evil son [ben rasha]; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash:

they made war upon Birsha because he had behaved evilly [רָשָׁע rasha]; --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

בִּרְשַׁע, שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה רָשָׁע. --Midrash Tanchuma, Lecha Lecha 8

 Gomorrah  עֲמֹרָה 

The city name Gomorrah  עֲמֹרָה most resembles the word 'omer עֹמֶר which is a Biblical unit for measuring grains, its roughly 3 liters of grains. 

This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer [עֹמֶר] for every man, [according to] the number of your persons; take ye every man for [them] which [are] in his tents.--Exodus 16:16

זֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, לִקְטוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ:  עֹמֶר לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, מִסְפַּר נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם--אִישׁ לַאֲשֶׁר בְּאָהֳלוֹ, תִּקָּחוּ

Maybe this alludes to them having lots of grains or food? Concerning the cities destroyed Ezekiel 16 states they had a lot of bread (which can be measured in omers)::

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.--Ezekiel 16:49

 We are told the cities of the plain were well watered so much so it was like the Garden of Eden, causing Lot to move there:

all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar. --Genesis 13:10

Part of the irony of the destruction of the cities was it went from water, rich soil, and fertile to fire scorched, soil and brimstone contaminated soil, and desolate. 

Perhaps, the city's name is portmanteau which means "disobedient people" or "rebellious people" since the word for "he rebels" is marah:

And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said: 'It is the man of God, who rebelled [מָרָה marah] against the word of the LORD; therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke unto him.--1 Kings 13:26

וַיִּשְׁמַע הַנָּבִיא, אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא, אֲשֶׁר מָרָה אֶת-פִּי יְהוָה; וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ יְהוָה לָאַרְיֵה, וַיִּשְׁבְּרֵהוּ וַיְמִתֵהוּ, כִּדְבַר יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-לוֹ 

 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious [ וּמֹרֶה umoreh], he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.--Deuteronomy 21:20

וְאָמְרוּ אֶל-זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ, בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה--אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקֹלֵנוּ; זוֹלֵל, וְסֹבֵא

'am is a common Hebrew word for people

And the LORD said, Behold, the people [עַם 'am] [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.--Genesis 11:6

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, הֵן עַם אֶחָד וְשָׂפָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּם, וְזֶה, הַחִלָּם לַעֲשׂוֹת; וְעַתָּה לֹא-יִבָּצֵר מֵהֶם, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יָזְמוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת 

Rebellious people would make sense because they their evil is rebellion against God, but Genesis 14:3 also says they rebelled against the king they were subjugated to for the last 12 years.

Though seemingly less likely, the word resembles a portmanteau of  'am (people) and marah (bitter), in Exodus 15:23 the place of Marah had 'bitter' water. 

Still more others suggest other names that I cannot check out like "submersion." 

Shinab שִׁנְאָב

Shinab שִׁנְאָב (shin'av) the king of Admah, his name seems to mean "hate father." The words are not used in any sentence together in the Hebrew Bible that I can find. The second half of the name seems obvious--Av אָב means father, as in: 

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father [av אָב ] of many nations have I made thee.--Genesis 17:5

וְלֹא-יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת-שִׁמְךָ, אַבְרָם; וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אַב-הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ

The first half is can be שִׁנְ shin which means "tooth" (Exodus 21:24 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" or "ivory" (Amos 6:4) which considering the other names in Genesis 14 makes little sense. Or, it can be שִׁנְאָ which means "sleep" (Psalm 127:2) which also does not make a whole lot of sense. There is another option, though spelled slightly different in modern Hebrew lacking the dot on the topic right of the shin and having it instead on the top left making the letter called "sin", שָׂנֵא sana which means hate as in:

Neither will you set up a pillar, which the LORD you God hates [שָׂנֵא sana].--Deuteronomy 16:22

וְלֹא-תָקִים לְךָ, מַצֵּבָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. 

Since ancient Hebrew had the shin and sin written the same, and there were pretty much no diacritics at all, שָׂנֵא and שִׁנְאָ would be written the same--as שנא.  In this case, the name Shinav would "hates father." This could mean he hated his own father, or it could mean he hated God. Some like the Medieval French Rabbi Rashi claims this means he hated the heavenly Father. The name then probably means this king hated God.

Genesis Rabbah states:

“Shinav” – as he aspired [shoev] to wealth; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash is in favor of "hates father":

they fought against Shinab because he detested [שׂוֹנֵא soné] the Heavenly Father [לָאָב la'av] ;--Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

שִׁנְאָב, שֶׁהָיָה שׂוֹנֵא לָאָב שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם. -- Midrash Tanchuma Lech Lecha 8 

Admah אַדְמָה

The city's name was Admah אַדְמָה . The first man, as well as humanity in general, is called adam. However, words with the same spelling as Adam exist in scripture. Adamah mean soil, Adam's name refers to the fact he is spoken of as being made from dirt. The word can also mean red/brown like the color of soil. The word for blood is dam. The word for silence is dumah.

(Perfect match of letters): adamah אֲדָמָה --soil/ground here is an occurrence:

And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground [אֲדָמָה adamah]--Genesis 4:2

 וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת, אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל; וַיְהִי-הֶבֶל, רֹעֵה צֹאן, וְקַיִן, הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה

Perhaps the city is called "soil" or "earth" because it was fertile land as mentioned before.

(Close match): Adam אָדָם --adam or human, as in:

And the man [haadam הָאָדָם] gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam [וּלְאָדָם ul'adam] there was not found a help meet for him.--Genesis 2:20

וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ

Shemeber/shem'ever שֶׁמְאֵבֶר

The other Shemeber שֶׁמְאֵבֶר--is even less apparent. שֶׁמְ can mean "placing" שֶׂם  "sem" or "there" שָׁם as in "they got out of there," or "name" which in term can refer to authority, it is also the name of a son of Noah--Shem.

The word is used in the senses of "there" and "placing" is found in Genesis 2:

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put [וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם vayysem sham] the man whom He had formed. --Genesis 2:8

 וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר.

The meaning of "name" is found in Genesis 2:

The name of [שָׁם sham] the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;--Genesis 2:11

שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב.

Eber אֵבֶר (ever) means wings as in:

And I said: 'Oh that I had wings (אֵבֶר ever) like a dove! then would I fly away, and be at rest.--Psalm 55:6(7)

וָאֹמַר--מִי-יִתֶּן-לִי אֵבֶר, כַּיּוֹנָה:    אָעוּפָה וְאֶשְׁכֹּנָה

Shem being the name of Noah's son is found in Genesis also:

Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem (שֵׁם), Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood.--Genesis 10:1

 וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת בְּנֵי-נֹחַ, שֵׁם חָם וָיָפֶת; וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם בָּנִים, אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל 

Rashi claims it means to spring and rebel against God, but that seems like a stretch. Interestingly, there is tradition in the Early Christians and Jews that Shem is Melchizedek, if this is the case, perhaps its alluding to being an ally of Melchizedek--"Shem's wings"? 

Some suggest the shem part of the name is an abbreviated form of שמם which is often translated "desolation", as in:

He hath turned aside my ways, and pulled me in pieces: he hath made me desolate [שֹׁמֵם shomem].--Lamentations 3:11

 דְּרָכַי סוֹרֵר וַיְפַשְּׁחֵנִי, שָׂמַנִי שֹׁמֵם

The only issue would be one mem being dropped.

Still yet, there is another explanation that is offered from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

Shemebar, who had corrupted himself with fornication,--Genesis 14:2 of the Jerusalem Targum (pseudo-Jonathan)

ושמאבר דמחבל איבריה ליזניה

 Where איבריה (translated corrupted) which members "limb" is understood as an euphemism for penis as it is used in later Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. 

So, the name can potentially (and absurdly) mean "desolate penis" or "Shen

Then Genesis Rabbah has:

“Shemever” – as he would fly off to bring wealth; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash:

 Shemeber because he had said, “I will ascend with a wing [בָּאֵבֶר ba'aver] above the heights of the clouds.”  --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

שֶׁמְאֵבֶר, שֶׁאָמַר אֶעֱלֶה בָּאֵבֶר עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב. --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

Zeboiim צְבֹיִים tz'voyim

The name of the city Zeboiim is spelled at least 4 ways in scripture: צְבֹיִים tz'voyim (1 variant of Genesis 14:2's spelling), צבויים tz'voyim (other variant of Genesis 14:2), צְבֹיִם tz'voyim (Genesis 10:19), צְבֹאיִם tz'voyim (Hosea 11:8).  The word exists in 5 verses: Genesis 10:19, Genesis 14:2, Genesis 14:8, Deuteronomy 29:23, Hosea 11:8.   

[Perfect match for Hosea 11:8 spelling] The spelling Hosea 11:8 spelling צְבֹאיִם is found again in Numbers 31:42, which might imply the city is named for fighting/war:

And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided off from the men that warred [הַצֹּבְאִים hatztzov'im]--Numbers 31:42

וּמִמַּחֲצִית, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר חָצָה מֹשֶׁה, מִן-הָאֲנָשִׁים הַצֹּבְאִים.

This does matched Genesis 14 which is about war. The word refers to a gathering for the purposes of fighting/war and is derived from Tzva, which is part of God's titles, "LORD of Hosts" "YHVH tzvaot" where tz'vaot or Tz'va referring to armies. Here is an instance in which tz'vaot "hosts" or "armies" is used, along with the related word for fight tzi'bo.

For thus saith the LORD unto me: Like as the lion, or the young lion, growling over his prey, though a multitude of shepherds be called forth against him, will not be dismayed at their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them; so will the LORD of hosts [צְבָאוֹת] come down to fight [לִצְבֹּא litz'bo] upon mount Zion, and upon the hill thereof. --Isaiah 31:4

כִּי כֹה אָמַר-יְהוָה אֵלַי כַּאֲשֶׁר יֶהְגֶּה הָאַרְיֵה וְהַכְּפִיר עַל-טַרְפּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר יִקָּרֵא עָלָיו מְלֹא רֹעִים, מִקּוֹלָם לֹא יֵחָת, וּמֵהֲמוֹנָם לֹא יַעֲנֶה; כֵּן, יֵרֵד יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, לִצְבֹּא עַל-הַר-צִיּוֹן, וְעַל-גִּבְעָתָהּ

[Perfect match 1 Chronicles 12:9]: There is an animal mentioned a few times in scripture, whose identity is debated some say is a hyena, gazelle, or a deer. Here is an instance of a perfect match for tz'vayim]

And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David to the stronghold in the wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained for war, that could handle shield and spear; whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes [צְבָאיִם tz'vayim] upon the mountains; --1 Chronicles 12:9

וּמִן-הַגָּדִי נִבְדְּלוּ אֶל-דָּוִיד לַמְצַד מִדְבָּרָה גִּבֹּרֵי הַחַיִל, אַנְשֵׁי צָבָא לַמִּלְחָמָה--עֹרְכֵי צִנָּה, וָרֹמַח; וּפְנֵי אַרְיֵה פְּנֵיהֶם, וְכִצְבָאיִם עַל-הֶהָרִים לְמַהֵר.

Bela בֶּלַע

Next, the next mention is the city of Bela בֶּלַע  Bela' which we have a perfect match for spelling for too where it means "swallow", "devour":

He hath swallowed [בָּלַע bala'] down riches, and he shall vomit them up again; God shall cast them out of his belly.--Job 20:15

חַיִל בָּלַע, וַיְקִאֶנּוּ;    מִבִּטְנוֹ, יֹרִשֶׁנּוּ אֵל.

The root of the word is also found in Genesis 41:7--

And the seven thin ears devoured [וַתִּבְלַעְנָה] the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, [it was] a dream.--Genesis 41:7

 וַתִּבְלַעְנָה, הַשִּׁבֳּלִים הַדַּקּוֹת, אֵת שֶׁבַע הַשִּׁבֳּלִים, הַבְּרִיאוֹת וְהַמְּלֵאוֹת; וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה, וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם.

The meaning "devoured" is confirmed in the Jewish targum pseudo-Jonathan:

the king of the city which consumed (Bela) the dwellers thereof, which is Zoar.  --Jerusalem Targum (pseudo Jonathan) Genesis 14:2

Likewise, Genesis Rabbah:

“and the king of Bela, which is Tzoar” – as its residents were swallowed up [nitbale’u]. --Genesis Rabbah 42

Zoar צֹעַר Tzo'ar

[Biblical explanation provided in scripture]: Finally, on the list of Genesis 14:2 we have the city of Zoar צֹעַר Tzo'ar, which is spelled צוֹעַר tzoar in 3 times in Genesis 19 (19:22, 19:30). The meaning of the name of the city of Tzo'ar is actually provided in Scripture, it was named after Genesis 19 because it was a little, insignificant, or young city that God did not rain fire and brimstone on, as we see:

Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one [מִצְעָר]; oh, let me escape thither--is it not a little one [מִצְעָר mitz'ar]?--and my soul shall live.' And he said unto him: 'See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which thou hast spoken. Hasten thou, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.'--Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar [צוֹעַר tzo'ar].--Genesis 19:20-22

הִנֵּה-נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה, לָנוּס שָׁמָּה--וְהִוא מִצְעָר; אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה, הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא--וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו--הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ, גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה:  לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת-הָעִיר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ. מַהֵר, הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה, כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר, עַד-בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם-הָעִיר, צוֹעַר. 

Then, you have another king named Righteous King, Melki-tzedek, king of Salem (serenity), a type of Christ according to the Letter to the Hebrews. Though Shalem is interpreted as serenity, the original meaning according to some refers to the Cannanite god of evening Shalem. It is interesting in the Code of Hamurrabi (dated 1750 BC), Hammurabi is called "king of righteousness." Perhaps this was a common title used by kings?

Probably not their birth names.

Answering the LDS: Priesthood - Lost & Found: Evidences

In this article I will address the claims of this LDS apologist. Keep in mind in this response, who was responsible for the "great apostacy" who was responsible for replacing Apostles? The LDS position is the prophet/president is responsible, or at least the apostles, but do they even claim the Apostles appointed replacement after the time of Matthias?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z3Q51IqGGg&fbclid=IwAR0BzoyH-jMFUnB76dg1d_CmZoKqcjB4nIM_QCJBX-Yda3yFJTkOiNHg_kw


2:03

The Catholic is presenting is somewhat of a false dichotomy. There would be several alternatives if Catholics are wrong. Restorationist sects were a dime a dozen during the time of Joseph Smith. Furthermore, restorationism and the great apostacy is inconsistent with Scripture which Christ states he will be with the church til the end of the age and the gates of hades will not prevail against the church.

The LDS does not even believe in a total apostacy, the Apostle John never died according to D&C, what did he not keep the church afloat? Why did Joseph have to receive his authority through visions rather than a living apostle? John the most senior member of the 12, he was more deserving to be prophet than Joseph, John had seniority by 1700+ years by the time of Joseph Smith.

3:43 

the scriptures cited at anti-thetical to LDS theology. They are saying FIRST are apostles, SECOND are prophets. Meaning Apostles have authority greater than prophets. The prophets in the NT were subject to the Apostles and to Paul, they just aided them telling them about visions God gave them. This is the case of Agabeus and the female prophets who were the daughters of Phillip. New Testament prophets actually predicted the future, not made church policy.

Revelation 21:14 tell us the New Jerusalem has the names of the 12 Apostles written on its pillars:

The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb--Revelation 21:14

Furthermore, the LDS has 15 not 12, the Apostle Peter was one of the 12, but the currently LDS prophet has 12 under him plus 2 joining him in the first presidency. The NT says there are 12 pillars, not 13, not 15. If there are 12 names, then its certain the LDS prophet is not among them since is not part of the Quorum of the 12. The fact only 12 names are mentioned in Rev 21 shows there was not intention of perpetually replacing the Apostles. Rather, the apostles ordained bishops like Timothy who would exercise authority of their region.

Not only this, but in the NT the term apostle was expanded beyond the 12. Paul was not ordained an apostle by Peter, or the living apostles, but by the gather of presbyters in Acts 13:1-3 when the Spirit spoke to them. Paul and Barnabas were both counted as apostles in Acts 14:14. Later on in scripture others are called apostles, possibly even a woman named Junia, the term apostle just refers to someone sent out.

4:17

Acts 1:21-22 tells us the criteria to even be among those to be in the 12. The man had to have been with them since the Baptism of John, and had been with the 11 since the time Christ was crucified and resurrected. All the people that could have qualified to see this are dead, except according to D&C John the Apostle who is not among the present Quorum of the 12, or the first presidency, making the number of apostles over 12 again.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us *all the time* that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,  *Beginning from the baptism of John**, unto that **same day* that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a **witness with us of his resurrection**.--Acts 1:21-22

5:07

All the Apostles, properly speaking--the 12, as well as Paul and Barnabas were long dead at this point. The qualifications for being among the 12 no longer could be met and there is no indication the 12 even intended to keep the number of the 12 after replacing Judas with Matthias. The apostles continued to ordained deacons and bishops/presbyters. Some were called Apostles beyond this because they were sent out as missionaries like Paul and Barnabas. St Ignatius himself was a disciple of John, yet he replies to understanding that the Apostles intended for there to be full replacements of them.  It is interesting that "college of apostles" is underlined. St Ignatius is called the presbyters the college of the apostles. He does this elsewhere in his Epistles too, for instance in the previous chapter of the same Epistle he writes:

It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ,--Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 2

In his letter to the Magnesians he writes similar:

while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons--Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 6 

When St Ignatius states in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, "Apart from these, there is no Church" here is not referring to "college" or "assembly of the apostles" but to all which he mentions in the previous sentence: bishop, presbyters, and deacons.

5:34

The claim is made that only Apostles can ordain bishops. Not only is this not what is stated, it is conveniently left out the mention of deacons along side bishops. If the same reasoning only Apostles can ordain bishops, according to the provided interpretation, then it must likewise follow that only Apostles can ordain deacons, yet the LDS do nor believe this either.

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.--St Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians: Chapter 42

If the 12 Apostles can appoint a replacement apostle, why can't bishop have the ability to replace bishops? In fact, Paul when he was ordained was not done so by the 12 Apostles in Acts 13:1-3.

What is meant by St Clement of Rome is to state the origin of the office of Bishop and deacon--the Apostles established these offices. This is why he calls the bishops the "first fruits" of the Apostles. Where does St Clement after this state that only apostles can appoint bishops? It should also be noted in Acts 1 the 12 Apostles are referred to as bishops, also.

8:42

A book by a Mormon and Catholic is quoted and a significant false claim is made that Pope Leo the Great was the first pope to assert universal authority. He only refers to the Mormon's statement by Alonzo Gaskill. Furthermore, without going on, its clear the Catholic writer of this book is not really in line with Church understanding of the LDS. The Catholic Church does not call Mormons "brothers and sisters in Christ" since the Church states Mormon baptisms are invalid, thus precluding them from being in Christ due to the seriously defection understanding of God in Mormon theology. But is Alonzo Gaskill's claim true that Pope Leo the Great was the Pope to reinject universal authority into the Church?

We see in St Clement of Rome, the very one quoted near the beginning of the video, this:

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."--Clement of Rome[regn. c A.D.91-101],1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in JUR,I:7,12

St Irenaeus of Gaul states the Bishop of Rome possesses pre-eminent authority in the Church:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."--Irenaeus, Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

 The claim the keys were lost needs evidence, furthermore, bind and loosing was done by all the apostle as we are informed in Matthew 18. The claim that they keys can mean the ability to receive new revelation requires evidence. Jesus said the Pharisees in Matthew 23 had power to bind. In rabbinical literature the term bind and loose refers to deciding matters of Jewish law.

10:37

The speaker quotes another book, this time by another LDS Alexander B Morrison. This writer seems to contradict the claims by the other LDS writer cited--Alonzo Gaskill who does not seem to deny Catholic bishops descend from apostolic times, whereas Morrison says there is no proof for any of it.

To be continued.

Hypothetical about the canon of scripture

Picture yourself in the situation of a sola-scriptura Christian in the year 100. All the Apostles are dead, so you are just left with the Scriptures since you don't believe the church has the authority to declare the canon of scripture. You only knew one apostle's gospel narrative---Matthew, you read and accept his gospel, you have not seen or read other accounts, you heard some are floating around. Finally one day some comes to town saying they have a new fancy gospel by some guy you never heard of named Luke. And Luke also wrote another book named Acts of the Apostles. You are skeptical since you never heard of Luke, you read Matthew 10--Luke is not a name of an apostle, so you already question this narration. You look through the whole gospel of Matthew--you see no Luke mentioned anywhere (how can you trust this guy, doesn;t even pretend to be someone known or noteworthy). Despite your doubts already, you read Luke's gospel and Acts to give it a chance, if Luke is true, it won't say something contrary to what you know is scripture in Matthew.

So you start off with the genealogies---the book you know is scripture says Joseph's father is named Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but you read this new guy Luke and he says Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Your doubts increase, how could this Luke guy screw up so barely? Perhaps there is an explanation for this, but you have no reason to try to go out of your way on accepting the word of this guy who wasn't an apostle. You read much of the rest of Luke and see many things are in common with Matthew, making you think Luke just borrowed, corrupted and embellished MAtthew's writing--which irritates you. You look at the story of the passion, your gospel said Christ was crucified with two criminals--both mocked Christ. Luke claims one mocked Christ and the other defended Jesus and Jesus told him he would see him in the kingdom! Unbelievable, this Luke guy just have to act like he has special information, he is again contradicting what MAtthew 27 seems to plainly say. Matthew 27:3 said Judas killed himself by hanging, but before that he gave the money back he was paid for betraying Christ, the elders bought a field for foreigners, and the field is called field of blood because it was bought with the money that killed Christ, but Luke in Acts 1 said Judas bought a field himself but had a gruesome death that does not mention suicide, and says the field is called the field of blood because his blood and guts were everywhere. Luke is just getting too hard to believe. You conclude Luke probably has the same faith as you do, but his history is off, and contradicts scripture, since its contradicts what you know to be true, you burn the copy and Luke and Acts since Luke is obviously unreliable.

As a reminder for those who claim that the 4 Gospels were all accepted in the 1st century--this is only true of the group that is now the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but not true of the Ebionites.

Christ under the appearance of stone!

Many Protestants who object to calling Peter the rock in Matthew 16:18 will appeal to a completely unrelated mention of Christ as the rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.--1 Corinthians 10:4 

Now, obviously this is not talking about a rock used for building, but rather the rock mentioned in the Torah that the Israelites drank from after Moses struck it

Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.--Numbers 20:11

Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.--Exodus 17:6

Now, I have not met many Protestants that object to the rock being Christ since it says "the rock was Christ."  Some ignorant of the context initially deny it since they only are familiar with the verse when debating Matthew 16:18. However, what does this mean? Christ appeared to God's people in the Old Testament "under the appearance of stone" from which they drank (on more than one occasion), as St Paul calls the water that it produced "spiritual drink." This is important to note since St Paul speak later in the chapter and in the next chapter (11) about the Eucharist, in which those of us who profess the real presence believe Christ "under the appearance of bread and wine." After mentioning the stone in verse 4 St Paul states:

Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.--1 Corinthians 10:5 

This brings to mind a verse later in St Paul's discourse on the Eucharist in chapter 11.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.--1 Corinthians 11:27-30

youtube "hate speech"

YouTube recently changed their terms of service and removed one of my videos I made in  2014. YouTube declared it hate speech without providing reason, I appealed the decision using 300 words or less explaining the video did not even call homosexuality immoral, but merely pointed out one of the arguments in favor of it was built not awful logic. They upheld it. I doubt they ever listened to the video. I set it up in a logic format. This is not a surprise, large corporations are becoming increasing defensives of homosexuality, to the point of suppressing opposing views. Banning videos like mine disproves YouTube is a platform, but is giving more credence for it being a publisher that has to be legally held accountable for its content.

 

Did Jesus drink the Cup of God's wrath in the Garden?

Before Christ was arrested by the Romans, He prayed in the garden asking that the "cup" pass from Him:

AV Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

AV Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

AV Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 

John's gospel makes a separate mention of the cup shortly after the Roman authorities appear:

AV John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Calvinists, as supporting evidence for Penal Substitutionary Atonement, claim the symbolic cup Jesus said He would drink from  is the Wrath of God (appealing to the book of Revelation 14:10's, and a few Old Testament references mentioning of a cup of wrath). However, when understanding the cup, we should look to Matthew's gospel itself. We see the mention of cup--ποτηριον occurs 7 times in the gospel narration:

AV Mt 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold [water] only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

AV Mt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 

AV Mt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. 

AV Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 

AV Mt 23:26 [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 

AV Mt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 

AV Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. 

AV Mt 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Since Jesus is speaking poetically, not about an actual cup in Matthew 26:37-42, we can rule out the mention of a literal cup like Matthew 10:42, 26:27. Since, Jesus is using a cup for a different purpose in Matthew 23:25-26, that is to say he is using it as an analogy of how the Pharisee are clean externally but inwardly dirty, we can remove this as matching the cup Jesus worried about drinking from.  This leaves us with only Matthew 20:22-23 left. The story is to tell the disciples the only way they will be exalted is to humble themselves, masters must become servants. When He talks about drinking of the cup, in another gospels he also adds they must be baptized with the baptism he will be baptized with.

They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;--Mark 10:39

Luke's gospel mentioning this baptism says:

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!--Luke 12:50 

This last mention of anguish is like the anguish described in Matthew 26 while praying in the garden before His executioners arrived, as we read:

He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death--Matthew 26:37-38

Furthermore, it is interesting that it was the sons of Zebedee that asked said they would drink of the same cup as Christ, and in Matthew 26:37 it says three disciples were asked to wait as Jesus prayer: Peter and the sons of Zebedee. Perhaps, He wanted them to have a first hand glimpse of the cup? James would later die in Acts 12 as a martyr, John would be the only Apostle not to die a martyr's death though tradition says he would be boiled alive and live. Peter, the chief apostle, would be told by Christ in John 21 he will be crucified, as tradition says he was in Rome.

Returning to the issue of Reformed theology, how can the cup of Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 be the wrath of God if two of the Apostle drank from the same cup? The answer is simple. The cup is not the wrath of God. It is a cup that represents suffering and sorrow--they would suffer at the hands of the very people they wanted to help. 

However, what do Reformed apologists do to avoid this treasured piece of evidence from being discounted as evidence that Jesus drank the cup of wrath? Say it the same but different cup:

"Christ was not indicating that James and John would atone for the sins of others—the grammar of His original question makes it impossible for Him to agree that the disciples could offer atonement. Instead, Jesus was pointing to the fact that in a sense, they would share in the ordeal Christ was about to undergo in Jerusalem. In other words, they would not escape suffering for the name of Jesus."--Ligonier.org "The Cup that Jesus drinks"

While admitting they are the same cup, in order to avoid the logical sacrilege implied by mere human apostles drinking the same cup of wrath, they say it means something else--that they would also suffer for Christ.

Premise 1: Jesus would drink a cup.
Premise 2: Two apostles were told they would drink the same cup.
Premise 3: Apostles cannot suffer the wrath of God as in the sense Calvinists suppose Christ suffered.
Conclusion: The cup was not the cup of wrath, therefore Matthew 26:42 cannot be used as support for penal substitution.

Allah's two right hands

I watched a video by Anthony Roger's on Allah's hands being literal hands. He posted a source from Sahih Muslim 1827 but I couldn't find it on the old USC page, I did however find it in another place:

The Prophet [SAW] said: "Those who are just and fair will be with Allah, Most High, on thrones of light, at the right hand of the Most Merciful, those who are just in their rulings and in their dealings with their families and those of whom they are in charge." Muhammad (one of the narrators) said in his Hadith: "And both of His hands are right hands."--Sunan an-Nasa'i 5379, Book 49, Hadith 1

أَخْبَرَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، ح وَأَنْبَأَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ آدَمَ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَلَى يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏"‏ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ ‏"‏‏.‏

 وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ being the Arabic for "and both of his hands are right hands." This passage is graded "sahih" authentic.

Later, I found out that the same website contains it as listed under Sahih Muslim 1827 as mentioned by Anthony!

Behold! the Dispensers of justice will be seated on the pulpits of light beside God, on the right side of the Merciful, Exalted and GlorioUS. Either side of the Being is the right side both being equally mrneritorious. (The Dispensers of justice are) those who do justice in their rules, in matters relating to their families and in all that they undertake to do.--Sahih Muslim 1827

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، وَابْنُ، نُمَيْرٍ قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ عَنْ عَمْرٍو، - يَعْنِي ابْنَ دِينَارٍ - عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ ابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ يَبْلُغُ بِهِ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَفِي حَدِيثِ زُهَيْرٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَنْ يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

 Despite the translation with the typos and omitting the mention of a hand, we see the same phrase being used وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ

Turns out Christian prince has a video that discusses this. 

Islam's Muslim Travel ban

Liberals say having a ban on letting Muslim immigrate to the USA is bigoted against a religion. It is.

Yet, at least Shia Islamic sources and scholars say its forbidden for a Muslim to move to or even travel to a non Islamic country unless its for the purposes of preaching Islam or medical necessity.

Both of these Islamic website are against Muslim migration to non Muslim countries:

https://islamqa.info/…/can-muslims-settle-in-kaafir-countri…

https://www.al-islam.org/a-c…/migration-non-muslim-countries

I am still looking to see if Sunni Islam has a similar ban.