✪ See earth - inherited.
✪ "Thus “earth dwellers” is a moral rather than a geographical term, even though the phrase has a geographical connotation. “Earth dwellers” is a synecdoche, in which the whole (earth dwellers) is put for one of its parts (unbelievers during the Tribulation). [See Ethelbert W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 637-638.]" Thomas D. Ice, The Meaning of “Earth Dwellers” in Revelation Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663 July-September 2009, 350:365, p. 350.
✪ "Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole -- or at least by large parts of it." Jerry Bergman, The Flat Earth Myth and Creationism, Ref-0784, 22(2) 2008, 114:120, p. 116. "did religionists really believe in a flat Earth before the advent of the scientific age? Not since Aristotle presented evidence for a spherical Earth in 330 BC, observing that southbound travellers see southern stars rising higher above the horizon. He also pointed out that the shadow of Earth on the Moon is always circular, and that only a spherical Earth could cast a circular shadow at all lunar phases. In 240 BC, Eratosthenes even calculated the Earth’s spherical circumference. In his treatise The reckoning of time, the venerable Bede (c. 672 – 735) explained the varying duration of daylight in terms of ‘the roundness of the Earth’, and continues, ‘for not without reason is it called “the orb of the world” on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe.’" Ref-1341, loc. 1088. "It is true that mediaeval scholars allegedly reverted to flat-Earth beliefs, but Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) argues in his book Inventing the flat Earth: Columbus and modern historians, that the flat-Earth theory is little more than a fable used to denigrate pre-modern European civilization." Ref-1341, loc. 1097. "Medieval scholars, by the way, didn’t even believe in a flat earth. Their cosmology held to a round earth. This is why Dante’s famous medieval Italian work, The Inferno, has the protagonist going on an imaginary journey to the center of the earth and then continuing straight through to the other side of the planet, where he comes out onto the earth’s surface. Dante wasn’t offering a breakthrough idea here. He was simply employing the conventional view of a round earth. The notion that medieval thinkers believed in a flat earth is an invention of secular enlightenment thinkers—a historical myth about the middle ages that self-styled “skeptics” cling to with a childlike faith despite the abundant historical evidence to the contrary." Ref-1560, par. 2056.
✪ See earth - cut off from. "Matthew 5:5. A quick glance at this verse and its allusion to Psalm 37:11 in the original languages would seem to suggest that Matthew is not changing much from Psalm 37." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 41. "This paper intends to fill the gap in dispensational literature by arguing that Matthew 5:5 reaffirms the OT land promises made to Israel . . . this reaffirmation should also not be understood by itself, but read together with other statements in Matthew's Gospel about the future, a future which will certainly include territorial blessings for the Gentiles (e.g. Matt 8:11; 19:28; 25:34). When read as a whole, Matthew's Gospel presents both a particular reaffirmed land inheritance for Israel that will fit into and be part of the universal, global inheritance for all." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 43. "The Hebrew verb used throughout Psalm 37 is יָרַשׁ, which can connote “inherit,” but its most common meaning is to “take possession” (see esp. its 47 usages in Deuteronomy). The more common Hebrew terms for “inherit” or “inheritance” are נָחַל and נַחֲלָה, neither of which are used in Psalm 37. Thus a more appropriate translation of Psalm 37:11 is, “But the meek will take possession of the land,” not “inherit the land.”" Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, pp. 46-47. "There are multiple dispensational theologies: classical, revised, and progressive, according to Bock's and Blaising's history of dispensationalism. [Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 9–56]" Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 53. "Gary Burge and John Nolland first admit that exegetically Matthew 5:5 refers to the land of Israel: Since [the use of γῆ] here in Matthew 5 springs from Psalm 37, Jesus' reference would have gained immediate notice among his listeners as a reference not to the entire earth but to the Land of Promise, the Holy Land. Moreover, Jesus refers to these recipients as inheritors of this land. This is yet another potent term for Jesus' audience. This word [kleronomeo, to inherit; kleros, inheritance] was commonly used to refer to the assignment of land in the OT promises. When “inheritance” is joined to “land” the allusion is unmistakable: this is the land of inheritance, the land of promise. [Burge, Jesus and the Land, 33–35; Richard E. Menninger, Israel and the Church in the Gospel of Matthew (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1994), 150–51.]" Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 56. ". . . three times (Matt. 16:26; 24:14; 26:13), Matthew makes it crystal clear that he is referring to the whole world by not using γῆ, but rather οικομένη or κόσμος, and by adding the adjective ὅλος (‘whole, entire, complete')." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 59. "Matthew had plenty of options to communicate his meaning more clearly if he wanted to indicate an inheritance of the whole earth, but he chose to allude to Psalm 37:11, he chose not to use the adjective "pa's" or "o&los", and he chose to use the more ambiguous term γῆ rather than the clearer terms οικουμένη or κόσμος. γῆ is more ambiguous because it can refer to the entire earth or to a region of the earth. Both οικουμένη and κόσμος cannot refer to only a part/region of the world, thus they are more precise choices than γῆ and could have been used if Matthew had wanted to refer to the whole earth." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 60. "If Matthew were going to make a surprising and big change from inheriting the land of Israel to inheriting the whole earth, why did he not make his meaning clearer? . . . one might conclude that τὴν γῆν refers to the well-known, specific land of Israel as opposed to a land or any land. But this is a wrong conclusion. . . . The article by itself helps neither view; the article by itself does not argue for τὴν γῆν referring to the land of Israel or the earth. Contextual factors are most important." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, pp. 60-61. "Matthew's addi-tion of the article does not destroy his allusion to Psalm 37:11 (since the meek are inheriting the land), yet adding the article allows him to conform his allusion to the use of κληρονομέω + the article + γῆ in the LXX, which almost always refers to in-heriting the land of Israel (except possibly Isa. 14:21)." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 63. "Jesus proclaims good news to the poor (Isa. 61:1, alluded to in Matt. 5:3), Jesus comforts all those who mourn (Isa. 61:2, alluded to in Matt. 5:4), and Jesus promises a second eschatological inheritance of the land of Israel for the meek (Isa. 61:7, alluded to in Matt. 5:5)." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 65. "Nearly all biblical scholars will agree that when ambiguity arises in biblical interpretation, the arbiter and final determiner of meaning is context." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 65. "If one reads from beginning to end, the expansion of the land view has difficulty. My plea is a modest one: given the intended Jewish audience of Matthew, given the political-territorial implications of Matthew 1:1–17, and assuming one reads from be-ginning to end, how would a first-century Jew have read Matthew 5:5 on first pass? Would Gentile inclusion have been in the forefront of his mind as he read, or the promised Jewish inheritance of the land of Israel? . . . Matthew 5:5 is a political-territorial claim against Roman imperial rule. In the first century AD, the land of Israel belonged to the mighty Roman Empire, but Matthew 5:5 makes the radical claim that the meek (not the mighty) will inherit the land. This would be akin to African or Asian colonies of the British Empire claiming that their land belongs to them and not to the British Empire. Matthew 5:5 is not a statement about the expansiveness or universal scope of inheritance; it is a bold political-territorial claim against Rome." Nelson S. Hsieh, MATTHEW 5:5 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT LAND PROMISES: AN INHERITANCE OF THE EARTH OR THE LAND OF ISRAEL?, Ref-0164, 41-75, p. 70.
✪ "The prophets sometimes saw future events not only together; but in expanding their description of these events, they seem occasionally to reverse the time sequence in their record of the vision. An example of this may be seen in Isaiah 65:17-25 . . . It is apparent, therefore, that Isaiah saw together on the screen of prophecy both the Millennial Kingdom and the Eternal Kingdom; but he expands in detail the former because it is the ‘nearest coming’ event and leaves the latter for fuller description in a later New Testament revelation [Rev. 21:1-8]." Ref-0183, p. 138. "Standing above all conceptions of time, the prophets feel free to couch their prophecies in the future tense (cf. Isa. 2), in the present tense (cf. Isa. 9:6), and sometimes even in the past tense (cf. Isa. 53). Moreover, parts of one prophecy may have reverse time sequences. Thus Isaiah 65:17-25 introduces first the new heavens and new earth (eternal state), and then paints a picture of millennial bliss -- whereas the reverse sequence would have been chronologically correct." Ref-0207, p. 92. "These new heavens and new earth [Isa. 65:17] are not to be confused with those of Revelation 21-22. The latter describes the new heavens and new earth of the Eternal Order, while the Isaiah passage describes those of the Messianic Kingdom which will be a renovation of the present heavens and earth. Those of Revelation are not a renovation, but a brand new order." Ref-0219, p. 388. Questionable: Isa. 28:22 (?);
✪ "The term τῆι παλιγγενεσίᾳ (“the Regeneration”) is a synonym for the Kingdom Age, also known as the Era of Redemption, Time of the Restoration, Messianic Era, the Day of the LORD, and the World to Come (Hebrew, ‘Olam Ha-Ba')." Ref-1356, p. 48.
✪ See Perez - divided.
✪ "Recent reports based on varve samples from the Dead Sea state that there was an earthquake in Judea sometime between A.D. 26 and A.D. 36 . . . and a more recent examination of varve strata near the Dead Sea concluded that the epicenter of the earth quake was near Jerusalem." Rodger C. Young, How Lunar and Solar Eclipses Shed Light on Biblical Facts Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 2 Spring 2013, 37-44, p. 41. See 20170909144421.pdf.
✪ Questionable: Rev. 9:16 (?);
✪ "The Golden Gate (the Eastern Gate to the Temple Mount), sealed by order of the Ottoman Sultan in 1541 to prevent the entry of the Jewish Messiah. The cemetary in the foreground is for the same purpose. Nevertheless, Hebrew graffitti on the wall reads ‘Come Messiah’ and ‘Israel waits.’" Ref-0010, p. 288. "a Muslim cemetery was placed in front of the Golden Gate, considered the original eastern entrance to the Temple. This was intended to keep the Jewish (and Christian) Messiah from entering through it, since passage through an unwalled cemetery incurs defilement." Ref-0144, p. 91. "there is no conclusive evidence that the present Golden Gate is even the same gate as the ancient Eastern Gate (or Shushan Gate) which opened onto the Temple Mount in the time of Christ. According to Leen Ritmeyer, there are stones in the wall beside the gate that may well date to the time of Nehemiah, and the inside of the gate contains pillars from the Second Temple period. However, the Golden Gate that people see today was constructed by a fifth-century A.D. Byzantine emperor. It was known to have been in ruins by A.D. 629, when it was rebuilt by Emperor Heraclius. It was first closed by the Arabs in A.D. 810, reopened by the Crusaders in A.D. 1102, and walled up again by the Saracens in A.D. 1197. Apparently it was opened again during reconstruction work done by the Ottoman Turkish Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, who rebuilt the present-day walls of the Old City. However, he closed it for the last time in A.D. 1546." Ref-0146, p. 530. An internet camera viewing the gate is at https://www.olivetree.org/webcam.htm. "The Eastern Gate was called the Shushan (or Susa) Gate because it bore a relief of the Shushan Palace in Babylon. Contrary to popular opinion, the Shushan Gate was not a public entrance or exit, but was used on Yom Kipper (Day of Atonement) for leading the scapegoat into the wilderness. The Miphkad Gate was used exclusively for the red heifer ceremony, but the Eastern Gate was used by the priest going in and out of the temple to perform this ceremony that took place on the Mt. of Olives, opposite this gate across the Kidron Valley. The Mishnah says that a wooden causeway was built from the Mt. of Olivers to this gate especially for this unique ceremony (Num. 19)." Ref-1326, p. 75. "Some Christians misunderstand this Golden Gate as being the eastern gate of Ezekiel’s prophecy through which the shekinah will follow in order to reenter the temple (Ezekiel 43:1-4). The Golden Gate (or Gate of Mercy) located on the eastern wall was first closed by Muslims in 810, reopened by the Crusaders in 1102, then walled up again by the Saracens in 1187. It was opened again during reconstruction work done by the Ottoman Turkish Sultan Suleiman, but it was he who last closed it in 1541. We do not know for certain if the present-day Golden Gate is at the same place as the ancient Eastern Gate. However, the eastern gate of Ezekiel’s prophecy is neither in the place of the present-day Golden Gate or ancient Eastern Gate, as Ezekiel’s Temple Mount is elevated much higher (Isaiah 2:2; Zechariah 14:10). Some Christians have been taught that the presently blocked condition of the Golden Gate is a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. But it must be remembered, if taken literally, Ezekiel’s description of this gate and its closing concerns a future temple, not the Temple Mount that exists today." Ref-1326, p. 135.
✪ Regarding the KJV use of the term "Easter" for the Greek word pascha: "Additionally, there is a possible problem if we understand this verse to mean the Jewish Passover. Verse three of this chapter states that Peter was taken during, ‘the days of unleavened bread.’ The next verse then speaks of Easter in the KJV. If the word is translated Passover we have the Days of Unleavened Bread coming before the Passover. In the Biblical use of the term, Passover came before the Days of unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:1-8,15,19; 13:7; Leviticus 2:11; and Deuteronomy 16:4). Contextually, it would seem that this pascha that followed the Days of Unleavened Bread was not the pascha that preceded the capture of Peter. Instead, it is likely to refer to the Roman celebration of Ostara, hence called Easter." Ref-0086, pp. 185-186