Month: July 2017

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Herein we continue, from the previous segments, considering objections raised by an Atheist from “The Skeptic Arena” who goes by the pseudonym “Neo” with regards to my repository website TrueFreethinker’s “About” page during a June 28, 2014 AD podast. In that which follows, you will find the contents of my About page in italics, his comments underlined and my replies in regular font.

One thing to note is that since I wrote for “Atheism is Dead” and now for “TrueFreethinker” I have had to deal with very many people who write to me to object to these terms. Such was the case above, with “Atheism is Dead,” and will be the case below, for “TrueFreethinker.”

The concept of freethinking is deeply rooted in the Bible itself

Ken, I’m going to have to give you a “time out.” From Dictionary.com – freethinker: “A person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief.” Synonyms: skeptic, agnostic; atheist.
See Ken, it works like this. You don’t get to define words to make them mean what you wish they meant. According to the dictionary, you are as far from being a freethinker as Donald Sterling is, from receiving an NAACP award.

Note that, especially as is detailed below, I was not raised a theist and most certainly did not come to a theist conclusion, Judeo-Christian specifically, due to “authority or tradition” but came to it precisely by forming “opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition.” Thus, I qualify. Yet, of course, this was a grammatical definition and there are many others; there are philosophic definitions, scientific definitions, theological definitions, etc.
Now, what is interesting is that those who were raised as Atheists by their parents may not qualify as freethinkers as, in that case, they did not come to Atheism “on the basis of reason” but due to “authority or tradition.” Moreover, if Atheism really is growing as much as Neo would like to think, it may one day be the majority, as is the case in some countries. In that case, Atheists would, moreover, not have opinions that “differ from established belief” as the “established belief” would be Atheism.

Also, while words do have meaning (or else you would not understand this sentence) we do indeed define words to make them mean what we wish they meant over time as this is how language evolves. To “suffer” used to mean to allow and now means to experiencing something unpleasant.
But if Neo wants to go the dictionary route then he needs to prove that God does not exist as per the dictionary definition of “Atheism” that I complied that define it as positively asserting God’s non-existence—see here.

Neo just jumped the gun, or jumped the shark, or got ahead of himself as I define that which I mean by freethinker. Recall that he quoted me to the effect that The concept of freethinking is deeply rooted in the Bible itself. Well, the sentence continued thusly:
as in the Bible, we find firm belief, we find doubt, we find skepticism, we find rebellion, we find every facet of human reactions towards, and against, the divine. Some people label themselves “skeptic” when they really mean “cynic.”

Ken, that’s why I don’t really like the term “skeptic.” One example would be global warming skeptics: they believe the exact opposite of what the actual skeptical community believes. I prefer the term Rationalist.

Well, Neo’s personal preferences are not at issue here but that which I claimed, which continues thusly:
I, for one, became a true and honest skeptic upon finding out that the Teeth Mice, Argentina’s equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, were not real; my parents had told me a quaint story about them leaving money for my teeth.

Ken, you sure set the bar awfully low. You found out that the tooth fairy wasn’t real, so you promoted yourself immediately to full-fledged skeptic. I would call that a good first step. However, your failure to apply that same skepticism to your religious beliefs proves that you never went any further after the trauma of learning the truth about those quarters under your pillow.

Well, they were not quarters, they were pesos. But in any regard, I did not promote myself “immediately to full-fledged skeptic” but rather, trace my skepticism to that event (and another that I mention in my video on this subject—see here, I have also attached it to this article). He seems to think that one cannot be a firm believer in God and also a skeptic but my point is that I am not an absolute skeptic (who is?) nor a cynic (as Neo is, as we shall see) but rather, have a healthy skepticism. Thus, I did not fail to “apply that same skepticism to” my “religious beliefs” but rather, it was that skepticism of the aforementioned New Age Movement, Reiki, I’Ching and most especially Christianity that lead to a reason or rationalism based belief.

In the next segment, we will consider…the Terminator and Matrix mythos.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Very, very many, many supposed bible contradictions can be cleared up by just noting one fact that should be utterly obvious.

In any language and in any text, a word, term, phrase, etc. can have, and likely always has, more than one meaning.

The video presents an illustration of this fact.

Also see my previous related video, “Are there contradictions in the Bible?“

This essay will focus on one biblical instance of an appearance of God in human form millennia before the time of Jesus and the polemical issues which orbit around it.

Part 1: Considering the Text Part 2: Considering the Polemic Part 3: Considering the Polemic (continued) Part 4: Anthropomorphic Idolatry

Part 5: Face to Face with God

Considering the Text:
Let us consult the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation of Genesis 18:1-2, 8, 13-14, 17-18, 20-22, 26-27, 33, 19:1 [with added emphasis]:

Introductory Conclusion: Having dealt with the Timothy McVeigh issue; I continue the essay with my conclusion because I think that it is so important that I do not want it to be missed.

Dan Barker absolutely discredits every criticism he has ever, and will ever, utter against religion, Christianity, the Bible, God, Jesus, etc. by his own relativistic situational ethics. This essay will support this rather hefty assertion.

Herein, we conclude considering Michael Heiser’s “Preliminary Investigation” and “brief overview” which contains some “very tentative” conclusions and some things about which he is “still thinking…and my views may change.” This is all in regards to “brief overview into the matter of serpentine / reptilian beings in the Hebrew Bible.” The previous segment left off with whether we have enough biblical information to conclude that “seraphim, cherubim, and Watchers” are described “as ‘human like beings clothed in white linen’” “(in Daniel)” (find my full write up here).

As it turns out, there is simply not enough, in fact no, information to conclude that “seraphim, cherubim, and Watchers” are described “as ‘human like beings clothed in white linen’” “(in Daniel).” Also, note that there are two references to Watchers in Daniel (and neither offers a description):
4:13 states:

I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven.

4:17 notes:

This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers…

4:23 follows up with:

And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven…

Some translations, such as the NASB, insert an italicized word into the texts of 4:17, 23 thusly, “an angelic Watcher.” Yet, these are the Aramaic portions of Daniel wherein the term Watcher is ‘iyr (Strong’s H5894).
The only other place within the Bible where watcher appears, in a supernatural or paranormal context, is in Job 7:20 which is simply a statement about the fact that YHVH watches us:
Have I sinned? What have I done to You, O watcher of men? Why have You set me as Your target, So that I am a burden to myself?

In this case, it is the Hebrew natsar (Strong’s H5341). The other usages are of people watching what have you or keeping, preserving, observing, etc. (such as in watching over/observing something to keep/preserve it).

Lastly, Michael Heiser notes that there is Egypt art that:

…describe and depict serpents. Many of them have the srf as having wings or flying. Others combine this description with fire (and so this may give rise to a dual wordplay in the Hebrew Bible – where seraphim refers to a luminous serpentine divine being). This seems most consistent.

As per the attached slideshow, Egyptian art certainly does this; some being serpents with arms, legs and wings.
The question is just how much trust can we put in very, very late dated Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 Enoch and Egyptian art that dates earlier than Dead Sea Scrolls and 1 Enoch but may much less reflect YHVH’s revelation as it was composed by a Pagan culture?

Isaiah 6 notes:

In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew… Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.”

It is common knowledge (uh-oh) that biblically, names are descripting and not mere labels. This is particularly true of the supernatural realm (which denotes YHVH) and the paranormal realm (which denotes Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, etc. who are not supernatural since they are part of the natural realm, the creation; they are creatures and not the one and only supernatural creator). For example, Angels are referred to as such because their job function is messengers. Cherubim are guardians. There is also the devil which means accuser aka satan which means adversary. Seraphim are well, that is the question is it not? Based on the Isaiah text, which is, arguably according to some, the only place they appear. The term appears in other texts such as: Numbers 21:6 and Deuteronomy 8:15 where saraph saraph (Strong’s H8314) is generally translated as “fiery serpents.”

Numbers 21:8 where saraph is generally translated as “fiery serpents” with serpent being implied from the context of verse 6.

And Isaiah 14:29 and Isaiah 30:6 where it is “flying serpent.”

Keep in mind that Michael Heiser had referred to the “hannechashim hasseraphim; ‘seraph serpents’” with the “ha” before each word meaning “the” (although, I am unsure as to where he got hannechashim hasseraphim) and noted that “The translation ‘seraph serpents’ is more accurate than ‘fiery serpents.’” That is, having also noted that saraph means “‘to burn’ – hence, seraphim would mean ‘burning ones’ or ‘fiery ones.’”

The one, certainly appearance of Seraphim (or Saraphim) notes that they “stood above” YHVH, they proclaim “Holy, Holy, Holy” and the function we see them perform is when one of them approaches Isaiah with “a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs.” Thus, they are, rightly, identified with fire as their function appears to be what we may term keepers of the flame or some such thing. Keep in mind that YHVH’s realm is reflected in the earthly tabernacle and there were priests in charge of the menorah, altar, etc.; implements that employed fire.

This seems to be the primary meaning of seraph. Their association with serpents needs not imply that they are in the least bit reptiles (after all, they have hands, feet and wings) or reptilian. Rather, the correlation is not between paranormal reptilian beings and earthy, animal, reptiles but between fire and burning or flames. The sting of a snake’s bit ran be referred to as the sensation of burning, also the manner in which the serpent moves about is much like the flicker of a flame and the serpent’s body may consist of flame-like colors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are links to Michael S. Heiser’s books:
The Façade (The Façade Saga) Volume 1

The Portent (The Façade Saga) Volume 2

I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible

When Giants Were Upon the Earth: The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the Biblical Cosmic
War of the Seed

The Bible Code Myth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

The 1979 AD movie “The Visitor” was directed by Giulio Paradisi aka Michael J. Paradiseby and is based on a story by the Egypt-born Italian writer Ovidio G. Assonitis that is titled “Stridulum.”

The movie was re-released in 2013 AD by Drafthouse Films who describe it as “phantasmagoric sci-fi/horror/action/??? Hybrid.” It contains some violent scenes and 5 cuss words.

The first monologue in the movie sets the stage quite clearly; at least, for those paying attention. Set on an alien planet, a human looking alien man tells a group of bald children the following:

Once, far away, light years, distances beyond thought, a great slender ship with a tail of fire slid through the black reaches of space. On that ship was Sateen, a prisoner named Sateen. Words cannot describe his evil. His criminality. He had been captured by Commander Yahveh after decades of search and evasion in a blood-drenched battle that claimed hundreds of lives. But shortly thereafter, Sateen escaped in a tiny scout craft. A fantastic escape from that spaceship. And soon he found a hiding place on the planet Earth…

Sateen was a mutant, his genes transformed. A mutant with a primal wish to kill, but evolved to new psychic and occult powers. He used these powers to spread destruction and death. In order to find and destroy Sateen, Commander Yahveh tried many methods. One of these methods was an immense army of birds trained to hunt and to kill. But when these birds did discover Sateen, he transformed himself into an eagle and managed to destroy them all. Except for three, which survived and wounded him, fatally, in the brain.

But Sateen, now dead, lived on in another way. Before he was killed, he mated with Earth women, procreating numerous children, thereby transmitting his wicked spirit and evil powers through new generations. Yet the struggle continued, and still goes on. For Yahveh’s descendants pursued the progeny of Sateen, lest their contamination spread through the cosmos.

Obviously, this pertains to Satan and YHVH which some spell Yahweh; a reference to the Tetragrammaton, God’s name as per Exodus 3.

Since the story, at least its premise, is metaphorical it does not have a one to one correspondence with the Bible but obviously gleans from it; here are some key points:

The prisoner named Sateen was an evil criminal captured by Yahveh.

The “decades of search and evasion in a blood-drenched battle that claimed hundreds of lives” may refer to human history in general” at the end of which, generally speaking, “Sateen escaped…And soon he found a hiding place on the planet Earth.”

As per Revelation 20 states, “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season…And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations.”

Biblically, this was after that which Revelation 12 refers to as a “war in heaven” the result of which was that “the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

That “Sateen was a mutant, his genes transformed. A mutant with a primal wish to kill, but evolved to new psychic and occult powers” may refer to Satan’s fall in general and his paranormal abilities of influence, etc. “powers to spread destruction and death.”

Yahveh’s “army of birds” may refer to Angels who, as per Revelation 12 waged the “war in heaven” again Satan and “his Angels” which consisted of one third of all Angels. The three birds that survived may be a vague Trinitarian reference but, in any case, Sateen was fatally wounded “in the brain” but “lived on in another way.”

Revelation 13 notes that a beast was seen symbolically “having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy…and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”

Thus, Sateen is mortally wounded in the head but lives on and the beast is mortally wounded in the head but lives on—this same exact theme is played upon in the original Tron movie as Sark is mortally wounded in the head but lives on as he is resurrected by the MCP—see the video:

What is the movie “Tron” really about?

Sateen’s mating with Earth women refers, loosely, to the Genesis 6 affair which does not refer to Satan but does refer to Sons of God Angels who did just that and procreated numerous children who are called Nephilim—for more info on this, see:

Was Noah genetically “perfect in his generation?

Nephilim – one or multiple incursions?

As in the days of Noah – the eschaton and the Nephilim

In one way or another, many theorize that the Sons of God procreating with the daughters of men is what brought about demons and here we were told that Sateen’s mating with Earth women resulted in “transmitting his wicked spirit and evil powers through new generations.”

The movie develops by following “Yahveh’s descendants” who discover that a girl has been born on Earth to the only woman left with the genetics of Sateen. Thus, the girl could carry on the genetic line.

Other point of interest that seem to touch upon what is generally termed the Illuminati: from elitists trading wealth for favors and pedophilia to MK Ultra and Monarch mind control programing.

the only woman left with the genetics of Sateen is named Barbara Collins and according to some, such as researcher and author Fritz Springmeier, the Collins family is one of the 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati families, see The Collins Bloodline.

The girl has a pet hawk which seems to play the role of a familiar in terms of a witch’s companion. This seems indicative of the Egyptian god Horus unto which Aleister Crowley appealed as one of the revelators of his Book of the Law—see here for details. As that book states, “This ‘God’ Horus…is symbolized as a Hawk-Headed God enthroned” also “51. With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hands upon the cross” and “70. I am the Hawk-Headed Lord of Silence & of Strength.”

In fact, the hawk does peck at a man’s eyes within the movie.

There is also a group of elitists who offer the boyfriend of the woman, wealth in exchange for him producing children with her. When he fails, they kidnap her and perform artificial incrimination.

At one point, the man and woman wonder if the movie’s good guy is a child molester when he, an elderly man, shows up to their home as the babysitter. Later, the girl calls an inspector a child molester.

MK Ultra and Monarch mind control programing seems to come up in a scene wherein the little girl finds herself in a room full of mirrors so that her reflection is multiplied. This is imagery associated with multiple personality – dissociative identify disorder.

Also in this regard, the girl receives a boxed up birthday present within which is a gun with which she is to shoot her mother.

Also, the original babysitter/maid tells the mother to ward off the influences of Saturn. She had previously attempted to engage the mother in astrology, as was all the fad back in the ‘70s but she clearly knew now of what she spake. Some have correlated the term Saturn with Satan.

Find the movie here

See my review of Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Herein we continue, from the previous segments, considering objections raised by an Atheist from “The Skeptic Arena” who goes by the pseudonym “Neo” with regards to my repository website TrueFreethinker’s “About” page during a June 28, 2014 AD podast. In that which follows, you will find the contents of my About page in italics, his comments underlined and my replies in regular font.

Neo quoted Matthew 16:27-28, “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” He then stated:
Well Ken, it’s 2,000 years later and we now know that Jesus lied to them. If the truth shall make you free, as Jesus said, then the truth of knowing that Jesus lied has set many former Ghost Worshipers free. Too bad you weren’t one of them, Ken.

Note that he condemns lying without providing an ethical premise upon which to condemn it. Moreover, how does he know that Jesus lied? Because Jesus has not returned to establish His kingdom? But why assume that He lied? One can say something that is not true and not be lying. For example, perhaps Jesus was just wrong. When you are wrong you say things that are not true but you are not necessarily lying. In order to establish that Jesus lied, Neo would have to prove that Jesus knew that what he was saying was not true.

Now, to the issue at hand; in the form of a syllogism the argument would run thusly: 1) Jesus stated that there were “some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Although the text does not seem to necessitate it, we may want to correlate the establishment of His kingdom with the time when He comes “in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” 2) No one who was standing there is still alive and Jesus has not returned, has not established His kingdom, etc.

3) Thus, Jesus was wrong, His prophecy failed, He is unreliable and thus, not God.

Firstly, perhaps some of them are still alive two millennia later…but there is actually no reason to think so nor go there.
What this objection proves is not that Jesus was wrong or a liar; it proves that Neo needs to do some more research before making such statements.

What we are dealing with is the Kingdom of God and the simple grammatical fact is that within the Bible there are many definitions of the Kingdom of God—just as in every language, one term can have many meanings.

Right after the Matthew 16:27-28 statement we are told (in Matthew 17:1-5) that God the Father proclaimed His approval of Jesus while Jesus was transfigured and in the presence of Moses and Elijah. This is truly an otherworldly scene that was witnessed by some of the apostles. Luke 13:28 notes that we will “see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God.” Thus, the transfiguration was a little window into the Kingdom, in a manner of speaking. Within this context, the Kingdom of God manifested via Jesus transfiguring, ancient personages appearing and God’s voice from heaven endorsing Jesus.

In Act 7:56 Steven “said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” and thus, he saw Jesus in His kingdom.
As for the angels, in Luke 22:43 we learn “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” Thus, this portion of Jesus’ statement was also fulfilled.

Zechariah 9:9 states “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” This is something that Jesus did; thus, He came as a King.

Matthew 27:37 & John 19:12 state, “Above his head they placed the written charge against him: This is Jesus, The King of the Jews.”

John 18:37 has Jesus stating, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Colossians 1:12-13 states, “Giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”

2nd Peter 1:11 gives us a view of the Kingdom within an eternal context, “you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Matthew 12:28 gives us a temporal and present tens view, stating that “the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Matthew 21:43 notes that “the kingdom of God will be taken from you.”

Mark 1:15 relates that “the kingdom of God is at hand.”

Luke 10:9 notes that “The kingdom of God has come near to you” and Luke 11:20 follows up with that “the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Luke 17:20 specifies, “Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God does not come with observation.’” And this is followed up in the very next verse with “the kingdom of God is within you.”

But as for the earthly, actual establishment of an actual Kingdom in the eschatological/end days/last times context, Luke 19:11 notes that some, “thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately” but this was not the case as much needs to occur before it does so.

Thus, Jesus stated the following in Luke 22:16-18, “I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God…for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

These are not contradictions; they are merely examples of the manner which we all know that language functions: words, terms and phrases derive their meaning from their context. Jesus did not fail to fulfill His prophecy. Rather, Neo failed to conduct a careful study.

In the next segment, we will consider the meaning of freethinking and skepticism.

Numbers chapter 15 states that “the children of Israel…found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day” and that “The man shall be surely put to death.”
But was this solely about picking up a few sticks, perhaps to make a fire with which to cook, stay warm, etc.?

Let us consider the context in which the statement is made so as to not take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext.

The chapter begins with the LORD saying to Moses, “When ye be come into the land of your habitations…And will make an offering by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice” and continues referring to “burnt offering or sacrifice…for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice…an offering made by fire …an offering made by fire” and that such laws pertain to “you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations.”

We also find that it is specified that “if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments…Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation…the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance…seeing all the people were in ignorance…if any soul sin through ignorance…the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly.”
Thus, there is a law dealing with sinning ignorantly. On the other hand, “But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”

Now, with reference to fiery burn sacrifices (which require the usage of wood) along with statement regarding sinning ignorantly and sinning presumptuously, we come to the text in question:

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Now, of course, as per the Law as a whole, what is going on within the succinct statement “they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him” refers to the fact that there had to be at least two witnesses, it had to be determined whether the man was sinning ignorantly and sinning presumptuously, etc.

Now, directly after these statement the text continues with the LORD saying to Moses that the children of Israel are to do the following:

…make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God. I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.

As per the greater context, “to go a whoring” refers to idolatry. Thus, they were to make fringes so as to remind them to “do all my commandments,” to “be holy” because it was the LORD who liberated them from slavery in Egypt.

It may be that the man was gathering stick for whatever reason it was and was found guilty of performing a work-like function which was forbidden for the Sabbath day of rest; which is why the fringes are commanded as reminders. However, when we put all of the pieces together we realize that it appears that the man was not merely picking up sticks and not merely seeking to cook or keep warm but knew he was sinning, was witnessed doing so by at least two people, and appears to have been gather wood with which to build an idol.

This is because the text begins by referencing fiery burnt sacrifices and refers to the fringes are reminders of the commandments so that they did not “go a whoring” because “I am the LORD your God.”

The word we have seen translated as sticks is actually not merely in reference to little pieces of wood with which one could no really build anything—such as an idol. The Hebrew word in `ets (Strong’s H6086) and is found, for example, 328 times within the KJV which translates it as follows: Tree (162x) Wood (107x) Timber (23x) Stick (14x) Gallows (8x) Staff (4x) Stock (4x) Carpenter (with H2796) (2x) Branches (1x) Helve (1x) Planks (1x)

Stalks (1x)

Within the book of Numbers it appears in 13:20, 19:6, 31:20 and 35:18 as “wood” and two times within our chapter 15 text as “sticks.”

One last note of note; in Jeremiah 10:3 the same word is used within the context of gathering wood for the making of idols:

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Thus, it may very well be that this was not merely a case of picking up sticks but of idolatry.