From the desk of Dr Diana Brevan 5-25-14
Jesus is Lord Fellowship WWI
Where we make a difference in People’s lives








Senior Pastor, Dr. Diana Brevan,
Jesusislordfellowshipwwi@yahoo.com
Jesus Is Lord Fellowship WWI
USA Headquarters
PO Box580 Inverness Florida 34451
352-637-3046

Deacon Matthew Helmich.

deaconnatthewhelmich@yahoo.com

Questions and Answers is your opportunity to get answers to questions you have about the Bible.
If you have a question, please Email Us at
Sn Pastora Dr Diana Brevan
Jesusislordfellowshipwwi@yahoo.com
Or contact Deacon Matthew Helmich He as Well Will Make sure Your Sn Pastora Recieves the Questions from the Book of Genesis to the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ of the Bible Of the Full Bible at times you may receive Portion if Deacon Matthew as well has Answers to the books of the bible you will as well receive double Portion from Your Very own Sn Pastora, Dr Diana Brevan and Deacon Matthew Helmich as well. God Bless You and continue to keep the Questions of the Bible Flowing On Over Flow in Jesus Mighty Name.
Or you can write to Jesus Is Lord Fellowship WWI
PO Box 580
Inverness Florida 34451




RESPONSE:
Thank you for your response and further questions. Let's begin with the issue of translations.
Translations that us
Questions and Answers is your opportunity to get answers to questions you have about the Bible.

If you have a question, please email us.
QUESTION:
I read your answer to the question about Paul and the viper. The explanation of Melita being a different place from Malta is a very plausible explanation. Especially when taking into account the viper question.

If one accepts the truth of the Bible, how is it that most maps of Paul's journey to Rome show Malta - not Melita. I am perplexed that the rest of the world could appear so dumb.

Answer: You mention "yet almost every other translation". Do you mean modern translations - after the KJV?
The Bible describes the wreck site as "falling into the place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground". This would seem to favour Melita.

Questioner: I like your explanation, but can't understand why so many would unquestioningly accept Malta as a substitute, especially in the light that there are no vipers on Malta, and Malta had been under Roman rule for 300 years by this time. What do we know of Publius and his "barbarians"? If indeed the island were Malta, why wait 3 months, since it's a pretty straight passage to Rome on a fairly busy trade route from Malta. On the other hand, Melita is half way up the Adriatic Sea, requiring a voyage of greater complexity and preparation to reach Rome. Further, there were probably fewer available passing ships travelling to Rome. All conjecture on my part - but the Bible isn't wrong, so if Malta doesn't have vipers, then the ship could not have landed in Malta.



QUESTION:
I read your answer to the question about Paul and the viper. The explanation of Melita being a different place from Malta is a very plausible explanation. Especially when taking into account the viper question.

If one accepts the truth of the Bible, how is it that most maps of Paul's journey to Rome show Malta - not Melita. I am perplexed that the rest of the world could appear so dumb.

Answer: You mention "yet almost every other translation". Do you mean modern translations - after the KJV?
The Bible describes the wreck site as "falling into the place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground". This would seem to favour Melita.

Questioner: I like your explanation, but can't understand why so many would unquestioningly accept Malta as a substitute, especially in the light that there are no vipers on Malta, and Malta had been under Roman rule for 300 years by this time. What do we know of Publius and his "barbarians"? If indeed the island were Malta, why wait 3 months, since it's a pretty straight passage to Rome on a fairly busy trade route from Malta. On the other hand, Melita is half way up the Adriatic Sea, requiring a voyage of greater complexity and preparation to reach Rome. Further, there were probably fewer available passing ships travelling to Rome. All conjecture on my part - but the Bible isn't wrong, so if Malta doesn't have vipers, then the ship could not have landed in Malta.







RESPONSE:
Thank you for your response and further questions. Let's begin with the issue of translations.

Translations that use Melita are: Wycliffe Bible (14th Century), The King James Version (1769 ed.), English Revised Version (1881), Young's Literal Translation (1898), American Standard Version (1929), and JB Phillips New Testament (1955). Translations that use Malta are: Geneva Bible (1599), Revised Standard Version (1946), New American Standard Bible (1963), New International Version (1973), New Century Bible (1978), New King James Version (1979), Good News Translation (1986), New Revised

Translations that use Melita are: Wycliffe Bible (14th Century), The King James Version (1769 ed.), English Revised Version (1881), Young's Literal Translation (1898), American Standard Version (1929), and JB Phillips New Testament (1955). Translations that use Malta are: Geneva Bible (1599), Revised Standard Version (1946), New American Standard Bible (1963), New International Version (1973), New Century Bible (1978), New King James Version (1979), Good News Translation (1986), New Revised Standard Version (1989), Living Bible (1996), New Living Translation (1996), English Standard Version (2001), The Message (2002), New English Translation (2005), Common English Bible (2010). This list is not meant to be comprehensive of all Bible translations, but you can see that most modern translations use Malta, while the earlier ones are more likely to use Melita.

Our information about Publius and his "barbarians" is rather sketchy. Various translations refer to him as the chief official, leading man, principal man, or governor of the island. Obviously, he was a man of some stature. His "barbarians" were simply the people of the island and are called either natives or local inhabitants by modern translators. Most non-Greek speaking people were called "barbarians" at that time. After Paul cured Publius' father of fever and dysentery, tradition has it that Publius converted and became the first bishop of Malta. Therefore, Paul is credited with bringing Christianity to the island, though no further evidence supports the existence of a Christian community prior to the 4th century. Nonetheless, at some point, Publius was martyred. Dates range from 92-125 CE. Catholics celebrate his feast on January 21. If there is truth to these legends, Malta would have been one of the first Christian nations in the West.

The three month delay is definitely a result of weather, not distance. It was simply too dangerous to sail during the winter months. If they got to Malta in late October or early November, they would have had to remain there until shipping began again in mid-February to mid-March.

Needless to say, scholars are also eager to determine where Paul landed. James Smith's signature study in 1881 is still the defining work on this subject. He spoke with "nautical friends" familiar with the area and asked about the drift of a ship much like the one Paul would have been in. Taking into consideration the force of the gale and the size of the ship, they determined a speed of 33-40 miles every 24 hours would have been reasonable. According to Luke, they were at sea for 14 days. The distance from Clauda to Malta is 476.6 miles and would have taken slightly over 13 days using an average of 36 miles per day. In 2003, Robert Cornuke wrote a book entitled, "The Lost Shipwreck of Paul." His research was featured on the 700 Club. He claimed the four anchors were found in 90 feet of water on the eastern side of the island in the 1970s. (Prevailing scholarship has put the shipwreck on the northern side.)

Peer reviews of his article have not taken kindly to his claims. The four-anchor theory remains unsubstantiated. One anchor was melted down before anyone knew its significance. The second and third are in a museum, but the second is too small to be from a grain ship. A private collector has #4, and two remaining anchors (#5 and #6) were sold and their whereabouts are unknown. They have not been examined or tested. Anchor #3 is the only one that would conceivably meet the requirements of time and size. Saying, therefore, that all four were found is pretentious. Nor are scholars convinced about the location. His conclusion is based on many "facts" that might be possible, but certainly are not conclusive.

As for the snake issue, scholars simply say the terrain must have changed over the years. During the first century, it was supposedly highly wooded; as the population increased, the vegetation decreased. If poisonous snakes had been present, they would have died off with the loss of their habitat.

There is also the issue of "a place where two seas meet." That is a transliteration of two Greek words that only appears here in the New Testament. Scholars aren't exactly sure what it means. Some translations omit them; others variously translate: a place where two seas meet, a place of two seas, a deep channel, a place between waters, crosscurrents, washed by the sea on both sides, or lying between two seas. Any beach, isthmus, or channel could qualify as the place where the boat ran aground.

While it is true that by Paul's time the island was under Roman rule, Malta was under Phoenician influence since the 8th century BCE. They called the island Malat, which is loosely translated as "safe harbor." When the Romans took over in 218 BCE (as a result of war), they called the island, Melita – perhaps corrupting Malat. Malta comes from that. The capital city was also called Melita. That might account for some of the earlier c

While it is true that by Paul's time the island was under Roman rule, Malta was under Phoenician influence since the 8th century BCE. They called the island Malat, which is loosely translated as "safe harbor." When the Romans took over in 218 BCE (as a result of war), they called the island, Melita – perhaps corrupting Malat. Malta comes from that. The capital city was also called Melita. That might account for some of the earlier confusion between Malta and Melita.
The other point that should be noted is that over the centuries both islands have vied for the honor of being the site of Paul's shipwreck. Every time a scholar has put forth a new argument, there is a flurry of discussion regarding its credibility. This has been going on since the 12th century, which means there are a lot of varying viewpoints and counterpoints. This discussion might go on indefinitely. But for now, most scholars think that given the direction of the wind, the size of the ship, the length of the storm, the distance traveled, and the departure to Syracuse, it probably was the island of Malta.
Questions and Answers is your opportunity to get answers to questions you have about the Bible.

If you have a question, please email us.



QUESTION:
I read your answer to the question about Paul and the viper. The explanation of Melita being a different place from Malta is a very plausible explanation. Especially when taking into account the viper question.

If one accepts the truth of the Bible, how is it that most maps of Paul's journey to Rome show Malta - not Melita. I am perplexed that the rest of the world could appear so dumb.

Answer: You mention "yet almost every other translation". Do you mean modern translations - after the KJV?
The Bible describes the wreck site as "falling into the place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground". This would seem to favour Melita.

Questioner: I like your explanation, but can't understand why so many would unquestioningly accept Malta as a substitute, especially in the light that there are no vipers on Malta, and Malta had been under Roman rule for 300 years by this time. What do we know of Publius and his "barbarians"? If indeed the island were Malta, why wait 3 months, since it's a pretty straight passage to Rome on a fairly busy trade route from Malta. On the other hand, Melita is half way up the Adriatic Sea, requiring a voyage of greater complexity and preparation to reach Rome. Further, there were probably fewer available passing ships travelling to Rome. All conjecture on my part - but the Bible isn't wrong, so if Malta doesn't have vipers, then the ship could not have landed in Malta.


WWW.Jesusislordfellowshipwwi.bravehost.com No Membership required. Everyone is welcome every moment of your day and night to visit us to click on the Icon Fellowship Hall and Receive Your Word of the day as you scroll for your day and your weekly message and Word of God. Please as you visit regular click on the guestbook and sign the guest book so we will know that you came to visit us and how you enjoyed your stay. God bless you and remember Jesus Is Lord!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jesusislordfellowship/ Membership is required to join the yahoo groups to enter our on line Fellowship Building to receive your daily and weekly Word.

JesusIsLordFellowshipBibleStudies-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Membership is required to join the yahoo groups to enter our on line Fellowship Building.

Please contact Dr Diana Brevan re Bible Studies

Now stand in agreement and Lets Praise Him Church Lets Praise Him! No Matter who you are what background you hold You are welcome to Worship with us and receive as well the Word in all of our Websites everyone that has breath is welcome to receive our weekly Bible Studies Everyone that has breath is welcome to Raise their hands and Touch The Hem of the Lords Garment In Prayer as we two or more gathered standing in agreement together!

To Join to our World Wide Prayer Warriors Websites: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upperroomofprayer

Prayer Room World Wide Warriors on Facebook Site
https://www.facebook.com/groups/519140074816300/

Dr Diana Brevan Founder/President