I listened to the 1st chapter of Genesis (AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME - answers sooo many questions as to what's wrong with today's christianity) - then I listened to the 1st chapter of Future History.

They seemed in such contrast.

Future History was using jesus and christ, not using Yahweh/Yahuwah, and was saying that christianity was correct.

It left me confused after what Genesis said.

When reading YY, POD, FH and TOM we can see that both Yada and KP have different writing styles, it's almost as if they're writing to a different audience. Yada's style to me seems more like guns-a-blazing, really coming out hard-hitting. It's the type of stuff that a lot of atheists and agnostics (and Christians, like most forum members) would be drawn to, as they already see flaws in Judaism and Christianity. KP's softer style is more for the under-educated Christians, it brings them in slower, helping them to understand the incredible depths of Yah's intelligence and love in a softer and gentlier way. Yada's way has the same outcome, both drawing people to Yah's intelligence and love, but the initial approach is slightly different.

I write on other Christian and Atheist forums too; Christians appreciate the more softer style but get highly annoyed if I try the guns-a-blazing style, it doesn't allow for much dialogue. Yada and KP's use of the words "Jesus," "Christ," etc. accommodates their different approaches to interpreting Scripture and to who their target audience is, plus I believe their backgrounds also play a large role in their writing styles. Yada's work has pulled out a lot Catholics, Atheists, Muslims, etc. into the Truth, while KP's work has pulled a lot of Christians deeper into understanding the Law from a Renewed Covenant (New Testament) mindset. I personally like both their styles, I like the hard-hitting but yet I also really like the softer approach. When writing on other forums you'll see the different reactions depending on the style used. We must stand up and expose with all seriousness where required but yet we also need to be full of love and grace. Some people need hard-hitting in order for them to see the Truth, you reveal the Truth to them by smacking the lie hard, but not smacking them in the process, but other people require to be gently informed, because a hard-hit might cause them to reject you as they will take offence, they'll probably label you a legalist in the process, by revealing the Truth slowly it helps them to recognise their error without being offended. Understand, or am I just rambling?

Yada has mentioned he uses Yahweh and Yahuweh in his work in order to produce better results on Google search, which I think is great.


When reading Yada's work you'll notice he works on the syntax of the sentence as well, working on the grammar side as well. While KP prefers to expand the main words of the sentence and deals a lot less on the syntax.

A good example of this sort of thing is this post of mine, http://www.yadanews.com/...bernacles.aspx#post9236. You will notice that they have interpreted one verse differently, almost as if their conclusions are different. Their different approach to interpreting Scripture can have an affect on the outcome. Take for instance the word beautiful in the passage of Leviticus 23:40, the post referenced, Yada relates it to the fronds whereas KP has used the current translation where beautiful describes the trees. Generally Yada and KP share the same understanding but every once in a while they have a slightly different outcome. Nevertheless, in the end they both compliment each other.


Well, Christianity is right in their belief that Yahushua has appeared already, and many Christians will be saved, it's just their understanding is lacking in some places because of a few simple lies. Many are saved but have been lied to in regards to the law, thus not allowing them to understand the depths of Yah. I see Yada's work tending to focus more on the errors of Christianity, especially Constantine's and religious clerics influence, whereas KP's work tends to see the things that are right about it, like simple belief in the Messiah and Rapture theory.

Comments by the authors or those more wise than me would be welcome. I've tried my best...

Hey, thanks for the analysis, Matthew. That really helps to explain it. I guess I'm of the John Knox school. He once said, "You cannot antagonize and influence at the same time." Yada may have proven him wrong, but still...

kp

Thank you all for your responces



Thanks for the explanation.
I only listened to part of the 1st chapter so my assessment probably isn't fair.
I will go back and listen again armed with this knowledge.

I think it's great to have this forum where you can ask the authors questions to get clarification, and to discuss it with others.

No problem, Walt, and thanks for the "endorsement." While we're on the subject, remember back in the first chapter when I mentioned that the Book of Esther was one of the few that didn't contain any yet-to-be-fulfilled predictive prophecy? I read the book again, and I now think I may have been wrong about that. Although I haven't really broken the thing down yet, my first (or should I say, second) glance observation is that the two days that were granted to the Jews to defend themselves may be prophetic of (1) the Battle of Magog, and (2) Armageddon. What got me going was the notice slipped in there sideways---in both instances---that "they did not lay a hand on the plunder," even though they were allowed to by law. Why is that significant? Because the description of the borders of Israel given in Numbers 34 is virtually identical to that given of the Millennial Israel in Ezekiel 47---even though Jordan (Edom, Moab, and Ammon) is to be completely decimated, and would be a logical opportunity for expansion, but one the Jews under Yahshua will apparently not annex. Just a thought.

kp

Shalom,

Lassie1865, I understand your curiosity and a "need" for "endorsement" but I think that it would be much better suited to focus on the message than the messengers. In the past right up to Yahuchanan The Immerser, the prophets were not men of great standing but men of obedience and great understanding of Elohim Yahweh's message. Yada and KP have brought a great message and in the beginning I was curious but I thought deeper about it and rather not delve much into their credentials and qualifications as their work speaks greatly for themselves. That said, if you read a couple more of their books available for free on the YY site, you shall know more about them. More importantly, what are we doing with the message that they have brought to us? Are we just reading and forgetting, or learning by obeying and then reaching out to others around us?

I think that much work will have to be done internally before any personal outreach efforts can get anywhere, and I do not rely on the earthly credentials as claimed by so many church leaders. Yahweh's message is simple enough to be understood by anyone with an open mind and those who speak Truth are easier to discern that those who claim to have Truth in the highest degree but do not follow! It is when we start trying to justify our existing thoughts and past practices that we start to falter. Better to simply own up on our past mistakes, and turn away from lawlessness towards our Redeemer and Messiah. It is a journey that is fraught with pitfalls but the destination is well worth the troubles that shall crop up, especially those that emerge from within.

Credentials, Lassie? I'm still laughing about that one. I've got pretty much the same credentials as Peter did: a working stiff who simply loved Yahweh and His Messiah with all his might, even though Pete and I have both been known to fall flat on our faces from time to time. Now I'm just doing what I can to "feed His sheep." And Yada? He's more like Paul---bright, articulate, educated, and part of the system... until Yahweh took him back to square one in a "Damascus Road" experience that was as brutal as it was effective. I was an eyewitness to the whole thing, as it turns out. Ouch.

Since for us, there's no such thing as a short answer, if you really want to get a handle on where we came from, read our first book as co-authors: In the Company of Good and Evil. As always, it's free, linked from any of our sites. But I'll warn you up front: take some Dramamine before your read it---it's a wild ride.

kp

I think the credential issue is an important one.

There are essentially 3 types of credentials:

Of men

Of self

Of Yahweh

For me personally - the first 2 are meaningless at a minimum, and in many cases they are a detriment.

Being equipped and led by Yahweh through His Spirit is the only one that matters (in a positive way)