This comes from Isaiah 28:10 KJV. This scripture study teaching has never made sense to me when reading the scripture at hand in context. But beyond that, I don't believe that the word precept, which means commandment or law, can be interchanged with the word "scripture." Using this scripture to condone "out of context" study is ironic because that's what you have to do to take it as a command, itself. It appears to me to be more of a prophecy. Much of the New Testament quotes "Old Testament" Scriptures out of context to try to force relevance. It's already using this false doctrine about studying Scripture. What is this Scripture really about? It is only written this way in the translations from the Masoretic Text, written in 1008 AD. The Septuagint was originally written in Greek in 250 BC. Isaiah 28:10 Brenton Septuagint Translation Expect you affliction on affliction, hope upon hope: yet a little, and yet a little. For context: v. 1-3, 13 paraphrase Woe to the crown of pride;...they that are drunken without wine. Behold, the anger of the Lord is strong and severe, as descending hail where there is no shelter, violently descending; as a great body of water sweeping away the soil, he shall make rest for the land. The crown of pride, shall be beaten down with the hands and with the feet. Therefore, the oracle of God shall be to them affliction on affliction, hope on hope, yet a little and yet a little, that they may go and fall backward; and they shall be crushed and shall be in danger, and shall be taken. The Oracle(meaning prophecy) of God will be affliction to them. They will go into captivity and be punished. It will not be permanent but just a little while. It isn't talking about studying the "Word of God." When a "word" from God came it was a declaration of what would come due to their obedience or disobedience as a nation. This was a proclamation that they were NOT being obedient and therefore deserved punishment, i.e. affliction.

When I look back on my journey becoming "Torah Observant" I remember acknowledging the ten commandments first, and then realizing just how easy they were and analyzing the expansion of those ten, throughout the "Old Testament." Yes, the ten commandments seem easy. Who would argue that we could keep those, in our modern times? We are trained and brain-washed to believe that the first three were the obvious and easy parts, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of them, nothing to worry about. Let's dissect the possibilities. Exodus 20:2-3 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods beside me. What if Jesus Christ is that false god, a man called god, made equal with Him whom He is warning us against trusting in.😔 v. 4-6 You shall not make to yourself an idol, nor likeness of anything, whatever things are in the heaven above, and whatever are in the earth beneath, and whatever are in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I am a jealous God, recompensing the sins of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation to them that hate me, and bestowing mercy on those that love me to thousands of them, and on them that keep my commandments. A man is in the likeness of created beings on earth. The man of Jesus Christ is in the likeness of mankind. We made a man and called him God. Quite literally, if the New Testament is true, a woman named Mary and a man named Joseph MADE a man and then the generations to follow up until now have bowed down to him, served him, worshiped him, and called him something He is not. We have idolized him. 🤢😬🤮😫😡 v. 7 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord your God will not acquit him that takes His name in vain. Do we not bring His name to nothing, as this god-man is the name many use to talk about their interaction with Him? Do we not bring His name to nothing by never using it, but instead using a title meaning "Mighty One" or "The Most High?"

Making note of prophetic theologies that were created for the "New Testament": There is no "mark of the beast" in the "Old Testament." If something is taught for the first time in the "New Testament," then what witness are we holding it against? It must be found first in the "old testament." Revelation 13:16-18 KJV The Mark of the Beast is a copy of the story found in 3 Maccabees. 3 Maccabees 2:28-29 The people were required to be registered, and marked by the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus. The Greek system was being required of the Jewish people.

This was one of the first things I questioned as it pertained to the traditions of Christianity, as I studied the first five books of the Bible, I noticed that there was a strong commandment not to drink blood or any manner of blood was considered "unclean." I actually shortly later read a book called Jesus and the Big Lie, which I can no longer find on Amazon or Kindle, where I read it. This book opened my eyes to several other abominable things that are passed over as tradition of Christians. I'll put the Scripture for this in the Classroom.