Evgeny Bresenden. Commentary on Nikolai Plotnikov's Heretical Article 'Metamorphoses of the Word' in the Newspaper 'Diaspora'

March 30, 2011 · Adam Bondaruk, Baptists, Victor Belykh, AUCECB, Persecution, Interview, KGB, Books, Unregistered Pentecostals, Nikolay Kotyakov, On Emigration, United Church of Evangelical Christians, Vestibule, Petr Saenko, Pentecostals, Religious Mafia, Slavik Radchuk, Contemporary Persecution, Security Services

A response article has been received from Evgeny Bresenden to the heretical article by Nikolai Plotnikov “The Metamorphosis of the Word” in the Sacramento newspaper “Diaspora”. “Diaspora” refused to publish Bresenden’s reply. I consider it necessary to give Evgeny a chance to speak out on the site regarding this heretical article. Nikolai Plotnikov is known as an intriguer and pathological liar, and also for the fact that the Soviet authorities, having calculated his inclinations and spiritual distortions, let him emigrate from the USSR in 1976 (from Nakhodka), as a counterweight and to discredit the Pentecostals who were striving for the EXODUS from the USSR. From America, he wrote about the horrors of life in the USA, and those letters were published in the Soviet media. But when the EXODUS finally took place, in the early nineties Plotnikov tried to seduce (lure away) God’s people to leave — for Saudi Arabia!? He also became famous (his moral character) as a “kitchen boxer” — he systematically won by knockout all fistfights with his wife, with his eighty-year-old father-in-law, and… his own father!!? Apart from these “feats,” he is distinguished by shameless lying in the press, claiming that he was allegedly deported from the USSR for emigration activity! (I can in no way picture him alongside Solzhenitsyn, Bukovsky, Ginzburg, and Vins, but after such a statement — next to a patient of a certain well-known institution — that’s just right!) And that he! (Yet another paranoid lie) Took out of the USSR! lists of those wishing to emigrate — as many as ten thousand people — and presented those lists to the U.S. Congress! (Can you imagine this flight of thought “in the clouds,” or perhaps in the smoke of a certain “incense”?) Yes! There were lists! And not only lists — but that’s not the main thing! Plotnikov, however, had nothing to do with them — that was the difficult and dangerous collective work of Fyodor Sidenko, Vasily Patrushev, Nikolai Gority, Vasyl Shilyuk, Boris Perchatkin, and others — who ended up earning prison terms.

—————————————

Evgeny Bresenden

Commentary on the article “Metamorphoses of the Word” posted on the website of the newspaper “Diaspora” under the signature of Nikolai Plotnikov on 19.03.2010

“Kitchen boxer” Nikolai Plotnikov

Although this article is signed by N. Plotnikov, I assume that it is a collective letter. N. Plotnikov repeatedly claims that the translation of certain passages of the Bible has been done incorrectly.

At the same time, N. Plotnikov does not have the specialized education to know for himself and to be recognized as an authority, as a linguistic expert, so that he himself could read and understand the linguistic subtleties of the English, Spanish, Greek, and Hebrew languages in order to compare them with Russian. Someone else took part in writing about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the translated text. And, as a rule, authors give credit for the assistance of such helpers. His article contains no reference expressing gratitude to such helpers.

At the same time, N. Plotnikov has only 7 grades of formal education from a Russian school. He has lived for more than 30 years surrounded by English speakers and still does not speak English fluently, but resorts to interpreters at the doctor’s, the lawyer’s, in court, at Welfare. And even his knowledge of the Russian language leaves much to be desired. I have a short letter from him (one notebook-format page) in which there are many grammatical, spelling, and syntactical errors. And this means that someone else edited his article, yet the article’s preface contains no proper acknowledgement. In addition, in the past he has written slanderous articles against me, signed by other people, such as pastor Leon Kuts and Viktor Orlik. As the director of “Yunost,” he sent out questionnaires for moving to Arabian countries and assured people that everything had already been agreed upon with the Arabs regarding relocation from the USA and other countries, and that these questionnaires were a Russian-Arabic translation; however, it was a forgery. The questionnaires were a Russian-Persian translation, which he made with the help of Russian Molokans living in Los Angeles who fled from Russia to Persia (Iran) in the 1920s and then emigrated to the USA. Although the printed script of the Farsi language (Persian) is similar to Arabic, it was not Arabic.

An enormous number of these questionnaires were distributed in the USA. Tape cassettes were sent out in which Vladimir Gladnikov and Nikolai Plotnikov discussed in detail the future emigration to Arabian countries, including Saudi Arabia. And on these cassettes, N. Plotnikov assured listeners that all the details of the future emigration had already been discussed with the governments of the Arab states (in what language did N. Plotnikov speak with the leaders of those countries?!!) Later it turned out that this was a lie.

I have known N. Plotnikov since 1957, when he was only 7 years old, and over these years I have come to know him as a lying, treacherous, cruel, malicious person not only towards strangers, but also towards his own children, parents, and his wife’s parents. I am writing this commentary not in order to help him sort out the teaching of Christ, but in order to help believers — those who have only recently come to faith and have not yet read the Bible from beginning to end, as well as those who have been believers for a long time but do not know all the provisions of the Bible — so that they are not led astray after reading this article and do not depart from the Lord. Although the article is cunningly written, it is full of lies and insults against God, against Christianity, against the Bible, in order to sow doubt about the accuracy and correctness of the Bible as the basis for faith and salvation. And this is a devilish approach. The very first temptation from the devil was to sow doubt: “Did God really say?” “Has God indeed said?” And we can compare these words with N. Plotnikov’s article: “Is the Russian Bible correct? Has it become outdated? Maybe it was not written by God, and the translators have messed it up? Is it worth believing?” And yet this is the sole source of our Christian doctrine.

We do not now have the privilege of conversing directly with God, as it was in the beginning between Adam and the Lord, and the Bible, including the Russian translation, is the surest prophetic word, and we do well to pay attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place… 2 Peter 1:19-21.

On September 19, 2010, I went to the city of Modesto to speak with Vladimir Pavlovich Gladnikov, to ask whether he had participated in writing the article “Metamorphoses of the Word.” I asked him:

“Vladimir Pavlovich, have you read the article ‘Metamorphoses of the Word’ on the Diaspora website?”

“Yes, I’ve read it,” Gladnikov answered.

“Did you take part in writing this article?” I asked.

“No, I did not, but I will give you my opinion: although N. Plotnikov is an ‘undereducated’ man—he has only 7 grades of education—I could not write it as well as he did.”

“I agree with you that he is ‘undereducated,’ but I do not agree that the article is well written. It contains many false statements: that Hagar the Egyptian was not a slave, but a princess, the daughter of Pharaoh; that she served as a sacramental sacrifice to help the dying dynasty of the Eberites. N. Plotnikov, being ‘undereducated,’ could not have known this, and it is not written in the Bible. This is a fabrication, a lie! This is a groundless assertion,” I replied.

“I have commentaries by Jewish rabbis on the Torah stating that Hagar later received the name Keturah, that is, orthodox,” Gladnikov said.

“So then, N. Plotnikov used your library to write this article?” I asked.

“Yes, he used my library, but that does not mean I was a participant in writing the article.”

“I wanted to say that if anyone is scandalized, reads this heresy, and falls away from God, the Scripture says that whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6. Not only N. Plotnikov, but all who participated in writing this article bear responsibility for the possibility of offense that could turn someone away from God,” I answered.

“Let them study the Bible for themselves and draw their own conclusions,” Gladnikov said.

“A person who has recently come to faith cannot yet read the entire Bible in a short time, much less sort out complex questions, and that is why Christ warns that no one should cause offense.”

I repeated Christ’s warning three times in order to underscore the responsibility borne by all participants in writing this article. Although we continued to exchange opinions about the article, my main goal in meeting with V.P. Gladnikov was to convey the danger of this article, the possible offense to weak believers, and the accountability before God for such offense.

“Metamorphoses of the Word” — changes in the meaning of words over time.

The New Testament emphasizes the importance of conveying biblical concepts as simply as possible.

When Christ preached, He was heard not only by teachers of the Law, but also by tax collectors and sinners who avoided reading the Law that would convict them. There were also sincere believers, but they were not teachers, and Christ needed to preach to them as simply and clearly as possible. Many women and children followed Him, and all the more for them Christ spoke in a way that even children could understand His sermon; otherwise the children would have found it uninteresting to listen, and they simply would not have followed Him.

The apostle Paul expresses it this way: “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).

Martin Luther, though a doctor of theology, stated that the goal of his preaching was not to convince the pastors and doctors sitting in the congregation, but so that the children who were running between the benches could understand and benefit from what he was preaching.

Although Christ deliberately used parables to hide the meaning from the “wise” Pharisees and scribes, the children still understood the literal side of the story about the sower and the net, and then could ask their parents, or the disciples could ask Christ privately for an explanation and then pass it on to the other sincere listeners.

The Pharisees and scribes were too proud to ask Christ, who had studied nowhere, for fear of losing self-respect. Even Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, resolved to ask questions, but he did not do so in front of the people so as not to humiliate himself; instead he came by night. John 3:1-19.

The apostle Paul says that when he speaks of complex concepts and explains the wisdom of God, he does so among the mature, that is, a narrow circle of people well acquainted with the Scripture (1 Cor. 2:1-16).

I enclose a copy of a letter from N. Plotnikov, dated June 30, 1976, to me in Los Angeles, in which he writes: “I wants to remind you of the words of the wise Salamon, who said that more people have perished by the tongue than by the sword.” I have underlined the words “wants” and “Salamon” as gross grammatical errors and also an informational error. This expression is not found in the Bible. It appears in an apocryphal copy of the Synodal edition of the Bible. In the Hebrew version of the Proverbs of Solomon this expression does not exist. It is a fabrication (a lie) of those who inserted apocryphal additions into the Bible. This is not a translator’s mistake (how could a translator translate what is not in the original?), but a deliberate addition by the leaders of the Catholic and Orthodox churches in order to make the Bible more interesting for readers. It is precisely this kind of inclination toward additions that manifests itself in the article “Metamorphoses of the Word.” Furthermore, the letter lacks commas—that is, there are obvious syntactical errors.

I suppose that over time N. Plotnikov engaged in self-education and someone else (or others) helped edit his writing. But then the foreword of the article should have expressed gratitude to the helpers for their assistance and information—to show fairness.

When I was at V.P. Gladnikov’s home, I noticed a huge number of books on shelves in the adjoining room. And he mentioned, moreover, that N. Plotnikov had used information from his personal library.

Although a personal library may be very large, as I have heard from others, it can never compare with public libraries. And most importantly, in public libraries I can choose and read information on my own, while in private, personal libraries I need the owner’s consent and his involvement in locating information, since every private library owner has his own system for classifying books by topic. N. Plotnikov could not simply come, take the information, and leave, as he would have done in a public library. Sociability, involvement, advice, criticism, and the library owner’s approval in selecting the relevant information are required. And N. Plotnikov had to convey this in the article’s preface; otherwise the article might not have appeared in print. Moreover, a public library employee has no bias or preference for the authors of the books in the library. But a private library owner has a personal preference for some author, theory, or opinion that he himself favors, and therefore it is entirely under his control whether to give a book only by the author he likes, and not to mention or give a book by another author with whom he disagrees ideologically. And then N. Plotnikov inevitably obtains limited information with a one-sided judgment, and then the private library owner becomes a participant in the content of the article, even though he did not write it himself, and bears responsibility for the article’s influence on the minds of readers.

N. Plotnikov uses words that are difficult to understand in order to impress upon the reader that the author is a learned linguist, theologian, researcher of ancient literature and history. And so that the reader would not even think of checking this information for himself, even from the Bible, which is sufficiently accessible in a believer’s home.

The very phrase “metamorphoses of the word” means “change in the meaning of a word.” Yet this is not an abrupt change, to remove the word completely and replace it with another word; rather, it takes a long time, even centuries, for a new meaning of an old word to form, while the old meaning is gradually erased from the “mental” dictionary of millions of people who already know the meaning of that word, and also to print millions of school textbooks, where the new generation will still learn it by heart as the old word and its new replacement.

N. Plotnikov cites the word “religion” as an example, which, in his conviction, previously had a positive sense, but after a few centuries came to have a negative sense. At first the word “religion” was a source of hope and meaning in life, but now this word has come to denote sorcery, occultism, Satanism, and spiritual decay.

The word “religion” does not appear in the Russian text of the Bible. In the English translation, it is written in the Epistle of James 1:27. And in the Russian translation it means: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

Regardless of whether this word is called “religion” or “piety,” the meaning of this word is defined by a lengthy explanation of it.

Keeping oneself from the world was a good practice 2,000 years ago, and it is a good practice for a Christian man or woman today. Helping orphans and widows in their difficulties and sorrows was approved by God 2,000 years ago, and it is still approved by God today. Today the Russian Bible calls this piety. In religious society everyone understands that piety is a good quality. Among unbelievers, this word is considered outdated. However, they cite the modern definition of the word “piety.” In the dictionary of S.I. Ozhegov, published on January 1, 1960, during one of the periods of persecution of believers in the USSR, the word “pious” was still included in the dictionary and was explained as “observing the prescriptions of religion.” S. Ozhegov does not call piety sorcery, occultism, or Satanism, as N. Plotnikov tries to present it, but defines it as a positive phenomenon.

Observing the prescriptions of the Bible is a good thing even today, just as it was 2,000 years ago!

N. Plotnikov justifies his discourse on Christianity by the fact that among people who considered themselves Christians there were cruel and evil people occupying high positions in the church and state, identifying them with Christ and Christianity. Christ never taught His followers to use violence against ideological opponents, never called for war or armed uprising, even though He Himself was under the rule of the Romans, but on the contrary, taught not to resist evil with violence.

Christ could have asked the Father to send 12 legions of angels (48,000) for His protection, yet He chose to accept the death of Golgotha. When His disciples (while they were still learning) wanted to burn down a village that did not show them hospitality, Jesus rebuked them, saying that they still did not know what spirit they were of, for He came not to destroy but to save. Luke 9:56. It is surprising that N. Plotnikov, while criticizing “Christian” hypocrites, at the same time declares that a true Christian should be tolerant of other faiths and not be a fanatic.

In S.I. Ozhegov’s dictionary, the word “fanatic” is defined as “a person passionately devoted to some cause.” And this definition applies not only to those who profess a certain religion, but even to unbelievers. If N. Plotnikov believes that a true Christian should not be passionately devoted to his faith, then there is no need to condemn those who are not very devoted to Christianity. Therefore his criticism of Luther, Calvin, etc., is unfounded. It was precisely for this reason that in the former USSR atheists called believers who went to prison, to death, and did not renounce Christ – “fanatics.” Other believers were not “fanatics” (passionately devoted to Christianity) and, when persecution arose, reduced their Christian activity, or worse, compromised with atheists or even became traitors.

Christ exhorts His followers to be faithful unto death (passionately devoted to their Christianity), and then He will give the crown of Life. Rev. 2:10.

At the same time, many “Christians” with high ranks might hear from Christ on the day of judgment: “I never knew you” (not passionately devoted to Christ and His teaching). Matt. 7:21-23.

“The Sabotage of Bible Translators.”

In his article, N. Plotnikov declares that one must approach the words of the Bible with special caution, remembering that the Russian public has been concerned for half a century about the “sabotage” of translators. And as proof he offers the word “ненавидеть.” He explains that the word “ненавидеть” previously meant: not to notice, not to see, from the root “видеть.” THIS IS A LIE! The word ненавидеть, though it sounds similar to the word “видеть,” has its root in the word “ненависть” (hatred), not “видеть.”

According to Ozhegov, the word “ненавидеть” means a feeling of strong enmity and aversion. p. 395.

From time immemorial, people’s feelings have been expressed through positive and negative emotions, both in society and between states, and also at the level of private citizens. Hatred is one of these emotions.

The most ancient book of the Bible — the Book of Job — tells of hatred for truth. Job 34:17. The Gospel says that Christ and His followers would be hated without cause (without reason) — and by all nations. John 15:25; John 15:19. And this is reflected from the days of Job to the days of Christ as a testimony of the Bible. Throughout the new era we have historical accounts of hatred: political systems hated one another, Muslims hated “infidels,” atheists hated believers, “Aryans” hated “non-Aryans”… And this is merely a list of the negative manifestations of hatred. There are also positive manifestations of hatred as an emotional feeling.

Hate evil. Ps. 96:10. The righteous man hates a lying word. Prov. 13:5. Solomon, having all the privileges of a king, knowledge of wisdom, success in building, hated all his labor in which he had labored. Eccl. 2:18. And then he hated his own life. Eccl. 2:17.

Scripture testifies that the Lord has hatred for the iniquity of people: “These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to His soul: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.” Prov. 6:16-19. He hates the deeds of the Nicolaitans. Rev. 2:6. I consulted a concordance for the words: ненавидеть, ненависть, возненавидеть, and there are about 200 passages from Scripture about the emotion of “hating.” If, according to Plotnikov’s claim, we replace the words ненавидеть, возненавидеть with the word “not see,” then nonsense would result: “The righteous man does not see a lying word?? God does not see proud eyes?”

But most importantly, N. Plotnikov is playing with “fire” when he presents his argument that what the Apostle Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans concerning Jacob and Esau is “monstrous and harmful.” But it was not Paul who wrote that; Paul merely quotes what the Lord said to the prophet Malachi about Jacob and Esau. Mal. 1:1-3. And then the words “monstrous and harmful” are laid not on the Apostle Paul but on the Lord. And this is slander and blasphemy, that is, playing with fire.

Hatred, like love, is an emotion that has existed from the beginning of humanity until today, and therefore N. Plotnikov’s claim that the word “ненавидеть” formerly meant “not to see” is yet another act of “translators’” sabotage. The prophet Malachi wrote that God hates Esau, 400 years before the New Testament era, in which Paul repeats this same word in Romans, and so it has been established for 2000 years. Although in the Russian translation “видеть” and “ненавидеть” sound similar, in both the Hebrew original (Mal. 1:2-3) and the Greek original of the New Testament (Rom. 9:13) these words do not resemble each other at all in their spelling, just as in the English and Spanish translations. Even if (according to Plotnikov’s claim) the translations are incorrect, why do they express the same idea as the originals? The originals speak of “hatred,” not of “visibility.” For the purpose of comparing the word “ненавидел” and the word “видел” in the various languages in which the Epistle to the Romans was written, where the Apostle Paul quotes the prophet Malachi, I will cite the passage from 1 Cor. 2:9: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him…” The word “возненавидел” from Malachi denotes the past tense, and the word “видел” in Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians is also in the past tense.

Even by simply comparing the spelling without translation and without knowledge of the languages, one can see that these words have no similarity whatsoever, except in the Russian text. I made copies of 1 Cor. 2:9 and Rom. 9:13 and placed them one above the other (for ease of comparison). And they are absolutely dissimilar.

Russian English Spanish

Видел: Видел Seen Vio

Ненавидел: ненавидел Hated ABORRECI

Hebrew

Видел: לא ראתה (ле раата) did not see (the eye is feminine gender in Hebrew)

Ненавидел: שנאתי (санети)

Greek:

Видел: οὐκ εἶδεν

Ненавидел: ἐμίσησα

N. Plotnikov can manipulate the similarity in sound between the words “видеть” — “ненавидеть,” but to do so one must remove four letters from the beginning of the word. If, following this example, one removes four letters from the word in other translations, not a single letter would remain, or very few, leaving nothing to read. The Lord forbids taking away or adding anything to what has already been written in Scripture and warns of severe punishment for the arbitrary adding or removing of text, since the meaning of His words is thereby changed. Rev. 22:16-19. The Lord emphasizes that not only words or individual letters, but also punctuation marks are very important in the written text; they are not pronounced when spoken, yet they are essential for understanding the meaning of speech. Matt. 5:18.

N. Plotnikov builds his theory precisely on this principle of removing part of a word so that his theory appears plausible—that Esau is a very good person, and Jacob a very bad one, and he even advises the Lord that it would be more logical (more correct) for the Lord to love Esau and hate Jacob. The Lord does not need the advice of men, much less that of someone like N. Plotnikov.

Was Esau truly a noble man? What does Scripture say about him?

Gen. 27:41; Obad. 1:10-18; Heb. 12:16; Ezek. 25:12-14; Isa. 34:5-10; Mal. 1:4; Amos 1:11; Deut. 25:17-19.

Was the transaction of the birthright legal in those times, or would it be legal today?

Scripture says that Esau despised his birthright. Gen. 25:34. What people value, they do not sell cheaply, and if someone offers an insufficient price, the buyer is rejected with contempt. Song of Solomon 8:7.

Esau could have refused Jacob’s request to sell the birthright, yet he agrees to sell it for a bowl of soup. But Jacob does not give the soup; rather, he demands that Esau swear that he is seriously consenting to sell the birthright. Esau swore!!! Abraham and his descendants, when they swore for important reasons, invoked the name of the Lord, indicating that they firmly intended to fulfill what they had sworn.

Gen. 14:22; 25:33; 2 Sam. 14:11. Eccl. 5:3-5; Gen. 21:23-24. Heb. 6:16-18.

Only after Esau had sworn that he seriously intended to sell the birthright and received payment—the transaction was concluded. Did the price of a bowl of soup correspond to the rights of the birthright? For Esau it did, because he did not consider the birthright rights to be something important (he despised it). Was the price fitting for Jacob? If Esau had asked for something more, perhaps Jacob would have agreed or would not have continued bargaining for the purchase of the birthright. Jacob offered his price, Esau agreed and swore by God that he had sold the birthright.

Esau’s next step should have been to tell his father and mother that he was no longer the firstborn, and that Jacob was the firstborn. Esau did not do this voluntarily before his parents and before God. Now Esau is a deceiver before his parents and an oath-breaker before God. When Isaac sends Esau to bring game and prepare a meal so that he may receive the blessing as the firstborn, he ought to have said to his father: “Father, I did not tell you earlier that I sold the birthright rights to Jacob; you go ahead and bless him as the firstborn, and I will still catch game and cook the meal that you love.” Esau did not do this—nobility was lacking! Moreover, he threatens to kill Jacob, still considering himself the firstborn—and that is insolence and crime. For threatening murder, nowadays one is put in prison. For breaking an oath when testifying before a committee of the U.S. Congress—one is put in prison. When a vow before God is broken—God destroys everything that a person undertakes. Eccl. 5:3-5. Not only Esau himself, but also his descendants, unceasingly held malice and rage against Jacob-Israel and his descendants.

The Amalekites, descendants of Esau, attacked the Israelites when they were coming out of Egypt and struck down all the faint and weary… and they did not fear God. Deut. 25:17-19. At the rear of the camp is always the baggage train with provisions, as well as women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the wounded.

The Amalekites did not fight against the young generation who were in front, but fought against the faint and weary; what “nobility” is that?! Amos 1:11-12. Obad. 1:1-18. The Lord promised to destroy Esau forever, yet N. Plotnikov groundlessly asserts that 199 nations descended from Esau. Where are they? He could at least name a dozen…

Trade and Sale Today.

Houses and fields, ideas, secret technologies are bought and sold—and the main thing is not the size of the price, but the agreement of both sides, certified by an official document. When we arrived in America, I was asked to visit the office of the Tolstoy Foundation in the state of New York. When I went there, I was amazed by the vastness of their property. Several hundred acres of land, a library building, an Orthodox church, a home for the elderly, a guest house, and auxiliary buildings. I asked how much such a huge estate cost. The answer was staggering: “One dollar.”

When the daughter of L. N. Tolstoy came from Russia to America, fleeing from the Bolsheviks, and began to help refugees from the USSR, the U.S. government sold this estate for 1 dollar. Not because it had fallen in value, but because the U.S. government saw the nobility of her work and offered such a price, and Tolstoy’s daughter agreed!!! And now the U.S. government does not claim it and does not call this estate its own anymore; it now belongs to the Tolstoy Foundation. It is not the price that makes a sale legal, but the agreement of both parties and correct, lawful documentation. That is exactly what happened with the purchase of Esau’s birthright. At that time there were no notaries to certify the signatures of consenting parties, and as a sign that they would not change their decision, people confirmed it with an oath before God. And this took place in the transaction between Esau and Jacob. This transaction also reveals Esau’s character: lack of reasoning, weakness of character, vengefulness, grudges, anger.

After the father’s death, the firstborn was to be the head of the family, not only over the younger brothers and sisters, but also over the mother-widow. Could Esau have been the head of the family with such character traits? Certainly not!!!

Lack of judgment.

The firstborn had a double portion of the material inheritance after the father’s death, and Esau despised this advantage for only a bowl of soup—recklessness! If Esau had retained the birthright rights, then the entire remaining family, after the father’s death, would have been subject to the consequences of his recklessness, to future transactions, commercial and military, not only profitable for himself but for all family members. And they would all suffer from it.

Weakness of character.

Esau motivates his sale of the birthright by the fact that he is at the point of death. Death by hunger!! And when a person is at the point of death, he or she disregards the material value of things in order to survive, and then later they can acquire wealth again. Lam. 1:11; 2:11-19.

Was Esau on the verge of starvation, near death? Of course not. In the morning he had breakfast and went hunting, and before it grew dark he returned from the hunt. Twelve hours without food – and he is dying of hunger? And ready to exchange the double portion of the inheritance, authority over the entire family, just for a bowl of soup? This is truly a whim!!! He is not a grown man, but in character a capricious child, “dying” of hunger!!! And at the same time reckless. The father was a very rich man and the double portion of the inheritance was a tremendous advantage that Esau did not value. Only children make such decisions. He had not yet “grown up” to be the head of the family.

N. Plotnikov knows well that I, when I was released from prison, was very ill and decided to treat my illness by fasting. I ate no food for 26 days, only drank water, and did not die of hunger. In order to not eat for only 10 days (voluntarily), one needs strength of character.

Esau lacked this strength of character, which is essential for the head of a family. He was not ready to be the “firstborn” in hardships.

Esau’s Vindictiveness.

One of the duties of a ruler, great or small, is to be forbearing toward the offenses and weaknesses of those under his authority. Prov. 19:11; Heb. 5:2. Did Esau, as the older brother, show forbearance toward Jacob for his “foolish” proposal to buy the birthright? Did he explain to Jacob that such things as the birthright are not for sale, and that we still remain not only brothers by blood but also friends? “You, Jacob, are still foolish, but I understand (have forbearance) that when you ‘grow up’—then you will understand that not everything is for sale.”

On the contrary, Esau sells, and then is angry with Jacob, not with his own recklessness. Scripture says that after the sale of the birthright Esau was angry with Jacob and his descendants and always maintained fury, pursuing his brother with the sword (and his descendants). Amos 1:11. Esau was not the man that N. Plotnikov “portrays.” But the most important thing is that the Lord recognizes the transaction between Jacob and Esau. After Jacob “wrestled” with God (wept and implored God) Hosea 12:3-4, the Lord gives him a new name—Israel—under which not only he himself is later called, but also his descendants to this day. When Moses came to Egypt, he spoke to Pharaoh in the name of the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn… If you refuse to let him go, then I will kill your son, your firstborn.” Exodus 4:22-23.

We may or may not know the details of the conversations in Isaac’s family regarding the sale of Esau’s birthright to Jacob, who knew what or approved what, but if the Lord calls Israel (Jacob) the firstborn, then it is 100% legitimate. If this is not enough for N. Plotnikov, then for me, as for every believer, it should be sufficiently legitimate.

N. Plotnikov concludes that the enmity between Esau and Jacob is rooted in telegony, while they were both still in their mother’s womb. With this “clever” word he “hides” his accusation against Rebekah. The word telegony means that Rebekah had several men (at least two) with whom she had sexual intercourse, and the genes of the first man became embedded in her body, even though she did not conceive by him, but when she had intercourse with the second man and became pregnant with two sons, then one child had the genes of the first man, and the other – those of the second man. And therefore, Esau and Jacob were in enmity from the time they were in the womb until their death. THIS IS A LIE. Scripture says that Rebekah was a virgin, whom no man had known, when she married Isaac. Gen 24:16. Isaac married when he was 40 years old. He died at the age of 185; if we assume that she was 20 years younger than Isaac, even then on the day of Isaac’s death she would have been 165 years old. At such an age one does not marry, and to assume that she committed fornication during her marriage to Isaac requires a lot of imagination on the part of N. Plotnikov. He learned the word telegony, but did not bother to learn its meaning. Simply an ignoramus. Or even worse, if he hints that Rebekah is a harlot. One can say anything about the dead, but would it not be a sin before God to slander an honest woman? For revilers will not inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:10; Rom. 1:30.

The next fantasy (lie) of N. Plotnikov concerns Hagar-Keturah. He arbitrarily concludes that the maidservant Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh, but Pharaoh’s daughters were not given away as slaves, especially since Pharaoh drove Abraham away and the Egyptians considered it an abomination to eat together with the Hebrews (disgust). Gen 43:32. He refers to “some sources,” to interpreters of the Torah, and to priests (sorcerers), but for Christians these sources are not authoritative. If their knowledge and their commentaries were pleasing to God, He would have included them in the Bible. And Christ reproves these “interpreters,” that they by their traditions and interpretations nullified the Word of God, just as N. Plotnikov does. Matt. 15:9. The claim about Hagar-Keturah does not stand up to criticism based on the biological ability of a woman to bear as many children as N. Plotnikov claims.

Abraham departed from Ur of the Chaldees when he was 75 years old. Because there was famine in the land of Canaan, Abraham went further to Egypt, and in less than a year he was “sent away” from there. Abraham returned to the land of Canaan together with Sarai’s maidservant (not princess) Hagar. Ishmael was born of Hagar when Abraham was 86 years old. Gen 16:16. And by that time Abraham had already lived in the land of Canaan for 10 years (Gen 16:3) after he had come back from Egypt. If we assume Hagar was 18 years old when she was taken from Egypt, then in the year of Ishmael’s birth she would have been 28. When Ishmael was 13 years old, he and Hagar were driven out because Ishmael mocked Isaac. At that time Hagar was 41, Abraham was 100, and Sarah was 90. Gen 17:17. Sarah died when she was 127 = 37 years after the birth of Isaac. When Hagar was 41. 41+37=78 years. Gen 23:1. The Bible does not say how soon after Sarah’s death Abraham remarried. A year? Two? Even if he married Hagar-Keturah immediately after Sarah’s death, Hagar was already an old woman to give birth to 16 sons, as N. Plotnikov claims. At that time there was no infant formula in shops or markets. Mothers nursed up to 3 years and did not become pregnant during that time. Moses was 3 years younger than Aaron, and Miriam, the older sister, was already a young woman when she offered Pharaoh’s daughter to find a wet nurse for Moses from among the Hebrew women. She already had enough wisdom not to slip that she would bring a woman, not the natural mother, who had abundant breast milk. She was not 6 years old, and the age gap between Miriam and Aaron is far greater than the gap between Moses and Aaron. Exod 2:4-8. Even if we take a 3-year gap between the births of Hagar-Keturah’s children, we get:

16×3=48 years after she was already 78. 78+48=126 years old when she bore Abraham’s last son. For women of that time, this was biologically impossible. For Sarah, already at 90, the womb was dead. Rom 4:19. And we must consider that the Bible usually does not mention the birth of girls. What if, between the births of 16 sons, Hagar-Keturah also had 10–16 daughters? Add another 30–48 years? Gen 11:23. Even if we exclude the birth of daughters to Abraham and Hagar-Keturah, the numbers do not work with Abraham’s own age. When Sarah died, Abraham was 137 years old. If we add another 48 years for the birth of 16 sons, Abraham would have been 185 years old, yet he lived only 175 years. From what kind of “Abraham” were children being born when he had already been in the grave for 10 years? Gen 25:7. N. Plotnikov simply lies impudently, hoping that no one will subject his fables to criticism.

There is the same lie that Job was a great-great-grandson of Esau. This falsehood is refuted by the fact that Job was among a group of people whose age exceeded 200 years, while the great-great-grandchildren of Esau lived at the time when the Hebrews were leaving Egypt. And Moses speaks of the average lifespan of people at that time: “The days of our years are seventy years, and if by reason of strength they are eighty years…” Ps 89:10.

It is written that Job lived in the land of Uz. Uz was one of the sons of Shem. Some time passed while Uz grew up, married, and separated from his father, and after his name the land of Uz was called, on which later the Edomites—descendants of Esau—settled. Lam 4:21. The Bible lists the names of the people from Shem to Terah (Abraham’s father). How old were they when their first child was born? On average, it comes to 41 years, when people at that time had their first child. Matt 1:2-4; Gen 11:10-26.

Let us assume that Job had his first child at 41 years of age. He had 10 children, with an approximate gap of 3 years between births. When the youngest daughter was born, Job would have been 71 (41+30). When that younger daughter grew to 18 years old to “drink wine” at the older brother’s birthday, the older brother would have been 30+18=48. And Job would have been 89 (71+18). Notice that none of Job’s children at the moment of their death had wives (husbands), and their ages were between 18 and 48. After the trial, Job had another 10 children born. 89+30=119 years, and after that Job lived another 140 years (119+140=259 years)!!!

In Moses’ time people no longer lived 259 years. What N. Plotnikov says about Job being a great-great-grandson of Esau—THIS IS A LIE. It is Esau who is a great-great-grandson of Job.

The apostle Paul writes to Timothy: “Do not give heed to Jewish fables…” 2 Tim 1:3-4; Titus 1:14. All references to “certain sources,” to interpreters of the Torah (the law of Moses), “esoteric” (secret) knowledge of the priests—this is not a Biblical opinion, not revelations from God, but fables and lies. An author’s integrity demands listing the names of sources.

The next lie about Keturah-Hagar is that she was the progenitress of the Slavs. Hagar was an Egyptian, and that is the offspring of Ham. Ps 77:51; Ps 104:23-24; Ps 105:22. But the Slavs descended from Japheth. One of his sons, Magog, and grandson Togarmah are mentioned as tribes of the extreme north who will come to wage war against Israel in the last days. Gen 10:2-5; Ezek 38:2-18; 39:1-6.

If you look at a world map at the “extreme” north or “from the remotest parts” of the north, it is a straight line passing near Kyiv, Moscow, Murmansk. And this is just a narrow line-arrow. And if you think about what peoples these cities represent, it is the Slavs, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok. The descendants of Ham inhabited Egypt, Africa, the 10 nations that inhabited Canaan. Hagar-Keturah never had common roots with the Slavs.

Who then is Keturah? Although the Bible does not say where she came from, we can draw a conclusion from Abraham’s convictions. When he sent his steward to find a wife for his son Isaac, he gave a specific instruction: “Swear to me by the Lord that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites (descendants of Ham), among whom I live, but you will go to my land, to my homeland (from where the descendants of Shem began to spread over the earth after the flood).” When Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeans, he left many relatives there. Gen. 12:1. Although there was no state postal service at that time, people communicated with each other through merchants, travelers, guests… When Sarah died, Abraham certainly notified his relatives in Ur of the Chaldeans. At that time marriages were within the relatives, so surely one of the relatives from Ur of the Chaldeans introduced him to a woman who was relatively young, able to bear 6 sons and perhaps as many or more daughters. (There are always more women than men, or an equal number.) When these 6 sons were born and grew up, only then did he give them all gifts and send them to the land of the east. If you look at a map of the Middle East, a straight line to the east hits Ur of the Chaldeans, from where Abraham himself came and where he still had many relatives. It would have been unnatural for Keturah to go somewhere into the “unknown,” where she had no acquaintances, friends, or relatives, and very natural to return to where she originally came from, where she could speak the same language, have friends and her own and Abraham’s relatives. Keturah was from the descendants of Shem, Hagar from the descendants of Ham. These two lines did not mix with each other. The line of Shem was blessed, that of Ham cursed.

Abraham clarifies to his steward: “take a wife for Isaac from my relatives.” He kept this rule himself. Sarah was his half-sister by his father. And most likely Keturah was his youngest cousin or niece, much younger than him and able to bear children.

The next fable of N. Plotnikov is that he identifies Eber with the Hebrews. Although these words sound similar, they have nothing in common. Not just one son was born to Eber, but many. After Peleg, he begot sons and daughters. Gen. 11:15-26. Six generations after Eber, they begot sons and daughters. Sarah was not the only woman among the descendants of Eber, and therefore whole nations came from them and they were not called Hebrews. And these were hundreds of men and women, from whom peoples arose, and they also were not called Hebrews. N. Plotnikov’s statement that the dynasty of Eber was dying out because Sarah was barren is unfounded. Six generations from Eber to Abraham produced many women. The line of Eber did not die out!!! The very first nickname, not a name, “Hebrew,” the Bible applies to Abraham, and only to Abraham, although he had two brothers and a nephew Lot. And the descendants of his brothers are not called Hebrews, although they were descendants of Eber. From Lot came the Ammonites and Moabites (present-day Jordan), and from Nahor came the Syrians, through Laban the Aramean. Hosea 12:12. Gen. 25:20. The Bible and the English Bible Illustrated Dictionary on page 468 explain that the designation “Hebrew” began not with Eber, but with Abraham. (copy attached) Gen. 14:13.

N. Plotnikov considers Christ’s words to love enemies as “vulgar” and to hate father, mother… as “blasphemous.” Luke 14:26. And on this basis he argues that the word “hate” should be read as “not seeing.” If we agree with him and substitute the word “not seeing” into this text, it becomes nonsense: “he who does not see his own soul… did not see father or mother or brothers… Did not see his life…” Although these words of Christ seem strange and incomprehensible to many, nevertheless Christ said them. When Christ explained what He means by the word hate father… He speaks about the degree of love. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. Matt. 10:37. The good is always the enemy of the best. When I love God more than my relatives, they do not like it, although I love them too. When I was in prison, they did not want to communicate with me and said: “Fool, give up your God and you’ll be free.”

Another time Christ said that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, we have no life in us, and many of His disciples turned back from following Him, saying: “What strange words. Who can listen to this?” John 6:53-60. The Law of Moses strictly forbade, on pain of death, eating any blood, yet here He says that one must drink the blood of a man while He is still alive (blood does not flow from the dead). Instead of asking Him so that Jesus would explain it more fully and clearly, they freaked out and left. But for those who remained, He not only explained how His words should be understood, but also showed in practice how to do it, during His last supper. Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-27. And thousands of believers throughout generations “eat His body and drink His blood” and are not offended and do not depart from faith in Him.

Similarly, the word “hate.” It has a wide range of meanings from “not liking,” “disapproving,” to “abhorrence” and “anger” at one’s own behavior and actions and at the behavior and actions of others.

In 1987-88 I built an addition onto N. Plotnikov’s house. At that time he was working installing garage doors at commercial and industrial sites. Until a door is installed, it cannot be lifted by an electric motor; it has to be lifted and set in place by people. And many workers were injured and even killed by these doors during installation (according to his testimony). I asked him, “How do you manage to do it, then, without lifting machinery?” His answer stunned me: “I have the strength to install such doors. Even when I was only sixteen, once I fought with my father the whole night. He would strike me with a log, then I would hit him with a poker; blood poured from him like from a ram, and from me like from a rooster, while my mother ran around clucking like a hen.” His father, I. S. Plotnikov, was our church pastor, a tall, sturdily built man, and to fight with him all night long required “endurance” and a son’s “hatred” for his father. He repeated these same words to his friends Vladimir Pilipay and Ivan Kovalchuk. When I pointed out the Scripture passage that says whoever strikes his father or mother shall surely be put to death, he began saying that we had misunderstood him. He wanted us to understand how strong he was, while I understood that he deserved death. Exodus 21:15-17. Mark 7:10.

When the emigration began and his father-in-law, Yakov Kudryashov, arrived and was staying in his house, N. Plotnikov struck him in the face and blood flowed. He justified himself by saying that his father-in-law had a sore on his face, and that is why it bled. (Here you have the “nobility” of N. Plotnikov—to strike a sick old man and then excuse himself. Even if the father-in-law had been completely in the wrong, he should have said, “Dad, Raya and I will sort out our own relationship; go to your home.”) And Scripture did not require that blood be shed in order to put ungrateful children to death; merely striking or reviling was enough.

One morning I came to work at his house, and his wife had a swollen nose and a tear-stained face. I asked, “Raya, what’s the matter?” She answered, “Nikolay punched me twice in the face with his fist and broke my nose (blood was flowing); I went to the doctor and had an X‑ray—my nose is broken. Before, he used to hit my chest or sides so the bruises wouldn’t show, but yesterday he hit me straight in the face.”

“Why don’t you tell the brothers in church?”

“I did, and they don’t believe me—after all, he’s the secretary in the church, he runs the Sunday school, and so on.”

And in the end she separated from him. What drove him when he brutally beat his little children, ages two to six, when they lived together with my family in our house (1976)? Certainly not love and forbearance, but recklessness and cruelty. When N. Plotnikov’s family left the USSR for Vienna, they had no sponsor, and our family signed on to be their sponsor. When they flew into Los Angeles, they lived together with us, since neither they nor we had the money to rent a separate apartment. Over the course of several months we saw how he cruelly beat his children over trifles. One example: the youngest son could not pronounce several words of the Lord’s Prayer clearly while we were all praying together. Nikolay announced after the prayer that he would give him ten lashes with the belt for that (the boy was about two years old). My mother, my wife, and I began saying to him, “Nikolay, what are you doing? The child lisps unintentionally; he will grow up and speak correctly.” He paid no attention to his wife’s objections. His answer was, “Don’t meddle in what isn’t your business; these are my children, not yours.” His eldest daughter Alla said to him, “Papa, give me three lashes so Manolik gets fewer.” Slavik also asked for two lashes. And Nikolay struck Alla, Slavik, and Manolik all ten lashes with all his strength. His “nobility” would not permit him to take the remaining five lashes on himself so that Manolik would receive none. My mother and my wife tearfully begged him not to do it, but he did not relent.

When he beat his father, his father-in-law, and his wife until they bled, what drove him? Love? No, cruelty and recklessness. When they were still living in Nakhodka, he forced his pregnant wife to climb on top of a wardrobe just to make sure she obeyed him “in everything.” The top board of the wardrobe is only 2 by 4 feet. The surface is varnished and very slippery. Raisa could have fallen to the floor and injured herself and the child, yet she submitted to his madness. And after that he calls in the press, from the pulpit, for people to stand up for the “rights” of wives and mothers, so as “to receive healing in the rays of truth.” What monstrous hypocrisy and insolence. “A thief cries, ‘Stop thief!’” And this again leads me to think that someone else, someone who respects his wife and mother, wrote that article, not N. Plotnikov, but wants to remain “in the shadows.” And N. Plotnikov merely signed it as “author.” Yet any complicity in writing this article is sinful and makes one answerable to God—for reviling and blasphemy, for distorting Scripture, for hypocrisy, slander, and pride. Romans 1:28-32; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; Mark 9:42; Acts 17:31. Especially if anyone is offended and turns away from the Lord.

Scripture also says that people who, though they are believers and have been taught the truth, sin willfully and deliberately and do not renew themselves by repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6)—even if they repent, like Judas—for such people there is no longer Christ’s sacrifice to cover their willful sins again (Hebrews 10:26); and now they do not have the mind of the Lord, but a debased mind (Romans 1:28). Plotnikov condemns the cruelty of “Christians” in times past and does the very same thing himself, moreover to his own close relatives, especially children, thereby condemning himself. Romans 2:1-6. In this connection, in his eyes Esau is now a noble person, while Jacob is “a swindler and schemer,” God is monstrous and pernicious, unjust, illogical, and so on. Scripture says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness… Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:20-21

PLEASE, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SCRIBBLINGS OF SUCH “IGNORAMUSES” (to use V. Gladnikov’s expression) WITH AN “INVERTED” MIND!

Was Jacob sinless? No. The only difference between him and Esau is that Jacob recognized his shortcomings and wept all night, pleading with God (surely for forgiveness and mercy), while Esau always harbored fury and anger. Scripture says, some weep and repent, others harden themselves and blame God. Gen 4:13; Rom 3:23.

I have not listed all of N. Plotnikov’s “assertions,” but from what I have listed, there is enough to conclude that his scribblings do not hold up to criticism in the light of Scripture. I do not have a “theological” education with a titled diploma of doctor, bishop, or presiding bishop; nevertheless, the Bible answers simply and clearly the questions that N. Plotnikov raises in his article. Moreover, in America we have access to any information, not just the kind to which we were restricted in atheistic USSR, and so any believer can research issues in public libraries, on the Internet, in the mass media. I am surprised that no one with a specialized religious education has responded to N. Plotnikov’s scribblings. Or do they not care that he publicly slanders God? Or do they not care that some of the “weak” might be enticed and perish? Or is N. Plotnikov too great a “Goliath”? Or perhaps a mere half-educated person? Such “indifference” may provoke God’s displeasure Isa 59:15-18; 2 Tim 4:2-3.

Evgeny Bresenden

Appendix.

Copy of N. Plotnikov’s letter to me.

Copy of the sponsorship guarantee for N. Plotnikov’s family.

Copies of 1 Corinthians 2:9 with the word “saw” from Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, English translations.

Copies of Romans 9:13 with the word “hated” from Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, English translations.

Copy of the definition of the word “telegony” in English.

The words “saw” and “hated” are underlined.

Print, save, letter .pdf