logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

14 Pages«<1011121314>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#551 Posted : Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:08:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
LB wrote:
Dear Yada;
I just wanted to thank you for the wonderful sharing you do in the word and for being a voice in Yahowah’s words and truths.
I came across something I found a fascinating find and thought to share it with you, as you have shared much with me, enjoy.
A Paleo Study on Maásyah—VIA the Aleph Beyt (in Paleo)
The story begins at where all good things do, from the beginning. In the Torah it is written that Dowd found the 'mystery' the word mystery
is actually paleo which is why Dowd wrote the Psalm 119 as to direct us to this truth. Let us look into the meaning of the manifestation of
Yahowsha (Yahowah saves) in the Paleo Aleph Beyt. I think the Aleph Beyt says it more beautifully than could be told by men. Here we go…
Aleph-as a prefix it means I will...and the making of the universe
Beyt-materialisation (houses are built) matter used to build-materialize
Gimmel-is a sent one, ambassador, travel to another place and back again, just like camel caravans or likened to Ya’acobs ladder going forth and returning
Dalet=door, and the No. 4 (year of the coming 33 AD) Yahowsha became that Dalet of the Pesach Lamb
Interesting note: BGD the word Beged; is the Hebrew word for a type of clothing, or camouflage, so the first few letters convey this truth.....
I will manifest myself as an ambassador to come to you in the appointed time (4 th day of creation year 33 AD) in a materialised camouflage (human body needed to enter this plane of existence) Just like a man needs a space suit to reach the outer atmosphere, thusly YHWH needs a physical manifestation to be on our plane of physical matter, especially if He is who he says he is LIGHT.
**Dowd understood the hidden mystery (paleo) by way of these simple truths which he celebrated by singing the Alpeh Beyt in 119,
what else did Dowd know.......everything, the whole of the plan of Yahowah, I propose the whole of the plan IS IN the Aleph Beyt, the letters themselves tell the story.
L.B.


Yada wrote:
LB,

Each of these insights are consistent with the shapes of the letters, with the names of the letters, with Yah's testimony, with Yahowsha', and with Dowd's Aleph Beyt presentation of the Towrah in the 119th Psalm. That is to say, you came to know and share the same insights that Dowd recognized. That puts you into some very fine company.

Well done. And thanks for sharing this.

Yada

Also, consider that Yahowsha' is Yahowah's name plus a Tooth and an Eye, and thus the Word and Visual Presence of Yahowah.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#552 Posted : Sunday, September 21, 2014 5:05:07 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JS wrote:
Yada,

Do you have any thoughts on Naaman?

My husband insists on teaching the bible to our grandchildren who live with us. We are a house divided BIG time with much strife at times.

Tonight he read a children's book on Naaman to them - ages 5 and 12.

Do you believe Yah healed Naaman, a military man from a pagan nation?

What was the source of his healing? Ha satan?

I want to throw out all the bible story books. Do you agree that they should be trashed?

I teach the children the Torah as I study the resources you offer. They love to learn and celebrate the called-out meeting times with me.

The five-year-old tells me -
God loves us. He cares for us. He reaches down to us. We reach up to him. We are going to live with him forever when he takes us out of the earth.

She is so cute as she beams when she refers to the pictographs in Yah's name.

The twelve-year-old is autistic and loves Yah. Your emails helped and encouraged us when the doctor didn't want to do a local in his office to circumcise A in the spring. The doctor finally agreed not to put him under a general because we convinced him that A really wanted to be circumcised and that he could get through the operation with just a local at the office. To the doctor's amazement, it went VERY well and A did great. Now, A knows he can be part of Yah's family and won't miss out when Yah calls us out to be with Him. A is so pleased to be circumcised! Now, I can feel peace. We hid the operation from my husband. It would have been ugly.

Thank you for all your teachings. Words can never convey our gratitude for all your sacrifices to share the Torah.

Sincerely,
JS


Yada wrote:
JS

The story of Naaman is found in the Writings. There is no reason to suspect that it isn't true. The man's occupation is irrelevant to the story, however, as is his nationality. But there are other aspects of the story that are fascinating including the king's conniption fit, Naaman's initial response to the 7 immersions in the Jordan, and the attempt at profit by a lessor individual.

The instructions of Yah's prophets can heal.

I'm glad that A's circumcision has been resolved. That is wonderful news.

Yada


JS wrote:
Yada,

I listened to Friday's Shabat Torah Study, and you remarked that people are focused on the minutia. You then stated that you received an email about Naaman on Friday - obviously referencing my email below. You continued to demean my email and its contents.

I am hurt and saddened that you broadcast the content of my sincere email seeking Yah's teaching and how to protect my grandchildren from corrupting bible stories in the context of it being nonsense and of little importance - making fun of it. I wrote to you because I believed you really cared and would respond accordingly.

Why did you bother to respond when you felt it was a waste of your time and "minutia"? Then, you broadcast it for hundreds... thousands to hear the content of a private email sent from a genuine desire to know if Yah healed Naaman, so I would know how to teach children who love Yah.

I sought your wisdom and leading, and you mocked me.

I can't express my disbelief and sadness. I trusted you. Is this how we are to treat our brothers and sisters in the covenant family?

Yada, you of all people focus on the minutia - minute details. It is rather hypocritical. I was trying to find Yah's guidance to protect my grandchildren from corrupting influences that would lead them away from Yah and into christianity.

JS


Yada wrote:
J

I am disappointed in your reaction. Once again, I think you are making a big deal out of something small. I was playing off the point that Larry made, where he said that too many people were concerned about and focused on tangents rather than the big picture, and therefore I used the example of the letter questioning Naaman's military status and healing anonymously because I thought that it fit and because it was familiar. If I had attacked you personally, you would have a point, but not in the way I wove the story on Naaman into the show.

Examining the details surrounding minor issues is only relevant when trying to understand major themes. And it's not like you did so and then sent me your thoughts on how they might relate to the nature of Yah, to our relationship with Him or to our salvation. You asked me to respond to a soldier being healed, not saved, not invited into the Covenant, not even coming to know Yahowah, for you.

I took the time to answer your question about something that bothered you - a children's book based upon the story of an all but irrelevant character mentioned briefly in the Writings being healed but not adopted or saved. Then I used what I learned to augment a point Larry introduced: a concern about focusing on trivial matters. I thought that a letter expressing dissatisfaction over a children's book retelling a minor story found in the Writings was an appropriate example of the issue he raised.

That children's book may misstate the account and it may advance errant conclusions - all of which would be a serious concern, but if so, you didn't share a comparison between the book and the Writings with me so the most potentially important cause for alarm wasn't part of our discussion. And if you had thought about it, you would have realized that there are many many examples of people of all walks of life, including the most degrading who sought healing rather than adoption or salvation. Beyond showing that it was a cross section of society, this makes their profession essentially irrelevant, but their mortal perspective germane. They were all focused on something small that appeared big to them rather than on something that really mattered that could have been resolved had their perspective been different.

Healing a physical issue in a mortal holds no significance other than being an outward sign of what can be achieved with our souls. Some who witnessed the external act sought internal resolution and found salvation. And it is only then that healing has meaning. Most, however, never make that connection. They are wowed by signs and miracles, even healings, but don't understand that it is meaningless apart from the symbolism. And the symbols are only valid when properly associated.

Naaman missed all of that. Apparently, so did you. He was focused on the wrong thing. Perhaps you are as well. It's something to think about.

I'm sorry that you feel that this example demeaned you personally when it was only designed to expose how the wrong perspective on details, and a failure to make the proper connections, can lead us away from what really matters. But next time, I'll try to be even more discrete with my examples.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#553 Posted : Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:59:29 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
CY wrote:
I was watching an interview with Chuck Missler in which he stated when Yahowsha stated “It is Finished” he was referring to The Law, his words. Since the spirit of Yahowah had already left him, what was he referring to?
CY


Yada wrote:
CY

Based upon his Pauline Christian writings, it is obvious that CM is misleading his audience. I'm sorry that you are listening to him and that you want me to interpret him.

But I have this question for you: why not just compare Yahowsha's statements about the enduring nature of the Torah recorded in Mattanyah 5 with CM's contradictory conclusion and ask yourself if the heavens and earth still exist. And after you make that comparison, ask yourself why you bothered to consider CM in the first place. Then ask yourself why anyone contradicting Yahowsha' and referring to the Torah as "the Law" is worth listening to.

As for the citations in the CNT of what was said at the conclusion of Passover attributed to the two eyewitnesses, Mattanyah and Yahowchanan, why do you suppose they are so different? And since they are incompatible, which one if either is accurate?

And by the way, Yahowchanan claims that He said "It is finished" before He gave up His Spirit, not after. So the simple explanation is that He had finished Passover.

But since Mattanyah's account of what He said is profound, directing us to the best explanation of what was occurring (Psalm 22), and Yahowchanan's is not, and since Yahowchanan has been heavily edited by Christians and is the most variant from the oldest manuscripts, I'd focus on Mattanyah and discard the portions of Yahowchanan which are in discord with it. Or you can choose as CM has done to hold two contradictory accounts as both being true and then misquote and misinterpret one at the expense of the other and claim to be revealing divine doctrine.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#554 Posted : Thursday, October 2, 2014 1:28:03 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
D wrote:
Yada,

I wanted to ask your advice on something. It seems to me your experiences are close to my own, in that my wife just will not accept her faith is not going to save her. My daughter is in the same condition place concerning Christianity.
My wife no longer opposes my Torah observance, and cooperates but I am sure thinks me deluded.

The advice is concerning my 19 year old son. How did you approach your youngest son concerning the covenant? My son and I have just started to develop a relationship, from age 15 until the last year he was for all intensive purposes estranged from my wife and I. He is a strong willed child, although he has an unbelievable common sense. He used that common sense to reject Christianity at age 16 and while he was attending an orthodox Presbyterian private school.

The estrangement happened at that time because he had a desire to leave that school where I think he was being ostracized, unfortunately as parents we decided to ram Christianity down his throat, which cause complete rebellion via bad grades. We moved him to the local public school where he excelled, but of course blamed us for barring him from the garden of Eden so to speak.

It took three years but he has matured to understand we thought we had his best interests at heart, my rejecting Christianity was a feather in his cap also.

But I digress, where did you start with your son? I just don't want to make the same mistake I think I made with my wife and daughter.

Btw, really enjoyed the Shofar, I didn't know Scott was so proficient with the ram's horn. :)

D


Yada wrote:
DT,

Every individual is different, so what worked for my son may not resonate in your situation. But since you asked, I'm happy to share his situation with you. My youngest has above a 175 IQ and loves learning, thinking, and understanding. So we engaged in long, deep, well researched discussions about the flaws of religion and the merits of relationship. We discussed the Towrah and what it taught, its history, its science, its prophecy, its feasts, its covenant, and its people and God.

With him, the challenge was to be well informed and to support every conclusion with evidence. I had to be careful with what I said because he is a scientist. He is vastly better educated than I am and smarter. But he loves to engage in educational discussions, especially regarding history, so we found plenty of common ground. On my part, I kept translating, studying, and writing so that I was prepared to present important Yahowah's Word as accurately as possible with all of the necessary evidence at my fingertips. For example, An Introduction to God was written as a gift to my son. And each time I shared a new insight, it meant as much to me as it did him. We formed a common bond.

Also beneficial, when he was very young he loved to read and the bible was his favorite book. He's read it cover to cover a dozen times or more, so he's informed. But most important, my son is judgmental and uses it to discern the truth. He gives no quarter to lies or liars. Given good information, he always forms the right conclusion. So, long story short, he is part of the Covenant because Yahowah's approach made sense to him.

Beyond this, my youngest and I are best friends. I am always open and receptive to anything he is experiencing and wants to share. He reciprocates. Caring and respect go a long way when it comes to relationships. But the bottom line is that he's in the covenant because of who he is, because of what he values, and because of how he thinks. All I did was point him in the right direction and serve as a guide along the way.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#555 Posted : Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:18:44 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
R wrote:
Yada,
Rev 14:14-16 would seem to be describing Yahowsha on Reconciliations CE 33 with the final harvest at the time of the battle of Har Megiddo and the start of the millennium. The following verses would then be the actual battle with the resulting carnage.
This begs the question that if the ‘rapture’ is not at this time but an earlier Taruw'ah date, who harvested the covenant members at the earlier date? Assuming Yahowsha becomes visible to the whole world on his return on Reconciliations CE 33 (Mat 24:27) and not before then, Rev 14:14 –16 cannot be describing the earlier Taruw'ah harvest – unless there is a time gap between Rev 14:16 and Rev 14:17. Even so it seems odd that Yahowsha should be sitting on a cloud presumably in the Earth’s atmosphere and remain invisible (compare with Zakaryahuw 14:6) and that a messenger should come to tell Him when to reap.
Rev 14:20 tells us that the blood was the height of a horse’s bridle over about 300 km. Assuming a horse’s bridle is about 1.5 metres above the ground, then as the average amount of blood in an adult human is 5 litres and there are approximately 7 billion humans alive today then we have a river of blood 300 km long by 1.5 metres deep and 77 metres wide. Impressive but this would involve the deaths of every human alive. However, only about a quarter of humanity is still alive at the time of Har Megiddo so this river becomes only 19 metres wide if every remaining human was killed. However not every human alive would be killed there and some of them would be children, so this river is becoming a very small stream. It’s more plausible that Yahuchanan’s Hebrew original read that the blood was spattered to the height of a horse’s bridle over a length of 300 km as Satan’s army would have been spread out over the terrain and would spill into adjoining flat lands. If we assume the blood was only a centimetre deep then the blood could be spread over an area 300km long and 12 km wide. The Jezreel/Megiddo valley stretches from Haifa to the Jordan valley and a simple Google search and map measurement shows this distance is only about 75km making the 300km distance highly unlikely.
This analysis confirms your doubts about the whole of the so-called NT. But there is a further problem. If Yahuchanan and Mattenyahu cannot be trusted in the corrupted Greek/English ‘translations’ then nothing in the NT can be trusted. If so, then how do we know Yahowsha said everybody would see him when he returned (Matt 24:27)? From the NT alone we cannot. But if this is true then the argument that Paul lied about the incident on the road to Damascus cannot be relied on either. This is not to say Paul is off the hook because what applies to the eyewitness accounts also applies to his letters and if you can’t trust anything in the NT then Christianity falls over again. Whichever way you cut it Paul is a liar and a false prophet. We know from independent accounts such as the letter from Pilate to the Roman emperor that Yahowsha existed and was crucified at the time specified but, relying only on the NT, we don’t know for certain what he said and did – except that as a diminished manifestation of Yah he would have been Torah observant.
I think we have a really big problem with the NT and a lot of previous analysis will have to be discarded. When Yahowsha is quoted in the NT then we should go back to the Torah/prophets/psalms original from which he was quoting and use that only.
Regards,
R


Yada wrote:
Roy,

I don't do Revelations much any more. I don't trust the language or the copy edits. The evidence you have cited regarding the level of blood is a great example. It's impossible and thus not true. Fortunately, most of mid to late Revelation is found in Dany'el. I suspect that the number of people killed in Meggido will be fewer than 200 million, and thus only a tiny fraction of the required blood.

I'm almost ready to toss out Yahowchanan altogether. There are too many aspects of it that are inconsistent with the Torah. While I'm not a judge or jury in this regard, I'm limiting my Greek citations to Mattanyah.

Yahowsha' is not seen by anyone on earth during the Taruw'ah Harvest if that is your concern.

The point you make about Yahowsha' not being seen in the wilderness is still effective against Christianity and Paul from a Christian perspective because they cannot discount "JC's" statements in their NT. But you are correct in saying that from a Covenant perspective, that argument is not foolproof because the CNT can't be trusted. But there are so many other reasons to reject Paul from the perspective of the Torah and Prophets that it doesn't matter to those who trust the Torah and Prophets.

The best eyewitness accounts of Yahowsha' are found in Yasha'yah and the Psalms.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#556 Posted : Wednesday, October 22, 2014 7:56:09 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
R wrote:
I think Yah is telling us something more in Bare’syth 7:2 than just the obvious. The number of those in the Covenant who will enter the millennial Shabbat as immortals is given as thousands (Shemowth 20:6). The world population today is about 7 billion. Assuming one in a million then we get 7000 who will enter the millennial Shabbat of whom 2000/3000 will be Yahudim and 5000/4000 Goym (Yashayahuw 17:5). But we are not told how many unsaved souls will make it through the tribulation and thereby what the tribulation death toll is going to be.

Now consider Bare’syth 7:2. Noah’s Ark was a protected environment for Yah’s covenant children. Likewise the Ark of the Covenant provides salvation for those up to and including the end times and could be considered analogous to Noah’s Ark. Using this analogy, if we take the 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals as symbolic of saved souls and the 1 pair of unclean animals as symbolic of unsaved souls who have come through the tribulation then we have a ratio of 7 to 1 who will enter the millennial Shabbat. If 7000 saved souls, then we have 1000 unsaved. However, saved souls as immortals will not have a sex associated with them so the word iysh - an individual - could be applied to each of them whether they were previously male or female. (Yah describes Himself as an iysh). Thus the expression; “Of all the clean beasts take with you seven pairs, a male and his female” could be a metaphor for a saved soul described as an isyh together with the Set-apart spirit as the female half of the pair. Of course the ‘unclean’ souls will not have the Spirit, and will be male or female. In the same way that the clean and unclean animals will be needed to re-populate the area around the Black Sea so ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ humans will be needed to re-populate the whole earth after the tribulation.

Starting the millennium with only 1000 mortals (2000 if you take each member of the pair of unclean ‘beasts’ as separate individuals who can later acquire the Spirit) seems a very small figure to be guided by 7 times their number of immortals – not to mention the horrific death toll that preceded it. This would be true initially but there are other things to consider. We do not know the number of females of reproductive potential out of the 1000. Since each reproductive female will have off-spring who will have to have a life expectancy of at least 1000 years (even if the parents don’t) then considering population growth in a perfect environment, the population would grow very rapidly – possibly exponentially – giving the administrators lots to do. Such longevity will be necessary because those born during the millennium aren’t exposed to Satan to make their decisions before the final judgment. The human genome would, of course, have to be made perfect as in the Garden of Eden to allow such longevity. To estimate the numbers on earth at the end of the millennial Shabbat would be impossible as there would be so many factors to consider e.g. do the early millennial parents continue to reproduce during the whole of the millennium?; what will be considered a generation time?; who can mate with whom?... and so on.

So...Noah’s Ark is a much bigger metaphor than it at first appears.

From Noah – Trustworthy Guide: I think this statement is a perfect description of the world we now inhabit: “When corruption becomes sufficiently prevalent that it is accepted as the norm, as was the case here, those societies breed, even become satisfied and comfortable with, “hamas—violence, destruction, plunder, terrorism, lawlessness, cruelty, killing, injustice, and looting without any moral restraint.” This is today’s mankind to a tee.
R


Yada wrote:
R,

The conclusions drawn in the first paragraph could well be accurate, concur with my own, and appear consistent with the whole of prophecy in this regard.

I suspect that there will be many more than 1000 mortals invited into the thousand year celebration of Sukah, however. But I like your associations with the clean animals brought aboard the Ark. And like you, I see Eden as a metaphor for the 1000 years of Sukah on earth.

Yes, the world is now like it was, and that's not good.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#557 Posted : Wednesday, October 22, 2014 8:11:58 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
R wrote:
Hi Yada,
Have a happy and enjoyable Sukah.
I’ve just finished editing the Sukah ms. There’s only few typos etc. this time. Once again this is an inspired rendering of Yah’s words. The summation at the end however brought up a few questions:
Clearly mortals that survive the tribulation and re-populate the earth must be in two forms: those that were born before the tribulation and those born afterwards. Those born before would have been subject to the choice to follow Satan or Yah. They chose wisely and so after they suffer a physical death during the millennium they are re-born as spiritual beings. How long they survive would depend on their pre-existing DNA and the earth’s new environment. Those born immediately at the start of the millennium would have to survive at least 1000 years to be troubled again by Satan. Therefore their DNA would have to be ‘reset’ to that of Adam/ Chavvah to survive that long unless the laws of thermodynamics are to be suspended during that time over the whole earth. From the point of view of physics the laws of thermodynamics relate to the arrow of time always pointing in the forward direction in our 3D universe. In that sense relativity (which allows forwards and backwards time) is constrained only to the forward direction by thermodynamics. I’m not sure what would happen if Yah did suspend the laws of Thermodynamics over the whole earth. It may be that we become unaware of the passage of time or that time in the universe at large continues but not in our enclosed ‘bubble’. Doing that is certainly possible for Yah but I believe He will consider it necessary to have a more ‘normal’ experience for the millennial mortals.
Therefore, I would go with much improved genetics to allow such long life.
Considering the number of near-death experiences for me in my short 65 years I would imagine there would be any number of premature deaths in the millennial population from accidents if not from disease. Since these people would not have been given the opportunity to choose between Yah and Satan where do they end up?
I understood that after we are born anew from above and become immortal the small ‘t’ torah is written into us. The mortals on the other hand would not have either Torah 101 or torah 102 written into them otherwise they would have no ability, reason or desire to rebel against Yah. Indeed with Yah present on earth and us as administrators to teach, the Torah would be very well known. Therefore the millennial mortals would still have to have the ‘sin’ nature in them to even think of rebelling – but they would not and could not have the Torah written inside them. The paragraph on page 47 is what I’m referring to here.
And just to be picky where would the millennial mortals get the idea of religion anyway? Satan would be unknown and the pantheon of false deities we now suffer from would also be non-existent and unknown.
Finally immortals will be one large family and in that sense we will be communal. We won’t have need or have an interest in owning anything since Yah will provide. However mortals with needs we will no longer have will want ownership and privacy to raise a family and to survive – though this will very much easier in the millennium.
R


Yada wrote:
R,

Where did you make the edits in the chapter? It does not appear that you highlighted them or used the Word edit feature.

I suspect that you are correct in the resetting of DNA back to Adam. As for accidents during this time, I don't know. We aren't told.

The only reference to deception at this time says that it will occur and that the deceiver will be instantly killed. I do not know where they get the idea to deceive, however, with Satan locked up. We are given enough information.

Yah does speak of family during the thousand year celebration of Sukah, so somehow men and women will marry and conceive and raise children. As for providing for them, I don't know how much Yah will do vs. what will be expected of the mortals during this time.

This is all very interesting, but we aren't given the answers.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Sarah  
#558 Posted : Friday, October 24, 2014 3:56:12 PM(UTC)
Sarah
Joined: 11/4/2012(UTC)
Posts: 103
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I am curious about the term 'Logos' in Yahuchanan. Wouldn't he have used the term "Torah made flesh?" Is the "Word" exactly the same thing as "Torah"? Of course, though, Torah would be feminine, and so then we would have "She" instead of "He". . .
Offline James  
#559 Posted : Monday, October 27, 2014 7:55:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
The Towrah is the Word of God, or THE Word, the definite article if you will.

Torah is feminine in Hebrew but Nomos is masculine in Greek, so I don't know if that played a role or not. Why Yahowchanon choose Word instead of Torah I don't know, but I believed there are other places that refer to it as the Dabar in the TPP.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#560 Posted : Friday, January 2, 2015 10:20:30 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
R wrote:
My previous email may not have been very clear. The context is set in Yashayahu 7:14. I have checked the translations in the following verses (15 and 16) using Logos/The Dead Seas Scrolls bible. As far as I can tell they say that Yahowsha did not know the difference between good and evil until some time early in life described as ‘eating milk (curds) and honey’ after which He would be able to identify good from evil and hence reject evil. Iyob 36:14 seems to say the same thing. Is the explanation that Yahowsha was like any other child until he reached an age when he received the Set-apart Spirit and became the diminished manifestation of Yah? This would make sense as it is hard to see how a young baby would know good from evil. Then the phrase: ‘unto us a child is born, a son is given’ may be saying the child is born as a human child, the son is given later as the Spirit descends upon Him.

R


Yada wrote:
R,

Your conclusion is identical to my own. That is how I interpret the citation from Yasha'yah and how I account for the nature of Yahowsha': body (Passover), soul (Matsah), Spirit (Firstborn Children). I never consider that may have occurred during Yahowsha's life as a child. We know almost nothing of it because it isn't relevant.

Yada


R wrote:
Happy shabbat,
Sorry, I missed this earlier.
Further to the last email, I assume milk and honey refers to the Towrah, the milk being the nourishment and the honey the sweetness of the Towrah. Nourishment of the Towrah is obvious; sweetness relates to the covenant but I suspect there is more to it than that.

R


Yada wrote:
I agree that milk is the Towrah, nurturing the Covenant children. Honey, I suspect, speaks of enduring forever. A jar of honey produced 5000 years ago would still be eatable. So the enduring forever reference could be attributable to Yah's testimony and to the Covenant's children.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#561 Posted : Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:47:12 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
Good morning Yada!

I have wanted to write to you for a long time now. We (my husband and I) came to know Yah many years ago. A huge portion of that was through your work (both your books and your podcasts.) Thank you for being such a wonderful, willing person to do all of this! We have grown tremendously together with you, Larry, JB, etc over the years and I feel almost guilty for not contacting you sooner. You have had such an incredible impact on our lives, but also because we are family, I look forward to meeting you when we are all gathered together.

To get to my question- Even though I have learned so much, I still feel unsure of one issue (probably a remnant of when I was a "christian.") I had been taught to ask God each day to forgive me for any sins I had committed that day. I know we have been forgiven and made right with Yah in the eternal sense. I know that we have to be made perfect and covered with the set apart spirit's garment of light to be in Yah's presence. But while we are still in our bodies here on the earth, since we do still sin, do we still acknowledge that and ask him to forgive our sin? I think of the fact that as a parent if my daughter does something wrong, I forgive her completely and it is settled. But that doesn't mean that the next time she does something wrong, she doesn't have to be sorry or be forgiven again. Since our relationship with Yah is as His kids, does that analogy not carry over? I also really need to understand "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." I'm not sure if asking for forgiveness of sin is what He is referring to. But it does sound like he is speaking of an ongoing process. I have tried to find the answer myself, I have tried to listen for Yah's guidance on this, but I always end up still feeling unsure. A little while ago you touched on this topic on one of the shows, but I really wanted to ask about the above reference.

I know you are very busy, so I truly appreciate your taking the time to answer.
Thank you and Shabat Shalom!
-MA


Yada wrote:
Hi MA.

Welcome to Yah's Covenant family. I look forward to getting to know you and your husband in eternity. While I don't deserve any credit, I know Yahowah is pleased with your participation in His family.

I'm glad that you have come to know Larry and JB. Richard and Frank are also active sharing Yah's testimony as are Kirk and Don.

I am not aware of any place where Yahowah asks us to pray for forgiveness after every sin, which would be fairly constant. And since the Towrah is complete, lacking nothing, and since it doesn't ask us to pray or repetitively request forgiveness, it cannot be necessary or even advisable. It is as simple and straight forward as that.

After all, why ask Yah for something He has already provided, once and for all, totally and completely? We are perfected on Matsah as part of the Covenant because of what He has done, not because of what we have requested. Celebrate the result.

There is no way to tell if there was a once and done or repetitive aspect of the "Our Father." If it happened at all, it was spoken in Hebrew, where unlike Greek, there was a means to differentiate between these approaches. Also, most of what's called the "Lord's Prayer" was added 500 to 1500 years afterward, so it's highly suspect. In general terms I have found that if something cannot be affirmed in the Towrah and Prophets, Yahowsha' probably didn't say it.

I have a compromise position for you. Thank Yah for forgiving you rather than ask for forgiveness. It will bring a smile to your face and His.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
cgb2 on 1/31/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#562 Posted : Monday, February 2, 2015 11:03:57 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
SP wrote:
Yada

This whole “Yada-lite” thing got blown way out of proportion and context and has been misconstrued to imply things that were never said or meant. In hindsight I wish I never used it or made the comment... I am sorry as the name “Yada” is associated with you, it was never meant as an insult to you or anyone who benefits by using your work aiding them in their observance and study of Yahowah’s Torah. If that was the case then I would have been insulting and mocking myself as I have benefited from your studies/writings and I truly appreciate and respect you... using the “Yada-lite” tag for LH was wrong and disrespectful to you as you are associated with “Yada”, I am sorry. I was upset at the moment and I made a flippant jab solely meant for and aimed at Larry. I was wrong... please accept my apology.

I never said that LH is your yes man or lap dog. I know that you have had different people at times write to you complaining about LH but I promise you, if you saw the full picture of how vile, obscene and just flat out mean he can be and is at times, you would not want your name to be associated with him at all. Just ask Chuck, I’m not being vindictive and exaggerating... to him it doesn’t matter if you are a religious boob or walking in the covenant, he’ll judge you and separate you as “not family” while he beats you down with the finest expletives known to man.

Larry came into a discussion of Dabariym 12 which btw was on a sisters page and not in his UT group... in his first comment he was aggravated accusing people of promoting religious edicts regarding food (that was not at all what was being discussed or promoted in the discussion) and he proceeded to call me an asshole and a religious hypocrite... he soon deleted his first comment in that thread and sent me the following message...

“Larry Hendricks:
That wasn't aimed at you it was aimed
at that Christian loving fucker Chuck but thanks for pilling on
.
1/25 3:13pm”

Here is a comment a friend sent me after the show last night. She listens as a “guest” and does not participate any longer as she has been judged as “not family” and received similar treatment...
”It's cruel and meant to debase character; and Larry did a fine fine job of airing it publicly, in a same twisted manner, just so he made sure everybody knew how Larry felt. A waste of air time and a boast of attitude on his part.
1/30 10:24pm”

I am sorry for all the drama. I felt terrible that LH made a mountain out of this and diverted the study to address an overblown and exaggerated problem, me. So... now I have been beat down as a midget, judged, separated, shunned, and excommunicated. Wonderful... this reminds me and feels just like how I was treated by some when I walked away from the Christian church I was in. While listening to this past Thursdays SM second hour, you mentioned how Paul would beat down people to elevate himself dealing with his own insecurities... well that is exactly what LH does to people and I immediately thought of him.

I would send you a copy of the whole thread but it has been deleted because what started as a civil intelligent discussion degenerated into conflict and drama as soon as LH entered into it. Again, I am genuinely sorry and I was wrong but I was mad at the moment as I was just called an asshole, a religious hypocrite and blocked by LH.

“Steve Paul: In other discussions observing Yahowah's words regarding what is clean or unclean many good insights are seen and shared. Good and beneficial things to do and experience while walking in His covenant are likened to eating good clean food... while the things associated with man following after his own ways and desires, participating in political and pagan, religious systems are likened to ingesting unhealthy and unclean things that lead away from Yahowah and His covenant. Using those insights and the fact that Yahowah is steadfast, unchanging, trustworthy and reliable... it just doesn't add up that there would be a circumstance and condition where He would contradict Himself and instruct to ingest and consume what He has said not to as it is unclean. 4 hrs · Like

StevenDouglas Robinson: Oh haven't you heard? When Yah told us not to eat swines flesh; He was talking about an Easter Ham. 3 hrs · Like

Steve Paul: Isn't that one of the religious tenets of "the church of Yada-lite" ? 3 hrs · Like · 1”

I’m sorry.
SP


Yada wrote:
SP,

What a mess this has become. Too many insults, too much name calling, too much condemning, too much harsh criticism, too much finger pointing, too little communication and understanding. Everyone is at fault. Everyone shares blame. Everyone's feelings are hurt. This isn't the best way to shamar.

Thank you for removing me from this mess. And I appreciate and accept your apology. Forgiven and forgotten. Let's move on.

I agree with the first part of your statement but I do not agree that Dabarym 12 is a contradiction. And yet I've said more than I care to share about this topic especially while feelings are so raw.

Larry's perspective on how this was all initiated and escalated is different. I was not there. I don't want to go there. I not only don't want to play judge and jury, there would be no benefit of me doing so.

I hope that everyone forgives and forgets learns and grows. This hasn't been much fun.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Sheree  
#563 Posted : Monday, February 2, 2015 12:57:00 PM(UTC)
Sheree
Joined: 8/1/2012(UTC)
Posts: 63

Thanks: 69 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 14 post(s)
jealous babies
thanks 1 user thanked Sheree for this useful post.
Shannon on 2/24/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#564 Posted : Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:58:22 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
D wrote:
Yada,

I need to know. Does the adversary have the power to dismantle a life? Because of taking a stand for Yahowah's Name? (because I have; and it seems like it's happening) If so, how much power is he granted? Can I make an appeal to Yahowah? I know that you are not "Dear Abby"...but can you give me a word of encouragement? Or direct me to one of His?

Thank You,
D


Yada wrote:
D,

I don't think he can. His influence over Yah's Covenant children is limited. Hang in there.

Yes, Yah will listen to you and he cares about you.

If those around you are responding negatively to your stand on Yah's Name and Word, then don't share with them. Keep what you know to yourself. Your witness isn't doing them any good and it is causing you harm.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Shannon on 2/24/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#565 Posted : Sunday, February 22, 2015 7:01:21 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
RG wrote:
Hi Yada,

Happy Shabat.

Gen 48:19 says of Ephrayim that he will become a multitude/ will be present at the end/ be at an end (male) of nations of many races and places (goym). In Gen 48:16 Yaqob in the context of his impending death said ‘bless the youths and call/proclaim (yiqare – nifil, third person, passive, jussive) my name (shem) on them (ba-hem) and the name of my fathers Abraham and Yitshaq. Though Manassah was first born Yaqob gave pre-eminence to Ephrayim. Both were to increase to a multitude on the earth.

Thus we have a great nation and a company of nations of different races and places placed at the time of the end. We know this since Ya’aqob called his sons together and declared what was to happen to them in the last days (Gen 49:1). Naturally this would include Yoseph and thus Ephrayim and Manassah. E and M were being firmly bound to the name of Yisrael.

So who are Ephrayim and Manassah.? They surely must exist now as time is short.

Now consider Bamidabar 2. Yah is instructing Mosheh in the ordering of Yisrael and how they were to decamp. Those first to leave was the group to the east led by Yahudah. The third group to leave was the western group headed by Ephrayim and included Manassah and Binyamin. Shaw’ul was a Benjamite, false prophet and progenitor of Christianity.

I believe this description is more than just an accounting entry. I think it correlates with end-times prophecy. My interpretation is then: Ephrayim represents the British Empire/commonwealth of nations, Manassah represents the USA. Initially Ephyrayim was greater than the US in the sense of its world-wide empire encompassing many different nations. The USA which only came to prominence in the last century is now rapidly fading. So are Britain and its Commonwealth. Christianity is mainly a western phenomenon and has existed for a relatively short time. It plays a large role in end-times prophecy.

Judaism is an ‘eastern’ phenomenon from the POV of the west. West of the longitude through Yarushalem people write from left to right. East of that longitude people write right to left as I understand it. If so, Yahudah (now called Jews) could be considered eastern. They also lead the way as an example and as the chosen people

I may be completely wrong in this interpretation. It hinges on the verb yiqare. It may mean that E and M were named as Yisraelies. Or it may mean that they gave a name to Yisrael or called out Yisrael by name. Either way E and M must exist today if the Bareshit prophecy of 48:16 is to make any sense. There may even be a more subtle meaning in the order in which the various groups left the camp. The whole thing is pregnant with possibilities.

I would appreciate your opinion.


Yada wrote:
RG,

This is a fascinating and plausible interpretation. I suspect that it would be tough to prove, but I'm partial to it. It isn't as convincing as the depiction of the USA in Yasha'yah 18, but there is always a reason behind the details.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Sheree on 2/23/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#566 Posted : Saturday, March 21, 2015 12:32:33 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
P wrote:
Hi Yada, Happy Shabbat!

Hope this email is still good haven’t communicated in a while. Hope you and your family are doing well.

I came across something that I would like to share. I am not a musician but I’ve always loved the sound of the harp and many times imagined Dowd in the fields grazing his sheep and using his stringed instrument to calm his flock if they were restless.

There’s a harp musician Steven Rees and the music that he is working on comes from the psalms of Dowd. He’s taking the Hebrew letters and then taking them across to notes. He has diagrams on his website showing the Hebrew letters and of it being a work in progress and encourages other musicians to take it forward.

His website link is below, and you can click on the bottom right to listen to some of his pieces.

Precious Oil and The Promise are two of my favorites. The one on the bottom is a reading of Psalm 91 with harp in background another favorite.

I can’t help to think about, when I listen to this music, of how Saul would call Dowd in to play for him to calm him.

If you think it’s something you may be interested in, I hope you enjoy it. As with everything, I do my best to remove the bones since none of us has “arrived” lol.

I swear I’m still working on getting the brainwashed terminality out of my head. I still slip up (to myself) around the house saying Oh Lord! Yikes!

I can really see why Yah is so serious about bringing up children in the Torah. It’s so hard to remove all of the brainwashing especially when it is surrounded by control and fear to keep you in line.

May Yah bless you and keep you and your family.

P
http://calmingharp.com/steves-harp-cds/


Yada wrote:
P,

Hebrew letters are the universal medium of communication, a feast for the eyes, ears, heart, mind, and soul. They convey the meaning of words and their purpose via pictures. They reveal Yah's formula for live and its restoration by way of their numerical representations. And they portray musical notes so that these perfect lyrics can be paired with a healing and uplifting emotional cord.

I concur with your selections. They are my favorites too. But most of all I love the fact that all of this is derived from the 119th Psalm, Dowd's explanation on how to properly observe the Towrah.

I appreciate you sharing this. I'll pass it on to others.

Yada


F wrote:
HI Yada,

Here is my reply to this subject.

If Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz was not basing his work on 1 Corinthians, where he comes up with his foundation for 528 “Mi” frequency theory, maybe I could go there.

The composer says his CD album’s are the result of researching the physiological effects of various frequencies for healing and wellbeing.

So let us consider this?

The composer of the CD says the music is in E but does not say it is in E major or E minor. (Mi is the Italian term for E). Neither key is normally associated with calmness. E major is: Noisy shouts of joy, laughing pleasure and not yet complete, full delight lies in E Major. E minor is grief, mournfulness, and restlessness. Not exactly calming. On the other hand, Fa or F major is associated with observation, complaisance and calm.

But if you read a different author than the composer of the CD, the keys mean something else.

http://biteyourownelbow.com/keychar.htm

A capable composer can make any key express any feeling.

Which causes me to consider Dowd would have used the keys or chords Yah expressed for each and every emotional chord and different mood through not just the “Mi” but with every chord including the Fa and F.

This link is the publisher’s comments on the subject of Christian complaints about Dr. Horowitz "Healing Codes for the Biological Apocalypse,".
http://www.tetrahedron.o...n_Concerns__Healing.html

Just my thoughts on the subject, not that I claim to know anything except I love Yahowah’s Name and Yahowah’s Towrah’!

Let us Radiate the Full Light of Yah,

F

PS the CD’s appear Messianic in nature and verbiage


Yada wrote:
I'm glad I sent this to you. I stand corrected. Thank you for doing the research and sharing what you learned. I read what he had on the portion of the page where the music was linked and it was reasonably sound, but I should have gone farther before sharing it.

I've gotten a lot of flack for never recommending any other sources. And now you know the reason I typically avoid doing so.

Yada

Edited by user Sunday, March 22, 2015 1:26:45 PM(UTC)  | Reason: added new portion to conversation

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#567 Posted : Saturday, March 21, 2015 12:37:26 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
William wrote:
Yada,
May this correspondence find you and your loved one's well. I shared a little with this man yesterday and he sent me the email below. I responded to him and will forward my response to you but I was wondering if this would make for a good show? He seems open but expresses a weak argument with regards to the Towrah. Please do not share his name on air if you decide to discuss.
Thank You,
William
M wrote:
I did some research on your requests regarding the name Jesus Christ and the age of the letter J.

The Greek words that are associated with the name of Jesus Christ are:

Ἰησοῦς Iēsŏus, ee-ay-sooce´; of Heb. or. Jesus (i.e. Yahushua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Isr.:—Jesus.

Χριστός Christŏs, khris-tos´; from 5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:—Christ.

This word appears to be derived from χρίω chriō, khree´-o; through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, i.e. (by impl.) to consecrate to an office or religious service:—anoint.

Form what I was able to discover the letter J is rather young in age somewhere between 500 to 600 years old.

While we were laying in the bed last night I shared our discussion with A. I told her about how you understand Paul to have been "physically" hurt by Jesus and that there was a period of time before the healing. She mentioned that Lazarus was allowed to die before Jesus healed him and raised him from the dead. I am not sure that there is any other example of physical pain than dying. In addition to Lazarus, there were many people that Jesus did not heal or chooses not to heal or chooses to heal in ways that are not conventional to human reasoning or understanding. If He chose to blind Paul and then heal him, why would we as humans have the right to determine that it was not a Godly healing just because it didn't follow a pattern based on human reasoning and logic? Just a question, not a challenge.

I also thought about what you said about the disciples and how they would not believe that their writings were scripture. I agree with you. I also think that all of the Torah writers would fall into the same category. Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Daniel, Isaiah, Joel, Jonah, etc. if they were standing with us today would not believe that their writings were ever going to be considered sacred. For when Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." there was no way that he could know that his writings were going to be chosen to be included in a collection of works that were going to referenced later as scripture. But, to further the discussion no writer of any sacred text knew that the writing was going to be sacred at a later date. Much is often debated about the canonization of the New Testament but very few people look back to the selection of the texts that are included in the Torah. In the very middle of both selections of sacred texts are humans. However, if our God is bigger than our human reasoning and human logic, He most certainly can and does use us to accomplish His will in spite of what the enemy would try to have us believe. To argue that the humans that were used to select the texts included in the Bible as a whole had an agenda is a mute point (in my opinion) because the will of God is always going to be accomplished no matter what or who tries to deter it. Furthermore, as we both know, all humans have an agenda.

I really enjoy talking through this stuff with you. I look forward to many more discussions.

M



Yada wrote:
William,
Not only are his suppositions invalid, there is no basis in fact for anything that he is stating. He's adrift in a world of opinions - which is a place evidence and reason seldom resonate. He discards the truth through tangents of wild imaginings. You cannot argue with opinions. I'd smile and walk away.
Each supposition he has stated can be refuted, but long before you finished exposing the flaws in the first, he'd add five more. It would be like trying to wrestle with a bowl of jello.
Anyway, after having dealt with so many people who sound just like him, those are my conclusions. But as you know, I've been wrong before and he may let down his guard, his personal musings, long enough to listen to what Yah has to say.

Yada


Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#568 Posted : Saturday, March 21, 2015 12:40:03 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
BC wrote:
Hi Yada. Lovin' the GCN & Shabat shows. Listen daily.

Dabarim 4:3. Baal Pa'owr. I don't have the proper tools to find how " Lord
of the troublesome light" comes from Baal Pa'owr. I can get to Lord, wide,
open. Can't find anything that takes me to "light" Any chance you can help
me with this as this is quite an important point to make with some one I am
sharing Yahowah with.

Thanks a ton.

BC


Yada wrote:
'owr is the Hebrew word for light.


BC wrote:
Thank you so much. Duh!!! I should have known that.

BC


Yada wrote:
Actually, BC, it is much harder to know this stuff than it should be. The lexicons should all point out the composition of compound words, directing readers to every component - not just the initial element, but they seldom if ever do. And also, the lexicons are alphabetized by Masoretic vowel pointing, making it much harder to find related words. So, the only way to know this and make the connection is to spend so much time doing it that you can step beyond the limitations of the lexicons.

I'm glad that you asked this question. I'm glad that you were searching for the answer.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#569 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2015 6:14:27 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
FI wrote:
Yahda,

I hope I didn't say anything inappropriate on your show last week.

I've really enjoyed the programs on translation I must admit it seems hard for me to grasp it all. I was never great with English grammar to begin with , but it is important for me to learn how they both relate . I was wondering if you might ever consider creating courses on it with written and verbal examples it would be extremely helpful.

The Shabbat show 1 week ago you said, you weren't saying your translations were right. I've been studying the material on Richards site long enough to understand what you mean , that translations between languages can never be perfect and words can be translated in various ways.. But I feel you should have qualified your statement here, because people will use this against you .Your translations have demonstrated how inaccurate and even deliberately inaccurate all English translations are. And how Paul's letters contradict the Scriptures. That is the senior data here. I've been asking Christians for decades ,why do Christians ignore almost everything the Ma'sayah has said. Now I finally know why. One of the religions I researched, SDA had a clever way of trying to explain it they said there were three laws the mosaic, the sacrificial, and the moral. It was very painful for me to trash my Bible but now I know the truth. I know there is no word for law in Hebrew that changes everything in a profound way. Simply amazing !


Yada wrote:
Yes, FI, people have come up with the nuttiest ways to justify the unjustifiable. SDA's are some of the weirdest and most convoluted. Three Torahs - Mosaic, Sacrificial, and Moral - is moronic. There is only one Torah and it is Mosaic, Sacrificial, Moral and much more.

You were great on the show. Please call again.

All I am saying regarding translations is that I'm doing my best using the best tools available to create as complete and accurate a translation as is possible, but that translations can never be perfect and that I am imperfect. So that is why I always put the word being translated into parenthesis so that readers can check it out for themselves.

The reason that I like the amplified format is that I can include every possible and reasonable definition of each word rather than just one of my choosing. And the reason I like to provide commentary is so that I can convey other options and explain why I selected some over others.

You are correct in saying that Christian bible publications are deliberately errant. And they are so misleading that the only way to know what Yahowah actually said is to engage in the process of either translating His words out of Hebrew into English or attempting to verify the translations others are providing for your consideration.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/23/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#570 Posted : Saturday, April 4, 2015 11:33:14 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
LB wrote:
Yada

Shalom alychem, I am a word nerd, I like words very much. This is something I thought you might find noteworthy.
The origin of the word Ekklesia-it is NOT a Greek word, not in the least, it is fully Aramaic.

Hippolytus of Rome (c.230) reports that a Jewish Christian, Alcibiades of Apamea, appeared in Rome teaching from a book which he claimed to be the revelation which a righteous man, Elkesai, had received from an angel. Though Hippolytus suspected that Alcibiades was himself the author. Shortly afterwards Origen records a group, the Elkesaites, with the same beliefs. Epiphanius claimed the Ebionites also used this book as a source for some of their beliefs and practices (Panarion 30.17). Epiphanius explains the origin of the name Elkesai to be Aramaic El Ksai, meaning "Hidden Power" (Panarion 19.2.1). Scholar Petri Luomanen believes the book to have been written originally in Aramaic as a Jewish apocalypse, probably in Babylonia, in 116-117 C.E

Further information shows that the woman whom they call Khadija in Islam is an Eboinite, a Jewess messianic of Edomite origin. From what the Jewish writings tell of her name it is spelled slightly differing from the Islamic version, in Hebrew her name is Khadgadya; now this is where it gets interesting, after each Pesach Seder we Yahudym sing, it is a very old song, but in Aramaic; the song called Khad Ghadya, it is a ballad about the eternal wanderings of the scapegoat of temple times. Remarkably curious information, and one more revelation, Eboinites did not accept the teachings of Paul, or the teachings of the Eastern assemblies. Just thought I would share.

The ever curious Yahud; L.B.


Yada wrote:
LB,

This is all fascinating, and I'm sure that much of it came to influence early Christianity. And the ties to Islam are fascinating. I don't dispute any of this and I've learned from it.

But ekklesia is absolutely a compound Greek word. Ek means "out or from." It is a very common preposition and is used in many compound Greek terms. And klesia is a form of the Greek Word kaleo, which means "to call, to call out, to invite, and to provide or receive a name." As such, it is a reasonable translation of "miqra'," the word Yahowsha' would have spoken.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Sheree on 4/4/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#571 Posted : Friday, May 1, 2015 2:12:30 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
D wrote:
I was reading Ezekiel 20 and its quite extraordinary and heart breaking for sure. When I came to 20:25-26 I was taken back a bit. Not that I don't think they deserved it but how would one go about determining for sure what prescriptions Yah gave them that were not good? I know He goes on to say that He is disgusted with the sacrifices and such, but
wanted to get your take. I have not amplified this yet to get more meat off the bone, the bottom is the ESV Interlinear. What makes me a bit puzzled, is that Yah (if this verse has not been copy edited) seem to say He will lie to people. I have seen other passages where it said He sent a lying spirit into people. Just wanted to square this with the notion and Scripture that says "His word is true and dependable".
This verse would seem to discount that so I'm trying to get a better understanding of this. In context of the chapter I completely understand Yah's frustration.

Thanks in advance, if you have the time to look at this. :) I always enjoy your perspectives and shows.
25 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26 and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am Yahuah.

You Sis-In- Yah :)


D


Yada wrote:
DG,

I have packed my DSSB for my move but I was able to look up what was written in the Masoretic. And context and word order are essential. Yah is essentially ignoring His rebellious children because they have become religious. Then He says:

"So also in addition, I placed before those no beneficial prescriptions for living that would have cut them into the relationship and no means to justly resolve disputes for them to have life in them."

It's not that Yah gave bad instructions but rather He withheld His most beneficial instructions from those who were religious. He doesn't want to spend eternity with those who are religious. I don't blame Him. I concur.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 5/1/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#572 Posted : Saturday, May 30, 2015 3:32:14 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Originally Posted by: L& Go to Quoted Post
Hope this finds you well on this wonderful evening before the Sabbath. I've
been listening to your shows and reading your materials for about 2 months
now and feel like I know you in some way from spending so much time getting
inside your head and made me think.... From reading Yahowah's Instructions I
am getting inside His head and getting to know Him on a very intimate level.
So much of Christianity is all about prayer life(and not even knowing who
they are praying to) and they leave out the way we come to know Him. I have
been devoting about 4 hours a day to torah study and learning basic Hebrew
to help me see these things for myself. I grew up in a Christian home and my
dad and I both have started seeing something last year that had us
questioning everything. After we had pretty much drove the last nail in
Pauls coffin I discovered your material and found a nail gun to keep on
nailing. I have carefully shared to those in my family that I knew were
seeking truth and they have been receptive. I've learned from past
experiences not to share with those without ears. My wife is now fully on
board and we are extremely excited about being in Yahowah's family with you
and look forward to our eternity together with Him. His ways are becoming
our ways more and more every day and it's hard to contain it. Please know
that your material has been a great help to us and your time in making it is
more worthwhile than you know. Keep up the great work.

Sincerely,
L&N


Yada wrote:
L&N,

Wow, that brings a big smile. Thank you for sharing this. We are all glad to have you and your wife as part of our family, as part of God's family, as children of the Covenant.

Your approach and attitude, along with your willingness to consider the most revealing and beneficial testimony in the universe - Yahowah's Word - has brought you to this place. You are home because you are observant, thoughtful, and reasonable - and because you prioritized learning.

There is no greater blessing than having your wife join you. You are both fortunate.

My head isn't worth getting into, but the process I used to get into Yahowah's head is worth knowing because it leads to understanding what the most wonderful individual in the universe is offering and asking. It leads to becoming immortal and perfect, to being adopted by Yah, and to being enriched with His teaching and empowered by His Spirit.

Welcome home. It's great to have another thoughtful brother and sister to share an eternity of discovery.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
Sheree on 6/2/2015(UTC), Sarah on 6/9/2015(UTC)
Offline Sarah  
#573 Posted : Tuesday, June 9, 2015 9:06:16 AM(UTC)
Sarah
Joined: 11/4/2012(UTC)
Posts: 103
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Thanks for sharing this! Question for L&N: What began your questioning Paul in the beginning?

Offline James  
#574 Posted : Friday, June 12, 2015 8:45:13 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
BB wrote:
Hello Yada,

I've been posting the Shattering Myths and Shabbat Towrah Study show on youtube,
along with whatever guest appearance you may have on other shows
(as much as I can anyway). I've been wanting to ask you if I could let youtube show
commercials and allow fans to contribute to certain shows to help promote it.

It's called monetization and from what I understand, youtube displays
commercials at certain points in the video and there is some revenue
if the show somehow gets certain amount of viewers. I don't have any
control of what the commercials will display and before posting I remove
all GCN commercials from the show.

What I really wanted however was to let fans contribute money to
certain shows for promotion only. Fans get to put money for their favorite
episode and that money will help promote that episode throughout
youtube until it runs out.

I really don't get that many viewers but I thought it would be a good
idea for long time listeners to the show to help boost the show if they
liked a certain episode.

I really think that the show should be heard on a much larger scale. Anyway,
please let me know what you think. The commercials supposedly produce
some revenue, but I don't really know how much because I've never tried it.
I do however need your permission to open up the options.

S/
SS
aka BB


Yada wrote:
SS, aka BB,

First, thank you for doing this. And Second, yes, do whatever works best.

I've always felt that it was appropriate for people to support the promotion of Yah's message. You are doing it with your time. So am I. So is Richard, Don, Larry, James, Kirk, and Jacki. If others want to do it with their money, that's fine too.

Do whatever you think is appropriate. While I appreciate you doing this, while I appreciate you asking my opinion, you don't need my approval or authorization. Consider these programs yours to use however you think they will reach and help the most people.

Thank you, SS/BB.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#575 Posted : Monday, June 15, 2015 7:17:06 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
LM wrote:
Hi Yada

Id like to know if you would be able to help me regarding the day of rest. On which day we should observe as the resting day (Sabbath)?

I would briefly like to add a thank you. . for your time and input in the Yada Ya shattering myths program, and the time that you took to writing intro to God, questioning Paul profit of doom etc. where in you help so many listeners and readers who wants to know more come to know who God truly is and most important who He is not. Whilst condemning that-that needs to be condemned and bringing to light that which has been deliberately hidden from man throughout time.

Through seeking, I stumbled across one of your archives. I was overwhelmed to learn that we were not the only people knowing that our Father is the only one that saves. . . But i still had and have much to learn. Listening to the archives available it helped my husband and I come to know that Yahowah (who we knew as YHWH at that time) does not want to be feared, nor do we have to bow down and worship Him whilst trying to overwhelm our hearts with fear.

I am joyous being a mother that i no longer have to corrupt our little girl's future nor our lives with the myth that Towrah is law and comandments that needs to be upheld, and that we need only fear YHWH and Him only.

Through listening to the archives I also came to lean that Yahowah is a loving merciful Father that want to love, forgive, give, guide, direct, teach protect and many more just like a Father would. Coming to learn the true nature of Yahowah our Father it directed me on how to be a better Mother to our one and only little girl.

Thanks for your time, looking forward on learning more especially through intro to God, questioning Paul, profit of doom.

Hoping you can help with advice regarding the Sabbath-day of rest.

Many thanks
LM


Yada wrote:
LM,

Welcome to Yahowah's family. It's great to have you.

I have come to see the Shabat as part of Yah's plan, as a sign regarding His timing, as a bit of a lesson to us and as an indication of how we will spend eternity. I see it as a day to rest knowing that Yah has made us immortal, that He has perfected us, that we have been adopted into our Father's family, and that the Set-Apart Spirit has empowered and enriched us. I see it as a day to reflect on these things by observing (examining and considering) His His Towrah - Teaching. It's a day to celebrate our relationship and share what we have come to know and understand with others, both part of and estranged from the family. It's a day to contemplate the pace of creation, of history past and future, of the unveiling of Yah's plan, and of our lives with Him now and forever. That's a lot to do. All He asks us not to do is our regular job (unless that is teaching or healing) so that we can prioritize our relationship on the Shabat.

Yes, coming to know who God is not has to precede coming to know who He actually is. We need to expose and then sweep away the myths that have blinded us to the truth and corrupted our thinking. Only then is an open minded and rational person able to know Yahowah and understand what He is offering. And even then, to know Him we have to prioritize the search and look in the right place.

Yes, Yahowah saves His children. It is what loving fathers do. There is no other. And no father wants to be feared by his children, especially the best of all Fathers. And no father wants to be worshiped by his children, especially the Father that created them and then got on His knees to lift us up.

The best part of coming to know Yahowah while we are still young is the positive influence we can have on our children. Teach her the Towrah. Tell her that it is great advice and personal guidance on how to get the most out of life and to be part of the ultimate family - the Covenant.

Thanks so much for your encouraging letter. And on behalf of those who engage in the Forum, consider participating. It's free at www.YadaYah.com. Also, on BTR we do a Shabat show at 7.30 pm edt on Yada Yah Radio. It's just for family.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#576 Posted : Wednesday, September 2, 2015 9:51:45 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
P wrote:
Yada

The work and insight that you have provided is truly a blessing. Have you transliterated or translated all of Yahowah's Word or just certain verses? You have been given a gift and I would love to read and consult all of the Tohrah and the rest of His Word. Thank you for all that you are doing. Please let me know if it is somehow available. Blessings from Yahowah. P


Yada wrote:
P,

Thank you.

We have all been given the gift of the Towrah. It provides insights and blessings to all who observe its guidance.

I've translated thousands of passages from the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. These are found in www.YadaYah.com, www.IntroToGod.org, and www.QuestioningPaul.com.

More importantly, in the ITG I provide you with all of the insights, methods, and tools to translate Yahowah's testimony yourself. It's fun and rewarding.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Sheree on 9/7/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#577 Posted : Thursday, September 24, 2015 7:30:54 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
CY wrote:
Can you address Teshuvah, it's being pushed all over the internet as I guess a rabbinical holiday of repentance.


Yada wrote:
It's from Qaballah. Here's a definition from a Qaballah site...

Teshuvah is better translated as “return” and signifies a return to the original state.

Classically, Teshuvah is comprised of three ingredients: regret of misdeed, decision to change, and verbal expression of one’s sins. Technically, whenever one sins, one is mandated to do Teshuvah. However, the Ten Days of Teshuvah between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are specifically designated for Teshuvah, when the gates of prayer and repentance are more open than at any other time during the cyclical Jewish year.

Kabbalistically, Teshuvah takes on more of a cosmic dynamic.

It's religious and it's wrong. It isn't from Yah.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
Sheree on 9/25/2015(UTC), shamar emet on 9/28/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#578 Posted : Saturday, October 3, 2015 12:35:40 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
BM wrote:
How can the Massiah of the new testament be true if you believe the new testament is false? Thank,you in advance. I know it might be a lot to explain, if you can at least link me to something you might already have.


Yada wrote:
BM

There is no reference to a "Massiah" and there is no "true" "new testament." Half of it, all of Paul's letters, are pure rubbish. Masiach is never used as a "name" or as a "title" in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, so it cannot be one of Yahowah's titles. The name Ma'aseyah is used 22 times, but never directly in reference to Yahowsha'. Both times masiach is used in Daniel in reference to Yahowsha', it is an adjective, modifying "messenger," indicating that this messenger would we set apart and prepared to serve.

So why are you asking about "the Massiah?" Moreover, Yahowsha' pointed to the Father, Yahowah, not to Himself, making a question focused on the diminished manifestation of God misdirected.

The Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are true according to Yahowsha'. He specifically stated that nothing Yahowah said therein has changed or would change. So there cannot be a "New Testament." The Sermon on the Mount leaves no room whatsoever for Christianity. Most of the NT is in direct conflict with Yahowah's Word and thus if Yahowah is truthful, the Christian New Testament is a lie. It is that simple.

Yada


BM wrote:
Thank you for responding. I personally don't believe any of the "new testament" is true due to many contradictions compared to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Also I can't find practically any evidence of jesus or any other translation of that name to have ever existed. I just found you on youtube and have listened to a few of your teachings. I think your right on for the most part of what I've heard. I just wondered because I see that you say the "new testament" is false, but then I hear you use some of the things Yahowsha said from the "new testament". Are there some parts of the "new testament" that you except? I know you are totally against "Paul's" writings, what about the rest of it? Thank you so much for responding!!


Yada wrote:
Your assessments are accurate and your conclusions are logical.

To the greatest degree possible, I try not to present my teachings, but instead try to accurately convey Yahowah's teaching.

Jeremiah 31 proves that there is no "new covenant" or "new testament." There will be a "restoration of the covenant," but that will be with Yisra'el and Yahudah with Yahowah by way of the Towrah.

To the degree that Matthew and John, Mattanyah and Yahowchanan, in addition to Revelation, have been properly translated from Hebrew to Greek, and to the degree that they are unedited and unchanged by scribes, neither of which occurred, then Yahowsha's statements, at least to the degree that they can be reestablished in Hebrew, are true and correct, and thus useful.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
shamar emet on 10/7/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#579 Posted : Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:53:12 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
G wrote:
My friend A and I (G). Have watched all the video's posted on YouTube and are now most of the way through Yada Yah. Thank you so much for taking so much time to go back to the paleo Herbrew and unlock the truth.

There is 3-5 of us now observing the Miqra'ey. Thank you so much to Yahouuah, we almost missed this opportunity to learn.

We have tried to call in on blog talk radio but can not seem to get through? Do you have another number we could reach you at?

G


Yada wrote:
It's good to hear from you A & G. I'm thrilled that you are answering Yahowah's Invitations during the Miqra'ey.

The truth is worth knowing and the only way to know it is by taking the time to consider Yahowah's message in the language He used to communicate with us.

I'm in my 60s, so like you, I almost missed the Covenant too. But thankfully, so long as we are open and willing, it's never too late.

Most people listen to the Yada Yah program via the archives posted on Richard's site, www.BlessYahowah.com. He has all of the Shattering Myths show too. I know that you can listen to the Shabat program on the YadaYah portion of the BTR.com site live or via their archives, too. The listener number is 347-326-9553.

Yada


James wrote:
Gene,

If you would send me your number and I will add it to my "watch for" list on Blog Talk Radio. The screening capabilities on there are limited and don't always work. And there is no real way to tell who is calling in to talk and who is calling in to listen. So if I have you on my list I will watch for your number to show up, and get you on the air to talk with us. Sorry for the trouble.

James


Anyone reading this that wishes to call in please email me your number before or during the show so I can watch for it. JamesBowen@yadayahweh.com

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#580 Posted : Monday, July 11, 2016 8:01:53 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
M wrote:
I have read your website and I am very curious to know more of your belief.

I just got some question in mind if you believe in jesus as the sin of God? ,and wgy if the answer is yes? If no whon is the sin of God to you?

Thanks and regards,
M


Yada wrote:
M

I would encourage you to read a whole lot more. My beliefs are irrelevant and you don't yet know enough to appreciate the answer to your question. You will learn that there is no "Jesus," no New Testament, that Paul was the plague of death, and that Yahowsha' is nothing more than the diminished manifestation of Yahowah.

The issue of sin is resolved via Pesach and Matsah. That is why Yahowsha' was Towrah observant. If you do not understand the purpose of these days and benefit from them, then you remain outside of the Covenant.

Dowd / David is Yahowah's favorite son, and he was declared vindicated and immortal long before "Jesus." Something to think about.

Yada


M wrote:
Praise God! that is my belief. More than 5 years I recieved this revelation from.the link "David proved that he.is the only true Messiah" I had already search about the name.and pronounciation of YHWH. I used to call him Yahweh, some call him Yahwah. I also discovered the story of Jesus was fabricated, and there are lots.of the same character just as.like the.story of.Jesus, born of a virgin on dec 25, etc. I have also read the story of Paul and many more. Then I encountered this judaism and I started to fellowship with them through fb. But I sense sonething wrong that I can't decide so I keep on seeking.
5 yrs ago when I was asking Gd his true.name, I had dream.anbout it. It was written in a bar of music Jehovah. But I didnt pay attention.bec I have learned that there is no j in the.hebrew alphabeth.and that.v is.a modern hebrew of.w.
Praise to Yahowah if this is the right way to pronounce his way.
Thank you of meeting you here, I almost convinced to convert in judaism but I see that.it is so.much complicated within themselves converting, and some were having troubles etc.
So I just keep praying and waiting, and im sure Yahowah is a just Gd, he will not forsake me in case im not converted as a jew. Im waiting for tge day of resurrection when Yahowah will resurrect David and will teach us all things.
My question is why they never want to call.his name whime they knew.what is his name? And why tgey dont reveal.the who is the true Messiah while it us their prayer everyday.to speedily come David?


Yada wrote:
M,

There is a Yahowsha', just no Jesus. The Christian Jesus is predicated on the Greek Dionysus.

Yahowah does not use "messiah" or even "ha masiach" as a title, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Dowd is actually Tsyown, which is far more important to Yahowah than masiach. Tsyown means Signs Posted Along the Way. Dowd reveals the way to properly observe the Towrah and engage in its Covenant.

You may want to read http://anintroductiontogod.com/. It will build a nice foundation of understanding for you that will help you get where you'd like to go.

Do not convert to anything, including judaism. Do not listen to anyone who is religious.

An Introduction To God will not only prove that YHWH is pronounced Yahowah, it will explain why religious people have tried to hide and change it.

Yada


Richard wrote:
Wow. I don't even know where to start here, M. First things first, I guess: is English your first language? If not, what is? I may know someone with whom you could communicate in your native tongue. That would make any exchange of information much easier and faster.

It is highly unlikely that you have ever heard me say anything, M, because I do not take part in the radio broadcasts/podcasts. My part is to work behind the scenes, maintaining my web site and archiving the "Observations For Our Times" and "Blog Talk Radio/Yada" broadcasts. The main person you're hearing is Yada. He teams up with Larry Hendricks, Kirk Miller, James Bowen, and others to broadcast discussions concerning Yahowah's teachings and instructions (his Towrah). I do not have anything to do with those programs other than that I post copies of them on my web site with everyone's full permission.

If you will read my home page at http://www.BlessYahowah.com/index.html, you will learn what I and my web site are all about.

Now, about your question regarding the man inappropriately known as Jesus and your reference to the "NT". Please read the following very carefully, Marilou, and take the time to verify the information being presented to you. If you do not verify the information for yourself, you will never know whether it is accurate and true or not.

The whole reason God created us was so that He and we could get to know each other on the most intimate level. The first step in getting to know someone is learn their name. So it stands to reason that God would want us to know His personal Name. That begs the question, "Does the Creator ever tell us His Name?"
Yes, He does. He tells us His Name early on in the Towrah. Towrah is a Hebrew word which means "teaching, instruction, guidance, means to settle disputes". It has been translated in the commercial English Bibles as "Law", which is a terrible rape of the truth and a tragedy for all mankind.

Wait a minute. What? Hebrew?! Are we going to get all Jewish here or something? Absolutely not. The Creator created Adam and Chawah long before He ever established a covenant with Abraham, a Gentile and a Babylonian. Abraham was not a Jew. And the religion of Judaism today is based on something called the Talmud, not on God's Word and not on His one and only Family-Oriented Covenant. Therefore, what we'll be examining has nothing whatsoever to do with the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (or with any other religion for that matter). So please. Relax your emotions and let yourself focus on the evidence being presented. It will either prove itself true or it won't. There's nothing to get antsy about here. (And I am going to try to pick your pocket, either, so you know right there this isn't about religion!)

Names / Shemowth / Exodus 3:15
And God said to Moshe, "Say this to the people of Isra'el, 'Yahowah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Izhaq, and the God of Ya'aqob, has sent me to you.' This is My Name forever, and I am to be remembered by it throughout all generations."

Names / Shemowth / Exodus 20:2
"I am Yahowah, your God, Who brought you out of the crucible of Mizraim, out of the house of bondage."

Through His prophet, YashaYah, whom we know of as Isaiah, He tells us His Name even more emphatically.

Yah has saved / Yashayah / Isaiah 42:8
"I am Yahowah. That is My Name. My honor and respectability I surrender to no other, nor My worthiness to carved images."

"I am Yahowah. That is My Name." Plain, simple, clear, and to the point. According to God, He has but one Name, and that one Name is Yahowah. "Yahowah … is My Name forever, and I am to be remembered by it throughout all generations." He clearly states that He expects to be remembered by His Name as long as mankind exists.

So God does indeed tell us His Name. He introduces Himself as Yahowah ( יהוה ). He spoke that declaration in Hebrew, and we find it recorded in the Hebrew Towrah, Prophets, and Writings, the so-called Old Testament, a reported 7,000 times (as we'll see, Yahowah just loves the number 7). Hebrew is read from right to left, and the letters of Yahowah's Name are Yod - י - Heh -ה - Waw - ו - Heh - ה. Each is one of the standard 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each one is a vowel, and we know how to pronounce each one of them. The rabbis and others who insist otherwise are liars. The most commonly used sounds for the three vowels are:

Yod - י - ē (long "e", as in "she")
Heh - ה - ă (short "a", as in "father")
Waw - ו - ō (long "o", as in "hello")
Examples of commonly used Hebrew words which use the letters of the Creator's Name, Yahowah, are:

Towrah - TWRH - תורה - Taw Waw Resh Heh
Shalom - SLWM - שלום - Shin Lamed Waw Mem
Goy - GWY - גוי - Gimel Waw Yod
Israel - YSRAL - ישראל - Yod Shin Resh Alef Lamed
Ani - ANY - אני - Alef Nun Yod (Hebrew word for "me")
(Important: The Hebrew "yod" is a vowel, not a consonant. It is not pronounced like the "y" in "you" or in "yellow"! The name is not "Yisra'el"; it is "Isra'el", or "Eesra'el", or "Ysra'el".)
With yod-heh-waw-heh we end up with the sounds ee-ah-oh-ah. Again, it is critical to remember that the Hebrew "yod" does not carry the sound of the English consonant "Y"; that is, we do not pronounce a "yod" as "yah". The "yod" carries the sound of a long "e" in English. The Hebrew "yod hey", or in English "ee-ah", when spoken together, produce "yah". Were the "yod" to be "yah" by itself, then we would have "Yah-ah", which would be completely inaccurate. Moreover, the Hebrew "waw hey" produce in English "oh ah", or in the normal flow of speech, "owah". We end up then with ee-ah-oh-ah, or Yahowah when spoken fluidly.

Therefore, as I declared earlier, anyone—regardless of who they are and what "credentials" they possess—anyone who declares that we cannot know the exact pronunciation of His Name is a liar. And those who insist that it is disrespectful to speak His Name are religious spokespersons who have no Heavenly authority backing up their man-made religious rules. Yahowah tells us His Name, and He never tells us not to use it. Never. Not once.

Notice, as well, that we do not need to use the vowel pointing system developed by the rabbis, whom Yahowah hates, in order to clearly understand how to pronounce common words in Hebrew, the language of Heaven. Just a heads up.

It really is just that plain and simple. Who is it, then, who dares to tell us that we can no longer know His Name, or that we are forbidden to vocalize it?

As for the spelling I've chosen to use, Y-A-H-O-W-A-H, that is completely arbitrary. I-A-O-A would be accurate, as would Y-A-O-A. In fact, spelling His Name in English as Yaoah is probably the purest form. It sounds like "Noah" with the sound of the "N" being replaced with the sound of "Ya", and with the stress falling back onto the first syllable. However, because "Yahowah" isn't exactly incorrect, and because I have already registered my site's name with the "Yahowah" spelling, I am pretty much "stuck like Chuck" with the less than perfect spelling for the time being.

Fortunately, the English spelling isn't really important because the Name is Hebrew, not English. And even though how we pronounce the Name is not the most important thing, either—though it is certainly important—we ought to try our very best to get it right.

When it comes to names, the proper procedure is to transliterate them rather than to translate them. We translate verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc. But we are to transliterate names. That is, we are to represent names using letters from our language to replicate the sound of the foreign name. Therefore, the Creator's Name can accurately be represented in English as Yahowah or Yaoa.

By far, the most important thing about our Creator's Name is that we understand it. That is, we want to learn what He's telling us about Himself through the Name by which He has chosen to be known. The idea that someone's name actually means something is foreign to many of us who speak English as our native language in the USA. But it was the norm in ancient times. So we'll start learning what Yahowah is telling us through His Name in the next section when we look at the pictograph characters with which He first communicated His Name. You will enjoy that, I'm sure.

Before we go there, you might be wondering if Yahowah even cares whether or not we carefully consider the meaning of His Name. It's a reasonable question. After all, if Yahowah doesn't care, why should we?

Well, as it turns out, He does care:

My Messenger / Malaki / Malachi 3:16-18
Then those who revered Yahowah spoke to one another, and Yahowah gave attention and heard it. A book of remembrance was written before him for those who revere Yahowah and who highly value his Name.

"They will be Mine," says Yahowah of the vast array of armies, "on the day that I prepare My treasured possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who works at his side with him."

So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who works side by side with God and one who does not work side by side with Him.

Therefore, we too should care about His Name. First, we ought to learn what it is, and we have accomplished that goal on this page. We ought to learn how to pronounce it, and we've done that as well. Now, let's look at his Son's Name.

The author of Word Pictures / Mishlay / Proverbs 30:4 asked the penetrating question, "What is His Son's Name? Surely you know!"
Yahowsha is the Name of Yahowah's Son. It is pronounced yah-OH-shah and it means "Yah is salvation".

But what about that other name? What about Jesus? You might want to hold onto your seat cushion here.

Jesus is a made-up name.
Jesus appears nowhere in the original manuscripts, not even as Iesous.
The name Jesus has no heavenly power whatsoever.
The name Jesus means absolutely nothing.
Each one of those statements is 100% true. Every one of them is 100% accurate and correct. Moreover, not one of them can be disproved. They cannot even be rationally or intelligently argued against. And that just blows the religions of the Roman Catholic Church, Christianity, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Worldwide Church of God right out of the water.

Jesus is not the Name of the Son of Yahowah, the Creator of the heavens and earth. And rather than saving you, faith in the name of Jesus will cause your soul to be annihilated. Well, that's not precisely true. If you're promoting one of the religions based on that name, your soul won't die. You will be given eternal life, and then you will spend all of that eternal life in isolated lockdown, imprisoned with the rest of those foolish enough to be Yahowah's enemies.

Some of you might be protesting, "But I was miraculously transformed from being a really sorry excuse for a human being into a wonderful, kind, moral, and caring person when I cried out in the name of Jesus! And I have seen people miraculously healed in the name of Jesus! I just KNOW that He loves me and is the Truth!"

And I am telling you the truth when I emphatically state that you have been deceived. The Lord (Satan, the devil, the serpent, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, pick the name of your choice) can heal if it suits his purpose and if he gets Yahowah's permission to deceive therewith. And it definitely suits his purpose to lead people astray.

What, you didn't know that Yahowah lets the Lord and his demons deceive people? Oh, my. You'd better read the story of Isra'el's King Ahab at the end of this email.

Remember, free will is a gift, not a right. Yahowah will trump your free will when He has to, and when He does, it is almost never for your good. As we saw with King Ahab (You DID read that, didn't you? If not, please stop wasting my time.), when it suits God's purpose, He can and will issue the decree that a person be successfully deceived by a spirit they will not be able to resist. In Ahab's case, that spirit manipulated Ahab's religious priests to persuade the king that God was on his side and would prosper his self-aggrandizing plan. Ahab fell for the ploy and it cost him his physical life.

Acts of Power, Miracles, Etc. in Religion

It takes a lot to push Yahowah to such extremes, so the foregoing was not meant to frighten you or threaten you. I just don't want you to be tricked into thinking that just because something is spiritual, it's pleasing or acceptable to Yahowah. There are evil spirits. They are neither pleasing nor acceptable to Yahowah. They have been given permission to interact with those people who refuse to accept the terms and conditions of Yahowah's one and only Family-Oriented Covenant. That's just how it is. The Teachings, Prophets, and Songs confirm it.

So then, acts of spiritual power, miracles, supernatural deeds, and the like do occur in the name of Jesus. However, Christians, much to their chagrin, do not have a lock on miracles. The very same miracles occur in other religions, too. Christians are just loathe to acknowledge that fact because it weakens the self-superior structure of their irrational and easily debunked faith.

Certainly a miracle is evidence of a supernatural power at work. But an act of supernatural power is not evidence of the presence or approval of Yahowah, our Creator. So what if you were instantly delivered from drug addiction? So what if your cancer miraculously vanished? What will it profit you to gain complete sobriety and perfect health if you lose your soul? What good has been done if you are transformed into the perfect parent in the eyes of your family and this world if you end up passing your religious deceptions down to your kids, dragging them with you into the Pit? That's a good thing? I think not.

Miracles have their place in the Halal ben Shakar's (aka, the Adversary, the dragon, the serpent, the devil) agenda.

Yahowsha warned us that deceivers would come and that they would do miracles and show other signs of "divine" power. The magicians in the courts of Pharaoh duplicated the miracles performed by Moshe and Aaron. Yahowah's adversary created a tornado and a wildfire to torment Yob (Job). The adversary claimed, and Yahowsha did not dispute it with him, that he can give whatever riches and glory he wants to whoever he wants. And you'll agree that the power to do miracles is a means to gain riches and a way to receive glory! Televangelists and their ilk demonstrate the truth of that claim.

Think about it.

So beware of putting stock in miracles, or of letting some experience you've had "in the name of Jesus" hold you back from accepting the evidences you are discovering here that explode the myths of your religion. Reject your religion and embrace Yahowah and His Towrah. Paul's anti-Towrah, Old Covenant/New Covenant teachings are not of Yahowah; they come from the father of lies. Walk away from your religion, even if it means being reviled by your family and friends. Put your hand into Yahowah's Hand. Walk with Yahowah by accepting the terms and conditions of His one and only family-oriented Covenant as described in His Towrah. For your convenience, here they are:

Yahowah's Family-Oriented Covenant
The Five Conditions

Walk away from Babylon, from corruption, from confusion, from country, from politics, from patriotism, from religion, from one's earthly family.
Trust and rely on Yahowah, which requires us to know Him and understand what He is offering by closely observing and carefully considering His Towrah.
Walk to Yahowah and become perfect, which is achieved by accepting His 7 Invitations (participating in His 7 Feasts).
Read the Covenant, coming to know and understand its Terms and Benefits so that we can respond appropriately.
Those of us who are males are to be cirumcised. If we are parents, we are to circumcise our sons as a sign that we are committed to teaching them the Towrah and raising them to become part of Yah's family.
The Five Benefits

Eternal Life (as a result of the promise of Passover)
Perfection (and thus vindication and redemption) (as a result of the promise of Unleavened Bread)
Adoption into Yah's Covenant Family (as a result of the promise of First Fruits)
Enrichment and Enlightenment (receiving the Towrah and benefiting from its Teaching as a result of the promise of Seven Sabbaths)
Empowerment (also part of the promise of Seven Sabbaths)
Yahowah's Seven Invitations

Passover / Pesach – frees us from death, the penalty for our sins, allowing us to receive eternal life
Unleavened Bread / Matsah – removes our sins from us, allowing us to draw near to Yahowah ("Walk to Me and become perfect!")
First Fruits / Bikurim – Yahowah receives us into His Covenant Family
Sevens / Shabuah – we are restored and renewed so that we are empowered to share the Word
Trumpets / Taruah – we shout for joy and sound a warning
Reconciliations / Kippurim – we are required to present ourselves to our spiritual Mother, the ruach qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit
Shelters / Sukah – we camp out with Yahowah
So you see, Marilou, there is no possible way "Jesus" could have been the name of anyone living in the days of Shimown Kepha (aka Simon Peter), Ya'aqob (aka James), and Yahowchanan (aka John).

Now, as far as there being a New Testament, there isn't and never will be. Yahowah does not change. He established one Covenant with mankind. There will not be another. When he renews that Covenant during the Millenial Reign, he has promised to write his Towrah into our hearts. So, unless you can recite the entire Towrah in Hebrew, verbatim, it hasn't been written in your heart. And that, Marilou, means that Yahowah has not renewed his Covenant yet.

I hope this helps.

Richard McCord
The Bless Yahowah Web Site

The Death of Ahab

1 Kings / 1 Melekim / 1 Kings 22:1-40

They continued three years without war between Syria and Isra'el. It happened in the third year that Yehoshaphat, the king of Yahudah, came down to the king of Isra'el.

The king of Isra'el said to his servants, "You know that Ramoth Gilead is ours, and we are still, and don't take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?"

To Yehoshaphat he said, "Will you go with me to battle to Ramoth Gilead?"

Yehoshaphat said to the king of Isra'el, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses. Please inquire first for the word of Yahowah."

Then the king of Isra'el gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall I go against Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?"

They said, "Go up! For the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king!"

But Yehoshaphat said, "Isn't there here a prophet of Yahowah, that we may inquire of him?"

The king of Isra'el said to Yehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahowah, Mikayah the son of Imlah. But I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil."

Yehoshaphat said, "This is a king speaking?"

Then the king of Isra'el called an officer, and said, "Quickly! Fetch Mikayah, Imlah's son."

Now the king of Isra'el and Yehoshaphat, the king of Yahudah, were sitting each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them.

Zidkiyah the son of Kina'anah made horns of iron for himself, and said, "Thus says Yahowah, 'With these you shall push the Syrians, until they are consumed.' " All the prophets prophesied the same way, saying, "Go up to Ramoth Gilead, and prosper! For Yahowah will deliver it into the hand of the king!"

The messenger who went to call Mikayah spoke to him, saying, "Now look, the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth. Please let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak good."

Mikayah said, "As Yahowah lives, what Yahowah says to me, that I will speak."

When he had come to the king, the king said to him, "Mikayah, shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?"

He answered him, "Go up and prosper! Yahowah will deliver it into the hand of the king!"

The king said to him, "How many times do I have to adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the Name of Yahowah?"

He [Mikayah] said, "I saw all Isra'el scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Yahowah said, 'These have no master. Let them each return to his house in peace.' "

The king of Isra'el said to Yehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?"

Mikayah said, "Therefore, hear the word of Yahowah!

"I saw Yahowah sitting on His throne, and all the army of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left. Yahowah said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead?'

"One said one thing, and another said another. A spirit came out and stood before Yahowah, and said, 'I will entice him.'

"Yahowah said to him, 'How?'

"He said, 'I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.'

"He [Yahowah] said, 'You will entice him, and you will also prevail. Go out and do so.'

"Now therefore, behold, Yahowah has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets: Yahowah has spoken evil concerning you!"

Then Zidkiyah the son of Kina'anah came near, and struck Mikayah on the cheek, and said, "Which way did the Spirit of Yahowah go from me to speak to you?"

Mikayah said, "Behold, you will see on that day, when you go into an inner room to hide yourself."

The king of Isra'el said, "Take Mikayah, and carry him back to Amon, the governor of the city, and to Yoash, the king's son. Say, 'Thus says the king, "Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread and water of affliction, until I come in peace." ' "

Mikayah said, "If you return at all in peace, Yahowah has not spoken by me. Listen, all you people!"

So the king of Isra'el and Yehoshaphat, the king of Yahudah, went up to Ramoth Gilead. The king of Isra'el said to Yehoshaphat, "I will disguise myself, and go into the battle; but you put on your robes."

The king of Isra'el disguised himself, and went into the battle.

Now the king of Syria had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots, saying, "Fight neither with small nor great, except only with the king of Isra'el."

It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw Yehoshaphat, that they said, "Surely that is the king of Isra'el!" And they turned aside to fight against him. Yehoshaphat cried out. It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Isra'el, that they turned back from pursuing him.

A certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Isra'el between the joints of the armor. So he said to the driver of his chariot, "Turn your hand and carry me out of the battle, for I am severely wounded."

The battle increased that day. The king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, and died at evening. The blood ran out of the wound into the bottom of the chariot. A cry went throughout the army about the going down of the sun, saying, "Every man to his city, and every man to his country!"

So the king died and was brought to Samaria, and they buried the king in Samaria. They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, where the prostitutes washed themselves, and the dogs licked up his blood according to the word of Yahowah which He spoke.

Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he built, and all the cities that he built, aren't they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Isra'el? So Ahab slept with his fathers, and his son, Ahazyahu, reigned in his place.

Yahowah's prophecy regarding the death of Ahab

1 Kings / Melekim / 1 Kings 21:16-19
It happened, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Isra'elite, to take possession of it.

The word of Yahowah came to Eliyah the Tishbite, saying, "Arise, go down to meet Ahab, king of Isra'el, who dwells in Samaria. Behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone down to take possession of it. You shall speak to him, saying, 'Thus says Yahowah, "Have you killed and also taken possession? In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs will lick your blood, even yours." ' "
And we saw that that is exactly what happened to that murdering king.


M wrote:
Do you.mean of Yahowsha as Jesus in the new testament? Coz I heard you saying some verses fr the NT.

Thank you and shalom,

M


Yada wrote:
Read every word. Enjoyed it. Learned from it. Agree with it.

Beautifully written, Richard.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#581 Posted : Monday, July 18, 2016 7:40:06 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
M wrote:
Hello,

I've recently come across your material and have found many confusing things, one mainly being the way you translate the bible.

I'd like to ask what manuscripts you are translating from every-time you present your translation of the New And the Old Testament? and I'd also like to know if you have had any formal training in Koine Greek, Textual Criticism, Translations and like in the Hebrew Language? Such training I mean as being at a University or Seminary.

Thanks! :)


yada wrote:
M,

Since you are asking me questions that I've answered, permit me to ask some of my own...

Are you of the opinion that my translations are confusing because they are so different than those found in bibles published by Christian institutions? If so, perhaps the problem is that by reading their bibles you have become accustomed to the contradictory and confusing nature of Christianity and its "New Testament." If so, your concerns are misplaced. You ought to be questioning them.

Especially when compared to the KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, and NLT, my translations are meticulously documented, thoroughly explained, wholly based on the underlying Hebrew text, derived from the oldest extant manuscripts, and are not only consistent, unlike published bibles, I provide the means for you to question and verify them for yourself. No scholar, textual critic, or seminarian is required because I've equipped and empowered you to engage. As a result, the message conveyed in these books is never contradictory. And while my translations aren't perfect, they are more accurate, more complete, more consistent with the oldest texts, and immanently more verifiable than anything available to you. And they are all free.

As a result, my credentials are irrelevant. The words being conveyed in Hebrew were authored by Yahowah. And since I include His Hebrew words within my translations of them, you can verify each and every word for yourself using any online search engine. Also, if there is a word whose meaning varies depending upon the context, I methodically walk readers through the options available to us as well as the reasons for choosing certain connotations over others.

The actual source of confusion is the bible - a word which in Hebrew means "to confuse." God does not have a "bible." Paul's letters, comprising half of the CNT, twist, pervert, corrupt, and contradict almost everything Yahowah revealed in His Torah and Prophets. To imply that irreconcilable messages came from the same "God" is to be either ignorant of the contradictions or irrational, and not able to understand their implications. Both lead to confusion.

One of many reasons Christians are universally confused is that they take things out of context and then misinterpret them. This is how Paul wrote his letters. It is what is implied by your questions since I answer all of them at the beginning of all three books, Yada Yah, An Introduction to God, and Questioning Paul.

The very nature of your question reveals that you are still looking at these things from the wrong perspective. Why do you believe a credible God would have a "New" and "Old" Testament? Why begin with the "New." Why the interest in Koine Greek? There is no evidence Yahowah or Yahowsha' ever communicated in Greek. Are you aware that according to Yahowah, there is no "New Testament," and that the Covenant has not yet been renewed? Further, when it is renewed, that reaffirmation according to God, will be with Yisra'el and Yahuwdah, not a Gentile Church. And totally devastating to Christianity, it will be predicated upon Yahowah writing His Torah inside of His Covenant children - not a "New Testament."

If you are a Christian, you would be best served to read Questioning Paul first (www.QuestioningPaul.com). It provides five translations of every verse, so you can pick your favorite. It does not matter which one you prefer. One of those translations was based upon the Latin Vulgate, some on the Texus Receptus, others on the Nestle Aland 27. Mine were based upon P46, the oldest codex of Paul's letters. But be forewarned, no one has read Questioning Paul from beginning to end and remained a Christian. The case it makes against Paul and Christianity cannot be refuted.

Next, or initially if you are not a Christian, if accurate translations from the oldest manuscripts are important to you, and this should be, read www.AnIntroductionToGod.com. In the opening Volume, "His Word," I not only answer your questions, I actually teach readers how to translate, equipping you to not only verify my translations for yourself, but to go beyond where I have gone. You will be better equipped to know and understand Yahowah than any Greek scholar, textual critic, or seminarian.

If you stumbled upon my books as a result of a Google search of some kind because you are interested in knowing God as He revealed Himself to us, to determining whether of not His existence can be proven, or as a result of wanting to understand His plan for dealing with mankind, then you'd be best served to read my first book on the subject, www.YadaYah.com. It will answer all of those questions and more. It verifies the creation and flood accounts, presents the Covenant, including its five terms and conditions, thereby conveying Yahowah's plan to reconcile the few who seek to know Him, all while capitalizing on prophecy to prove God's existence and authorship.

If you are willing to invest the time, if you are rational, if you have an open mind, if you are willing to go where the words lead, even when the lead away from religion, you will come to know Yahowah, understand His Covenant, and be in a position to capitalize on His offer should you like and trust Him. No faith required. No scholarship or university degree needed. The fore-mentioned comprise all that you will need.

But if your questions seek to deploy an ad hominem argument to sweep evidence contrary to your beliefs away, then you'd be wasting your time.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline InHisName  
#582 Posted : Monday, July 18, 2016 11:46:05 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 105

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 35 post(s)
LIKE A BOSS! LOL
Offline James  
#583 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:35:16 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Continuing the conversation with M above.

Richard wrote:
Why is it that so many are persuaded that a formal education is required before one can be considered credible? One of the passages from the Book of Acts that always sttod out to me was the one regarding the reaction of the Sanhedrin to the testimonies of Kepha and Yahowchanan.

"Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them
as having been with Jesus." - Acts 4:13, NASB
That told me early on that Yahowah doesn't need man's educational systems in order to train and equip reliable witnesses for his Word. And based on what I've seen in my wife's classrooms at the university she is attending, the only thing I missed by not going to college was the extra money having a degree might have put into my pocket, because they surely aren't teaching anything worth knowing. It is all knowledge for knowledge's sake. Not once in all her time there have I ever heard an instructor mention critical thinking or urge the students to ask penetrating questions within themselves. Not one single time.

Richard


Yada wrote:
Richard,

I am humbled and inspired by your assessment. I should have cited Acts 4.3. It was the perfect reply. And I should have written what you wrote. You proved your point. Moreover, what makes your reply so astute is that in all likelihood, M is a first year theology student at some bible college. His letter was designed to insult me, and show that he was smarter and better equipped to translate, evaluate, and communicate the Greek text of his new testament. Whereas I was a source of confusion.

Very impressive. It's brilliant. I agree, wholeheartedly. Thanks for sharing this.

I attended the University of Spoiled Children, USC, graduating with a BS (yes, indeed) in Business. I went into business, and I was reasonably successful. And yet I did not use anything I "learned" in four years of classes in my entire career. Nothing. Not once. Not ever. You have encapsulated scholarship. And as worthless as my education was in a practical field, just imagine how worthless it would be for a religion major.

That said, the fraternity was not only fun, I learned most everything I used in business from my interactions with my fellow members.

Once we come to realize that Towrah means "teaching," we attend Yahowah's university on life, getting our degree though observation. It is that education which matters, nothing else. It is what enables us to do what Shim'own and Yahowchanan did, both of whom were fishermen, not scholars.

Yada


M wrote:
Thank-You for taking the time to write that lengthy reply.

Very much so.. not that only though, also on the account as I have compared a translation of yours with translations published by Jewish Institutions. Your translation is still way off which is why I was curious to know if you've had any formal training. And It is extremely relevant Yada.
A person who is self taught in Hebrew and Greek is in no position to handle Gods Word and Translate it accurately into another Language, especially seeing as it is an independent translation and most likely influenced by bias. This is why translating Committees are put in place, to avoid bias. For Example for the King James Bible Alone, over 50 translators and learned men were brought together to produce it, and not just any men. Professors of the Hebrew Language from Cambridge. The JPS Version, Was translated by 6 Editors. The NKJV by 130 Editors. Around 42 which were commissioned to work on the Old Testament Alone. I feel you are way too dismissive of all these translations in favor of your own.

Translations do not need commentaries though Yada if they are truly translations.

My question you did not answer, What underlying Hebrew Text would that be which you are using?

And I struggle to believe that seeing as they are so far off with any other translations I've seen, even those of scrolls Yada, such as the Isaia Great Isaiah Scroll, Your translation of Isaiah 40:11 is painful to read, please do not take this as an attack, but it is very mentally taxing and I myself can see that it is not a true translation and far off from what was intended in the Hebrew.

I agree no doubt the words of the Old Testament/Tanakh/Torah are the words of the Lord, but as we both know when it comes to translating things into English, many things need to be considered, like you said, context is important aswell.

Bible means "to confuse"? Could you please point me to a reputable source where you found this meaning? Im yet to hear of such a thing.

I do know that God has a book... as stated in Isaiah 34:16 of the LORDSand in Greek the Word for book is byblos/biblos and is found in the LXX version of Daniel 9:2 when he states he is reading from a book


Yada wrote:
M,

You wrote:
Quote:
Thank-You for taking the time to write that lengthy reply.

M (fisher of notes),

No need to thank me. I didn't write my lengthy reply for you - just to you. Based upon your letter and questions, it was easy to see what you value. I realized that my response would be wasted on you. But I'm willing to give most anyone the benefit of the doubt, at least until they remove all doubt. Also, while I recognized that the actual intent of your letter was to demean me, I was nice to you.

Your opinions are common, as are your criticisms, so I cc'd some of those who confront similar arguments in my reply, hoping that what I wrote would be of benefit to them. And based upon their replies, it has been. I am answering this, your second letter, for the same reason.

You wrote:
Quote:
Very much so.. not that only though, also on the account as I have compared a translation of yours with translations published by Jewish Institutions. Your translation is still way off which is why I was curious to know if you've had any formal training. And It is extremely relevant Yada.


I also cite from the JPS, and often compare my translations with theirs, but since your focus was on translating the Greek of the CNT, it was not relevant.

And since you have an affinity for the CNT, why is it that your position on formal training is in direct conflict with Acts 4.13? It speaks about how a couple of fishermen, Shim'own Kephas and Yahowchanan, were "uneducated and untrained," and yet they spoke with the confidence understanding inspires, amazing the likes of the highly educated - the epitome of the very thing you value. Let me share it with you using a translation you may like:

"Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus." Acts 4.13 NASB.

By the way, the names "Peter," "John," and "Jesus" were not in the Greek text produced by those you admire and trust. In context, as the Disciples (which means to learn) were speaking to the people, the priests (theologians with formal training in religion) and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees (highly educated scribes and religious scholars) came upon them, being [like you] greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in 'Jesus' the 'resurrection' from the dead. So they laid hands on them and put them in jail. The scholarly religious types that Yahowsha' lambasted in Mattanyah 23, calling them hypocrites and frauds, inquired: By what power, or in what name, have you done this?

My answer to the same question is in Yahowah's name and as a result of being enlightened and empowered by His Towrah - which means "teaching." It is the most reliable and enriching text in the universe, capable of educating anyone who is willing to invest the time, who is rational, who has an open mind, and who is willing to go where His words lead.

You are of the opinion:
Quote:
A person who is self taught in Hebrew and Greek is in no position to handle Gods Word and Translate it accurately into another Language, especially seeing as it is an independent translation and most likely influenced by bias. This is why translating Committees are put in place, to avoid bias. For Example for the King James Bible Alone, over 50 translators and learned men were brought together to produce it, and not just any men. Professors of the Hebrew Language from Cambridge. The JPS Version, Was translated by 6 Editors. The NKJV by 130 Editors. Around 42 which were commissioned to work on the Old Testament Alone. I feel you are way too dismissive of all these translations in favor of your own.


Considering this citation from the book of Acts, or any of the hundreds of times Yahowah encourages us to "shamar - closely examine and carefully consider" His Towrah, His testimony, His Word, and His Covenant, why is it that you have been persuaded that formal education is required before a person is in a position to handle God's Word? Yahowah clearly does not need man's educational systems to equip reliable witnesses for His Word. In fact, He never once conveyed anything through a scholar or theologian.

You evidently missed the purpose of the fulfillment of Shabuw'ah. You may want to read Acts 2:1-21. The Set-Apart Spirit empowers those who attend Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym to translate Hebrew in any language spoken by men. The purpose of Shabuw'ah - the Promise of Seven - is to enlighten, empower, and enrich the Covenant's children so that we can be accurate and effective witnesses.

Bias is an interesting term. We all have one. Mine is Yahowah's. I know Him, like Him, and trust Him. Yours is formal education and religious translations. My bias is for the Hebrew teaching and guidance found in the Towrah, Naby', and Mizmowr. Yours is for the CNT and Greek.

Your ignorance of the KJV is appalling. The purpose of the committee wasn't to avoid bias, but to promote a bias in favor of King James. At the time, the Geneva bible correctly noted in its footnotes, or commentary, that there was no divine sanction for kings. And it became so popular, the king of England needed to refute it.

Moreover, the KJV wasn't composed as a new translation, but instead as a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of an English translation of the Latin Vulgate. The committee did not have access to a credible Hebrew text. There were only two scholars who even knew Hebrew on the committee, not that it mattered. The Masoretic Codex Leniningradensis wouldn't be found or published for a couple of centuries (the first credible and complete publication was in 1937) and with the DSS still in masonry jars through 1955, and with even the medieval Aleppo Codex hidden away in Syria and unavailable to scholars until 1958, there was no reliable text available of the Tanakh. So since the committee couldn't and didn't "translate" the Hebrew Tanakh, they relied instead on the Latin Vulgate, and to a lesser degree, the Greek Septuagint. But the former was an amalgamation of Old Latin texts with references to the Septuagint by a single Latin and Greek scholar. And as Origen had demonstrated, by that time there were so many conflicting variations of the Septuagint that it had become unreliable. Further, there were some 300,000 variances between Texus Receptus and older manuscripts of the Greek CNT.

The JPS was founded in America by 100 Jewish "intellectuals" in 1888. They began by composing the Outlines of Jewish History. Their JPS Tanakh took 53 years to compile, and was eventually published in 1917, and revised in 1985, as a translation of the Masoretic Text. Their bias was for Rabbinic Judaism. And while the JPS says that it took 53 years, and Wiki reports "over 30," it was a collaborative effort of "Jewish scholars and rabbis." The editor and chief of the Torah was Harry Orlinsky, formerly a translator of the RSV and NRSV. There were only two other named editors, Speiser and Ginsberg. They published their work in 1962. The Book of Isaiah appeared in the JPS in 1973, and Jeremiah in 1978. A separate committee was set up in 1966 to translate the Writings. It consisted of Greenberg, Greenfield, and Sarna.

As was the case with the KJV, the NKJV was not a new translation. It was an attempt to remove the dated nature of Elizabethan English, replacing it with more current nomenclature.

I am dismissive of anything that isn't accurate. These translations do not accurately reflect what Yahowah inspired His prophets to convey.








Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#584 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:35:49 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Continuing

Yada wrote:
You wrote:
Quote:
Translations do not need commentaries though Yada if they are truly translations.



It would be correct to write: translations would not need commentaries if they were accurate and complete, if there was only one possible rendering for each word, if one language translated perfectly into another, if we had original texts, or at the very least, reliable copies of them, and if those reading the resulting translations were all capable on their own initiative of making the connections necessary to go from knowing to understanding.

What you wrote is senseless.

You wrote:
Quote:
My question you did not answer, What underlying Hebrew Text would that be which you are using?



I answered your question the same way Yahowsha' answered most questions. I told you where the answer was written. But you were so obsessed with your sense of superiority, you not only asked a question that I had answered at the beginning of every book I have written, including the one you later criticized, even after telling you where to look, you didn't bother. This is affirmation that I was right: my reply would lost on you.

The reason that I didn't simply write DSS, is that doing so would have been inadequate. There are many gaps in the DSS that still require using the MT. But the MT has many flaws, and it is only by undoing the Masoretic diacritical markings that it can be reliably used. Then there is the matter of alphabet and lexicons. There are a dozen Hebrew scrips, from the original and revealing Ancient and Paleo Hebrew, to the highly corrupt and deliberately deceptive Babylonian variations. Moreover, most Hebrew scholars ignore the influence of the Hebrew stems, conjugations, and moods, as well as the fact that there is no past, present, or future tenses in Hebrew. In addition, since the most popular lexicons and dictionaries were published by bible publishers, they tend to support their own translations, even when the words themselves do not justify doing so.

I devoted better part of 100 pages to providing a complete and accurate answer in the His Word Volume of An Introduction to God. Then after doing so, I used the tools discussed to translate a number of passages, demonstrating the challenges associated with translating.

And speaking of not answering questions, you have to be a hypocrite to accuse me of not doing so when you ignored most of mine.

You wrote:
Quote:
And I struggle to believe that seeing as they are so far off with any other translations I've seen, even those of scrolls Yada, such as the Isaia Great Isaiah Scroll, Your translation of Isaiah 40:11 is painful to read, please do not take this as an attack, but it is very mentally taxing and I myself can see that it is not a true translation and far off from what was intended in the Hebrew.


And therein lies the problem with all religious people. Rather than invest the time to know and understand, and thereby trust and rely, they "struggle to believe." Rather than investigate and validate the translation of the words in Isaiah 40:11, and thereby know which was right and which was wrong, you simply compared one translation to others.

Since you stated that my translation was painful to read, even mentally taxing, and not a true translation of the intent of the Hebrew, in fact far off from it, without reading what I had written five years ago, I translated Yasha'yah 40:11 anew. I'm always learning, and thus improving, and thought that it would be a good exercise. After all, I'm the first to admit that there is no such thing as a perfect translation.

So here it is:

“In the manner of (ka – similar to, as, like, akin to, according to, comparable to) a Shepherd (ra’ah – one who cares for the needs of, tends to, protects, and leads sheep, one who nourishes a flock and enables sheep to flourish by providing access to pasture; written identically to re’eh in the text, which means friend, and re’ah - companion), His flock (‘eder huw’ – His group of sheep or herd of mammals which travel and eat together), He will shepherd, caring for and attending to their needs (ra’ah – He will accompany, associate with, lead, provide pasture, tend to, protect, and enable as a shepherd (third person masculine singular qal imperfect active – meaning that the relationship between the Shepherd and His flock is active and genuine and the role of the Shepherd should be interpreted literally on a continuing basis throughout time with ongoing implications whereby the Shepherd is acting and the flock is responding)). With His Sacrificial Lamb (ba zarowa’ huw’ – in His arm or with His shoulder; while often rendered arm or shoulder, zarowa’ is used in the Towrah to depict the sacrificial lamb of Passover and it should be noted that Yahowsha’ represents the outstretched arm of Yahowah, He served as the Sacrificial Lamb of Passover, and He referred to Himself as a Shepherd)), He will gather (qabats – He will assemble, collect, and lift up, He will select, obtain, and harvest those engaged in His relationship with a unity of purpose (third person masculine singular piel imperfect active – meaning that the object, which is those gathered, will endure the effect of the verb, which is to be brought together and harvested by the Sacrificial Lamb, and that their situation will be transformed by His deliberate action to choose and collect them, providing a result which will continuing throughout time with ongoing implications so long as the flock responds to the Sacrificial Lamb)) the young sheep (talah – the young lambs who are at an early stage of their growth and development even though they are spotted and thus imperfect, and of diverse colors and thus of different races).

And (wa) in His lap (ba cheq huw’ – within the area between the waist and neck, in the garment that covers His chest and is over His heart, in the place He embraces and cuddles as an act of love, demonstrating warmth; from an unused root meaning to enclose and thus rendered in His midst or in His bosom), He will lift up and carry away (nasa’ – He will uplift, raise, pick up, bring, and bear, He will forgive and respect, remove and honor, desire and exalt (third person masculine singular qal imperfect active – revealing that the relationship between His lap and those who depend upon His nurturing and are still young and growing is real, and thus genuine, and His promise to lift them up should be interpreted literally because His loving embrace will endure throughout time, forever influencing those who respond and are as a result lifted up and carried away)) the young ones who are dependent (‘awal – the infant sheep who are nursing, children dependent upon their mother’s milk (qal participle plural feminine, absolute active – forming a genuine relationship which should be interpreted literally, serving as a verbal adjective conveying feminine attributes, unbound, where the subject, God in this case, is the actor and the object, His children, undergo the benefits associated with consuming their Mother’s milk)), by guiding, leading, and sustaining (nahal – by accompanying and supporting, escorting and transporting, feeding and protecting, all while journeying along the many stages leading to the place of restoration and rest (third person masculine singular piel imperfect active – meaning that the object, which is now the young lambs, will endure the effect of the verb, which is to be guided, led, and sustained while being escorted by the Shepherd, revealing that their situation will be transformed by His deliberate action accompany and transport them to the place of restoration and rest, a result which will continuing throughout time with ongoing implications so long as the children accept the Shepherd’s / Sacrificial Lamb’s support)).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 40:11)

It is hard to fathom that you believe based upon the underlying Hebrew that: "Your translation of Isaiah 40:11 is painful to read, please do not take this as an attack, but it is very mentally taxing and I myself can see that it is not a true translation and far off from what was intended in the Hebrew."You may want to rethink that position.

Further, there were no variations between the MT and the Great Isaiah Scroll in Yasha'yah 40:11, negating your "even those of scrolls Yada, such as the Isaia Great Isaiah Scroll."

The DSS Bible translates the verse: "Like a shepherd he pastures his flock; he gathers the lambs in his arms, carries them near his heart, and gently leads the nursing sheep." Since "shepherd" is the same word as that translated "pastures," their rendering was incomplete in that it only conveys one aspect of ra'ah. Earlier in An Introduction to God and also in many places in Yada Yah, I conducted and shared my research into the use of zarowa', but you obviously didn't consider it. So I won't waste my time reconstructing that analysis here. However, zarowa' is singular and thus cannot be "arms" plural. Moreover, it is equally valid being rendered "shoulder," should you prefer the rabbinic option. But this simply reinforces the need for thoughtful commentary.

Leb is the Hebrew word for "heart," but it was not used here. The primary meaning of cheq is "lap." That said, the implication of the DSS translation is valid even though the translation is not true to the words, themselves. There is no "gently" inference associated with nasa', one of the most common of all Hebrew verbs, or nahal. The pronoun "they" isn't found in the text, nor is "near." Finally, 'awal was scribed as a verb, not a noun.

While the KJV inverted the initial clause, causing it not to be a "true translation," and limited the second of the two uses of ra'ah to "feed," choosing one connotation over many, our translations are otherwise similar. Having no access to Hebrew and not valuing it, they didn't consider Yahowah's definition of zarowa'. He typically defines words in the first use. And zarowa' is used throughout the Towrah to depict the Sacrificial Lamb of Passover. But to their credit, or probably Jerome's, they rendered it singular. The "bosom" translation isn't so much inaccurate as it is inappropriate in this context. Moreover, bosom isn't among the primary definitions of cheq. And since you claim to be able to read the GIS, you know that there is no justification for "gently." That is not among the primary or secondary meanings of nahal - which means to guide, lead, sustain, and escort. Finally, 'awal does not mean "with young," but instead is a verb conveying the idea of young children who are nursing and thus dependent.

Nonetheless, the KJV published: "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young."

In An Introduction to God, I presented the following translation of Yasha'yah 40:11.

"Further describing Yahowsha’, the physical manifestation of Yahowah, and His Word, the prophet Yasha’yahuw was inspired to write: “As a Shepherd (ka ra’ah – as a friend and companion) shepherds, leads, protects, and feeds His flock (ra’ah ‘eder), the Sacrificial Lamb (zarow’a – the One who shoulders our burdens) will gather (qabas – assemble and collect) His sheep (tala’ym).

And in His chest (ba cheyq – garment, bosom, and midst), He will lift them up (nasa’ – carry them away, forgiving them by removing their guilt), nursing, nurturing (‘uwl – feeding the young children) and guiding them (nahal – leading, directing, and sustaining them, helping them by caring for them).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:11)

God has a great deal more to say about this harvest of saved souls, of His return, and about His renewed relationship with His children. But as we move from the Word to the Name, we would be remiss if we didn’t consider the conclusion and result of this work."

The only significant difference is the rendering of the verb 'uwl / 'awal (written the same way in the Hebrew text just transliterated differently). And while I could justify "nursing, nurturing" based upon its definition, I tend to think that today's rendering is slightly better.

What I find interesting, however, is that you discounted what came before and after 40:11, and yet in your next statement, spoke of the importance of context. Since I didn't and won't take anything Yahowah says out of context, here it is for your consideration...

From the Word Volume of An Introduction to God:

"While we could easily continue this discussion on the “dabar – Word” of God for the next hundred pages, I’d like to conclude by sharing what is perhaps the most often quoted passage on this topic—although I’ll do so in context. Christian pastors cite a tiny slice of what we are going to consider to infer that God has intervened to keep their bibles from being corrupted. But that isn’t what God is saying. In actuality, He will be comparing His Word to our character.

But before we consider Yahowah’s perspective on His Word, let’s listen to what He has to say about us. This presentation is found in my favorite book, one which begins: “The revelation (hazown – the divine communication) to Yasha’yahuw (Yasha’yahuw – Yahowah Saves, commonly (mis)transliterated Isaiah), the son (ben) of Amowts (‘Amowts – the alert and bold, the strengthened and secure, commonly (mis)transliterated Amoz), which by way of the relationship (‘asher) he received prophetic information (hazah – observed the future) regarding (‘al) Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – Yah is Abundantly Sufficient, Of Yah, From Yah, and Those Who Are Related to Yah; commonly (mis)transliterated Judah) and Yaruwshalaym (Yaruwshalaym – the source of salvation, commonly (mis)transliterated Jerusalem) in the day (ba yowm) of Uzyahuw (‘Uzyahuw – Yahowah Strengthens, commonly (mis)transliterated Uzziah), Yowtham (Yowtham – Yahowah Vindicates, Perfects, and Completes, commonly (mis)transliterated Jotham), Achaz (‘Achaz – grasp hold of him and seize the opportunity), and Yachizqyah (Yachizqyah – Grow and Prevail with Yahowah, commonly (mis)transliterated Hezekiah (this spelling of the name was derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls)), kings (melek – rulers) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah).” (Yasha’yahuw / Yahowah Saves / Isaiah 1:1) When the names are changed, as they are in every English translation, the essence of the message, and the identity of its Source is lost.

Yahowah’s prophetic testimony is grounded in time, but not limited in time. The circumstances this revelation describes were prevalent when they were recorded, just as they are now. The message was true then, just as it is today.

This prophetic document was scribed around 700 BCE, during the reign of King Yachizqyah, seven centuries before Yahowsha’ would fulfill its predictions. This king, and his (actually God’s) defeat of the Assyrians, has recently been documented in secular texts, affirming that the historicity of these words is as accurate as were the predictions they made.

Particularly interesting in this regard, there was but one complete scroll found in the Qumran caves above the Dead Sea: Yasha’yahuw – Isaiah. The Great Isaiah Scroll, as it is known, was most recently carbon-14 dated in 1995 by the University of Arizona. They calibrated its origin to between 335-324 BCE. Therefore, God has provided us with a written record which predates the events He predicted by three hundred years.

In that every prediction made on this scroll has been, or soon will be, fulfilled precisely as promised, it serves to prove that Yahowah is God and that He inspired His Word. There is no other possible informed or rational conclusion. The probability of chance fulfillment of the predictions made through Yasha’yahuw exceed one in ten to the sixtieth power. That is greater than one chance in sixty billion billion billion billion billion billion. And that is why there is an entire volume of Yada Yah entitled “Salvation,” which is dedicated to these predictions.

One of the most famous prophets who ever lived, wrote: “Listen (shama’) heavens (shamaym – in the spiritual realm), and listen (shama’) earth (‘erets – in the material realm), for indeed (ky – surely and truly), Yahowah (efei - hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah (God’s personal and proper name, commonly replaced with Satan’s title: “the LORD”)) has spoken (dabar – communicated the word). ‘I reared the children and caused them to grow (gadal benym – I nurtured the family and made them great) and I lifted them up to a place of honor (ruwm – I raised them, causing them to grow up), and they (hem) rebelled against Me (pasa’ ba – revolted against and offended, were indignant and defied Me).’” (Yasha’yahuw 1:2)

Our Heavenly Father honored His end of the Covenant, whose stated goal was to help us grow, but His children have disavowed their responsibility."



At this point, since we are addressing a translation of Yasha’yah 40:11, I’m going to jump ahead in the chapter. But should you be interested, I just completed a new translation of the first two chapters of Yasha’yah and learned a great deal in the process. I’ll gladly share these with you as they are part of a new book called Observations.



“Fortunately, Yahowah’s commitment to this relationship is far greater than our own. As evidence of this, even while His children were rebelling against Him, God announced His plan to reconcile the relationship. What follows, indeed most all of Yasha’yahuw, is devoted to not only depicting the awful mess man has made, but also to describing precisely how Yahowah will achieve His goal.

Now that introductions have been made, let’s journey deeper into this prophetic text to ascertain Yahowah’s perspective on His Word. This discussion begins: “‘Comfort and console My family and encourage My people to change their attitude, thinking, and perspective (nacham nacham ‘am – reconsider, relent, and repent My people, acknowledge that you were wrong and change your mind My family),’ God (‘elohym) said (‘amar – responded and declared).” (Yasha’yahuw / Yahowah Saves / Isaiah 40:1)

The thing that Yahowah wanted His people to change their attitude, thinking, and perspective about, was His summons to them, His Way, and His Ma’aseyah. “A voice (qowl) will actually call out (qara’ – will really summon, proclaim, and recite) in the wilderness (ba ha midbar – in the place without the Word (from dabar)), ‘Turn around, clear away the clutter, and face (panah – change direction and turn to) the Way (derek – the path, way of life, and steps) of Yahowah (hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah), and (wa – extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls, thereby connecting these thoughts) do and consider what is right and become upright (yashar – be straightforward and become agreeable and acceptable, in accordance with the law, and consider what is right in association with the standard) in the wasteland (ba ha ‘arabah – in desolate darkness), a highway (macilah – a thoroughfare, a main road and causeway, be an elevated ramp, a stairway, and a walkway; from calal – be that which provides a way to lift people up (singular)) to (la) our God (‘elohym).’” (Yasha’yahuw / Yahowah Saves / Isaiah 40:3) If this is familiar to you, it is because Yahowchanan the Immerser quoted it as Yahowsha’ was approaching the Yarden River.

It is amazing how much more revealing this passage is in Hebrew, than it is in every English bible translation. God is asking us to change our thinking, and to clear away the clutter which is disrupting our ability to recognize Him—to face Him. He wants us to acknowledge His Way—singular. And most important of all, by using His name in this context, He is telling us that He, Himself, is Yahowsha’, God in the flesh.

Central to this instruction is “panah – turn around and change direction,” which is indistinguishable in the revealed text from paneh, which speaks of “entering into God’s presence, appearing before Him, and facing Him.” To achieve this, those who have been beguiled by religion must change direction, walk away from their religion, clear their minds, hearts, and souls of its clutter, and then walk along the Way God has provided. It is only in this way that we are prepared to enter Yahowah’s presence, and gaze upon His face.

Further, Yahowah is reinforcing one of the pillars of the Covenant, that He wants us to stand upright in His presence, not bow down, to be straightforward as opposed to feigning faith or praise, and to be in accord with His standard, the Towrah. If we do these things, we become a thoroughfare to God – our witness and example serving as an elevated path from earth to heaven.

Reinforcing this, yashar, translated “do and consider what is right and become upright,” in this verse, was scribed in the piel imperative. The piel stem conveys the grammatical voice of relationships, and tells us that the object of the verb (and that would be us in this case), is influenced and affected by the verb’s action, meaning that by considering what is right, and doing what is right, we will become upright and agreeable in God’s presence. Further, the imperative mood of the verb expresses a command or exhortation which encourages volition. That is to say, God is instructing and inspiring us in the hope that we choose to do the right thing.

Before we move on, and especially because this section is devoted to God’s Word, it’s important that we confront a very troubling, albeit irrefutable fact. Recognizing that I’ve translated this passage as it appears in the Great Isaiah Scroll, it is essential that we compare what we have just read to what we find in the Christian “New Testament.”
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#585 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:36:41 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Still going

Yada wrote:
Once again, Yahowah inspired: “A voice (qowl) will actually call out (qara’) in the wilderness (ba ha midbar), ‘Turn around, clear away the clutter, and face (panah) the Way (derek) of Yahowah (YaHoWaH), and (wa) do and consider what is right and be upright (yashar) in the wasteland (ba ha ‘arabah), a highway (macilah) to (la) our God (‘elohym).”

“This (outos) for (gar) is (estin) the (o) word having been spoken (lego) through (dia) Esaias (Esaias – a rather pathetic attempt to transliterate Yasha’yahuw), the (tou) prophet (prophetes), saying, ‘A voice (phone) crying out (boao) in (en) the (te) uninhabited (eremos), “Prepare (hetoimazo) the (ten) way (hodos) of ΚΥ (ΚΥ – used as a Divine Placeholder), straight (euthys) make (poieomai) the (tas) paths (tribos) of Him (autos).”’” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 3:3)

Esaias (Ἠσαΐας) isn’t a credible transliteration of Yasha’yahuw. “Calling out” and “crying out,” are not the same thing. There is no pain or anguish associated with qara’, and yet that is the primary connotation of boao.

“Eremos – uninhabited” and “midbar – wilderness” are somewhat related, but hardly identical. The Hebrew panah is focused on “turning around and facing” someone, and on “removing obstacles to facilitate entering their presence.” It is a far cry from “hetoimazo – prepare.”

Since Yahowah cannot be transliterated using the Greek alphabet, a system of placeholders was deployed. So while we cannot fault the Greek translator of Mattanyah for not scribing Yahowah’s name, the KY placeholder was a poor substitution because it is based upon kurios, which means “lord, master, and owner.” But since inaccuracy is currently the issue, let’s table this discussion until the next section.

God asked us to “yashar – do and consider the right thing, and become upright” and yet Mattanyah wrote “euthys poieomai – straight make.” Once again, these are very different concepts. But it gets worse, because Mattanyah completely left out the parallelism of “‘arabah – in the wasteland.” Worse still, “tribos – paths” is plural in the Greek text, which is not only in conflict with the singular derek and macilah, but also incorrectly suggests that there is more than one way to God.

But that’s not the last of the serious issues. Yahowah, as a result of summoning us in the wilderness, of us turning around, clearing away the clutter, and preparing to face the Way to Yahowah, and becoming right and upright, wants us to be “macilah la ‘elohym – a highway to our God.” But Mattanyah’s account has been corrupted to the point that this instruction was changed to “euthys poieomai tas tribos autos – straight make the paths of Him.” These thoughts bear no resemblance whatsoever.

Taken collectively, these deviations from Yahowah’s Word lead to a sobering conclusion. What Mattanyah wrote is not reliable. Either it was not inspired by God, or what he wrote has been so badly corrupted by subsequent scribes that it no longer resembles the original. Either way, what we have today is not the Word of God.

In the book ascribed to Mark, we find the same errant citation of Yahsa’yahuw 40:3. “A voice (phone) crying out (boao) in (en) the (te) uninhabited (eremos), ‘Prepare (hetoimazo) the (ten) way (hodos) of ΚΥ (ΚΥ), straight (euthys) make (poieomai) the (tas) paths (tribos) of Him (autos).’” (Mark 1:3)

To a large extent, the reason that these differ in identical ways to the statement Yahowah made in Yasha’yahuw, is that they were quoted out of the Septuagint—proving that it was also unreliable. Further, Christian scribes had a bad habit of unifying texts, and removing differences which called the testimony of these witnesses into question.

The letter which bears Luke’s name repeats all of the same mistakes. But Yahowchanan’s testimony is a little different because the quotation was put in Yahowchanan the Immerser’s voice. So the Disciple wrote: “He declared (phemi), ‘I am (ego) a voice (phone) crying out (boao) in (en) the (te) uninhabited (eremos), ‘Make (poieomai) straight (euthys) the way (hodos) of ΚΥ (ΚΥ), just as (kathos) said (lego) Esaias (Esaias), the (tou) prophet (prophetes).’” (Yahowchanan / John 1:23) And while it is good that multiple paths were constrained to a singular way, this is not “kathos – just as” Yahowah dictated this prophecy to Yasha’yahuw.

Beyond recognizing and acknowledging the obvious, that God did not inspire these words found in the books named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, where does this evidence leave us? At the very least, it means that we must question the veracity of everything we find in the Greek text. And it means that apart from Yahowsha’s own words, we must consider the remaining commentary and chronologies found in the so-called “New Testament” to be the product of human recollections. And even with Yahowsha’s testimony, it is only reliable to the extent that it has been accurately translated out of Hebrew and Aramaic and into Greek, to the extent that it has been accurately maintained, to the extent that we possess early witnesses of His statements from the first or second centuries, and to the extent these manuscripts are accurately translated into a modern language like English. And, sadly, a thorough investigation of the evidence reveals that most of these things seldom occurred.

I wish we had an original autograph scribed in Hebrew and Aramaic from the hand of Mattanyah and Yahowchanan upon which we could rely. But we don’t have anything even remotely close to this. So it is long past time we all deal with the facts: The Word of God is limited to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Yahowah proved that He inspired them. Men demonstrated that they inspired everything else.

So as a good rule of thumb, unless what you read in the “New Testament,” can be verified in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, don’t believe it. Do not base your understanding of God, the relationship He established, or the path of salvation He delineated, on anything apart from that which is affirmed in His Word.

Speaking of Yahowsha’, the 5th verse of the 40th chapter of Yahsa’yahuw proclaims: “Then (wa) He shall reveal (galah) the glorious presence and manifestation of power (kabowd – the glory, attribution, status, and gift) of Yahowah (hwhy). And all (kol) living creatures (basar – humans and animals, the physical nature of living beings), they will see (ra’ah – they will be shown) Yahdow – the Unity of Yah (Yahdow – the Oneness of Yahowah (יַחְדָּו)).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:5) Yahowsha’ is the corporeal manifestation of Yahowah. He is one with Him in that He is set-apart from Him. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So that you better appreciate what is being said here, it is helpful to know that God experiences all of time at the same time. For Him, the past, present, and future exist simultaneously. To reinforce this, He often juxtaposes His most recent arrival, the one heralded in the third verse, with His next visit to the earth, which will be His glorious return. They are often presented side by side—just as they are in the famed 9th chapter of Yasha’yahuw, and again here in this verse. Here, God is speaking about what will occur on the Day of Reconciliations, when He will return so brilliantly, He will look like the stars. On that day, those who survive to witness His return will know what you will soon discover, that Yahowsha’ is part of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us in our material realm. They will see Yahdow—the Unity of Yahowah.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#586 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:37:20 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Still More

Yada wrote:
Since it is germane to this discussion, please do not miss the fact that “basar – living creatures” will coexist in the presence of God. Flesh will see Him, but not in heaven, instead on earth. What’s happening here, and indeed with all of the references to a physical human existence in proximity to God, is that the entire Earth will become like the Garden of Eden during the Millennial Sabbath. For one thousand years, the relationship God intended between Himself and Adam will be enjoyed by all of those who populate the final Sukah – who are privileged to Campout with God.

Along these lines, it is also interesting to note, that if we were to take God’s Valley of Dry Bones illustration literally, and not just symbolically, the Children of Yisra’el who relied upon the Way Yahowah provided, will be physically resurrected, so that they can walk in the Promised Land side by side with their God during the thousand-year celebration of the Shabat.

Affirming that Yahowsha’ is “the Word of God in the flesh,” although seven hundred years before Yahowchanan (meaning Yahowah is Merciful, but commonly (mis)transliterated John) drafted the opening lines of his eyewitness account, Yasha’yahuw was inspired to scribe the same thing: “Indeed (ky), He is the Word (ha dabar – He [speaking of Yahowsha’] is the spoken and written Word (scribed in the piel perfect, indicating the relationship is whole and complete throughout time; in the third person, masculine singular, identifying the pronoun He) is), the verbal spokesman (peh – literally: the mouth) of Yahowah (hwhy- יהוה).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:5)

The Word of Yahowah would become flesh and tabernacle (indicating that He would arrive on the Called-Out Assembly Meeting of Shelters) with us. The Author of these words, and the Divine manifestation of the Word, would campout with mankind. Therefore, we should not be surprised that Yahowsha’ not only observed the Torah, and affirmed every jot and tittle scribed within its words, His life and sacrifice served to announce the Way, He, Himself, becoming the stairway from our physical mortal existence to Yahowah’s eternal and spiritual realm.

This is followed by something which establishes a contrast between our character and God’s, between our physical mortality and the enduring existence of His Word. “A voice (qowl) is saying (‘amar), ‘Call out (qara’ – summon and invite, read and recite, proclaim and announce the news, and arrange a meeting)!’ So (wa) I asked (‘amar – I questioned (as it is presented in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the query is from Yasha’yahuw, but not the Masoretic Text were “he,” as in the manifestation of God, is asking)), ‘What (mah) shall I announce (qara’ – shall I call out and summon people to encounter)?’ ‘All (kol) humankind (basar – living creatures, human and animal nature, flesh) is grass (chasyr – a common plant which spreads out, lives for a while, and then becomes food for other animals), and the totality of (kol) his loyalty and love (chesed – his unfailing kindness, goodness, faithfulness, devotion, and mercy) is akin to (ka – can be compared to) the flower (sys – the blossom of a plant) of the field (sadeh – cultivated ground). The grass (chasyr) withers (yabes – dries up and is gone), and the flower (sys – blossom of the plant) fades away (nabel – shrivels, decays, and is senseless).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:6-7)

This is an apt depiction of our brief mortality, as well as the fate of our flesh. But more than this, it is a hauntingly accurate portrayal of our character. Our mortal souls are not any more reliable or durable than our bodies. Most will wither and fade away, because our soul, our consciousness and character, is neither loyal nor loving, faithful nor devoted to God.

But there is hope. There is a way to transcend our mortal existence. There is a means to avoid fading away, to prevent our souls from dissipating into nothingness and ceasing to exist. “But indeed (ky – however by contrast, truthfully and reliably this is very important), the Spirit (ruwach – the eternal, and thus not mortal or material, presence and power, the maternal manifestation (a feminine noun)) of Yahowah (hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah), She is actually dispersed (nashab – She is exhaled as breath and is blown (scribed in the qal perfect, indicating a relationship which is totally real, and one which is whole and complete, without interruption, throughout time, with the third person, feminine, singular suffix, identifying She)) truthfully and reliably (‘aken – indeed and in fact, surely and truly, this is important) in him (baw – inside of him) who is surely of (‘aken – who is indeed of) the family (ha ‘am – of the related people) of grass (chasyr).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:7) Once again, to translate this passage correctly, we must turn to the 2,300-year-old Great Isaiah Scroll. The Masoretic Text isn’t even remotely reliable when the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ is the subject of the discussion.

In our mortal and material bodies we may be nothing more than grass, as common as a plant which spreads out, lives for a while, and then becomes food for other living things when it withers and decays. But, and this is the most important contrast in all of creation: the Spirit of Yahowah, when She is dispersed truthfully and reliably in him, such grass becomes family.

Also interesting, as Yahowsha’, Yahowah set apart part of Himself to become human. This diminished manifestation of God, known as the Son of God, was not only part of God’s family, but also embraced the limitations of grass, and became one with the grass for a time. So since the pronoun “He” has been associated with Yahowsha’ throughout this discussion, God is predicting that His Spirit would be blown upon Yahowsha’ as He approached His symbolic immersion in the Yarden.

Even Yahowsha’s body withered on the upright pole of Passover and faded away. But His soul endured the separation of Unleavened Bread, and was reunited with His Spirit, so that the Word of God would stand once again on FirstFruits, thereby enabling us to stand forever with Him. That is not my opinion, but instead Yahowah’s prediction…

“The grass (chasyr – the common plant which spread out, lives for a while, and then becomes food for other animals) withers (yabes – dries up and is gone), and the flower (sys – blossom of the plant) fades away (nabel – shrivels, decays, and becomes senseless), but (wa) the Word (dabar) of our God Almighty (‘elohym) stands, establishes, uplifts, and endures (quwm – He and it is upright, fulfills, confirms, restores, rises up, uplifts, and validates (scribed in the qal imperfect, speaking of an unfolding relationship, and in the third person masculine singular, depicting the pronoun: He) forever (la ‘owlam – into infinity, time immemorial).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:8)

We have arrived at our destination; the reason we turned to this passage. The Word of our God endures forever. So, if rather than withering and decaying, you want your soul to endure forever, to be established, restored, and to be lifted up to heaven, trust and rely upon the eternal Word of God—the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

The religion of Christianity dies with this verse, so it is a wonder that so many preachers cite it, although out of context and errantly translated. God’s Word, His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, endures forever. A “New Testament” did not replace an “Old Testament.” The Torah has not been annulled; its usefulness has not come to an end, as Paul would have Christians believe. The “dabar ‘elohym – Word of God” is the power of God to save us, now and forever. It is manifest in the flesh by Yahowsha’ and in the spirit by the Ruwach of Yahowah.

And what are we to do with this information: “Ascend (‘alah – climb up) unto God’s (‘al – upon the Almighty’s) exalted and high (gaboah – official and lofty) mountain (har) to proclaim the good news (la basar – to herald and announce a favorable message, to bring glad tidings).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:9)

Basar is a play on words. The same three Hebrew letters we have been translating “basar (בָּשָׂר) – humankind, human nature, and the flesh” can be pointed to mean: “baser (בָּשַׂר) – proclaim and herald the good news.” In other words, as mortal beings, as flesh, we can deliver a message which will cause those who receive it with an open mind, who come to trust it and rely upon it, to become immortal. That is good news indeed.

Even in this mortal and material realm of rotting flesh, we can become a “sign” which directs people along the path which leads to immortality. “Lift up (ruwm) Zion (Tsyown – the sign and the signpost in the desert, the memorial, the monument, the marker on the Way) in the power and strength (koah – the physical and muscular capability) of your voice (qowl – the physical sound of your speech), proclaiming the good news (basar – bringing and announcing the favorable and agreeable message and greeting).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:9)

The “Tsyown – Sign” is the Word of God, which “tsyown – marks the way” to God. The “Tsyown – Signpost” is Passover’s Upright Pillar upon which the Lamb of God was nailed, making this “tsyown – monument and marker” the Doorway to Heaven.

Tsyown, of course, is in: “Yaruwshalaym (yaruwshalaym – the source from which salvation flows) be uplifted (ruwm). Do not be intimidated (lo’ yare’ – do not fear or be afraid). Say (‘amar) to the inhabitants (‘uyr – the population) of Yahuwdah (yahuwdah – Yah is Abundantly Sufficient, Of Yah, From Yah, and Those Who Are Related to Yah), ‘Behold, look here, now, and see (hineh – observe and listen, pay attention to every detail) your God (‘elohym).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:9)

This is where Yahowah affirmed God’s Word and enabled its promises on Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits in 33CE (year 4000 Yah). And this is where He will return to fulfill the Day of Reconciliations and Shelters forty Yowbel (meaning Yahowah’s Lamb is God, but known as Jubilees) later, as the sun sets on October 2nd, 2033 (year 6000 Yah).

And speaking of Yahowah, our Foundation and Upright Pillar, Yasha’yahuw told us that He, Himself, is the Passover Lamb, the Sacrificial Lamb of God, our Savior and Redeemer. Therefore, it is Yahowah who is returning. “Look and see (hineh – pay attention, observe and behold) Yahowah (hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah), our Upright One (‘edownay – our Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle [a.k.a., the Tsyown – Signpost]), who arrives (bow’ – comes and returns) with the blast of a trumpet (ba hazaq – in might, power, and authority).

He is the Sacrificial Lamb (zarow’a – the shoulder of a lamb, from zera’, the seed who sacrificially shoulders our burdens (scribed with the third person masculine singular suffix, designating the pronoun He). He is the Proverb and the Parable (law masal – He is the picture of the Word which is vivid, easy to see, and easy to remember, He is the One with Authority and Dominion).

Behold (hineh – look and see) Him, our recompense and fare for the passage (sakar – He is the offering, the payment of the voucher for transporting us by way of a service rendered which provided a just payment and ransom, and these rewards) are associated with Him (‘ethow). He does the work to pay our debt (pa’ulah – He performs the labor which is required to provide recompense, to make amends, and to compensate for us so as to spare us from injury and loss) to clear the way to appear before His presence (la paneh – to turn around, to approach, and to see His face).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:10)

This is the Good News! God has done everything which was required to pay our debts so that we might live in His presence. Therefore, it isn’t per chance that a masal is both a “visual portrait or word picture, a proverb, and a parable.” It is the identity and the explanation of the Word. And it is why there never was any need for a “New Testament.”

Further describing Yahowsha’, the physical manifestation of Yahowah, and His Word, the prophet Yasha’yahuw was inspired to write: “As a Shepherd (ka ra’ah – as a friend and companion) shepherds, leads, protects, and feeds His flock (ra’ah ‘eder), the Sacrificial Lamb (zarow’a – the One who shoulders our burdens) will gather (qabas – assemble and collect) His sheep (tala’ym).

And in His chest (ba cheyq – garment, bosom, and midst), He will lift them up (nasa’ – carry them away, forgiving them by removing their guilt), nursing, nurturing (‘uwl – feeding the young children) and guiding them (nahal – leading, directing, and sustaining them, helping them by caring for them).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:11)

God has a great deal more to say about this harvest of saved souls, of His return, and about His renewed relationship with His children. But as we move from the Word to the Name, we would be remiss if we didn’t consider the conclusion and result of this work.

“And those who wait for and place their trust in (qawah – who look forward with confidence, awaiting and anticipating the benefits of) Yahowah (hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah), they move on, are renewed, and grow (halap – they are changed, transformed, adorned anew, and pass over the obstacles and through the doorway). Empowered and strengthened (koah – invigorated and enriched, enabled and authorized), they ascend (‘alah – are lifted up and rise) as with (ka) the wings of eagles (‘eber – having the freedom of flight), quickly darting about (ruwsh – rapidly moving from one place to another), and they do not grow weary (lo’ yaga’ – they do not expend our energy to accomplish the task of) moving about (halak – walking or traveling) nor (lo’) fall or fail (ya’ep – never tripping, fainting, being destroyed or decaying).” (Yasha’yahuw 40:31) We will become spiritual beings, with all of the rights, privileges, and power inherent therein. We become God’s children.While we could easily continue this discussion on the “dabar – Word” of God for the next hundred pages, I’d like to conclude by sharing what is perhaps the most often quoted passage on this topic—although I’ll do so in context. Christian pastors cite a tiny slice of what we are going to consider to infer that God has intervened to keep their bibles from being corrupted. But that isn’t what God is saying. In actuality, He will be comparing His Word to our character."

Your wrote:
Quote:
I agree no doubt the words of the Old Testament/Tanakh/Torah are the words of the Lord, but as we both know when it comes to translating things into English, many things need to be considered, like you said, context is important aswell.


According to Yahowah, there is no "Old Testament," and absolutely not a "New Testament." Even Tanakh is an acronym, one that while addressing Towrah, Naby', and Ketuw'ym, meaning Teaching, Prophets, and Writings. isn't used by God. Nothing therein was conveyed by "the Lord." Ba'al is Satan's name and title. So we do not agree.

As for considering many things, there is no question that I consider and share far more things in my translations than any of those who consider credible. And I suspect that you'd have to look long and hard for someone who demonstrates a greater concern for context.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#587 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:38:38 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Yet More

Yada wrote:
You wrote:
Quote:
Bible means "to confuse"? Could you please point me to a reputable source where you found this meaning? Im yet to hear of such a thing. I do know that God has a book... as stated in Isaiah 34:16 of the LORDSand in Greek the Word for book is byblos/biblos and is found in the LXX version of Daniel 9:2 when he states he is reading from a book.


In Hebrew there is only one word similar to bible. And that word is written exactly as one would write "bible" using the Hebrew alphabet. It is babel and it means "to confuse." If based upon this verb, and that is our only option, then it means to confuse. Babel, and thus Bible, could also be a compound of ba and bel, and thus mean "with the lord." And that's worse because the lord is Satan.

Yahowah has words, testimony, and promises, all of which are contained in His Towrah (teaching), Naby' (prophets), and Mizmowr (Lyrics to Psalms). Those are His terms. It's His testimony, so I think His choices matter.

Biblos comes from a town in Phoenicia, one that imported papyrus from Egypt. The town from which the plants were imported was called Biblia. It was the name of an Egyptian goddess. The Greek word for book is byblos because it was the name of the town where papyrus grew. But Yahowah does not communicate in Greek, does not use Greek terms, and never associates His testimony with pagan goddesses.

You have a lot to learn for someone who thinks they know so much.

Just so that it is handy, this is what I wrote previously...


Matthew,

Since you are asking me questions that I've answered, permit me to ask some of my own...

Are you of the opinion that my translations are confusing because they are so different than those found in bibles published by Christian institutions? If so, perhaps the problem is that by reading their bibles you have become accustomed to the contradictory and confusing nature of Christianity and its "New Testament." If so, your concerns are misplaced. You ought to be questioning them.

Especially when compared to the KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, and NLT, my translations are meticulously documented, thoroughly explained, wholly based on the underlying Hebrew text, derived from the oldest extant manuscripts, and are not only consistent, unlike published bibles, I provide the means for you to question and verify them for yourself. No scholar, textual critic, or seminarian is required because I've equipped and empowered you to engage. As a result, the message conveyed in these books is never contradictory. And while my translations aren't perfect, they are more accurate, more complete, more consistent with the oldest texts, and immanently more verifiable than anything available to you. And they are all free.

As a result, my credentials are irrelevant. The words being conveyed in Hebrew were authored by Yahowah. And since I include His Hebrew words within my translations of them, you can verify each and every word for yourself using any online search engine. Also, if there is a word whose meaning varies depending upon the context, I methodically walk readers through the options available to us as well as the reasons for choosing certain connotations over others.

The actual source of confusion is the bible - a word which in Hebrew means "to confuse." God does not have a "bible." Paul's letters, comprising half of the CNT, twist, pervert, corrupt, and contradict almost everything Yahowah revealed in His Torah and Prophets. To imply that irreconcilable messages came from the same "God" is to be either ignorant of the contradictions or irrational, and not able to understand their implications. Both lead to confusion.

One of many reasons Christians are universally confused is that they take things out of context and then misinterpret them. This is how Paul wrote his letters. It is what is implied by your questions since I answer all of them at the beginning of all three books, Yada Yah, An Introduction to God, and Questioning Paul.

The very nature of your question reveals that you are still looking at these things from the wrong perspective. Why do you believe a credible God would have a "New" and "Old" Testament? Why begin with the "New." Why the interest in Koine Greek? There is no evidence Yahowah or Yahowsha' ever communicated in Greek. Are you aware that according to Yahowah, there is no "New Testament," and that the Covenant has not yet been renewed? Further, when it is renewed, that reaffirmation according to God, will be with Yisra'el and Yahuwdah, not a Gentile Church. And totally devastating to Christianity, it will be predicated upon Yahowah writing His Torah inside of His Covenant children - not a "New Testament."

If you are a Christian, you would be best served to read Questioning Paul first (www.QuestioningPaul.com). It provides five translations of every verse, so you can pick your favorite. It does not matter which one you prefer. One of those translations was based upon the Latin Vulgate, some on the Texus Receptus, others on the Nestle Aland 27. Mine were based upon P46, the oldest codex of Paul's letters. But be forewarned, no one has read Questioning Paul from beginning to end and remained a Christian. The case it makes against Paul and Christianity cannot be refuted.

Next, or initially if you are not a Christian, if accurate translations from the oldest manuscripts are important to you, and this should be, readwww.AnIntroductionToGod.com. In the opening Volume, "His Word," I not only answer your questions, I actually teach readers how to translate, equipping you to not only verify my translations for yourself, but to go beyond where I have gone. You will be better equipped to know and understand Yahowah than any Greek scholar, textual critic, or seminarian.

If you stumbled upon my books as a result of a Google search of some kind because you are interested in knowing God as He revealed Himself to us, to determining whether of not His existence can be proven, or as a result of wanting to understand His plan for dealing with mankind, then you'd be best served to read my first book on the subject,www.YadaYah.com. It will answer all of those questions and more. It verifies the creation and flood accounts, presents the Covenant, including its five terms and conditions, thereby conveying Yahowah's plan to reconcile the few who seek to know Him, all while capitalizing on prophecy to prove God's existence and authorship.

If you are willing to invest the time, if you are rational, if you have an open mind, if you are willing to go where the words lead, even when the lead away from religion, you will come to know Yahowah, understand His Covenant, and be in a position to capitalize on His offer should you like and trust Him. No faith required. No scholarship or university degree needed. The fore-mentioned comprise all that you will need.

But if your questions seek to deploy an ad hominem argument to sweep evidence contrary to your beliefs away, then you'd be wasting your time.

Yada


M wrote:
Forgive me for not finishing.

As I was saying though. Isaiah 34:16 clearly states that we should "Study and read from the book of the LORD"/"Seek ye out the book of the LORD"

God does have a Bible Yada. Bible simply means a book or books.
What do you mean by the CNT?

I believe this because God promised that he would make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with Judah. Along with Numerous other Prophecies which have been fulfilled through the Lord Jesus Christ, The Son Of The Most High God.

As Lord Jesus Christ States in Luke 22:20. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you"
and Matthew 26:28 "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins."

This is why I believe Yada. The Bible Says so.

I don't think you can make such a bold statement to say there is no evidence. As God in the flesh I'm pretty sure he knew how to speak every language known to man and as stated in John 19:20 the inscription on his cross being in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. and I'm more than sure based on that alone that he would have known Greek. That is completely besides the point though.

Church history records why the New Testament is in Greek. Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew which was then translated to Greek. Mark wrote his in Greek. Luke and John aswell.

I believe that is a blatant lie. Seeing as the Lord Jesus himself announced the New Covenant as did Jeremiah.

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

This has occurred already. As shown in Acts of the Apostles and The Writings of Paul also.

As mentioned in Isaiah corresponding with Luke Lord Jesus was a Light for the gentiles. "Yea, He saith: 'It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be My servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the nations, That My salvation may be unto the end of the earth.'"

This has been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ through His death on the cross, when he shed his blood for the remission of sins, as the sacrificial lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and is the Savior for all who believe on his name.

I am a Christian. I will continue to read your work.
Yada the fact that you need to list 5 translations per verse shows that you are in no way qualified to produce a translation.

As you know that Codex is not complete.. and seemingly I don't think you understand how manuscript transmission and textual criticism works. For it to be the earliest we have by no means does that entail that it is an accurate representation to the original writings of Paul. P46 can only be dated by Palaeography and testing, not by archaeology and such.

And Yada I do not trust your translation of the Greek at all. You have been proven to often use eisegesis on the plain reading of the text to achieve your means. I will read through your Questioning Paul Articles, as false as they may be from what I have seen so far.


Yada wrote:
In actuality, you are finished, way to far gone down the religious path to ever know Yahowah, or ever benefit from what He has to say. You are so misguided, and so full of yourself and religious lies, that there is absolutely no way to reason with you.

For example,
Quote:
As I was saying though. Isaiah 34:16 clearly states that we should "Study and read from the book of the LORD"/"Seek ye out the book of the LORD"


Why don't you look in the Great Isaiah scroll and read 34:16. If you can find a basis for "the LORD" you will be the first to do so. And "book" is an inaccurate translation of ciphrah, which is based upon the verb caphar - to inscribe or score with a mark, to tally or record, to recount by inscribing, to enumerate, to celebrate, to commune, declare, number and reckon." Simply stated, it's "writings" not book, and thus is irrelevant to your argument. There is no Hebrew word for study. Shamar means to closely examine and carefully consider. Read is from qara', which means infinitely more than just read. So it's: Observe and read (and a whole lot more including invitation to be called out and meet) the writing of Yahowah. Seek out the writing of Yahowah.

Quote:
God does have a Bible Yada. Bible simply means a book or books.
What do you mean by the CNT?


You are a slow learner. Yahowah never claims to have a "bible" so your opinion is in conflict with God's testimony. And I think God knows more about this than you. Bible is actually a transliteration of a Greek word. Yahowah's words are in Hebrew. There is no justification for transliterating a Greek term and then applying it to a Hebrew text. The basis of biblos is one you obviously haven't considered. I shared it with you in my last letter and won't do so again here.

CNT is Christian New Testament.

Quote:
I believe this because God promised that he would make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with Judah. Along with Numerous other Prophecies which have been fulfilled through the Lord Jesus Christ, The Son Of The Most High God.


What you "believe" is irrelevant. According to Yahowah, you would be wrong. While He promised to renew and reaffirm His Covenant with Yisra'el and Yahuwdah, they absolutely do not represent a Gentile Church. Moreover, according to Yahowah, His Covenant has not yet been renewed. When it is reaffirmed, Yahowah will do so by writing His Towrah inside of His Covenant Children. And that would make your position in irreconcilable conflict with Yahowah. Methinks God knows more about this than you.

The Lord is Satan. There is no Jesus. Christ is a transliteration of a Greek word which speaks of the application of drugs. He did not have a Greek name, a last name, or a Greek title. And since the prophecy promising to renew the Covenant has not yet been fulfilled, a new covenant, as in something that has already come into existence, is in conflict with Yirma'yah 31. You clearly don't have Yahowah's Towrah inscribed inside of you. His name, Yahowah, is not written on your heart. You'd better hope this is describing a future event.

At the end of this, which will be my last correspondence with you, I've presented the text of Yirma'yah 31. If you read it and come to realize that you have been misled, then all of this will have been productive.

Quote:
As Lord Jesus Christ States in Luke 22:20. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you"
and Matthew 26:28 "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins."


This is one of three renditions of what He said. Luke was not an eyewitness. And it is only in Luke that you find "new." That is not what the eyewitnesses report. Sorry. Wrong again. Moreover, your CNT is so unreliable, there are twice as many differences between the basis of your translations and the oldest manuscripts.

It is enough already. I do not think anyone can reason with you. Based upon your errant opinions, you are too religious to find or know God. You are a danger to yourself and others if you keep conveying your misguided notions.

Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding His Covenant and the role His Torah plays in our lives, let’s let God speak for Himself on this critical issue. For if there is but one Covenant, one familial relationship, presented and promised in Scripture, and if its renewal and restoration is predicated upon the Towrah, we are precluded from promoting the myth that there is a “New Testament.”
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#588 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:40:50 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Yada was very thorough

Yada wrote:
“Behold (hineh – look, listen, and pay close attention to what follows), days (yowmym – times) are coming (bow’ – will arrive and will return), prophetically declares (na’um – foretells, predicts, and reveals) Yahowah (efei - hwhy – Yahowah), when (wa) I will cut (karat – I will create, completely establishing and totally stipulating, I will actually make by way of separation (qal stem affirms reality and perfect conjugation speaks of an act which is total, complete, and indivisible)) relationally with (‘eth – as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the household and family (beyth – the home) of Yisra’el (yisra’el – those who strive and contend with, engage, persist, and endure with, are set free and are empowered by God) and relationally with (wa ‘eth – as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the household and family (beyth – the home) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – Yah is Abundantly Sufficient, Of Yah, From Yah, and Those Who Are Related to Yah) a renewed and restored (chadash – a renewing, restoring, repairing, and reaffirming) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth – family and home, a mutually binding partnership promise, solemn oath, and active alliance, and a participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and encourages).” (Yirmayahuw / Yahowah Uplifts / Jeremiah 31:31)

The part of this verse which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament,” miss, is that the renewal and restoration of the “beryth – Covenant” isn’t with Gentiles or their church, but instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christians or Christianity. It’s game over.

As a result, the only question worth debating in this passage is whether chadash should be translated “new” or “renewed,” as both are etymologically acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair the Covenant presented in the Towrah with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?

To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of chadash, sometimes transliterated hadas, is “to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm.” Of the ten times this verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is translated: “restore and reaffirm” in 1 Samuel 11:14, “renewed and repaired” in 2 Chronicles 15:8, “to repair” in 2 Chronicles 24:4, “to repair and mend” in 2 Chronicles 24:12, “renewed” in Job 10:7, “renew” in Psalms 51:12, “renewed” in Psalms 103:5, again as “renewed” in Psalms 104:30, “repair” in Isaiah 61:4, and “renew and restore” in Lamentations 5:21.

As such, this passage actually reads: “Behold (hineh), days (yowmym) are coming (bow’), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (efei - hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah), when (wa) I will actually cut (karat) relationally with (‘eth) the household and family (beyth) of Yisra’el (yisra’el) and on behalf of (wa ‘eth) the household and family (beyth) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah) a renewing, restoring, and repairing (chadash – with the secondary meaning being: a renewed, repaired, and restored) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth).” (Yirmayahuw 31:31) And in this way, Yahowah is saying that His Covenant “is renewing,” that it “is restoring,” and that it “will be affirmed,” as it “will repair” the relationship He has had with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el.

While this rendering of the 31st verse of Yirmayahuw is completely valid, it isn’t necessarily the conclusion you would come to if you casually looked up chadash in your favorite lexicon. Strong’s, for example, presents S2319 chadash (חָדַשׁ) as “new,” and then they claim that it was translated “new” 48 times [in the King James Version for which their concordance was created]. But look closely. The initial Strong’s entry regarding this word reveals that it is “From S2318 chadash (חָדָשׁ),” which they define as “to renew, to make anew, and to repair.” But that is misleading. It is actually the same word. As is chodesh (חֹדֶשׁ), which is translated “month” 254 times according to Strong’s. Therefore, the same three letters can be used to convey a verb, an adjective, and a noun—something which is quite common in Hebrew, as well as most ancient languages.

So while there is absolutely no textual distinction between these three forms of chadash in the Divine Writ, the Masoretes created one—and it is that variation which has caused modern lexicons to make three words out of one. This known, there was an additional slight of scholastic hand in operation here. In Hebrew, like most all languages, verbs rule. Because they are active, they shape the meaning of the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs which are based upon them. For example, if you are diligent in your Scriptural study, you will discover that the root of most nouns, adjectives, and adverbs are verbs. But in this particular case, we find a very telling contrived exception to the rule.

I share this with you because the verbal definition, which in the case of chadash/hadas is “to renew, to repair, to restore, and to reaffirm,” should have prevailed. In fact, it is from the root meaning of “chadash – renewal and restoration” that chodesh/hodes became “month,” as the light reflected from the moon’s surface was “renewed and restored.”

That is not to say, however, that the adjective chadash/hadas cannot be translated “new.” It can be when the context dictates. It only means that if there are two equally viable options, as there are in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:31, we should choose the form which is consistent with the verbal root. And that becomes especially important if the other option would have God contradicting Himself.

As further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being an appropriate translation of chadash/hadas in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirmayahuw and Yasha’yahuw, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe chadash/hadas, by rendering it “renewed,” or especially “restored,” we achieve a substantially more enlightening result than translating this word “new.”

These things known, the next line seems to suggest that there will be a new covenant, one different than the one whose terms and conditions were delineated in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without seriously contradicting other statements He has made, and in so doing, rendering Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?

“It will not be exactly the same as (lo’ ka – it will not be identical to) the (ha) Covenant (beryth – familial relationship, marriage vow, binding agreement, and pledge) which relationally (‘asher) I cut (karat – created through separation) with (‘et) their fathers (‘abowtam) in the day, when (ba yowm) firmly grasping Me (hazaq – I repaired, renewed, and restored them, I established, sustained and supported them, I caused them to prevail and grow, as they were strengthened and encouraged by My power and authority) in their hand (ba yad – by them taking initiative, engaging, and reaching out), I led them out (yasa’ – I descended, extended Myself, and I served them by guiding them away) from (min) the realm (‘erets) of the crucible of Egypt (mitsraym – a metaphor for human religious, political, economic, and military oppression and divine judgment), which relationally (‘asher) they broke, disassociating themselves (parar – they violated and nullified, they frustrated, tore apart, and shattered, and they split away) from (‘eth) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – My nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth – family and home, My mutually binding partnership promise, My solemn oath and active alliance, and My participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and encourages), though (wa) I (‘anky) was married to them (ba ba’al hem – I was their husband), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (efei - hwhy- יהוה – Yahowah).” (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:32)

This affirms that the original Covenant was honored by God when He “hazaq – reached out to His people, and grasped hold of them, to renew and restore them,” “yasa’ min – leading them away from” “mitsraym – the crucible of religious and political oppression and divine judgment.” But, now, since Yisra’el and Yahuwdah subsequently “parar ‘eth beryth – broke their end of the agreement, and disassociated themselves from the relationship, the “beryth – Covenant Agreement” must be “chadash – reaffirmed, repaired, renewed and restored.”

The question now becomes: how is God going to do this without contradicting Himself? And what we find is a solution which is not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion. Yahowah said:

“Indeed (ky – surely and truly) with this (ha zo’th – in conjunction with these conditions and provisions the) Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – reciprocal partnership, active alliance, and engaged agreement, mutually binding and nurturing promise, solemn oath and participatory pledge, based upon a marriage vow) which relationally (‘asher) I will cut (karat – I will create and establish through separation) with (‘eth – and alongside) the House (beyth – household and family) of Yisra’el (yisra’el – those who strive and contend with, who engage, persist, and endure with, who are set free and are empowered by God) after (‘ahar – following) those days (ha yowm hem – that time), prophetically declares (na’um – predicts and promises) Yahowah (efei - hwhy), I will actually give My Towrah, completely providing and producing My Teaching and Instruction (natan ‘eth Towrah – I will reliably bestow and totally devote My Direction and My Guidance as a gift, putting it (here the qal stem affirms that this will actually occur and the perfect conjugation tells us that the gift of the Towrah will be whole and complete, indivisible and uninterruptible throughout time)) within their inner nature (ba qereb – internally, inside their person, within their core and midst, becoming part of their psychological makeup, thoughts, and emotions). And (wa) upon (‘al – as the Almighty concerning) their heart (leb – speaking of their source of life, and the seat of love, volition, feelings, attitude, and character), I will actually write it (katab – I will genuinely engrave and inscribe it (written in the qal relational stem, telling us that we can rely upon this occurring, and in the imperfect conjugation, affirming that it will produce ongoing results throughout time, with the first person singular prefix, saying that God, Himself, will be doing the writing, and with the third person feminine singular suffix, telling us that it is the Towrah, which is a feminine noun, which will be inscribed)). And (wa) I shall be (hayah – I will always, reliably, and without interruption or exception be (qal stem perfect conjugation)) God (‘elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah – they will always and reliably exist, eternally receiving the complete benefits of (qal relational stem affirming the genuineness of this promise, and imperfect conjugation which tells us that there will be ongoing and unfolding assistance and advantages associated with being considered)) to and for Me as (la la) family (‘am).” (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:33)

The insights provided by the unique relational aspects of Hebrew tenses require greater diligence on our behalf, but they are worth the investment of our time, especially in passages like this one. It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the affirmations they provide regarding the unfolding and continuous results we can expect from God giving His Torah to us, placing His Instructions and Teaching inside of us, and writing His Guidance and Direction on our hearts, are as essential to our inclusion in God’s Covenant Family as anything ever written.

Since this bears repeating, I’d like you to consider this essential instruction unamplified, and then fully amplified:

“Indeed (ky) with this (ha zo’th) Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth) which relationally (‘asher) I will cut (karat) with (‘eth) the House (beyth) of Yisra’el (yisra’el) after (‘ahar) those days (ha yowm hem), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (efei - hwhy), I will actually give My Towrah, completely providing and producing My Teaching and Instruction (natan ‘eth Towrah) within their inner nature (ba qereb). And (wa) upon (‘al) their heart (leb), I will actually write it (katab). And (wa) I shall be (hayah) God (‘elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah) to and for Me as (la la) family (‘am).” (Yirmayahuw 31:33)

Fully amplified, reflecting the Hebrew tenses, this same passage conveys:

“Indeed, this is truly and surely reliable: in conjunction with the specific conditions and provisions of the Familial Covenant Relationship, the reciprocal partnership, active alliance, and engaged agreement, the mutually binding and nurturing promise, the solemn oath and participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow, which relationally I will cut and create, establishing through separation, with and alongside the Household and Family of Yisra’el – those who strive and contend with, those who engage, persist, and endure with, those who are set free and are empowered by God – after those days, prophetically declares, predicts, and promises Yahowah, I will actually give My Towrah, completely providing and producing My Teaching and Instruction, I will reliably bestow and totally devote My Direction and Guidance as an enduring and continuous gift, putting all of it eternally within their inner nature, inside their person, within their core and midst, so that it becomes part of their psychological makeup, thoughts, and emotions. And upon their heart, speaking of their source of life, and the seat of love, volition, feelings, attitude, and character, I will actually write the Towrah, genuinely engraving and inscribing it so that it will continue to produce ongoing results throughout time. And I shall always and reliably be, without interruption or exception, God to and for them, and they, themselves, shall eternally be, always receiving the complete, ongoing, and unfolding assistance and advantages associated with being to and for Me as family.” (Yirmayahuw 31:33)

Before we contemplate the sweeping panorama presented in this passage, and how it forever alters the landscape, let’s consider some of the brushstrokes by which it was painted. This will be our most in depth evaluation of God’s Word thus far, and will serve as a working introduction to Yada Yah.

By interspersing three references to the “beyth – house, family, and home” of “yisra’el – those individuals who strive and contend with, who engage, persist, and endure with, who are set free and are empowered by God,” with four references to His “beryth – Covenant,” Yahowah has defined the nature of the relationship He wants to establish with us. That is because this “beryth – relationship” is based on a “beyth – household.” Yahowah is our Father. The Set-Apart Spirit is our Mother. And we are God’s children. Our purpose is to “endure, persist, and engage with God” as part of His “‘am – family.”

Everything important to Yahowah is separated and thus set apart. This is why the Covenant was “karat – cut through the process of separation.” Most people will be excluded from Yahowah’s family, because to be included a person must first separate themselves from the world of religion and politics.

This passage is a “na’um – prophetic pronouncement.” It serves as a promise of things to come.

Just as “beryth – Covenant” is based upon “beyth – family,” Yahowah’s name is predicated upon “hayah – the state of being.” We exist because He exists. More important still: Yahowah is the one we must turn to if we want to prolong our existence.

Natan means “give.” It speaks of “bestowing a gift,” and in this case, the gift of the Torah. From God’s perspective, His Guidance and Direction is a present, and therefore, it is not an obligation.

In the section of this Introduction to God devoted to the Towrah, we will learn that “ha Towrah – the Torah” is God’s: “tow (8420) – signed, written, and enduring, towrah (8452) – way of treating people, tuwr (8446) – giving us the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah (3384) – the source from which instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb (8421) – provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return, even our response and reply to that which is towb (2895) – good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr (2892) and tohorah (2893) – purifying and cleansing us, towr (8447) – so as to provide an opportunity to change our thinking, attitude, and direction.” As such, there is no more important document.

Qereb (קֶרֶב) is a noun which depicts the “inner part or inward nature of an individual.” As such, it speaks to our “thoughts and emotions,” which is where Yahowah’s Towrah will be placed. Like most nouns, qereb’s meaning is derived from its verb form, qarab (קָרַב), which is pointed differently, but spelled identically. Qarab means “to approach and to come near, to draw near and to enter the presence.” Qarab is the operative verb in Yahowah’s presentation of the “Mow’ed Miqra’ – Invitations to Meet” on “Yowm Kippurym – the Day of Reconciliations,” whereby we are invited to “qarab – come near and approach, coming into the presence of” our Spiritual Mother. This connection provides an essential clue when it comes to understanding the sweeping panorama painted in this prophetic passage.

Leb, which is the word for “heart,” conveys many of the same ideas in Hebrew as its counterpart does in English. We say that someone has a good heart, to infer that they are of good character. We say that our heart belongs to someone to infer that we love them. We speak of the heart of a matter to describe its very essence. We say that in our heart we feel a certain way to infer that we have exercised our volition and have made a choice. Our heart is used to describe our attitude, and it is the organ whose beats we monitor to determine if someone is alive or dead. And so it is, especially in this context, that we must read “leb – heart” to say all of these things, if we want to understand why Yahowah is writing His Torah upon that which makes us who we are.

The end of this passage deploys parallel poetry to explain the reason God is going to restore and renew His relationship with us by giving us His Torah, placing it inside of us, and writing it upon our hearts. Stripping these words to their core, God wrote: “hayah la la ‘elohym – hayah la la ‘am.” In English, this reads: “I shall be (hayah) God (‘elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah) to and for Me (la la) family (‘am).”

With the verb tenses more fully developed, God revealed: “I shall be (hayah – I will always, reliably, and without interruption or exception be (qal stem perfect conjugation)) God (‘elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah – they will always and reliably exist, eternally receiving the complete benefits of (qal relational stem affirming the genuineness of this promise, and imperfect conjugation which tells us that there will be ongoing and unfolding assistance and advantages associated with being considered)) to and for Me as (la la) family (‘am).”

This is wholly reciprocal on multiple plains. Those who consider Yahowah to be their God will be considered family by God. Yahowah will serve as God for those who consider Him to be God. Further, while existing as part of Yahowah’s family is a benefit for us, it is presented here as a benefit to and for God. Building a family, engaging with His children and helping us grow, is the sole reason our Heavenly Father created the universe. His family brings Him pleasure and causes Him to grow.

When Hebrew words are repeated, as they are here on two occasions with la la, it strengthens their meaning exponentially. Typically, la serves as a prepositional prefix, and conveys “to” and “for.” It speaks of “approaching someone,” of “moving toward a goal,” and of “doing something in order to achieve an expected result.” In addition to these thoughts, la can be translated: “toward, among, so that, by means of, concerning, on behalf of, and according to.” La “draws a connection between correspondence (the Torah) and a relationship (the Covenant).” And in actuality, every aspect of la fits this context.


Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#589 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:41:11 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
More

Yada wrote:
So now that we understand the meaning of these words, what do all of these words mean? To begin, the Covenant Relationship and Yahowah’s Torah Teachings are inseparable. Without the Torah, the Covenant is completely unknown, as are its terms and conditions, rendering it impossible for anyone to participate in this relationship. But, and this is the biggest “but” in the universe, it currently remains possible for us to separate ourselves from the Torah, and therefore from its Covenant. In fact, God structured it this way by design.

You see, we were created with “nadah – freewill,” which is “an uncompelled opportunity to move in the direction of our choosing:” to God or away from Him, to observe or ignore His Torah, to accept or reject His Covenant, to revere or fear our Heavenly Father, to love or despise Yahowah. And this is why we find that the first two of seven men listed, who along with Moseh, received the Torah on Mount Horeb, bore names directly associated with freewill: ‘Aharown – enlightened freewill from ‘aw – to desire, ‘ow – to choose and to prefer, and ‘owr – light and enlightenment, and Nadab – one who willingly, freely, and of his own volition, chooses, from nadah.

Since thoughtless volition is nothing more than an exercise in random chance, we were also given a “nesamah – conscience.” It enables us to rationally, logically, thoughtfully, morally, and judgmentally evaluate the evidence God has provided in His Torah, thereby facilitating wise decisions.

And while this has been the state of affairs throughout the millennia, it is about to change. A time is coming when everybody will be as one with the Torah, as the Covenant is with the Torah. Therefore, the only thing which differentiates the existing Covenant relationship from its reaffirmation and restoration is the inability to separate oneself from the terms and conditions of the relationship as they are delineated by Yahowah in His Towrah.

Our mortal existence affords us the opportunity to choose God based upon His terms and conditions or reject Him and them. Our immortal existence is predicated upon having made the choice to accept the Covenant in accordance with the Torah. But there is a day on our horizon in which the last person will make their final choice—Yowm Kippurym during Armageddon.

God could have avoided religious competition long ago, and mankind’s woes would have been nonexistent. But this could not have occurred without a consequence so severe, it would have negated our very existence.

The reason Yahowah hasn’t yet placed His Towrah inside of us, nor written His instructions on our hearts, is because freewill is sacrosanct. Today, everyone has the ability to choose to know, to love, and to trust God, to ignore God, to reject Him, or to replace Him with a divinity of man’s making. If the Torah had been mandated, had it been unrivaled, had it been incorporated into our personalities, there would have been no possible way for any religious alternative to have emerged. And without options, there would have been no choice. Without choice, loving relationships cannot exist and families are meaningless. Therefore, while the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship and Yahowah’s Towrah Teachings have been inseparable, it remains possible for us to separate ourselves from them.

And yet this option, which is the choice to reject Yahowah’s instructions and to disassociate from Him, has to end for eternal life with God to begin. So once all who will choose to know and respect Yahowah have chosen to do so, once all who remain alive on this planet have decided to be part of Yahowah’s family, there is no need for the bane or pain of religion. And yet, even once everyone has been adopted by Him, even when we have all become eternal and are empowered and enriched by our Heavenly Father, then, more than ever, we will still need His Guidance. The universe becomes ours, as does all of God’s power and authority. So, it will be especially important that we understand how to exercise these gifts and wield our power. By giving us His Torah, by placing all of it within us, by writing it upon our hearts, we will be equipped with the knowledge we will require to exercise our newfound freedom appropriately. And that my friends is wonderful, landscape changing, news. It explains how we will retain freewill throughout eternity, and yet keep from doing something foolish.

Therefore, this explains what will occur upon Yahowah’s return during “Yowm Kippurym – the Day of Reconciliations” at the end of the Tribulation. It illustrates how God will fulfill His Torah promise to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and with Yahuwdym. And it tells us when the Covenant will be renewed, because that is the only day in all of human history in which this transformation, this restoration, can occur without conflicting with God’s previous testimony. (For those who are thinking ahead, Yahowah can and will put His Towrah – Instructions inside of those of us who have chosen to rely upon Him before His return, and still allow those who are born during the Millennial Sabbath to exercise freewill by not doing so for them until the completion of the Sukah Shabat.)

This passage also affirms the role of the Torah in our salvation, because it associates the Torah Teaching and Covenant Relationship with us being included in God’s family. And reading between the lines, it reveals how Yahowah’s Torah Instructions will continue to guide us during the Millennial Sabbath and beyond into eternity. It even explains that the purpose of the Covenant is to establish God’s family, so that we can live with our Heavenly Father as His children.

And yet, with all of these affirmations, it is astonishing that Christians routinely mistranslate this passage, truncate it, and remove it from its context, to justify Paul’s proclamation of a “new covenant,” one based upon faith, one unrelated to the Torah or its God. I dare say, the Christian misinterpretation of this passage ranks among the most debilitating crimes ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

Speaking of this and other crimes, Yahowah revealed the benefit of making His Torah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual: “And (wa) they will not teach or learn (lo’ lamad – they will not be trained in nor indoctrinate, instruct or respond to) man’s (‘iysh – mankind’s and individual people’s) errant pronouncements, thoughts, thinking, or reasoning (ra’ – evil ways and improper principles, bad judgment, false pretenses, and regrettable communications) any longer (‘owd – ever again), or mankind’s (‘iysh) despondency and grief (‘ah – his tale of woe) claiming (‘amar – saying, boasting, and declaring) to actually know (da’at – to be acquainted with and be aware of the evidence regarding) Yahowah (efei - hwhy). Because then, indeed (ky – rather surely and truthfully at that time), they all (kol) will actually know and recognize Me (yada’ ‘owty – they will be familiar with, be aware of, respect, revere, and acknowledge Me, and they will be known to Me), from (min) the smallest, youngest, and least significant (qatan) up to (‘ad) the biggest, oldest, and most influential (gadowl), prophetically declares (na’um – predicts and promises) Yahowah (efei - hwhy). For indeed, then (ky), I will have forgiven (salah – will have pardoned and removed) their sin (‘awon – their guilt, liability, and consequence of perversity) and accordingly (wa la) their offenses against the standard (hata’th – their sinfulness and wrongdoing, their propensity and history of missing the way) will not (lo’) be remembered (zakar – recalled or mentioned) any longer (‘owd – now or ever again).” (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:34)

To hide the fact that God specifically said that the result of writing His Torah on our hearts would be that mankind’s errant and evil pronouncements would no longer be taught or considered, rea’ and ‘ach were both erroneously rendered by religious teachers and preachers. The Masoretes would have you believe that ra’ is rea’, and that it means “neighbor,” and that ‘ah should be rendered “brother.”

In actuality, God is not saying that “they will not teach man’s ‘brother’ any longer, or man’s ‘neighbor,’” because by saying such a thing, He would be asking us to contradict the very Torah instruction He has given us. But once we strip away the rabbinical copyedits, we discover that ra’, pointed רַע, means “evil, wicked, immoral, harmful, wrong, troubling, and undesirable,” and pointed רֵעַ, conveys: “shouting, roaring, and loud pontifications and pronouncements.” Therefore, immoral preaching is what will no longer be tolerated once the Covenant is renewed.

Similarly, rabbis and religious scholars would have you believe that ‘ah should be translated “brother,” when its primary definition is actually “pain, despondency, and grief.” ‘Ah speaks of a “brazier, a pan which holds burning coals,” and of “a howling animal,” specifically a “jackal or hyena.” Therefore, once the Covenant is renewed, and once we become one with the Torah, the “pain and grief” which man has wrought upon his fellow man through religious teaching will be things of the past.

And yet religion will not go down without a fight—even if it means that the religious must copyedit the Word of God to survive. And that is precisely what they have done. But, all of their efforts will be undone and be for naught upon Yahowah’s return during the final political and religious battle on earth—Armageddon. On that day, some will be eternally reconciled unto God and others will be eternally separated from Him.

Should you be mentally jumping ahead in time to the Day of Reconciliations (Yowm Kippurym in the year 6000 Yah, which will commence at sunset on October 2, 2033), and be wondering about the state of freewill after we bear Yah’s Torah and Signature, it will endure, but within a framework which will allow us to enjoy our Heavenly Father’s company and explore the universe without doing damage to ourselves or it. By this time the only souls alive will be those who have previously chosen to rely upon and love Yah, making the freedom to reject, counterfeit, or loathe Him moot.

As a result of this announcement from God, it would be wrong to refer to the Greek eyewitness accounts as the “Renewed Covenant,” much less the “New Testament.” The Covenant has not yet been “renewed.” There will never be a “new” one. And since it is His Word, I think it’s reasonable to use His terms.

But should you discount what Yahowah had to say about the enduring nature of His Covenant, in favor of the revelation delivered by Yahowsha’, you’d find that they spoke with the same voice. The Ma’aseyah facilitated the benefits of the Covenant by honoring the promises of the Torah. He did not create a “New Testament,” much less a new religion. During the Teaching on the Mount, He said:

“Do not assume that I have come to weaken, to dismantle, to invalidate, or abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not one jot (iota – the smallest letter, or Yowd in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia – the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by, be ignored, be disobeyed, or be disregarded from that which was established in the Torah until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses, invalidates, or abolishes the least of these terms and conditions, or teaches people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 5:19)

The Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ picked up this theme again, also in the same public declaration, this time in the context of seeking the truth so that we can make an informed choice. “Ask, making an earnest request, and it shall be given to you as a gift. Seek, searching diligently for knowledge, and you will discover the truth and find what you are looking for. Knock, requesting acceptance at the door, and it will be opened for you. For then, all who make an earnest request receive and will be accepted. And those who actively search for the location and for knowledge, who really desire to learn, will know the truth. Those who request acceptance at the door (which is Passover), they will be granted entrance.”

“What man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he should ask for a fish, would give him a snake? If then you being morally corrupt know how to give good and generous gifts to your children, how much more by way of contrast will your Father who is in Heaven produce and give valuable and generous gifts to those who ask Him?” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:7-11)

Throughout the Torah, the Doorway to Life is synonymous with Passover. It is where we must all begin our journey if we seek to live with God. It is the first of seven steps in the path to life. “For then this is the Torah and the Prophets: enter, starting with and experiencing the first step in the path by the way of the narrow and specific doorway, because the way is wide, it is crafted to be broad, expansive, and unreliable, and the route is broad which leads away, and which deceives and influences someone to go astray to the point of destruction and perishing, needlessly destroying themselves, squandering their lives. And the vast preponderance of people are those experiencing this path. The doorway is narrow, exacting and specific, and the path goes against the crowd, which leads to life. And few discover and experience it.” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:12-14)

According to God, there is but one way to extend our mortal existence. This path commences in the heart of the Torah, with the Invitation to Meet on Passover. It is the “narrow and specific doorway,” where the consequence of sin, which is death, is remedied.

The next step to life in God’s presence is Unleavened Bread, the following day, where Yahowah redeems us from the penalty of sin, which is separation from Him and His family. The Miqra’ of Matsah thereby serves as the threshold to Heaven, the Welcome Mat, which cleanses us of religious and political muck before we enter God’s home.

This leads to FirstFruits, where those who rely on Yah’s merciful gifts become His children, and are adopted into His family. Reborn spiritually, we rise up to Heaven, where we are welcomed and enriched by our Heavenly Father.

Our salvation and Yahowsha’s very existence are measured and understood by these three days. God’s mercy and the Ma’aseyah’s life are utterly meaningless, and His sacrifices are completely irrelevant, apart from the context of the Mow’ed Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikurym. By severing the essential connection between them, Judaism (with their Oral Law) and Christianity (by way of its aversion to the Torah) have doomed the souls of every man and woman who has placed his or her faith in these counterfeit religious institutions.

While the second volume of Yada Yah – Meeting with God – is dedicated in its entirety to presenting Yah’s Seven-Step Plan of Salvation, and the fourth volume is focused on the Ma’aseyah’s fulfillment of Yahowah’s prophetic promises, suffice it to say for now, the fourth step on the way to life eternal is Seven Sevens. On this celebration of the Sabbath – the Mow’ed Miqra’ of Shabuwa’ – Yahowah’s children are enlightened and empowered so that we can share God’s testimony regarding the renewal and restoration of life with every sinner on earth, regardless of race, age, or status.

Then, on the first day of the seventh month – the Miqra’ of Taruw’ah (often called Trumpets) – we are asked to proclaim the good news that Yahowah has provided a way home. We are also encouraged to announce an explicit warning: this way is not only so narrow and restrictive few will find it, all alternative paths lead in the wrong direction.

According to God, missing the sixth step – the Day of Reconciliations, or Yowm Kippurym – will lead to the dissipation of one’s consciousness. And that is because this day denotes the time Yahowah will return, the day in which those who have chosen to revere Him will be reconciled, and when those who have rejected Him will be separated.

This leads to our Heavenly Father’s ultimate goal – to Shelters (Sukah in Hebrew) – where as a result of the first six steps, we are allowed to campout with Yahowah for all eternity. Upon its fulfillment on the Mow’ed Miqra’ of Sukah in the Yowbel year 6000 Yah (October 7, 2033), the Earth will return to the conditions found in the Garden of Eden, as will mankind’s relationship with Yahowah.

This is the time spoken of in the final declaration found in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:34: “Because then indeed, they all will actually know and recognize Me (yada’ ‘owty – they will be familiar with Me, be aware of, respect, revere, and acknowledge Me, and they will be known to Me), from the smallest, youngest, and least significant up to the biggest, oldest, and most influential, prophetically declares and promises Yahowah. For indeed, then, I will forgive and remove their sin and accordingly, their offenses against the standard will not be remembered any longer, now or ever again.”

Before we leave this portion of the Ma’aseyah’s Teaching on the Mount and move on to His concluding statements, please note that Yahowsha’s testimony regarding the narrow and broad paths, the one which is restrictive versus the one which is popular, precludes Christianity as a potential way to life. At over a billion adherents strong, it is very popular, and thus expressly disqualified as a means to eternal life. Furthermore, Yahowsha’s words serve as an amplification of the message Yahowah wrote on the first of the two tablets, when He said that “thousands,” not millions or billions, would “benefit from His mercy,” and that those who did so, would do so, by “observing His instructions.” These are sobering thoughts not one in a million Christians seems capable of processing.

Advising us, therefore, not to succumb to religious myths, such as the “New Testament,” Yahowsha’ warned all who would listen about Paul, the founder of Christianity, author of most of the “New Testament,” and the most fitting candidate for this dire prophecy. “You must be alert, and you should carefully examine, prosecute, and turn away (prosechete – you should pay close attention, watch out for, and beware of, guarding yourself) from false prophets who come to you from within dressed in sheep’s clothing, yet they actually are wolves who are exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving (harpax – vicious carnivorous thieves who secretly and deliberately rob, extort, and snatch away).” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:15)

In the context of the Torah enduring forever and being the lone source of life, the man best known for contradicting God on this very topic, while at the same time claiming to be an “Apostle chosen by God,” is Paul. He, more than anyone who has ever lived, fits the definition of a “false prophet,” one who “came dressed in sheep’s clothing,” yet “was actually a wolf,” “promoting his own” message: the “Gospel of Grace.”

Still speaking of Paul, the Benjamite wolf, and his associates, particularly his lover, Timothy, Yahowsha’ told us how to recognize them: “Indeed as a result, you will know with certainty, recognize, and understand (epiginosko – have complete and accurate knowledge based upon a thorough examination of the evidence regarding) them from their fruit, from their results and harvests.” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:20) “Their fruit” was comprised of: Galatians, First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Titus, Philemon, First and Second Timothy, Hebrews, and most of Acts. Because of their inclusion within the “New Testament” of the “Christian Bible,” this rotten fruit from Paul and his associates (Hebrews and Acts) has led more people astray – away from God – than all other books combined, save perhaps the Qur’an. Paul’s letters mirror Satan’s original scheme, whereby he twisted Yahowah’s Word in the Garden, and then removed what God had said from its context, to deceive. As a result, Paul’s epistles are the most beguiling ever written.

In conclusion, Yahowsha’ delineated the consequence of believing the contradictory pontifications which became the “New Testament” and eventually the new religion of Christianity. But before I share His conclusion with you, I want you to know that I have moved the negation provided in the late fourth-century Greek manuscripts relative to this statement to where I am convinced it belongs. I know, as should you, that Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew, not Greek, that Mattanyah recorded what He said in Hebrew, not Greek, that his eyewitness account was translated into Greek in a religious environment in Egypt centuries later, and that no copy of anything between Mattanyah 6:12 and 10:13 exists prior to Constantine when wholesale changes were made to the text to accommodate and amalgamate the new Roman religion. So we are obliged to be on our guard, and to use the context of Yahowsha’s Towrah discussion and our understanding of Yahowah’s Towrah to properly present what was actually conveyed. Therefore...

“All those calling Me ‘Lord Lord’ will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but to the contrary, those in heaven are those who do My Father’s will (thelema – do what He decided and proposed [read: who observe Yahowah’s Torah]). Many will say to Me in this specific day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not speak inspired utterances and prophecies in your name and drive out demons in your name, and perform many mighty miracles in your name?’ And then at that time, I will profess to them that I never knew them. You all must depart from Me, those who bring about that which is in opposition to the Torah (anomia – Lawless).” (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:21-23)

Are you listening? This is a scathing indictment of not only Paul’s epistles, and the preponderance of the “New Testament,” but also most Christian teaching. God just told us that Yahowsha’s name matters, as does Yahowah’s Torah. Further, the presence of miracles does not equate to the presence of God as Christian apologists claim. Countless Christians have justified their faith by claiming to have witnessed inspired healings and character transformations in the name of “Jesus Christ,” unaware of the fact that the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ said that observing the Torah, not miracles, was the proper means to evaluate whether or not someone actually has a relationship with the Father.

Yahowsha’ could not have made this message any clearer in His first and only public declaration before a large audience. He told us what we could rely upon and what we should not trust. He even said that a self-serving insider, someone pretending to be one of His sheep, would feign an alliance with Him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. One would have to be naïve not to see Paul and his letters in Yahowsha’s statement. And that means that the person Christians quote most often to justify their religion, and their animosity to the Torah, was a false prophet—someone not to be trusted.

Those familiar with this Mattanyah 7:21 passage, at least as it is presented in their English bibles, probably noticed that I indeed moved the negation from “not all of those” to “will not enter.” Should you object to, or just question, this action, be aware of the following: the Teaching on the Mount is unequivocal and unaccommodating throughout, in this context placing the negation within the phrase “will not enter the kingdom of heaven” is vastly more appropriate and consistent with the tone and content of this speech.

Before we move on, let’s see if we can learn something additional about Yahowah’s most important title by observing it in the language of revelation. The first letter of “beryth – Covenant” is Beyt b, which is contracted from beyth, the Hebrew word for “family and home.” This letter was drawn in the form of a tent and home. And, as such, it conveyed the idea of sheltering and protecting a family.

The second letter, Rosh r, which was originally pronounced “Resh,” was depicted by drawing the head of a person. As does the word re’sh today, the Ancient-Hebrew character was symbolic of being the first, best, and foremost, as well as leadership and birth.

Turning to the third letter, we find a Yad i, today’s Yowd, pictured by way of an arm and hand. It conveyed the ideas of authority and power, as well as engaging productively to accomplish something.

The final character in beryth is either a Theth u or Taw t, as these letters were originally one. If Theth, the pictograph was of a woven container, which was used to communicate the idea of being surrounded and enclosed, as well as being transported from one place to another. And if Taw, the character was drawn as an upright pole with a horizontal support beam. It spoke of a doorway, of foundational support, and of a sign and a signature – particularly in its Paleo Hebrew form: t.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#590 Posted : Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:41:47 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
And more

Yada wrote:
Bringing all of these images together, the picture they paint of the “beryth – Covenant,” is of the first and foremost family being protected and sheltered in a home by the work, power, and authority of God, so that His household might rely upon the Words to which He affixed His signature and be transported to Heaven through the Doorway known as Passover.


JK wrote:
Exactly! Your response was enriching for me and helps my foundation for responding to similarly unthinking individuals. It reminds me of a retort my Christian coworker hit me with, "10,000 religious scholars can't be wrong."

I have tried to gently call attention to the amazing "coincidences" presented in the Torah with scientific discovery. One person claimed that scientists did not independently arrive at the description of "mysterious energy and unseen matter", they merely plagiarized Genesis to push a religious agenda. Really, seriously?

In the meantime I will continue to closely examine the "Observation" chapters and contribute what I can in terms of the minor edits and suggestions to improve the readability, not a difficult task given the quality of the work. I am nearly done with Chapter 03, and have to say it powerfully consolidates and builds on the previous chapters. This is really enjoyable time spent. I consider myself a freshman at this level and wish I could contribute in a more substantial way, like Roy and others, but having had the light bulb go off a few times when delving more deeply, I understand where this leading me and I will follow the Words more closely. Someone described it as "addictive", it really is.

Thanks for including me in these exchanges, it is a journey, a path, a discovery and I am enriched by it.

JK


Yada wrote:
Thanks for sharing this JK. This was the intent of both replies. We all face the same moronic excuses for religion. Sadly, however, I did not destroy the popularity myth. I was too focused on correcting his other errors. But that is the advantage of having a family. We all contribute.

Your edits have been valuable. The chapters you have reviewed are greatly improved. You style is perfect.

Yes, Yahowah proves that He can be trusted and that man cannot be relied upon. It's amazing that so few are willing to consider what He actually said, preferring to cling to lies which are impossible to reconcile.

I'm looking forward to your suggestions regarding 03. Reading and considering Yah's testimony is rewarding and enjoyable. Jacki who has been doing this with me for over a decade, sees it the same way.

With every new chapter I compose, I see myself at a freshman level as it pertains to the previous one. It is a never ending education. I too wish I could do more.

Roy has a gift. His mind is amazing. I am so blessed to know him and to read his insights. I've grown tremendously as a result of his analysis. If we get to choose teams in heaven, after Dowd and my son, he'd be my next pick. But then again, the more the merrier.

I also consider myself as addicted to Yah's testimony. A day without it causes withdrawal symptoms.

Yada


JK wrote:
The same fellow who challenged me about going against 10,000 religious scholars ridiculed me on the assertion that the fall of Damascus was a significant prophetic marker pointing to the thinning of Israel at the waist and the impending Gentile wars. He said Damascus was no different than other ancient cities that have fallen over time.

Not knowing how to respond, I did a little research. Why did I even doubt! Historians consider Damascus to be the longest, continuously inhabited city on planet earth. I took this back to him, stating that man has always imparted their own human fallacies onto the behavior of their pagan gods. Don't be so hasty to attribute that behavior to Yahowah. He clearly states His standard to the veracity of His prophecy and to anyone who speaks in His name. What a neat affirmation that was!


Yada wrote:
JK,

The fallacy is Argumentum Ad Populum. The fallacious argument claims to be true because many or most people say it, write it, or believe it.

So the earth must be flat, the center of the universe, and be 6000 years old. Zeus must be god, or is it Ra, or Jupiter, or Bel, or Sin, or Allah, or Jesus.

Despite being contradictory and irrational, Christianity is true because it is popular. If a score of bibles claim that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, that this God died, that He was part of a Trinity, that He has a Church, that He did away with the Torah and started a new religion, and that Paul met with Him and spoke for Him, it must all be true, regardless of the fact that it is all false.

Islam is also popular. There are many religious translations of the Qur'an. So Islam must also be true even though it is obviously false. Moreover, using the Argumentum Ad Populum, since both are popular, Allah and Jesus are both gods. The Qur'an and New Testament were both inspired by god. It is irrelevant that they are opposites.

Trump and Hillary must be right, good people, the best America has to offer, since they are both popular. It was right to invade Iraq since 90% of Americans initially supported the war, even though it was based upon a pile of lies.

But the words don't matter. The facts are irrelevant. Reason is a waste of time. History teaches us nothing. Take a poll, call for a vote, and believe. It is easy if you don't try.

Yada

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#591 Posted : Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:25:28 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Continued exchange with M

M wrote:
Thank-You for taking your time to reply Yada. I appreciate the long message.

I am unable to reply to your assertions due to lack of hebrew knowledge. Again I fail to believe your translations are correct compared to people/Jews whose tongue is actually hebrew.

And I do believe you are greatly mistaken with many of your doctrines but that is my opinion. You yourself must work out your own salvation with fear and trembling as The Apostle had stated.

The will of the Father is to believe on his son, the Lord Jesus Christ who he sent into the World.

You place a barrier for the Gospel. For even the elderly must need to be mentally strained to learn the word of God. By no means do I think you have Truth. You overcomplicated the simplicity of God.


Id like to reply to some assertions you made, especially with the bible and greek but my mind is somewhat sore as of now.

I trust my new testament and I believe my translations which I have. Your translations of the Greek are by no means accurate, they are not literal, they are amplified and injected with your own opinion. You choose what you will then discard what you do not like. And seemingly confusing seeing you using a hebrew version of the Matthew. Again you choose to discard the parts of Acts which don't conform to your belief.

You make statements and assertions which show your lack of faith regarding the preservation of the bible, including the Old Testament Scriptures.

You also seemingly disregard church history which I find unusual.
And Again your choose, pick and choose as you will to support your own beliefs.

Again though thank-you for your time, and for sharing what you have learned, Fear God and take head of the warnings in the Gospels.


Yada wrote:
Quote:
Thank-You for taking your time to reply Yada. I appreciate the long message.


M,

I wish for your sake that this was true. I wish you understood what your name means. I wish that you had already begun reading Questioning Paul. But I suspect, however, and based entirely upon your stated opinions, that your lack of knowledge, resilience to reason, and religious indoctrination will preclude you from even considering the truth - even when the witness is Yahowah, Himself. This is precisely why God hates religion more than any other human construct. It is debilitating and deadly.

Quote:
I am unable to reply to your assertions due to lack of hebrew knowledge. Again I fail to believe your translations are correct compared to people/Jews whose tongue is actually hebrew.


That is a start. You lack a working knowledge of Hebrew which precludes you from understanding what Yahowah actually said. Fortunately, there is a solution to your problem. After reading www.QuestioningPaul.com to open your mind and remove the religious impediments, read www.AnIntroductionToGod.com. It was written to resolve this problem.

Your position all along has been Argumentum ad Popularum, the fallacy which purports that truth is found in the popularity of a belief, when many or most believe, say, or write something similar. If this were true, the earth would be in the center of the universe, it would be flat, and six thousand years old. Bel, Sin, Ba'al, Astarte, Istar, the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God, the Virgin and Child, Tammuz, Amen Ra, Osiris, Isis, Zeus, Athena, Dionysus, Apollo, Venus, Bacchus, the Lord, Jesus, Christ, and Allah would all be gods.

Today if this were true, the lies promoted under Socialist Secular Humanism as Political Correctness, would be valid. Most everyone in academia, the media, politics, and business accepts and promotes the same myths.

The truth has never been popular. It never will be. Yahowsha' said that the way to death and destruction was wide, popular, and well-trodden and that many would accept it, and that the way to life was narrow, restrictive, and unpopular, and few would find it.

Yahowah concluded his Second of Ten Statements by revealing that His mercy would benefit the thousands who closely examine and carefully consider the terms and conditions of His Covenant. Thousands among billions is one in a million.

These statements affirm, that is if you trust God, that a popular religion like Christianity, which is the most popular of all time claiming 5 billion souls, is untrue, unreliable, deadly, and destructive - no matter how many believe it, in fact because so many believe it. You ought to ponder the implications of the Sermon on the Mount. From beginning to end it obliterates any notion that Yahowsha' was a Christian or that He started the Christian religion. The opposite is true in fact. He was Towrah observant. If you were rational, M, and not religious, this would start your journey away from Christianity. If it doesn't, you should ask yourself why you are willing to reject reason for religion.

According to this, to translate, you have gone from stating that the translator needed a formal education, a position sternly refuted by Yahowah and Yahowsha', to native tongue. That reveals either your lack of knowledge or propensity to accept religious misconceptions once again. While modern Hebrew claims to be the same as the language spoken and written four thousand years ago, it is like comparing Latin to Italian, except the alphabetic characters are very different.

It is also lazy. If you had actually read the His Word Volume of An Introduction to God rather than promoting your fallacies, you would already be equipped to find the truth for yourself. But it takes initiative, not faith.

Quote:
And I do believe you are greatly mistaken with many of your doctrines but that is my opinion. You yourself must work out your own salvation with fear and trembling as The Apostle had stated.


I don't have any doctrines. I know, understand, accept, and share Yahowah's teaching. And I can assure you, He is never mistaken.

It is not Yahowah's intent to save you or me. That is a Christian myth. It is amazing that religious people have been duped into believing that God would want to save and spend His eternity with people who don't know Him, who don't even know His name, who demean Him by worshipping Him, who reject His advice and Covenant, who don't answer His Invitations, who believe in the thing He hates the most. This would make Heaven Hell.

Yahowah is not fond of ignorance. He says that a lack of knowing and failure to understand is destructive, causing people to die.

Yahowah's intent is to have us come to know Him as He revealed Himself (back to Hebrew and the Towrah), come to understand what He is offering and expecting (the Covenant as presented in the Towrah by way of His Invitations), and then to accept and act upon His provisions (as they are stated during His conversations with Abraham). Salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant - not even one of its primary benefits.

Yahowah wants us to know and revere Him as a Father. Fathers are never feared. Those who fear God do not know Him. Paul was not only wrong about this, Yahowah calls Paul "the plague of death." Both Yahowah and Yahowsha' exposed him and condemned him and those who believe him countless times. You will find many of these in Questioning Paul because God had a lot to say about this repulsive man.

Quote:
The will of the Father is to believe on his son, the Lord Jesus Christ who he sent into the World.


Neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha' ever asked anyone to "believe." Yahowah can be known. That is the purpose of the Towrah, Naby', wa Mizmowr.

The reason that I hold no hope for you is that you are unwilling to learn - even to investigate. It is actually quite easy to prove that according to Yahowah, the Lord is Satan. Fathers are not Lords. There is no "Jesus." That name wasn't even invented until the 17th century. At best it is errant and meaningless. At worst, it is a transliteration of Gesus, the Savior of the Druid religion where the Horned One is God. His name is Yahowsha'. If you do not know His name, you do not know Him.

Yahowsha' always pointed to the Father. Based upon what He said in this regard, it's stunning that Christians focus on the diminished manifestation set apart from Yahowah instead of observing Yahowah.

Christ isn't a last name, which is how you are using it. It isn't His title, either. It is from the Greek word addressing the application of drugs. He was not Greek. He did not speak Greek. He did not have a Greek, Roman, Druid, or English name or title. His one and only name, Yahowsha', is used 220 times in the Towrah and Prophets. It means: "Yahowah Saves." Yes, that is correct, Yahowah saves, not Jesus.

Since you foolishly trust your English translations in your Bibles, you may want to consider the fact that in the many hundreds of pages found in 100% of the late first, second, third, and early fourth-century manuscripts of the CNT, you will not find the Greek variation of the name of Yahowah or Yahowsha' or Ma'aseyah, written out once - ever. There is no basis whatsoever for "Lord Jesus Christ." You might as well believe in Santa Claus.

Yahowsha' affirmed the Towrah. He observed Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw'ah and will fulfill Taruw'ah, Kippurym, and Sukah. That is the only way to God. Since you don't answer these same Invitations, you are not following Him, and you will not go where He has gone.

Quote:
You place a barrier for the Gospel. For even the elderly must need to be mentally strained to learn the word of God. By no means do I think you have Truth. You overcomplicated the simplicity of God.


Thank you. God and I appreciate that since God not only does not have a Gospel, the Christian Gospel is deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning.

Abraham was in His seventies. Moseh was eighty. They didn't have a problem learning the word of God. I was in my fifties when He introduced Himself to me. I did not find it difficult, in fact I found it enjoyable.

Yahowah is not simple. It took Him the entire Towrah, Prophets, Writings, and Psalms to introduce Himself,to explain what He was offering, and to reveal what He expected, while at the same time exposing the deadly consequence of religion. If it required thousands of pages for Him to do so, then I'd suggest that the evidence is contrary to your opinion.

I wish you were thinking, that you were examining and considering Yahowah's words, and then contemplating their implications so that you would actually know for certain if I am conveying His message accurately. As it is, you have nothing to base you beliefs upon, other than the fallacy of argumentum ad popularum.

Quote:
Id like to reply to some assertions you made, especially with the bible and greek but my mind is somewhat sore as of now.


Please don't bother. I know and understand your religion and your New Testament, and probably even Greek (not that it matters), far better than you do. I was once an ordained ruling elder, a trained evangelist, and sought after bible teacher. I have studied Christianity from the inside out and now from the outside in. I gave it up because it is obviously untrue and the first condition of the Covenant requires that we walk away from religion. If you want to learn about Christianity, if you want to share Yahowah's perspective on it, read www.QuestioningPaul.com. If you read it from beginning to end, we can discuss it. If not, this will be our last correspondence.

Quote:
I trust my new testament and I believe my translations which I have. Your translations of the Greek are by no means accurate, they are not literal, they are amplified and injected with your own opinion. You choose what you will then discard what you do not like. And seemingly confusing seeing you using a hebrew version of the Matthew. Again you choose to discard the parts of Acts which don't conform to your belief.


Actually, you believe it because you don't actually deal with its irreconcilable conflicts. But even then, you don't actually believe much of anything Yahowsha' said in the Sermon on the Mount, or in His revelation letters. You obviously don't believe Paul when he wrote in 2 Corinthians that he was demon possessed. And you clearly do not know how different the oldest codexes of the CNT are from the Textus Receptus or the NA27, or even how inconsistent bible translations are from the Greek.

Clearly, my Greek translations are less accurate than those from the Hebrew. The only three books in the CNT worth considering were spoken and written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, so a lot was lost along the way. Moreover, the CNT has been so poorly maintained, that it is almost completely unreliable. There are more than 300,000 differences in the Greek of the oldest MSS and those that formed the basis of your translations. Therefore, accuracy is impossible. As for bias, my bias is Yahowah and His Towrah. It is the same bias as Yahowsha'.

I do not have any beliefs. I know. You can too. I follow Yahowah's advice and request, and discard that which I know is untrue.

Mattenyah is a Hebrew name. He did not have a Greek name.

My translations are literal, and they are amplified. That is what makes them so revealing. But as a result, they are more challenging to read.

Quote:
You make statements and assertions which show your lack of faith regarding the preservation of the bible, including the Old Testament Scriptures.


I cannot tell you if it is ignorance on your part or utter stupidity. Why would "my faith" matter when the evidence is so readily available. Facts are facts. There are over 300,000 known differences in the 182,000 word CNT between the oldest and thus most credible MSS and the Greek of the TR and NA27. That is fact. It has been horribly preserved. It is not trustworthy. Faith does not resolve any of this. It does not make it go away.

As for the TPP, the MT, at least apart from the vowel pointing and diacritical marks which can be ignored, only differs from the DSS in one word out of every fourteen. And now with the DSS, we can correct many if not most of them. So it is well preserved, albeit, not perfectly. Yahowah gave man freewill, and He noted that we would use it to corrupt His Word. As usual, He was right.

Quote:
You also seemingly disregard church history which I find unusual.
And Again your choose, pick and choose as you will to support your own beliefs.


This is one of the greatest lies of all. Yahowah does not have a church. The Greek word ekklesia, does not mean church. That is the name of a Germanic sun goddess. Ekklesia is actually the closest Greek word to miqra'. As for the Miqra', Yahowah clearly has these.

I don't actually disregard church history. I have written many chapters on it, most of which can be found in Volume Seven of YadaYah.com. I just take Yahowah's position on it, which is to despise it.

Why would a fool believe when Yahowah made it possible to know Him? Why put your faith in religion when Yahowah hates religion? Why trust men, when you can come to rely on God?

Goodbye, M. Since I don't think you have the will or ability to read Questioning Paul, or even the capacity to process what Yahowah says about Him, nor deal with his contradictions, this will be my last letter to you.

I will leave you with this thought. If you cling to your beliefs, when you die your soul will cease to exist. If you promote your beliefs, as you are doing here, you will be sent to She'owl, and you will find Sha'uwl and lots of other religious people there. The first is not good. The second is bad.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#592 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2016 7:26:26 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
I decided to email M from above and thought I would share our exchange here.

James wrote:
Matthew,


Yada shared your email with me, and I thought I would respond to some of what you have said.


Why would an academic or a seminary graduate have credibility with you? What are seminary schools? They are schools set up to teach religious doctrine. So If I have a degree from a Baptist seminary I will have a great understanding of Baptist doctrine, if I graduate from a Methodist seminary I will have a great understanding of Methodist doctrine. So which seminary would give me credibility? The answer is it depends on which religious doctrine you choose to follow. If you are a Baptist and a Catholic Priest who graduated from a Catholic seminary tries to sway your belief you are not going to give them credibility. Seminaries are not centers for learning they are centers for indoctrination. So why would you trust someone who choose to get themselves indoctrinated?


As for all religious publications agreeing, well there is a simple reason for that, publishing houses exist to make money and familiarity sells. No one would publish a “bible” that differs very much from the KJV, NIV etc. because they know no one would buy it. So every translation committee sticks to nothing more than minor revisions of what already exists. In fact if you read the stated goal of these translation committees they say as much.


From the Preface of the NIV, “The Committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating Scriptures into English.”


They know that if they were to put out anything other than this that it would not sell, and they would be out of a job. Simply put religion is a business and they make decisions based on what is in the best interest of their business.


What if I were to tell you that when Yada first began Yada Yahweh that he took his initial studies and presented them to the head of a major theological seminary in America, as well as his universities head of Old Testament Studies, and that afterwards both of them concurred that not a single thing he presented was errant, but outright stated that if they were to teach this, or talk about it that the funds that kept their university open would dry up and they would go under. Before you dismiss the story think of the truth of it, what would happen if a major religious institution came out and said what Yada is saying? That translations were errant and deceptive, and tried to publish a correct translation. Do you think people would embrace them, would celebrate being made aware? Or do you think they would reject them, cease supporting them and despise them. Do you think any of these so called scholastic leaders would be willing to sacrifice their reputation, their fortune, their followers, etc. to state these truths? There is all the incentive in the world for them to continue to purport the lies.


So the question becomes why trust them? Why trust Yada? Or better yet why trust any man? Why not invest the time to do the research for yourself. There are so many resources available free online, all it takes is a little time. When I first came across Yada’s work I thought to myself either he is on to something, or he is lying, or he is a fool. But if he is right then everything I thought I knew is wrong, so I invested the time. I bought a number of dictionaries, lexicons, and grammatical books, interlinears, and Hebrew and Greek text. I looked up verse after verse that he had translated, I translated them for myself, I came to know and understand the Hebrew words and their usage, and I came to know and understand Yahowah for who He is.


So my final thoughts, don’t take my word for it, don’t take Yada’s word for it, don’t take a committee of translators’ word for it, don’t take a priest or pastors word for it, look it up yourself. As Dowd/David put it Psalm 19:7, “Yahowah’s Towrah is wholly complete and entirely perfect, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowah’s restoring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the open minded.”

James Bowen


M wrote:
Thank-You for trying to reach me Mr. Bowen.

I did not reply to Yada/Yada due to the amount of lengthy emails I had forwarded to me from him of a man named Larry and the amount of blasphemous heretical doctrine which is taught by Yada. I dont have enough time to engage in such disputes. So I ignored them.

Now the sad thing is most of these people such as Larry, Yada etc were most likely once Born Again Christians but have fallen away from the faith just as Scripture has stated would occur before the appearing of the man of sin, and because they loved not the truth God will send them a strong delusion so that they may believe a lie, so that they will be dammed to hell, again because they believed not the truth neither did they hold on to it but because they had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Im sorry but im not going to engage in speculation regarding bible and translations because its just too much to get into. But no i dont believe the lies which the teachings of Yada are composed of in regards to the preservation of the bible and translations.

Again im sorry but stating something does not make it true, you say in regards to Yada taking his studies and presenting them to the Head of A Major Theological Seminary and Head Old Testament Studies at a university.
The names of the individuals are not mentioned (the heads of such departments at the seminary and university). The university and seminarys themselves are not stated. No documents are provided. Im sorry but the assertion and claim is meaningless and irrelevant.

Thats very sad seeing that you seem to have left the faith due to modern inovations and a modern False Teacher which has sprung up in these last days.

As the Apostle John Said, The Disciple Of The Lord Jesus Christ.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

Thank-You for your closing advice.
And i wholly agree with going to the Word of God for truth and I do such things. I have it in English. I have the truth. I do not need to learn Hebrew and Translate these things myself.

You need to repent and turn from your heresy. For as right now you stand condemed in the sight of God. You believe another Jesus Christ.

All those who do not believe are condemed to Eternity in Hell. Now im not sure if you were once a Christian and have gone to the doctrines of Yada, im not sure if you have gone through with his heretical beliefs of getting circumsioned. I do not know where you stand, even if you can repent, for those who abandon the faith its impossible to lead them to repentance seeing that they crucify the Son Of God afresh and put him to open shame. This is on you to work out with fear and trembling.

The sad thing is that you arrived at your knowledge by studies, not by revelation or prayer. You came to it by the assertions of a False Teacher and not by going to the bible itself.

Again Repent James.

Thankyou for trying to reach out to me, but I dont agree and i wont agree. I believe my bible.

Lord Have Mercy,

Matthew.


James wrote:
Matthew,


You wrote:
Quote:
Now the sad thing is most of these people such as Larry, Yada etc were most likely once Born Again Christians but have fallen away from the faith just as Scripture has stated would occur before the appearing of the man of sin, and because they loved not the truth God will send them a strong delusion so that they may believe a lie, so that they will be dammed to hell, again because they believed not the truth neither did they hold on to it but because they had pleasure in unrighteousness.


I don’t know who all wrote you so I can’t speak for them, yes both Larry and Yada were once Christians. Personally I was an agnostic/atheist most of my life. But really neither my background or theirs has any merit or any bearing on the discussion.

Quote:
Im sorry but im not going to engage in speculation regarding bible and translations because its just too much to get into. But no i dont believe the lies which the teachings of Yada are composed of in regards to the preservation of the bible and translations.


And that is your choice. I was hoping that my email might get you to question the validity of translations and the translators, but that is all I can do. I find this statement particularly ironic considering your very next line:

Quote:
Again im sorry but stating something does not make it true


I hope you see the irony in what you have said. You state that Yada is wrong without providing any evidence, where as he has provided thousands of pages of evidence supporting his findings. He has provided plenty of evidence as to why English translations should not be trusted, and you have not addressed one iota of it, but instead claim that English translations are accurate without providing a single line of evidence. So yes, Matthew, stating something as true does not make it true, please remember that.

Quote:
you say in regards to Yada taking his studies and presenting them to the Head of A Major Theological Seminary and Head Old Testament Studies at a university.
The names of the individuals are not mentioned (the heads of such departments at the seminary and university). The university and seminarys themselves are not stated. No documents are provided. Im sorry but the assertion and claim is meaningless and irrelevant.


Well I could have stated that the University in question was Liberty University, the head of the University was Jerry Falwell, who was at the time a close friend of Yada’s, but since it is impossible to provide evidence of a personal meeting two friends had over a decade ago I didn’t think it mattered because you would dismiss it anyways. But really would it even matter to you if I could prove it. If I had a video of the event would that actually make you question? The answer is no. You are so religiously devoted to the lies that all the evidence in the world would not sway you one bit. When like you one is reliant on faith and belief then evidence and reason mean nothing, logic is tossed out the window. Faith and belief are required when there is no evidence, I find knowing and understanding far superior.

Quote:
Thats very sad seeing that you seem to have left the faith due to modern inovations and a modern False Teacher which has sprung up in these last days.


As I said I came from being an agnostic, faith was something I have never been capable of. In fact I envied those with faith, I wished I could be there, but my rational mind was incapable of accepting that which I could not prove. I would look at my friend and family who were religious and wish that I could accept it like they had and not question everything, but that was not how I am built. I don’t know what modern innovations you are speaking of, unless you mean the dictionaries, lexicons, grammatical, and interlinears that I mentioned, which again brings us back to the irony since those are places where evidence and facts are presented. As for a False Teacher, while I consider Yada a good and close friend I do not consider him a teacher. In fact I do not rely at all on him or his writings for teaching. I translate and study Yah’s Towrah on my own. Yada was able to get my interest initially and has encouraged me on the way, but beyond that I am where I am through my own hard work and study, and the guidance of Yah’s spirit. In fact there are many things which Yada and I differ on and have had very spirited debates over.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#593 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2016 7:27:24 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
James wrote:
Quote:
Thank-You for your closing advice.
And i wholly agree with going to the Word of God for truth and I do such things. I have it in English. I have the truth. I do not need to learn Hebrew and Translate these things myself.


The word of Yahowah is true, but translations are strictly man made affairs. Yahowah is not guiding the translator’s hands as they go. Anyone could put out anything and call it a translation, there are literally hundreds of English translations out there. Which is the right one? The only way to know for sure is to verify for yourself.

Quote:
You need to repent and turn from your heresy. For as right now you stand condemed in the sight of God. You believe another Jesus Christ.


So it is heresy to say that man has corrupted Yah’s Word. Yahowah told us that this would happen, in fact it is the very first error in the Garden. The serpent corrupted God’s word, and then Chawah added to and corrupted Yah’s word. Since at this point all you know of me is that I do not trust man’s translations, that was the entirety of my email, you condemn me for not trusting man.



I don’t believe in any Jesus Christ. For starters I don’t believe in anything. I know and I understand based on evidence, facts and reason. Belief is irrelevant to me. Second there is no Jesus. His name was Yahowsha, names do not change in translation. Barak Obama travels all over the world and speaks to people in many, many languages, yet his name is always Barak Obama. Osama Bin Laden is Osama Bin Laden in English, Arabic, French, Spanish etc. Why is it Yahowsha is the only name we claim differs in another language? And how do you get Jesus from Yahowsha? Do know? You call on this name for salvation, but do even know where it comes from? Do you know that it didn’t show in any English bible until the 3rd Edition of the King James? Do you know that there was no J in any language at the time when he walked the earth? In fact there was no J in any language until the 1600s. Of course all of this evidence that his name could not possibly have been Jesus will mean nothing to you because you have faith and believe. Let’s talk a little about Christ. Did you know that like Jesus, Christ does not show up once in any of the 1-3rd century manuscripts? Did you know that universally a placeholder was used to convey these Hebrew words, they were not translated into Greek? Did you know, furthermore, that Maseyah (corrupted to Messiah) is never once used as a title in all of the Hebrew text? That It is presented as an adjective every time it is used? As an adjective it should never have been transliterated, but rather translated.



Did you know that the historic evidence shows that the early followers referred to him not as christos, the basis of Christ, but as chrestus? And that early followers were never called Christians, but rather chrestucians? But I digress, again I know facts and evidence mean nothing to you.

Quote:
All those who do not believe are condemed to Eternity in Hell.


Really can you cite a single verse that says this?

Quote:
Now im not sure if you were once a Christian and have gone to the doctrines of Yada, im not sure if you have gone through with his heretical beliefs of getting circumsioned.


WOW. Well first off I was circumcised at birth so I had no say in it, but that said heretical, really? So it is heretical to listen to what God said? It’s heretical to follow through on God’s instructions and advice? It just so happens that circumcision is a subject I have dedicated A LOT of time to studying. I have examined in detail every single mention of the word throughout Scripture. I am currently working on compiling all of my study into a single document. If you view circumcision as heretical then you have swallowed Paul’s poison. First let me ask you this, do you find anyone anywhere in Scripture other than Paul condemning circumcision? Or better yet do you ever see God condemn circumcision? Have you ever examined what God has to say on the issue, not your church’s doctrine, not the opinions of man, but God? God only ever speaks of it as a necessary thing. In fact every single time God mentions the uncircumcised it is in a derogatory way.

Quote:
The sad thing is that you arrived at your knowledge by studies, not by revelation or prayer.


This is one of the thing I find absolutely stupid for anyone to say. 10 people can pray and have a revelation about 10 different and contradictory things. Which of the 10 is right? God revealed Himself through His Word, and it is through knowing and studying His Word that I have come to know Him. If you want to know Yahowah then knowledge gained by studying leading to understanding is the only way. We can both sit here all day and say, “I prayed and God revealed this to me...” And be saying completely different things and get nowhere. It is only with evidence, reason and study that anything can be known for sure.

Quote:
You came to it by the assertions of a False Teacher and not by going to the bible itself.


Actually I came to it through a deep, meaningful, and personal study of Yahowah’s Word. You are the one who has come to your understandings by way of a teacher. You are the one reliant upon man for your understanding.

Quote:
Again Repent James.

Thankyou for trying to reach out to me, but I dont agree and i wont agree. I believe my bible.


I was not trying to get you to agree. I was trying to get you to think for yourself, something you are uncomfortable doing. And that is fine. You are free to live the life of ignorance that the vast majority of mankind has choosen. After all as Yahowsha said the path to death and destruction is wide and popular and many there are which will find it. The path to eternal life is narrow, restricting and unpopular and few there are which will find it. You have chosen the path of Christianity, the most popular religion to ever exist, and when you will find death at the end of it.


Matthew I will end by stating two things which I am sure you will find as a compliment, even if that is not how they are intended. You devotion to your religion and your faith is strong and unshakable, nothing I say or do will ever change that. So let this be our last communication because I have better things to occupy my time then talking to a wall.


James

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#594 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2016 7:28:23 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
M wrote:
Thank-You again for taking the time to try to reply to me Mr. Bowen. I will try to reply to you just as you did by quotations, it is a good way of formating text.

In order I quote..
“I don’t know who all wrote you so I can’t speak for them, yes both Larry and Yada were once Christians. Personally I was an agnostic/atheist most of my life. But really neither my background or theirs has any merit or any bearing on the discussion.”

Thank-You for sharing that with me.

“And that is your choice. I was hoping that my email might get you to question the validity of translations and the translators, but that is all I can do. I find this statement particularly ironic considering your very next line:”

I have questioned such things James. In past time I would only use the King James Version of the bible, after being exposed to more information I discovered how unreasonable the position is, and chose to abandon it, seeing that it is a translation and translations are by no means perfect as they are done by men. I understand this.

I myself have never delved too deep into the text/manuscripts, besides the brief checking of the Greek and Hebrew of some words underlining translations mainly because I am not qualified, learned and able to do more than that.

And i will not lie as i have put my trust in men with regards to Translations, only because I'm not qualified in such a field.
Even if i was to teach myself Hebrew or Greek, unless i was to go through formal learning of such a field i would not trust my abilities, I have no one to correct or revise my work or oversee it. Its why I trust translations also, such things are overseen by many learned men of the field, and are checked back and forth.

To put it plainly, I trust a translator to translate a word correctly and appropriately just as I trust a Doctor to diagnose whatever aliments i may be suffering with, or a surgeon to perform a life threatening surgery. God forbid I trust someone self taught as a doctor with minimum experience or someone who has self taught themselves surgery.

Formal Qualifications are important because they are rigorous.

(I skipped over one of your paragraphs mainly due to not having much to say or reply)

“Well I could have stated that the University in question was Liberty University, the head of the University was Jerry Falwell, who was at the time a close friend of Yada’s, but since it is impossible to provide evidence of a personal meeting two friends had over a decade ago I didn’t think it mattered because you would dismiss it anyways. But really would it even matter to you if I could prove it. If I had a video of the event would that actually make you question? The answer is no. You are so religiously devoted to the lies that all the evidence in the world would not sway you one bit. When like you one is reliant on faith and belief then evidence and reason mean nothing, logic is tossed out the window. Faith and belief are required when there is no evidence, I find knowing and understanding far superior.”

Thank-You for the clarification, I believe your report in relation to them being friends and such. No video needed.
Well it may have made me think more deeply on the subject seeing someone qualified state such a thing.

Faith and Belief is all that children have, little children need no evidence, most of those who have not seen the Lord and believed in him did not need evidence. Evidence and proof are only needed for those who are like Thomas, who doubt without seeing. Those who do not see and believe are blessed. I hope you understand the point im trying to make here.

“As I said I came from being an agnostic, faith was something I have never been capable of. In fact I envied those with faith, I wished I could be there, but my rational mind was incapable of accepting that which I could not prove. I would look at my friend and family who were religious and wish that I could accept it like they had and not question everything, but that was not how I am built. I don’t know what modern innovations you are speaking of, unless you mean the dictionaries, lexicons, grammatical, and interlinears that I mentioned, which again brings us back to the irony since those are places where evidence and facts are presented. As for a False Teacher, while I consider Yada a good and close friend I do not consider him a teacher. In fact I do not rely at all on him or his writings for teaching. I translate and study Yah’s Towrah on my own. Yada was able to get my interest initially and has encouraged me on the way, but beyond that I am where I am through my own hard work and study, and the guidance of Yah’s spirit. In fact there are many things which Yada and I differ on and have had very spirited debates over.”

Thank-You for sharing these personal things with me, I dont have much to say in regards to it. But Thank-You for the insight.

“The word of Yahowah is true, but translations are strictly man made affairs. Yahowah is not guiding the translator’s hands as they go. Anyone could put out anything and call it a translation, there are literally hundreds of English translations out there. Which is the right one? The only way to know for sure is to verify for yourself.”

In past time from my knowledge the LXX or the translation of the 70-72 was said to have been inspired, it being a greek translation. I cannot say such things for modern day translations but what I can say is that uniformity exists among literal translations I have seen besides some variation. Then again you will bring up familiarity sells. I dont believe that to driving force for why they are in most places the same. I think its because the committees themselves are actually translating the words correctly.

“So it is heresy to say that man has corrupted Yah’s Word. Yahowah told us that this would happen, in fact it is the very first error in the Garden. The serpent corrupted God’s word, and then Chawah added to and corrupted Yah’s word. Since at this point all you know of me is that I do not trust man’s translations, that was the entirety of my email, you condemn me for not trusting man.”

That is not where the heresy lies, I believe many people have corrupted the Word Of God through the century's. Im pretty sure the early church fathers attest to heretics changing the texts and putting them forth. And im pretty sure it happens with some modern translations if you can even call them such a thing, which are used today. The Joseph Smith Translation being one gross corruption of the Word Of God. The New World Translation another, The Message Bible, The Amplified Bible, The Way/The Living Bible. Many people have added to the Word of God to support their own agendas or for the purpose of earning money. Other translations such assertions cannot be made, The bibles leading up to the King James Version to my knowledge were done for the purpose of having the Word of God and spreading it in english for the layman, believers and for churches.

“I don’t believe in any Jesus Christ. For starters I don’t believe in anything. I know and I understand based on evidence, facts and reason. Belief is irrelevant to me. Second there is no Jesus. His name was Yahowsha, names do not change in translation. Barak Obama travels all over the world and speaks to people in many, many languages, yet his name is always Barak Obama. Osama Bin Laden is Osama Bin Laden in English, Arabic, French, Spanish etc. Why is it Yahowsha is the only name we claim differs in another language? And how do you get Jesus from Yahowsha? Do know? You call on this name for salvation, but do even know where it comes from? Do you know that it didn’t show in any English bible until the 3rd Edition of the King James? Do you know that there was no J in any language at the time when he walked the earth? In fact there was no J in any language until the 1600s. Of course all of this evidence that his name could not possibly have been Jesus will mean nothing to you because you have faith and believe.”

Names have and do change in translation James. I know you have knowledge of this. I'll put an example.

Moses as we know him is in Hebrew tongue Moshe or Moshe right? And in Greek it is Mōusēs, in Arabic it is Musa.

Its does not change the person James. Its just a different language. Another example, my name in Italian is Matteo, I used to go by that name at times. Its just the italian form of my name.

You can use the original form of his name it it be so. But you cannot degrade another person for speaking the name in their own tongue.

And yes I`ve heard about the whole letter J issue. Im yet to research it though, I expect it to be overhyped claims again seeing most people who mention it tend to be apart of cults (not refering to you seeing as you seem to be a freethinker). The letter J just replaced the letter I right? And was prounced like a Y.

Something for you to think about though, which may change your mind on the whole name issue.

Revelation 9:1

They have as king over them the angel of the abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.

“Let’s talk a little about Christ. Did you know that like Jesus, Christ does not show up once in any of the 1-3rdcentury manuscripts? Did you know that universally a placeholder was used to convey these Hebrew words, they were not translated into Greek? Did you know, furthermore, that Maseyah (corrupted to Messiah) is never once used as a title in all of the Hebrew text? That It is presented as an adjective every time it is used? As an adjective it should never have been transliterated, but rather translated.”

I had no knowledge in that his name was not used at all no, but I have heard of place holders.. if what you mean by place holders are abbreviations such as the nomina sacra and the tetragramtron replaced with ΙΑΩ on LXX manuscripts. Though I did not know that they were always used to convey hebrew words.
I havent looked into the corruption of the word Messiah, a verse in John comes to mind though.

John 1:41

He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah!" (which is translated Christ).

REPLY CONTINUED IN NEXT EMAIL

“Did you know that the historic evidence shows that the early followers referred to him not as christos, the basis of Christ, but as chrestus? And that early followers were never called Christians, but rather chrestucians? But I digress, again I know facts and evidence mean nothing to you.”

I have heard of this before, I have not looked into it yet but yes I‘ve heard of it. I think Tacitus, Suetonius and Tertullian (If im not wrong) mention it in such a manner with a variation of spelling, not exactly like you spelled it though, chrestucians though I defiantly dont remember seeing that variant.
Like I said though I still need to recheck and study it. I only have surface level knowledge on these things though, im yet to actually look into it and study it myself.

“Really can you cite a single verse that says this?”

Daniel 12:1-2

Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake--some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

This is just one of the many verses in the bible. Jesus himself mentions Hell very often.

“WOW. Well first off I was circumcised at birth so I had no say in it, but that said heretical, really? So it is heretical to listen to what God said? It’s heretical to follow through on God’s instructions and advice? It just so happens that circumcision is a subject I have dedicated A LOT of time to studying. I have examined in detail every single mention of the word throughout Scripture. I am currently working on compiling all of my study into a single document. If you view circumcision as heretical then you have swallowed Paul’s poison. First let me ask you this, do you find anyone anywhere in Scripture other than Paul condemning circumcision? Or better yet do you ever see God condemn circumcision? Have you ever examined what God has to say on the issue, not your church’s doctrine, not the opinions of man, but God? God only ever speaks of it as a necessary thing. In fact every single time God mentions the uncircumcised it is in a derogatory way.”

That is completely different. Many have been circumcised at birth and yes Jamss I believe it is heretical. Seeing that the Book Of Acts records what the requirements of new Gentile Believers are.

Acts 15:5

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to commandthem to keep the law of Moses.

This event was followed by a Council which was held at Jerusalem, the end outcome being mentioned in a letter delivered to them which stated.

Acts 15:28-29

For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.

James I did not just base my belief on Paul. And that is great, i wish you well with those studies.

And it has nothing to do with the beliefs of men or church doctrines. I believe the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit Of God, through the Apostle Peter Gods will shone forth as a light, and the truth regarding gentiles and their requirements also. God has spoken on this in front of a multitude of Jewish believers at Jerusalem.

I'm sure he does. Im more than sure he viewed Gentiles in such a way also, seeing as his Son/My Lord referred Gentiles as dogs before his work on the cross was completed and before he was resurrected from the dead. Peter also looked upon gentiles as unclean, as the Book Of Acts records the event, but God himself spoke to Peter in a vision to not call what he has made clean, unclean.

I find no need to reply to the other comments which you made because i don't have much to say.

But I urge you to read the full context of The Lords Speech regarding the strait and narrow gate, Apostle Paul adds to it very well.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5

For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Revelation 22:14-15

Blessed are those who wash their robes so they can have access to the tree of life and can enter into the city by the gates.Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood!

--
Again I Thank-You for your time James and your correspondence. My faith is something I hold on to dearly, the warnings in the New Testament books about departing from truth are very serious. Eternity being the thing in jeopardy, eternal darkness and unquenchable fire as a punishment also.

I hope you look into things more too, as I will, im constantly learning but not to disprove the Truth but to grow in it, I wont approach the Word of God, Lord willing as would a skeptic, I urge you to Pray though, and read the writings of the other Apostles and Disciples and the Gospels, if paul is who you do not trust.

The new testament doesnt revlove around him only.

Peace be to you,
Matthew.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#595 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2016 7:28:47 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)



James wrote:
Quote:
I have questioned such things James. In past time I would only use the King James Version of the bible, after being exposed to more information I discovered how unreasonable the position is, and chose to abandon it, seeing that it is a translation and translations are by no means perfect as they are done by men. I understand this.


So you take several of man’s attempts and pick and choose what to believe from each, based on nothing more then what you like. As opposed to taking the time and checking the translations for yourself.

Quote:
I myself have never delved too deep into the text/manuscripts, besides the brief checking of the Greek and Hebrew of some words underlining translations mainly because I am not qualified, learned and able to do more than that.


What a mistake.

Quote:
And i will not lie as i have put my trust in men with regards to Translations, only because I'm not qualified in such a field.
Even if i was to teach myself Hebrew or Greek, unless i was to go through formal learning of such a field i would not trust my abilities, I have no one to correct or revise my work or oversee it. Its why I trust translations also, such things are overseen by many learned men of the field, and are checked back and forth.


So how do you decide which men to trust. Why trust the translation team of the NIV over that of the NLT or the ISB or any of the other of the alphabet soup translations? What do you do if they differ, how do you decide which is right and which is wrong? You state emphatically that Yada’s are wrong, but provide no evidence other then it disagrees with English bibles, but they differ with each other. “Learned men” what does that mean. These are nothing more than men who have been taught by other men. Yahowah’s name appears 7,000 time in Scripture, these learned men have opted to replace it all 7,000 times with a title of their own creation, LORD, why because of tradition. They care more about tradition then they do about truth, as I pointed out in my first email the translation teams admit that they seek to stay as close to traditional translations as possible.

Quote:
To put it plainly, I trust a translator to translate a word correctly and appropriately just as I trust a Doctor to diagnose whatever aliments i may be suffering with, or a surgeon to perform a life threatening surgery. God forbid I trust someone self taught as a doctor with minimum experience or someone who has self taught themselves surgery.


And how do you suppose the first doctors and surgeons learned their craft? They didn’t have men to teach them, they didn’t have degrees and credentials. They figured it out for themselves as they went. I freely admit my translations are flawed, I am constantly learning and revising them, as is Yada and numerous others I know have went down this path. But if I look up a word and 6 Hebrew dictionaries give its definition as one thing, and the translators say it is another I don’t need an expert to tell me that the translations are wrong. Dictionaries by the way are compiled by experts, so if the dictionaries say one thing and the translators say another which expert do you trust?

Quote:
Formal Qualifications are important because they are rigorous.


That is debatable, and variable. I have a degree in Computer Science, I am qualified as a computer programmer. I know many, many people in my field who are far better at programing then I who have never taken a single class. They are self-taught. And programing is learning a new language. So why are these people without degrees better at programing then me, simple while I was in school learning traditional programing styles and rules they were actually working hands on with it themselves and didn’t have the baggage of tradition to weigh them down.



The same is true for many fields. You can spend 4 years in automotive school and still not be able to work on a car as well as someone who spent the same four years as a mechanic.



Trusting someone’s translation when you know nothing of the language is a lot like taking your car to the mechanic when you know nothing about cars, you cross your fingers and hope you don’t get screwed.

Quote:
Faith and Belief is all that children have, little children need no evidence, most of those who have not seen the Lord and believed in him did not need evidence. Evidence and proof are only needed for those who are like Thomas, who doubt without seeing. Those who do not see and believe are blessed. I hope you understand the point im trying to make here.


Do you have children? Have you ever been around a child? What is the most frequent question asked by a child? WHY? Daddy, why is the sky blue? Daddy why can’t I have this toy? Daddy why can’t we eat ice cream for dinner? Because it’s bad for you. Why is bad for you? Because it’s got lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you. Why is sugar bad for you? And on and on. Children question everything because that is how they grow and understand. That is how we grow and understand. Faith is for fools. Faith exists for two types of people the ignorant and the irrational. And your faith isn’t even based on a lack of proof it’s exists despite proof to the contrary, that makes you intentionally ignorant and exceedingly irrational.

Quote:
In past time from my knowledge the LXX or the translation of the 70-72 was said to have been inspired, it being a greek translation. I cannot say such things for modern day translations but what I can say is that uniformity exists among literal translations I have seen besides some variation. Then again you will bring up familiarity sells. I dont believe that to driving force for why they are in most places the same. I think its because the committees themselves are actually translating the words correctly.


And you think this despite the evidence to the contrary. No translation is inspired, no man to be trusted. And yes there is little variation, but rather than believe that it is because these men were trustworthy and correct why not verify it for yourself, and not put your faith in the most unreliable of creatures, man.

Quote:
That is not where the heresy lies, I believe many people have corrupted the Word Of God through the century's. Im pretty sure the early church fathers attest to heretics changing the texts and putting them forth. And im pretty sure it happens with some modern translations if you can even call them such a thing, which are used today. The Joseph Smith Translation being one gross corruption of the Word Of God. The New World Translation another, The Message Bible, The Amplified Bible, The Way/The Living Bible. Many people have added to the Word of God to support their own agendas or for the purpose of earning money. Other translations such assertions cannot be made, The bibles leading up to the King James Version to my knowledge were done for the purpose of having the Word of God and spreading it in english for the layman, believers and for churches.


WOW, then your knowledge as it relates to the lead up of the KJV is sorely lacking. The sole and stated purpose of the KJV was to revise the Geneva Bible, and for a fact it was not a new translation but a revision. Why revise the Geneva Bible, which was the most popular English bible of the time, simple because it asserted in its margin notes that there was no divine mandate for Kings to rule, and King Iames, which was his name there was no J it wasn’t the King James bible until it’s 3rd edition, didn’t like that. So he authorized a team to revise it so that it would assert his divine right. But even the Geneva Bible wasn’t a new translation, but a revision of a revision, of a revision of a revision of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was itself nothing more than a compiling of old Latin manuscripts which were translated from Greek. But I am sure you will choose not to believe this either and you are far too lazy or afraid to do the research to verify it for yourself.

Quote:
Names have and do change in translation James. I know you have knowledge of this. I'll put an example.

Moses as we know him is in Hebrew tongue Moshe or Moshe right? And in Greek it is Mōusēs, in Arabic it is Musa.

Its does not change the person James. Its just a different language. Another example, my name in Italian is Matteo, I used to go by that name at times. Its just the italian form of my name.

You can use the original form of his name it it be so. But you cannot degrade another person for speaking the name in their own tongue.


These are all examples of how names get corrupted, but that does not change the name. His name was Moshe, Moshe is impossible to transliterate into Greek (the language does not have the sounds to spell it out) which is why an attempt to transliterate it into Greek yields a corrupted form of the name. Which is where the real ridiculousness of our English translations comes in because we get Moses in English by transliterating it from the Latin which transliterated it from the Greek rather than the Hebrew. English translators knew that names should ALWAYS be transliterated between languages, but didn’t have any Hebrew scripts to translate from. Wycliffe did the first English translations using nothing but the Latin Vulgate, and everything since has been a revision of his initial translations keeping all the Greek-Latin corruptions of the name.


But let me ask you this, if Jesus is the same as Yahowsha how some when there is another Yahowsha in Scripture it is not presented as Jesus, but rather Joshua?


Yahowsha could not be transliterated into Greek, the language lacked the necessary letters to do so, which is why in all of the 1-3rd century manuscripts a placeholder is used. The same is true for Yahowah’s name in the oldest Greek translations they literally just wrote it in Hebrew because they could not properly transliterate it into Greek.


So no Jesus is not his name, and his name is important, his name matters. Yahowah choose his name for a reason, don’t you think we should at least consider it, rather than corrupt it. Yahowsha means something and Jesus is meaningless.

Quote:
And yes I`ve heard about the whole letter J issue. Im yet to research it though, I expect it to be overhyped claims again seeing most people who mention it tend to be apart of cults (not refering to you seeing as you seem to be a freethinker). The letter J just replaced the letter I right? And was prounced like a Y.


It’s easily verifiable just spend a little time. But yes I was changed to J so King Iames became James and what was initially Iesus became Jesus.

Quote:
Something for you to think about though, which may change your mind on the whole name issue.

Revelation 9:1

They have as king over them the angel of the abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.


Actually if you examine the Greek it says his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek they have called him Apollyon.


The translation you are quoting choose for some reason not to translate echo/have.

Quote:
I had no knowledge in that his name was not used at all no, but I have heard of place holders.. if what you mean by place holders are abbreviations such as the nomina sacra and the tetragramtron replaced with ΙΑΩ on LXX manuscripts. Though I did not know that they were always used to convey hebrew words.
I havent looked into the corruption of the word Messiah, a verse in John comes to mind though.

John 1:41

He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah!" (which is translated Christ).



Actually in that verse the Greek word written in the modern text is not Christos, the basis of Christ, but Messias. So for a translator to put Christ there is dishonest and errant. But as matter of fact in P66 and P75 the two oldest manuscripts containg the verse, a placeholder was used.

Quote:
Daniel 12:1-2

Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake--some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.


Note that it says many, not all. Meaning there is not just everlasting life and everlasting abhorrence, there is a third possibility, death is the end.

Quote:
Acts 15:5

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to commandthem to keep the law of Moses.

This event was followed by a Council which was held at Jerusalem, the end outcome being mentioned in a letter delivered to them which stated.

Acts 15:28-29

For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.

James I did not just base my belief on Paul. And that is great, i wish you well with those studies.

And it has nothing to do with the beliefs of men or church doctrines. I believe the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit Of God, through the Apostle Peter Gods will shone forth as a light, and the truth regarding gentiles and their requirements also. God has spoken on this in front of a multitude of Jewish believers at Jerusalem.

I'm sure he does. Im more than sure he viewed Gentiles in such a way also, seeing as his Son/My Lord referred Gentiles as dogs before his work on the cross was completed and before he was resurrected from the dead. Peter also looked upon gentiles as unclean, as the Book Of Acts records the event, but God himself spoke to Peter in a vision to not call what he has made clean, unclean.


Okay let’s start with this doesn’t answer my question. No one here is condemning circumcision or saying that it is heretical to get yourself circumcised. This is merely a group of men saying that they will not place anymore of a burden. It doesn’t condemn those who do get circumcised and it doesn’t say not to either.


Also if you go back to one of the verses you skipped over, 19-21, you have Shimown that this is only from them, and the books of Moshe are freely available in every city and read from every Sabbath. In other words hw was saying they don’t need to listen to us for what to do the Towrah is available to them, so here are a few starting guides, now go study.

Quote:
I find no need to reply to the other comments which you made because i don't have much to say.

But I urge you to read the full context of The Lords Speech regarding the strait and narrow gate, Apostle Paul adds to it very well.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5

For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.


“Apostle” Paul loved to add to Yah’s word, it didn’t work out to well for Adam and Chawah when they added to Yah’s Word so I think I will refrain from doing that or listening to those that do.

Quote:
Revelation 22:14-15

Blessed are those who wash their robes so they can have access to the tree of life and can enter into the city by the gates.Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood!


Idolaters, you mean like those who hang crosses and statuary to saints all over their churches and homes? Or those that practice falsehood like believing in a God who died? Or the capricious God who changes his mind?

Quote:
Again I Thank-You for your time James and your correspondence. My faith is something I hold on to dearly, the warnings in the New Testament books about departing from truth are very serious. Eternity being the thing in jeopardy, eternal darkness and unquenchable fire as a punishment also.


Yup the old two edged sword of faith and salvation. It’s this contrivance of religion which damns so many. Questioning becomes a damnable offense when faith is the basis of salvation. The blind lead the blind. The irrational lead the iggnorant.

Quote:
I hope you look into things more too, as I will, im constantly learning but not to disprove the Truth but to grow in it, I wont approach the Word of God, Lord willing as would a skeptic, I urge you to Pray though, and read the writings of the other Apostles and Disciples and the Gospels, if paul is who you do not trust.

The new testament doesnt revlove around him only.


I seek to know Truth, and I go where the evidence leads me. The evidence shows that your truth is a lie, but you are immune to facts and reason. As for the “New Testament” I don’t dismiss it all, in fact have studied quite a bit, but I am extremely careful when doing so, and only trust it so far as it is in accord with the Towrah. Yahowah gave us a test in Dabariym/Deuteronomy chapter 18 I apply that to everything including the Greek text.



This will be the last email you receive from me. I have invested several hours into replies that will do you no good, and will not waste any more time.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Bubsy  
#596 Posted : Monday, August 8, 2016 5:10:25 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 108
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Quote:
The fallacy is Argumentum Ad Populum. The fallacious argument claims to be true because many or most people say it, write it, or believe it.


And we see refutations of Argumentum Ad Populum all the time in the markets. Whenever a position in any market gets overwhelmingly popular, it's primed to reverse, making everyone in the popular position wrong (about where that market goes from there). So when I hear "10,000 Seminarians can't all be wrong", or "1.5 billion Christians can't all be wrong", or "1.2 billion Muslims can't all be wrong", or "the 98% betting on the Dow to continue rallying can't all be wrong", uhhhh, yes, they CAN all be wrong. I see it all the time.
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
Offline James  
#597 Posted : Friday, October 7, 2016 6:27:00 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
SH wrote:
Good morning,
I need some help with Kippurym/Reconciliations. I think I am missing something with this invitation from Yahowah. I have read in Yada Yah and listened to your broadcast about this day but are we suppose to fast? Am I misunderstanding the translation because I have taken your advise and looked up the Hebrew words in my lexicon and I do not see where we are suppose to fast but I have a friend who says we are required to fast so we can be closer to Yahowah as whenever the prophets fasted they received an answer from Yahowah. It just doesn't make since to me that Yah would want his children to starve to be close to him.
Sorry for the long email but this is bothering me and I want to know the truth. Almost done with Intro to God book. It's wonderful, thank you
SH


Yada wrote:
SH,

There is no association of any kind between Kippurym and fasting. Yah does not ask us to fast as part of any instruction regarding this day. That is a religious edict, as is "afflicting" oneself on "Yom Kipper." I suspect that one false notion led to the other. But since I'm not in the business of justifying religious lies, you'll have to ask the religious why they believe that a day which is devoted to reconciling a relationship has Yahowah denying His children nourishment? And if Yah wanted His children to fast on this day, why didn't He say so?

Reconciliations is directed at Yisra'el and Yahuwdah. Those of us who are adopted into Yah's Covenant benefit from Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven. We are then empowered to share what we have come to know on Taruw'ah in anticipation of Reconciliations, and to a time we can all Sukah with Yah.

I celebrate it as an affirmation of His love for His people, for His commitment to the Covenant, to His return, and to a relationship restored.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#598 Posted : Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:15:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
CP wrote:
wah, hawah, sawah, mitswah,chawah, Chawah, qawah, tsawah, awah, ruwah, ta'awah, towah, lawah, luwah, ga'awah, nuwah, gewah, tuwah, shawah, 'awah, sha'awah, nawah, guwah, chywah, shalwah

hawwah, 'anwah, tiqwah, rawah

na'weh

Yahowah, elowah, me'owah, 'aowah, ahowah, (shab'uwah, taruwah, y@shuw`ah)

Hi Yada, I have been copying the Psalms into Hebrew and began to notice a pattern. When I began, I was just using the 2-3 letter root words and saw that everytime the "wah he" was at the end of a word it was written as "wah" (vah in the Strongs) and I began to see that Yahwah was telling me his Name through Dowd. I have come to know that His name is YaWa and His Set-Apart is YaWa sha (YaWa saves). I began to copy the Psalms because I wanted to see Dowd's heart and why YaWa loved his heart so much.

I have wanted to ask you about this for a long time, and this week I went through all "Yada Yah" and found all the times you used "wah" and not "owah" when the "wah he" was at the end of a word. The first list of words are from "Yada Yah", the second line are some others I found when I was copying Psalms (not exhaustive, but I had begun to highlight them after a while). The 3rd line from my copying, and the 4th line from "Yada Yah" when you wrote "owah."

Thinking about our English language and how we have done everything possible to hide the wah with our double u (w) and the ya/yah with our why (y) (what words even have a double u or a why sound!!). There doesn't seem to be ryhme or reason for pronouncing Yah's name with the "owah" and you don't even pronounce it as Yah Ow ah though all your books say you do. YaWa's name is actually the simpliest of names to pronounce. Yah-his nickname and the letter associated with most of the important people in Scripture and wah the most prolific letter used as "and". The hey's are not pronouced-I think they represent his children who are called by His Name.

Then I began pronouncing Yah Ow sha as YaWa sha (he came in His Father's name). What do you think?


Yada wrote:
Carol,

Nice note. It's thoughtful, well researched and friendly.

Yes, there are many Hebrew words were the lexicons combine the vowels wah and hey to make make the consonant-vowel sound "wah." But these are words where using the Shava / Showa system of confusion rabbis developed, they could have deliberately altered the pronunciation of the wah, just as they sought to do in Yahowah's name.

While I will share my thoughts, before I do, I plead Moseh. I am a flawed linguist. Proper pronunciation is one of my most glaring faults. So I am not the right person with whom to have this debate. I do not have the skill set to engage effectively. I can read Hebrew but I cannot speak Hebrew.

My issue with the consonant pronunciation of the wah is the scores of Hebrew names like Yow'el, Yowb, and Yownah which are a compound beginning with Yahow. Where did the "o" come from if not from the w. Then there is also the issue of towrah, shalowm, 'elowah, and gowym, the most often repeated Hebrew words, all of which derive the "o" sound from the w. Then there is also the "Joshua" legacy of Yahowsha', and "Yahoo" from Yahuwdah.

I agree with some of the examples in your wah hey pattern, many of which are especially meaningful (ruwach does not end with a hey and the wah appears to be the source of the initial vowel in towrah). The pattern you have found requires thoughtfulness and constraint.

You may have noticed that I'm seldom if ever emphatic about the proper pronunciation of the wah as "ow" in Yahowah because while I think the evidence in mostly in favor of it, there exceptions. Some 20% of the time the wah is either pronounced as a consonant or as a u.

I rather like the sound of Yahwah. I like Yah too. But then I also enjoy the sound of Yahowah, towrah, and shalowm.

You may be right. We could both be right. I could be wrong.

But, YHWH is either Yahowah, Yahuwah, or Yahwah, making the difference between us relatively small. The big issue is His name, knowing His name, using His name, relying on His name, speaking in His name. If the issue was properly pronouncing His name, Moseh would not have been chosen and I would be unemployed.

No matter who is right or wrong currently on the pronunciation of the wah, within 10 years we will say it perfectly. And while I am certain that either Yahowah / Yahuwah / or Yahwah is the proper pronunciation of Yah's name, between now and the time we know which one is Yah's preference the risk associated with potentially mispronouncing it is infinitesimal compared to the consequence of not proclaiming it.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#599 Posted : Friday, October 14, 2016 8:32:48 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
F wrote:
Yada,

Have you ever seen this teaching on the Ancient Hebrew?

It ids done on a YouTube video.

F

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOfg8R3Ngvs



Yada wrote:
Frank,

I think I'd rather be whipped than listen to any more of this. Too many irrational, ignorant, and inappropriate arguments.

He is not using the original script, and that's a HUGE issue, but instead a much later variation of it. Also, there is no evidence that Hebrew is spoken significantly differently today than it was 3000 years ago. The Masoretes only altered certain combinations of the H and W for obvious reasons pertaining to Yahowah's name. He does not seem to understand that there have always been five vowels in Hebrew, even since the time of Moseh, and that they existed long before the script he is using. So his argument is against an 11th century alteration, not against the old lettering system. Just because the letters changed shape, does not infer that they changed pronunciation or meaning.

His argument that there were no vowels at Moseh's time is invalid. So this is painful to listen to. I'm fully 20 minutes into this, and have learned nothing and so I'm wondering when he says something useful. His lecture on the dots on the W only shows that it was always a vowel.

There is only one example of DWYD, all others, and there are many hundreds of them, are just DWD. So that's a lame argument.

He also states that God is not only a name, but Satan's name and that is nonsense.

The black Moses image should be more than enough to disregard this guy. He's part of the group that claims that blacks are the true jews.

So if he actually makes a valid point, please let me know the time in the video and I'll listen to it. But at 20 minutes I'm only 15% of the way through this.

Yada


Yada wrote:
Yada,

I came to the same conclusion but had not heard of such teaching, Just wondering what your take was.
Sorry to have you experience the whipping of the tongue of the black guy.
I am sure it made welts, good thing Dad and Mom have healing salve of the Towrah.

F


Yada wrote:
F,

The black jew movement is one of the worst at promoting half truths. Larry fights them all the time. It is based upon race, but even then the wrong race.

His arguments against the Masoretes were extrapolated beyond what is appropriate and he does not understand that five of the 22 letters have always been vowels. The notion that we may be pronouncing the letters inaccurately is probably true, but his system for resolving that issue isn't valid.

It's not how the words sound that matters. What matters is what the words mean.

Yada

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#600 Posted : Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:51:18 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
R wrote:
About Ron Wyatt's mental disposition.
I have a hard time believing that Yah would choose, pick, let, a man who who clearly had no clue about the true of the matter of the Moed Miquery....
I watched all of his media many times...I just want to understand why Yah would allow a man who uses the term "christ", " jesus", in refrence to our Father, to reafirm our... ( covenant families ) understanding?


Yada wrote:
What makes you think that Yah used Ron Wyatt?

What I see is that Yah did not help him but did not hinder him either - at least until the end. Ron was operating on his own freewill. And Yah would not and could not hinder his or anyone's search for the truth - especially regarding Him and His testimony.

Ron was devoted to finding evidence for the things depicted in the Towrah. His approach was reasonable so he found the location of Noah's Ark, and the location of Sodom, the site of the crossing of the Red Sea, and the location of Mount Horeb. Each adventure was so full of tragedy, there is no indication that I can see that Yah aided or protected him while doing so. (As a Christian, however, Ron saw setbacks as the hand of God, but as we know, that does not make it so.)

Clearly, Yah had no role in promoting what Ron found. Ron not only isn't given any credit for finding any of these things, he is either completely ignored or resoundingly criticized by his former associates and rivals. If anything, he's considered a kook. I, however, look at him like a lexicon. So long as you filter out the religious mumbo jumbo, there is a lot you can learn from them.

As for the Ark of the Covenant, I see it the same way. He found it, but almost no one apart from the Covenant Family knows about it. His own family has tried to disassociate him from it. He has no pictures, no evidence, and no credible testimony. The mal'ak prevented Ron from removing anything or from validating his claims. So in this case, Yah precluded Ron from revealing it in a credible way.

I suspect it was because of your concerns. Ron did not speak Yah's language and so Yah was expressly excluded from partnering with him. But based upon what Ron has said about the mal'ak, especially since it is all contrary to Christianity, there is every reason to see it as affirming of what we know to be true in the Towrah, Naby', wa Mizmowr. I think that is why the room was cleared out for him to see. Yah wants us to see His plan. This is the same approach I take to the testimony of Mattanyah. That which is opposed to Christianity and consistent with the Towarh is likely true.

Ron's target audience consistently rejects his findings because they are so contrary to their religion. If I had not met with his wife prior to the time his associate started publicly disavowing his discovery of the Ark of the Covenant, I wouldn't have made the correlations either. The fact that the Tablets are going to be revealed expressly to condemn the Sunday Law is a case in point.

So I don't think Yah used Ron. With exception of the Ark of the Covenant where He was restricting him, Yah was entirely hands off. I was in Nashville because I was escorting my son to Vanderbilt and wanted to see his museum while I was close by. So you can read that as I was rewarded for being observant or Yah's hand enabled us to benefit from what Ron found. No one else has grown from it. But we have found wonderful affirmations of the Towrah and have gained greater understanding as a result of what we have gleaned from his unique and dirty "lexicons." What Ron found only makes sense when viewed from Yah's Towrah perspective.

That said, in Ron's last article, the one no longer published on the Ark of the Covenant finding, he put it all together for the first time. He spoke of the fulfillment of Passover and why the blood was on the Mercy Seat. He finally saw the fulfillment of the Towrah and Covenant. He may have privately accepted Yah's offer just before his death. I hope so.

Ron was a good man diligently seeking the truth. He found it. The only question is whether or not he ever made the connections needed to understand what he had found.

The scribes at Qumran were not used by Yah, but nonetheless we have benefited from what they chose to do with their lives. We just have to reject all of their religious material, of which there is a great deal, and then focus on what verifies the truth.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 11/4/2016(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
14 Pages«<1011121314>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.