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

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#51 Posted : Friday, December 9, 2011 12:17:40 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
bigritchie wrote:
I would simply encourage people to direct their worship towards the Creator and not Jesus (as Jesus himself told his followers and made clear)


With the exception of I don't like the word worship, but I'm betting you don't mean it in the religious sense, I think we can all agree on this.

Yahowah should be our focus, just as our focus should be on the Towrah and not the Greek text. It's like Yada has said, the christian focus on Jesus/Yahowsha is like focusing on God's toenail instead of on Him.
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 Hizikyah  
#52 Posted : Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:56:46 AM(UTC)
Hizikyah
Joined: 8/22/2013(UTC)
Posts: 16

I believe Yahweh is the creator, Yahshua a man born a man was the Messiah and is the firstfruit to Yahweh and now High Priest, and the Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh, is the charicter of Yahweh, His traits, His instructions, His Law, if you have Yahweh's instructions in your heart, the Spirit will come upon you when faced with evil so you may avoid it and overcome it, as so many did in the Law and the Prophets (OT).

This is not the version I read I just using to illustrate,

Phillipans 2:5-6, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

First it is telling me I should make myself equal with the Creator of all that is? NO NEVER! Butthats not really my point, compare that verse to this next one:

John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

So according to Yahshua He is not equal with Yahweh, so both verses can't be true. The version I use a my base (knowing no english version is 100% accurate)

Phillipans 2:5-6, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Yahshua Messiah, Who, being in the form of Yahweh, did not think it was something to be seized upon to be equal with Yahweh."

Yahchanan 14:28, "You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

With that in place, the next part of why I don't believe Yahshua pre-existed:

John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Exodus 3:14, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

However, we know Yahweh is not the "I AM", He is Yahweh. So read from a non-forged version, it would mean nothing if Yahshua siad "I AM"

Yahchanan 8:58, "Yahshua said to them; Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham has risen, I will be."

Exodus 3:14, "Then Yahweh said to Mosheh: I am Who I am. And He said: This is what you are to say to the children of Israyl; YAHWEH has sent me to you."

The trinity scripture in 1 Yahchanan was certainly added around the 4th century, so certainly is is a lie, meant to justify thier pagan takeover.

P.S. Adonai means Lord/Baal, and even Elohim, El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon, in which Baal was his son. Lord,God,Adonai,Elohim are not Yahweh, they are titles fo the adversary.

Offline Richard  
#53 Posted : Friday, August 23, 2013 10:21:59 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Hizikyah wrote:
I believe Yahweh is the creator, Yahshua a man born a man was the Messiah and is the firstfruit to Yahweh and now High Priest, and the Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh, is the charicter of Yahweh, His traits, His instructions, His Law, if you have Yahweh's instructions in your heart, the Spirit will come upon you when faced with evil so you may avoid it and overcome it, as so many did in the Law and the Prophets (OT).

This is not the version I read I just using to illustrate,

Phillipans 2:5-6, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

First it is telling me I should make myself equal with the Creator of all that is? NO NEVER! Butthats not really my point, compare that verse to this next one:

John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

So according to Yahshua He is not equal with Yahweh, so both verses can't be true. The version I use a my base (knowing no english version is 100% accurate)

Phillipans 2:5-6, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Yahshua Messiah, Who, being in the form of Yahweh, did not think it was something to be seized upon to be equal with Yahweh."

Yahchanan 14:28, "You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

With that in place, the next part of why I don't believe Yahshua pre-existed:

John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Exodus 3:14, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

However, we know Yahweh is not the "I AM", He is Yahweh. So read from a non-forged version, it would mean nothing if Yahshua siad "I AM"

Yahchanan 8:58, "Yahshua said to them; Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham has risen, I will be."

Exodus 3:14, "Then Yahweh said to Mosheh: I am Who I am. And He said: This is what you are to say to the children of Israyl; YAHWEH has sent me to you."

The trinity scripture in 1 Yahchanan was certainly added around the 4th century, so certainly is is a lie, meant to justify thier pagan takeover.

P.S. Adonai means Lord/Baal, and even Elohim, El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon, in which Baal was his son. Lord,God,Adonai,Elohim are not Yahweh, they are titles fo the adversary.



Sorry, Hizikyah, but when you reveal that you give credence to The Impostor Paul, you might just as well tell me to ignore everything you have to say.
Offline Hizikyah  
#54 Posted : Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:18:39 AM(UTC)
Hizikyah
Joined: 8/22/2013(UTC)
Posts: 16

While I do think Shaul's writhings were changed, probably bt Catholic Chruch, wh ydo you think Shaul is not of Yahweh? Lead me to the facts and I will study them.
Offline pilgrimhere  
#55 Posted : Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:59:54 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
I hope you are prepared. Asking for facts here can elicit a barrage, especially with regard to Sha'uwl/Paul standing in opposition to Yah. The following does not even scratch the surface but will get you thinking so that you can form your own conclusion.

Who testified to Paul’s conversion other than himself?
Why are his own (3) testimonies inconsistent with each other?
Why does the voice he heard borrow a line from Dionysus (just after escaping from prison chains via an earthquake) in the pagan play, The Bacchae by Euripides – line 795?
How is it that Paul claims to have seen the Son in the wilderness after a stern warning had been given not to believe anyone reporting such a sighting?
Why is that experience inconsistent with any approach God has made to any man but eerily similar to Constantine’s vision?
Why would God’s son choose 12 ordinary men to “teach the nations all I have commanded you” (none of which deviated from Torah) only to change his mind afterward and dramatically recruit one from the “offspring of vipers” to suddenly introduce a religion entirely inconsistent with everything he taught?
How is it that 12 apostles were chosen who will sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes in God’s kingdom when Paul emphatically insists that He is included?
Why was Judas Iscariot’s replacement subject to criteria including participation with their travels from the beginning while Paul’s self-proclaimed apostleship meets no qualifications?
Why is Paul exempted from the criteria for a prophet in Deuteronomy?
Why was Paul rejected by all of Asia where the called-out assembly was commended for recognizing men to be false apostles?
Why do theologians create confusion over the thorn (goad) in Paul’s side when he clearly identified it as a messenger from Satan? (“Angel” is derived from the Greek angelos/aggelos which means messenger and should have been translated as such in all other occurrences rather than transliterated; Hebrew malak is also messenger but errantly translated, “angel” which from Satan would be considered a demon.)

“If your children asked for a fish, would you give them a snake?” Shimon Kefa (aka Simon Peter) among other apostles, was a fisherman, and Sha’ul (Paul) was identified with the “offspring of vipers”. Also, the image of a wolf in sheep’s clothing conveys an apt warning. Imparting blessings upon his sons, Jacob described Benjamin, from whom Paul claims to decend, as "a ravenous wolf." “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees” may also be a relevant warning. The Pharisees loathed God’s Torah and effectively obscured it with their supplemental Talmud in defiance of God’s directions. No prophet ever spoke anything other than praise for Torah including God’s son. The promised prophet and firstborn son of God not only directed people’s attention to Torah, but stated unequivocally that nothing of God’s Torah will be diminished while the earth and sky remain.

Contrast these words:

37 If I do not do the deeds of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them,* even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

with these:

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim a gospel to you contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed!

One is building trust while the other is demanding faith. And this inconsistency with God’s word is reflected throughout Paul’s rhetoric. Even his botched quotes from Torah/Prophets/Writings obscure knowledge.
Offline James  
#56 Posted : Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:11:35 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Hizikyah wrote:
While I do think Shaul's writhings were changed, probably bt Catholic Chruch, wh ydo you think Shaul is not of Yahweh? Lead me to the facts and I will study them.


For a comprehensive understanding read www.questioningpaul.com It's in the process of a major rewrite which is even more condemning of Paul, but what is there now is more than enough.

By way of background Questioning Paul started as a defense of Paul, not an attack. The author set out to show that chrisitan's were misrepresenting Paul when using him to nullify the Towrah. As he worked his way through that became more and more difficult to the point where he was forced to acknowledge that his initial defense of Paul was misplaced, and that the chrisitians were right about Paul's view of the Towrah, and since that view of the Towrah is in conflict with Yah's view of the Towrah, he could no longer support Paul.
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 StevePaige  
#57 Posted : Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:08:25 AM(UTC)
StevePaige
Joined: 10/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Summerville, South Carolina

The 'NT' is not scripture. The copying of texts did not follow the Hebrew system of checks and balances to ensure correctness. The accounts of Yahshua's life and the epistles were written to convey the message that YHWH's promise of a messiah to deliver us from our sin had occurred and that he was now our Righteous Zadok Priest continually doing the work on our behalf for those that live in YHWH's set apart instructions. In no way, shape, or form can we hold the texts of these writings to the Tanakh.

We all need to realize the reach of Catholic influence. Constantine was brutal in his assault of the followers of the Way. His aim was to remove/edit the pertinent documents to conform the message of the writings concerning Yashua as the Messiah to 'christianity' and it's Babylonian heritage. There was no writing that was spared. This is why the Tanakh (which is also a document that has been manipulated, just not to the same degree) is the source for all things concerning YHWH and his plan. Remember the Berean's and be as they were, searching the Scriptures/Tanakh to ensure that what they were told was true. If it was not, they would disregard the message as well as the messenger.

If one does not put in the time to live and breathe the Instructions, Prophets, and writings then one will become lost. One way to ensure a proper understanding is to approach them in prayer with an open and submitted mind/heart. This is the word/plan of YHWH from the beginning. It addresses everything but without prayerful study we will twist it to our destruction.

Peter makes the same point regarding Paul's writings. The hellenized scribes twisted them here and there as well as the other NT writings. This is also true of all of the NT writings. But if we live in the Tanakh and begin to understand what YHWH is showing us, Paul's and the other writings show themselves to be Torah compliant.

A good example is the question of Yahshua and the Word. John was not Greek or Roman but Hebrew. The Hebrew word for WORD is DABAR. According to "A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament" by Julius Furst, page 312:

DABAR
b)command, precept, law, regulation (by words), also taken collectively, e. g. of God 2Sam 12, 9, of a king
e)decree, plan, proposal 2Sam


So we can see above that the word (dabar) of God is his command, precept, law, regulation, decree, plan, or proposal. The word DABAR is what John would have written down and it would have been in a Hebrew sense not in a Greek Hellenized since. In every day speech when we talk about the word of YHWH we mean his word/instructions. John was not some Hellenized Greek philosopher. He was a Hebrew man with Hebrew sensabilities. Which is where the word LOGOS has a problem.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 3, page 1085
Among the systems offering an explanation of the world in terms of the logos, there are the Mystery Religions. These cultic communities did not see their task as lying in the communication of knowledge of a scientific nature, but of mysteries to their initiates who strove for purification in the recurrent enactment of sacred actions. The Foundation for these cultic actions was Sacred Text. Among them were the cults of Dionysus, the Pytha-goreans, and the Orphic Mysteries. By means of these cults, non Greek thought, such as in the Isis-Osiris Mysteries, which Osiris the logos created by Isis is the spiritual image of the world. Similarly in the cult of Hermes, Hermes informed his son Tat in the Sacred Text belonging to the cult, how by God's mercy, he became logos, and thus a son of God. As such, he (Hermes) brought regulation and form into world, but himself remained a mediating being between God and matter, on one side, and God and man on the other. The logos can also, however, appear as the son of Hermes, resulting in a triple (trinity) gradation: God (who is Zeus), Son (Hermes), and LOGOS.


We have to understand that LOGOS is a word that carries with it other ideas that the word DABAR does not.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 7, page 449.
LOGOS (Greek:"word, "reason, or plan"), plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuation structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus…
The identification of Jesus with the logos was further developed in the early church but more on the basis of Greek philosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs.

Let's look at John. A Hebrew who did not put a Greek meaning in his writings:

The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Volume 2 pages 1046-1047.
Many scholars have argued that the apostle John had this philosophical development (of the pagan LOGOS) in the back of his mind when he wrote the prologue to his Gospel and that he actually tried to impart some of these (pagan) concepts. For a long time many have contended that the background of the fourth Gospel was essentially Hellenistic rather than Hebraic. In dealing with such an assertion we may note that studies in the Dead Sea scrolls have tended to confirm the traditional conservative position that the cultural orientation of the Gospel of John was Hebraic.
Moreover, we must observe that John was a simple fisherman from Palestine. …there is no evidence that he imbibed any Greek pagan philosophical orientation in John Chapter 1. If he intended to be philosophical in the first few verses, he certainly was not anywhere else. We may argue that John used the word "logos." in its ordinary meaning.

Even the Encyclopedia Judaica states that most of the NT writing style is Hebraic even though scribles tried to Hellenize the meanings in their Greek translations:

The Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 12, page 1060
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Although the language of the New Testament, in the form that it exists today, is Greek, two earlier influences are still discernible.

(1) THE INFLUENCE OF THE ARAMAIC-HEBREW ORIGINALS. Because most of the authors were Jewish Nazarenes, they spoke, for the most part, Aramaic, and some also mishnaic Hebrew. This influence, which was detectable particularly in the original versions of Mark and Matthew, survives to some degree in their extant Greek versions and in several of the Epistles as well, including James and Jude.
(2) THE SEPTUAGINT. Since this translation was used by many authors, the New Testament contains not only Aramaic words and phrases, which the disciples heard from Jesus and took care to remember out of reverence for their master (e.g. Talitha Kumi (Mark 5:41), Kum, Rabboni, Eli, Eli (Elohi, Elohi) lama sabachthani (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:24)),
but also expressions and phrases which retain their Hebrew flavor although they were transmitted through the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

As noted in the following:

The Interpreter's Dictionary , Volulme 4 pages 870-871
"The word of God" (o logof tou qeou) is used of:
(a) the OT law (cf. Mark 7:13=Matt 15:6, where it is contrasted with the tradition of the Jews);
(b) a particular OT passage (cf. John 10:35, referring to Ps. 82:6);

(c) in a more general sense, God's revealed will, or his whole plan and purpose for mankind (cf. Luke 11:28; Rom. 9:6; Col. 1:25-27, where it is defined as the "mystery hidden for ages and generations but now manifest to his saints..., which is Christ in you"; Heb. 4:12);

And Paul backs this up in 1st Corinthians 1:20-25:

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not Yahweh made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of Yahweh, the world (the Roman Empire) through wisdom did not know Yahweh, it pleased Yahweh through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom (through philosophy);
23 but we preach the Passover sacrifice of Yahshua, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, the Messiah is the power of Yahweh and the wisdom of Yahweh.
25 Because the foolishness of Yahweh is wiser than men, and the weakness of Yahweh is stronger than men.


You cannot begin to stand for or against Paul while not fully understanding the Torah, Prophets and Writings. They, not the NT, are the bedrock of YHWH's plan. It is to them we turn. If one blatantly looks at Paul's writings or anything that backs them up in other NT writings, we all of sudden only have only about 37% of it left. That would be Paul's letters, Luke, Acts, 1st & 2nd Peter, and Hebrews. That is 63% gone.

Again I make the point that the NT is not scripture. It has been doctored by people and groups alike to bend it's readers to the pagan Babylonian religious system perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church and it's protestant (protesting catholics) daughters. But it's Hebraic style and message of Torah observance (if one's mind hasn't become blinded) is there to see.

Steve
Offline cgb2  
#58 Posted : Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:43:06 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Steve, how much of questioningpaul.com have you read?
Offline James  
#59 Posted : Wednesday, August 13, 2014 6:30:18 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Steve wrote:
DABAR
b)command, precept, law, regulation (by words), also taken collectively, e. g. of God 2Sam 12, 9, of a king
e)decree, plan, proposal 2Sam

So we can see above that the word (dabar) of God is his command, precept, law, regulation, decree, plan, or proposal. The word DABAR is what John would have written down and it would have been in a Hebrew sense not in a Greek Hellenized since. In every day speech when we talk about the word of YHWH we mean his word/instructions. John was not some Hellenized Greek philosopher. He was a Hebrew man with Hebrew sensabilities. Which is where the word LOGOS has a problem.


Okay I am not going to address anything else you wrote here right now, but this one is something that is just blatantly wrong.
Dabar does not mean command, precept, law or regulation. I don’t know where you got that from at all.
Dictionary of Biblical Languages wrote:
1821 דָּבָר (dā•ḇār): n.masc.; ≡ Str 1697; TWOT 399a—1. LN 33.69–33.108 statement, what is said, word, saying, message, communication, i.e., that which has been stated or said (Nu 23:5), note: for MT text in Ps 119:37, see 2006; 2. LN 33.69–33.108 speaking, i.e., the act. of speaking (Da 10:9); 3. LN 33.69–33.108 account, treatise, record, i.e., a formally rendering of an event in a systematic manner (2Sa 11:8); 4. LN 13.104–13.163 happening, event, matter, thing, something, anything, i.e., an event which one may refer (Nu 31:16); 5. LN 33.387–33.403 unit: דָּבָר בֶּלַע (dā•ḇār bě•lǎʿ)2 harmful word, i.e., evil destructive speech, with a focus on the destructiveness of the speech (Ps 52:6[EB 4]+); 6. LN 33.251–33.255 unit: דָּבָר בֶּלַע (dā•ḇār bě•lǎʿ)2 lies, i.e., untrue words that confuse (Ps 52:6[EB 4]+); 7. LN 39.1–39.12 unit: מִי בַּעַל דָּבָר (mî bǎ•ʿǎl dā•ḇār) disputer, formally, whoever is master of the word, i.e., one in a hostile position to another (Ex 24:14+), note: in context, a civil dispute; 8. LN 33.218–33.223 unit: דָּבָר נִחֻמִים (dā•ḇār ni•ḥǔ•mîm) word of comfort, i.e., words spoken with certainty of declaration (Zec 1:13+); 9. LN 33.69–33.108 unit: דָּבָר בְּ־ נַחַת (dā•ḇār b- nǎ•ḥǎṯ)2 normal speech, formally, words of quietness, i.e., what is normally spoken in a normal tone (Ecc 9:17+); 10. LN 33.365–33.367 unit: דָּבָר נָעִים (dā•ḇār nā•ʿîm)1 compliments, formally, pleasant words, i.e., what is spoken as praise or flattery (Pr 23:8); 11. LN 56.4–56.11 unit: שִׂים (śîm) … עֲלִילָה דָּבָר (ʿǎlî•lā(h) dā•ḇār) make a charge, formally, place (to someone) action of words, i.e., make a legal accusation against someone, which if unbased, becomes slander (Dt 22:14, 17+), note: some sources see “slander” or “capriciousness” as a central focus of the meaning; 12. LN 33.387–33.403 unit: דָּבָר עֶצֶב (dā•ḇār ʿě•ṣěḇ)2 harsh words, formally, word of toil, i.e., communication through speech which is critical, and unduly cruel or blunt apparently for the purpose of causing mental anguish (Pr 15:1+); 13. LN 33.26–33.34 unit: דָּבָר רוּחַ (dā•ḇār rûaḥ) long-winded speech, formally, words of mere breath, i.e., make a formal argumentation which goes on for a long time, and so implied to be disdained by the hearer (Job 16:3+); 14. LN 56.2–56.3 unit: דָּבָר רִיבָה (dā•ḇār rî•ḇā(h)) legal case, lawsuit, formally, word of dispute, i.e., a legal action taken in court as a contest between two parties for justice (Dt 17:8+); 15. LN 33.69–33.108 unit: דָּבָר שָׂפָה (dā•ḇār śā•p̄ā(h)) empty words, mere talk, i.e., speech that cannot be backed by the actions it claims (2Ki 18:20; Pr 14:23; Isa 36:5+); 16. LN 67.163–67.200 unit: דָּבָר שָׁנָה בְּ־ שָׁנָה (dā•ḇār šā•nā(h) b- šā•nā(h))2 year after year (1Ki 10:25); note: further study may yield more domains


BDB wrote:
דָּבָר S1697 TWOT399a GK18211439 n.m. speech, word—Gn 18:14 + 446 times; cstr. דְּבַר Gn 12:17 + 361 times; sf. דְּבָרִי Nu 11:23 + (sfs. 66 times); sg. in all 875 times; pl. דְּבָרִים Ex 4:10 + 182 times; cstr. דִּבְרֵי Gn 24:30 + 253 times; sf. דְּבָרָיו Gn 37:8 (sfs. 127 times); pl. in all 564 times;—I. sg. speech, discourse, saying, word, as the sum of that which is spoken


GHCLOT wrote:
דָּבָר m.—(1) [const. דְּבַר; suff. דְּבָרִי; pl. דְּבָרִים, const. דִּבְרֵי], word, λόγος, Gen. 44:18, etc. Often in pl.


TWOT wrote:
Some lexicographers distinguish two roots for the Hebrew dbr: I. “to be behind, to turn back” related to Arabic dub [u]r with the same meaning and Akkadian dabāru “to push back.” Derivatives of this root include dĕbîr “back chamber,” dōber “(remote place) pasture,” dōberôt “raft (dragged behind the ship],” and midbār “steppe.” II. “word,” mostly found in the noun dābār “word, thing” and the verb in Piel “to speak, address.” Etymologically related to dbr II are dibrâ “thing,” and dibbēr a rare nominal form of the verb, and midbār “mouth” with instrumental mem. Although Seeligman (VT, 14:80) derives dabberet “word” from root I, it appears more plausible to see it as a derivative of root II. While BDB and GB do not differentiate dbr as occurring as a verb in two different roots, KB assigns dbr to root I in the Piel for Job 19:18; II Chr 22:10 and in Hiphil for Ps 18:47 [H 48] and 47:3 [H 4]. We will limit our discussion of the verb to the putative root II.
No convincing etymology for dbr has been offered to this time. Akkadian possesses the vocable dabābu—noun and verb—with meanings strikingly similar to those of Hebrew. As a substantive it means “speech,” or “legal matter” and as a verb “to speak” (CAD. D.2–14). But Hebrew also has a root dbb attested in the noun dibbâ “whispering, slander.” It is questionable whether the similarity between Akkadian dbb and Hebrew dbr is due to chance or to a true etymological connection.
The root occurs in the Lachish ostraca and in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription. Outside of Hebrew it occurs in Phoenician-Punic with the same meaning as Hebrew and in Biblical Aramaic in a nominal dibrâ “matter.”
dābar is probably a denominate verb from dābār, as it is used almost exclusively in the Piel, Pual, Hithpael, and Qal participle. Ugaritic evidence shows no use of dābar “to speak” (nor of ʾāmar “to say”), but does have instance of the use of midbar II. wilderness.
In any language the words which represent the basic verb for speaking and the noun for “word” cannot but be of supreme importance. The verb dābar and the noun dābār have these important spots in the Hebrew Bible. Procksch in TWNT states that the noun is the basic form and the verb stems from it.
These two words occur more than 2500 times in the OT, the noun more than 1400 times and the verb more than 1100. The source of the words is unclear though they are common in Semitic languages. Some words cover much territory, spreading into many areas of thought and in the process compounding problems for communicators—especially for those who try to translate ideas into other languages. In the KJV dābar is translated by about thirty different words and dābār by more than eighty. Some of these are synonyms but many are not. All, however, have some sense of thought processes, of communication, or of subjects or means of communication. The noun dābār stretches all the way from anything that can be covered by the word thing or matter to the most sublime and dynamic notion of the word of God.
Many synonyms are found in Ps l 19 where the message from God is eulogized. Doubtless the most important synonyms are ʾāmar “to say” and the masculine and feminine ʾēmer and ʾimrâ which are almost always translated “word.” In his discussion on synonyms for the word of God, Girdlestone mentions ʾāmar “to say,” millâ “word,” nāʾam “utter,” peh “mouth,” tôrâ “law,” dāt “edict,” ḥōq “statute,” ṣāwâ “command,” piqqûdîm “charge,” ʾōraḥ “way,” derek; “path,” mišpaṭ “judgment,” and ʾôd “testimony.”
In this list of synonyms, the first four refer to the ordinary use of the root dābār. The word ʾāmar “to say” is very like dābar but is usually followed by the thing said. millâ “word” was long called a late Aramaizing synonym, but now is recognized as simply a poetic and less common expression for WORD. nāʾam is mostly restricted to the nominal form nĕʾūm meaning a prophetic oracle. The word peh “mouth” is a mere figurative use of the organ of speech for the speech. The rest of the words in Girdlestone’s list, edict, statute, command, etc. are variant expressions for the authoritative word indicated by dābār (or ʾōmer or imrâ) in some contexts.
[Although ʾmr “to say” is the closest synonym to dbr, its basic meaning stands out clearly against dbr (Piel). In the case of ʾmr the focus is on the content of what is spoken, but in the case of dbr primary attention is given to the activity of speaking, the producing of words and clauses. While ʾmr cannot be used absolutely (without giving the content of what is said), dibber can be so used (cf. Gen 24:14; Job 1:16; 16:4, 6). Moreover, while ʾmr can have a diversity of subjects by personification (land, animals, trees, night, fire, works, etc.), dbr almost always has personal subjects or designations of their organs of speech (mouth, lips, tongue, etc.). They are also distinguished with respect to the one addressed. While in the case of ʾmr it is sufficient to use the weaker preposition lĕ, dbr normally demands the stronger preposition ʾel (about ten times more frequently than lĕ). These differences, however, do not detract from the importance of what is said as the object of dbr which includes most matters pertaining to moral and ideal values. As in some other verbs used mainly in the Piel, the Qal occurrences are almost exclusively in the active participle and designate mostly one who speaks something as a commandment or on account of an inner compulsion. Thus it is used with: truth (Ps 15:2), lies/falsehood (Jer 40:16; Ps 5:6 [H 7]; 58:3 [H 4]; 63:11 [H 12]; 101:7), right (Isa 33:15; 45:19; Prov 16:13), well-being (Est 10:3), folly (Isa 9:17 [H 16]), insolence (Ps 31:18 [H 19]). It is also used of angels who bear God’s message (Gen 16:13; Zech 1:9,13,19 [H 2:2], etc.) and of speech of abiding relevance (Num 27:7; 36:5). B.K.W.)
In the KJV some of the less common translations of the dābar include: “answered” (II Chr 10:14) as parallel to ʾānâ “answer” in v. 13 (where Rehoboam answers his critics); “uses entreaties” (Prov 18:23); “give sentence” or “give judgment” in Jer 4:12 and 39:5 (with mišpāṭîm); “publish” (Est 1:22) and “be spoken for” (Song 8:8). The KJV has “subdues” in Ps 18:47 where some such notion is necessary to parallel “avenge” in the first part of the sentence. This psalm occurs also in II Sam 22 and there (v. 48) the Hebrew word for “bring down” is used in the place of dābar. This corroborates the rare meaning of “subdue” for dābar in Ps 18:47 and Ps 47:3. Modern translations also give this meaning in these passages.
A most important declaration, which is reiterated over and over again (about 400 times), in the OT use of dābar, is that God “spoke.” The Pentateuch is loaded with such statements as “The LORD said,” “The LORD promised” and “The LORD commanded,” all translations of dābar. God’s spokesmen are often challenged as Moses was challenged by Miriam and Aaron saying, “Hath the lord indeed spoken only by Moses?” (Num 12:2). But the lord always supports his word and his spokesman.
דָּבָר (dābār). Word, speaking, speech, thing, anything, everything (with kōl), nothing (with negatives), commandment, matter, act, event, history, account, business, cause, reason, and in construction with prepositions: on account of, because that. This noun is translated in eighty-five different ways in the KJV! This is due to the necessity of rendering such a fertile word by the sense it has in varying contexts. As “word” dābār basically means what God said or says.
The decalogue, “the ten words” (Ex 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4), are ten declarations or statements, as in Deut 10:4, the ten words (dĕbārîm) which the Lord spoke (dibbēr). The ten words are commandments because of the syntactical form of their utterance. The ten words are what God said; they are ten commandments because of how God said them.
The dābār is sometimes what is done and sometimes a report of what is done. So, often in Chr, one reads of the acts (dibrê) of a king which are written in a certain book (dibrê). “Now the acts of David the king … are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and, in the book of Gad the seer.” In the KJV of II Chr 33:18 acts, words, spake and book are all some form of dābar / dābār. And in the next verse, sayings is added to this list! The Hebrew name for Chronicles is “the book of the words (acts) of the times” (sēper dibrê hayyāmîm). Here “words (acts) of the times” is equal to “history”—“annals.”
The revelatory work of God is often expressed by “the word of the Lord came” to or upon a person (I Chr 17:3 and often in the prophets). Jehoshaphat says of Elisha that “the word of the Lord is with him” (II Kgs 3:12). When prophecy was stilled as in Samuel’s childhood, “The Word of the LORD was precious” (KJV; ASV “rare”). But Moses says that Israel has the word very near, because he refers to the book of the law which had recently been given to them, as the immediately preceding context shows. In II Sam 16:23 the counsel of Ahithophel is said to be like the counsel of an oracle (KJV, RSV). Here dābār is “oracle,” though massāʿ, KJV “burden,” is often used for oracle in modern translations.
[Gerleman notes that the singular construct chain dĕbar YW “the word of the LORD occurs 242 times and almost always (225 times) the expression appears as a technical form for the prophetic revelation (THAT, I. p.439). He also notes that the plural construct chain dibrê YW ”the words of the LORD occurs seventeen times and much more frequently than the singular construction after verbs of speaking ngd [Hiphil] (Ex 4:28); spr [Piel] “to recount” (Ex 24:3); dbr [piel] “to tell” (Num 11:24; Jer 43:1; Ezk 11:25); ʾmr “to say” (I Sam 8:10), qrʾ “to cry out” (Jer 36:6, 8; THAT, I:439). In seven passages the dĕbar YW has a juristic character (Num 15:31; Deut 5:5; I Chr 15:15; II Chr 30:12; 34:21; 35:6). B.K.W.]
Certain characteristics of the word of the Lord are enunciated in Ps. Among them are: “The word of the Lord is right” (33:4), “settled in heaven” (119:89), “a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” (119:105) and “true” (119:160).
The efficaciousness of the word of the Lord is often cited by certain phrases like “according to the word of the Lord” (I Kgs 13:26), or “I will perform my word” (I Kgs 6:12).
The chronicler says that the Lord stirred up Cyrus “that the word of the lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished” (36:22). Through Isaiah the LORD says that his word will be like the rain and the snow making the land productive. “It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa 55:11). Jeremiah also promises that the Lord’s Spirit and word shall never depart from his people and is “like a fire” and “a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces” (Jer 23:29).
(In addition, the word of the Lord is personified in such passages as: “The LORD sends his message against Jacob, and it falls on Israel” (Isa 9:8 [H 7]); “He sent his word and healed them” (Ps 107:20); “He sends his command to the earth” (Ps 147:15). Admittedly, because of the figure it appears as if the word of God had a divine existence apart from God, but Gerleman rightly calls into question the almost universal interpretation that sees the word in these passages as a Hypostasis, a kind of mythologizing. Gerleman suggests that this usage is nothing more than the normal tendency to enliven and personify abstractions. Thus human emotions and attributes are also treated as having an independent existence; wickedness, perversity, anxiety, hope, anger, goodness and truth (Ps 85:11f.; 107:42; Job 5:16; 11:14; 19:10) (THAT, I. p. 442). B.K.W.]


Simply put Dabar means words or in its plural form statements. Translators choose to render it as command when they extrapolate from the context that the words are being given authoritatively, which is sometimes correct but often not. But that is not what the word means. The word dabar means word.

Okay I said I wasn't going to, but I have to address more of what you said.

Steve wrote:
You cannot begin to stand for or against Paul while not fully understanding the Torah, Prophets and Writings. They, not the NT, are the bedrock of YHWH's plan. It is to them we turn. If one blatantly looks at Paul's writings or anything that backs them up in other NT writings, we all of sudden only have only about 37% of it left. That would be Paul's letters, Luke, Acts, 1st & 2nd Peter, and Hebrews. That is 63% gone.


I completely agree with you here. It is based on understanding the Torah, Prophets and Writings that I condemn Paul. I don't spend much time at all in the Greek text I love Hebrew and I love Yahowah's Torah.

That said based on what you posted above I don't think you understand the Torah. If you think Dabar are command and that the Torah is law then you have been mislead. Yahowah's Torah is teaching and instruction, not laws. It is His Word, not His commands.

Steve wrote:
Again I make the point that the NT is not scripture. It has been doctored by people and groups alike to bend it's readers to the pagan Babylonian religious system perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church and it's protestant (protesting catholics) daughters. But it's Hebraic style and message of Torah observance (if one's mind hasn't become blinded) is there to see.


Again couldn't agree more. The Greek text is at best history. And yes Torah observance is there, just not in Paul's letters. And I don't base this on translators or religious interpretation, but on a plain reading of what the man wrote. Please finish Questioning Paul, it uses Paul's words and the Torah to prove that Paul was wrong. While I don't think you completely understand the Torah you do have the right mindset, that the Torah is what matters, and with that mindset I believe the evidence presented will convince you, but please finish it before you attempt to defend Paul here anymore.
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 StevePaige  
#60 Posted : Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:57:47 PM(UTC)
StevePaige
Joined: 10/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Summerville, South Carolina

James,

I do agree that dabar is 'word' in the noun form and 'speak' in the verb. But as you pointed out in the quoted sources there are nuances picked up in the context of what is written that lend themselves to different renderings (edict, statute, command from the TWOT entry). A good example is the way we use 'word' today. When a supervisor comes back from a meeting and his subordinates ask, "What's the word?". It is understood that they want to know what the 'plan' is, not what Bert and Ernie say it is for today.

I know that Torah means instruction and that dabar does not mean Torah. But it can mean (from the TWOT example you provided) "But Moses says that Israel has the word very near because he refers to the book of the law...". In the example with Moses we see him equating the 'word/dabar' with the book of instructions ie. YHWH's plan from the beginning, his written word.

The topic is "Is Yahshua God or not? Since dabar = word and John was Hebrew and not some Hellenized Greek ... no Yahshua is not.
Offline James  
#61 Posted : Monday, August 18, 2014 7:57:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
I don't care if you agree, the definition of a word is a fact not an opinion. And as I pointed out, using several dictionaries, the definition of Dabar is word, and not command. The fact that translators choose to render it that way in certain contexts does not change the meaning of the word, it just means that the translators choose to render it that way.

You last sentence is a non sequitur. The question of rather what dabar means or the John was Hebrew has no bearing on rather or not Yahowsha is god. It's like saying red wagons break so blue wagons go straighter, the two stamtents are unrelated.
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
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
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.