Posted on 07/10/2013 7:57:27 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
In Israel you might hear a youngster protesting to his mother in Hebrew, Zeh Loh Fair. The first two words mean "This is not..." The third word means exactly what it says in English - fair. The juvenile is saying that his mother is unfair. You see, there is no word in Hebrew for the concept of fair. He had no choice other than using the English.
This is because "fair" is a false concept with no reality. What does fair actually mean? That everyone should have the same housing, talent, looks, and destiny? No two people even have identical opportunity. The word means nothing at all.
Generally, English words for which there are no Hebrew equivalents are unreal concepts detached from reality.
Here are two of them:
Adolescent: Permission for an adult to behave like a child while claiming the benefits due an adult. There's no word for adolescent in Hebrew. You are either a child or an adult.
Coincidence: Demeaning Divine messages and camouflaging cosmic connection. There's no word for coincidence in Hebrew. Why ignore synchronicity and live bereft of the significance of subtle suggestion?
For millennia, Hebrew has had an unbroken history of effectively conveying both verbal and written information. Its power lies not only in what you can communicate in Hebrew but also in what you can't.
The most surprising word for which no Hebrew equivalent exists is - Religion. Nowhere in the entire Tanach, the Hebrew Scriptures, does the word religion appear.
Where does the English word, "religion" come from? One theory is that it derives from the Latin "relegere" which means to do something repeatedly. Others guess that it comes from the Latin "religare" which means to tie up or bind.
Recalling the Hebrew origins of Latin reveals the three root letters for the word behind both those theories-R, L, and G.
Let's now glance quickly at Metathesis, the key to understanding languages and their evolution. Metathesis means that as language changes, people occasionally rearrange root letters. For instance, an early Scriptural garment, Joseph's coat is called in Hebrew C-T-N. From this, English describes the material for making clothing-CoTToN, and by metathesis, an early Roman garment made of cotton, a TuNiC.
Similarly, the Hebrew for young goat KDI (or GDI) leading, by metathesis, to English KID. Also, the Hebrew for WORD is DaVaR. In early German, through metathesis of the Hebrew source, that became VORD or later WORT. (The German V is pronounced F and the W is pronounced V) English soon adapted it to WORD. (T and D are both sibilants and often indistinguishable.)
We can see how the linguistic origin of religion is the Hebrew, ReGeL, which means both a leg and anything ReGuLar like the three annual Biblical pilgrimage festivals, known as ReGaLim. What is the connection? In order to move our lives forward and experience our "march of progress" we need to move our legs regularly, one after the other.
Through the Hebrew source, we see that both Latin theories are linked. By repeating an action it becomes a habit and we become habituated or bound to that action.
Why no word in Hebrew for religion? Because it is not a separate part of life like working, cooking, or reproduction. Religion is not just something we do on Saturday or Sunday as we might do bowling on Monday and Little League on Wednesday. No, our relationship with God is part of how we approach every moment of our lives. It cannot be limited to a single word. Totally integrating our lives with our Creator unleashes our own creativity.
One effective tool for helping to bring about that integration with God so that 'religion' is not an external adjunct to our life but an inseparable element of it is through Bible study. We recommend our 2 CD audio training program Tower of Power-Decoding the Secrets of Babel.
Furthermore, this resource illuminates how once-healthy societies disintegrate. Our reduced priced 2-CD audio program, Tower of Power: Decoding the Secrets of Babel, unlocks many mysteries and reveals insights lost in the English translation. Arm and protect yourself and your family with the laser-sharp tools obtained by understanding the secret messages of Genesis.
“Without invoking the “new testament?” Or without assuming it’s true? I’m pretty sure you’re gonna eventually say “Isaiah means thus and such because THE WORD OF GOD in Paul’s epistle to so-and-so says so.” What if you can’t do that?”
I don’t know how you can be “pretty sure,” when every time I have responded to you in threads past, it has always been with the Old Testament, and you have never once given a proper rebuttal for anything that I have said.
If anything, I’m pretty sure you’re feeling cheeky today, since usually you’re not this animated.
“And since all criticisms are valid, no form can be true.”
Huh, where’s that in the Torah?
I'm sorry, but I've never seen any of those posts. Sometimes I'm nervous or get upset and avoid reading my pings for a while. At any rate, the only way the "old testament" can be portrayed as teaching chrstianity is if one already, from the get-go, accepts the authority of the "new testament" to interpret it. And I do not.
“And since all criticisms are valid, no form can be true.”
Huh, where’s that in the Torah?
I point out merely that everything Catholics say about Protestantism's deficiencies is true. And what Protestants say about Catholicism's deficiencies is also true. Ditto for every single form of chrstianity in history from the "new testament church" to the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East to whatever version was just made up yesterday.
I'm so sorry you were offended by an article that merely points out that Hebrew is the original language and corresponds to reality better than any other. Apparently you think Genesis is mythology.
It also seems that you take your screen name a little too seriously.
I honestly can’t take your posts seriously. Considering the sheer amount of confusion you displayed last time you tried to explain Christian theology, I don’t think you even know the basics. But as to ‘reading Christianity back into the Old Testament,’ I tend to think the Jews, prior to Christ, weren’t so averse to Christian interpretations at all.
For example, Joseph Ben Uziel, 30 years before the time of Christ, identifying the servant as the Messiah in Isaiah 43:
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant, the Messiah, in whom is my delight, in order that ye may know, and that ye may believe in me, and understand that I am He who was from the beginning ; yea, ages after ages are
mine, and beside me there is no God.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)
In Isaiah 9:6, he retains the meaning of ‘The Mighty God,’ as opposed to “mighty man” as well.
Oops, I wrote “Joseph Ben Uzziel,” should be Jonathan. I got it right in the citation though.
Also, I don’t think Genesis is mythology.
My dad use to say "fair is either the opposite of brunette or a weather report"
You can be just, you can be even handed and you can back that up with objective proof. But you can not prove that you are "fair" because the concept depends on the interpretation and feelings of the other person(s) involved.
Zeh Loh Fair = Zeh Loh Hogen
Cotton comes from the Arabic "qutun" or mixed.
The only one that is correct is tunic, although the Romans got it from another Canaanite language, Phoenician.
Amen!
Thanks for the great post.
Not all forms of Christianity have disproved each other and not all criticisms are valid.
Denominationalism is a plague on Christianity. What it should boil down to is not one church doctrine against another, but whether it is found in the word of God, the Old Testament included.
The Law and the Prophets point to the coming Messiah, they give us the criteria by which one can recognize Him.
Now as to your points: I am most confused as to why someone who believes in sola scriptura to invoke rabbinic commentaries. But then I've noticed this before: some Protestant who believes in sola scriptura starts invoking commentaries, and if I do the same thing they start screaming WHERE IS THAT WRITTEN??? You're not the first person to pull that switcheroo, but it's hypocritical and dishonest no matter who does it.
But to get to the meat of the matter, once again you're invoking Isaiah (honestly, I was expecting "There is none that doeth good, no not one") and ignoring the fact that the Torah is the Ultimate Revelation by which all others are judged. No prophet, no Psalm, can predict the replacement of the Torah by some other religion. If any of them had, the Men of the Great Assembly would never have canonized the books.
The Torah contains no expiration date, and as a matter of fact, says in several places that its commandments are to be kept "forever." The idea that the Torah is a preliminary and preparatory revelation superseded by the Prophets (and later by the "new testament") is one of those chrstian assumptions.
At any rate, any further discussion we do should be on another thread. This thread is about Rabbi Lapin's article on Hebrew.
Dang, man! You just ruined the whole thread!
Rabbi Lapin is pointing out that all other languages are derived from Hebrew.
I'm afraid we disagree there. Protestants who argue amongst themselves do nothing but quote bible verses back and forth. Who wins that fight? If a Campbellite and a Calvinist quote bible verses back and forth, how do you tell who is right and who is wrong? And of course the ancient liturgical churches who point this out have the identical problem, only with contradictory traditions and claims of authority.
The Law and the Prophets point to the coming Messiah, they give us the criteria by which one can recognize Him.
Metmom . . . you and I agree about a lot of stuff, but we also disagree about a lot of stuff. Your assertion above is a claim of chrstianity. It is a claim--that's all. It is not self-evidently true, nor does asserting the claim prove it.
If you were to read the "old testament" without chrstian presuppositions (not easy to do, I know), you would find a very different religion. And of all the mitzvot in the Torah, there isn't a single one saying to "accept the Messiah" (just like there isn't a negative commandment against "deicide," which doesn't exist). The notion that the Torah is very primitive and the Prophets and Writings higher (culminating in the "new testament") is also a chrstian assumption.
Much of your position here is based on a reaction against Roman Catholicism. The Protestant/Catholic argument simply doesn't apply to this issue.
The Law and the Prophets contain prophecies specific to the Messiah.
What other purpose would there be except to point to Him and help people recognize Him when He comes and fulfills the prophecies?
As I understand it, the NT needs to be read in light of the OT. Most of the authors of the NT were Jewish. The Gospels are mostly historical accounts of the life of Jesus and until He died, the Law was still under effect. Matter of fact, the Law still IS in effect. Sin in the OT is still sin in the NT.
The OT is invaluable in understanding the new.
The main difference is in how God deals with, or relates to, mankind and their sin problem.
As for labels,......
pfffttt.......
I hate labels and too many Protestants make too much of what Paul in the NT calls *disputable matters*. There is much room for latitude in many things churches and denominations have (wrongly) split over.
No one church has perfect or perfectly correct doctrine. We can’t because a perfect God is not able to be perfectly known by imperfect creatures.
As David tells us in Psalm 103..... He knows our frame, He remembers that we are dust.
“I don’t know what I did to offend you and make you into an enemy, but whatever it was I’m sorry.”
I am not a liberal. I am not offended by anything you have said. You issued a challenge to Christians in this thread, as you usually do, and so I answered it.
If you don’t want this thread to come off topic from what it supposedly was supposed to be about, you should probably avoid making silly assertions against Christianity in it.
“Now as to your points: I am most confused as to why someone who believes in sola scriptura to invoke rabbinic commentaries.”
You should probably think about what you have written, and think about what I am responding to, then it will become clear. You claimed that Christian interpretations of the Old Testament are forced intrusions that no objective Jew can come up with on his own. So, therefore, I gave an example of a Jew before the time of Christ giving what is supposedly a Christian interpretation. It’s quite simple.
“The Torah contains no expiration date, and as a matter of fact, says in several places that its commandments are to be kept “forever.” “
Speaking of statutes that will stand forever, do you sacrifice an unblemished lamb according to the law of Moses?
And I still insist that chrstian interpretations are foreign to the correct and traditional understanding of the Hebrew Bible. Let's take a look at your verse.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant, the Messiah, in whom is my delight, in order that ye may know, and that ye may believe in me, and understand that I am He who was from the beginning ; yea, ages after ages are mine, and beside me there is no God.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)
Okay. You're quoting a translation of Targum Yonatan from the haftarah for Parashat Bere'shit:
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant, the Messiah, in whom is my delight, in order that ye may know, and that ye may believe in me, and understand that I am He who was from the beginning ; yea, ages after ages are mine, and beside me there is no God.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)
Yonatan is derashing `avdi (My servant) as Mashiach. But where in the world do you get any chrstian message from this? Other than Yonatan's identification of the Servant with Mashiach the entire verse is present in the original Hebrew, and there is absolutely nothing in it about Mashiach being (chas veshalom!) "G-d in a human body." I suppose that perhaps the plain text (peshat) is that Israel is "My servant" but that Yonatan uses derash to identify the servant with Mashiach also. Here is the translation of the original Hebrew:
Ye are My witnesses says HaShem, and My servant whom I have chosen ['atnach, dividing the verse in two]; that ye may know and believe in Me and understand that I am He[;] before Me no god was formed and after Me [another] will not be."
Now--as I said, other than the identification of the servant as Mashiach, everything in the Targum is in the original text. And in the verse G-d is speaking and saying there is none like Him. The only place it says Mashiach is G-d is in chrstian imaginations. You're really going to have to do better than that. But as I said, all these chrstian invocations of the Prophets and the Writings completely misses the point about the Torah being the supreme revelation by which all others are judged.
Speaking of statutes that will stand forever, do you sacrifice an unblemished lamb according to the law of Moses?
First, as a Noachide, I am not commanded to do so. As for the Jews, though . . . you just quoted the text itself; these are "statutes that will stand forever." Does the fact that no altar is currently standing on Har HaBayit change that? Let's take a look first at the text beginning with Numbers 9:15
And on the day of the raising of the tabernacle the cloud covered the tabernacle of the tent of testimony; and in the evening there would be as the appearance of fire until morning. Thus it would always be; the could would cover it [by day] and the appearance of fire at night. And according to the ascent of the cloud [when the cloud ascended] from upon the tent, afterwards the Children of Israel would journey; and in the place where the cloud would stand, there the Children of Israel would encamp. By the instruction [literally "mouth"] of HaShem they would travel, and according to the instruction of HaShem they would camp; all the days which the cloud would abide over the tabernacle they would camp. And when the cloud would continue over the tabernacle many days; the Children of Israel would keep the mishmeret [the sacrificial service] of HaShem and would not travel. There would be the occasion when the cloud would be a number of days over the tabernacle; at the command of HaShem they would camp and at the command of HaShem they would travel. And there would be occasion when the cloud would be [over the tabernacle] from evening to morning and the cloud would be ascended [removed] in the morning and they would travel; or a day and a night and the cloud would be ascended and they would travel. Or two days or a month or a year [literally "days" but often used to denote a year in Biblical Hebrew] when the cloud continued over the tabernacle to dwell above it the Children of Israel would camp and not travel; and when it was ascended they would travel. According to the command of HaShem they would camp and according to the command of HaShem they would travel; the observance [ie, the sacrificial service] they kept according to the command of HaShem by the hand of Moses. Numbers 9:15-23
Now did you read this very carefully? Even in the wilderness the Israelites did not observe the sacrificial service every single day. They observed it on days when they were encamped. Whenever they were traveling, however, the tabernacle and all its vessels were packed up and being carried by the Levites. During these times the daily sacrificial service was suspended. Did you get that? And yet that doesn't mean the commandments had expired but simply that the service could not be carried out during transit.
And this is not the only time when the sacrifices were suspended in Biblical days. What about the times when the service was polluted by idolatry? What about the seventy years of the Exile of Bavel? For seventy years all the Israelites could do was recite prayers, just like today, yet Mashiach hadn't come.
And that brings us to the current Exile, that of Rome, the longest of all. Let's take another look at what the Torah has to say about this period. Please turn to Deuteronomy 28:15 and following which prophesies the current Exile (as the Exile of Bavel was prophesied in Leviticus 26).
I am not going to go to the laborious trouble of translating and posting this very long passage for you, nor do you need me to (I can't cut and paste the English translation at the Mechon-Mamre site because they claim to have full copyright protection). But it makes abundantly clear that at some future time Israel will be scattered among all the nations in lands far away. Now I ask you: do you think the Israelites in exile will be carrying out the sacrificial service when the Temple is destroyed and they aren't even in the Holy Land? Of course not. The Torah in this passage fearsomely warns of just such an exile when there will be no Temple and no Service. It makes this point over and over and over. Read it for yourself.
Now . . . why is this going to happen to the Israelites? What great sin brought this horrible punishment? I'll tell you this much: it wasn't "rejecting the messiah!" There isn't even a commandment in the Torah to "accept" the messiah! Any such "commandment" is a figment of the chrstian imagination.
The verse at the very beginning of this passage (Deuteronomy 28:15) states very plainly what causes all this punishment:
And it will come to pass if you will not hearken to the Voice of HaShem your G-d to keep all His commandments and all His statutes which I command you this day.
That's right. Israel's exiles are always caused by failure to obey the Commandments of the Torah which were commanded by G-d through Moses! Certainly not because at some point in the future they will violate the non-existent commandment that says "thou shalt accept the messiah."
Look. It's late right now and I'm tired. I've spent a lot of time typing out this post. It will have to do for now. I apologize for the many mistypes that doubtless appear throughout.
“Yonatan is derashing `avdi (My servant) as Mashiach. But where in the world do you get any chrstian message from this?”
You miss the point conveniently, which you seem to do often. Jews often claim that Isaiah 53’s servant is Israel. An absurd interpretation, since, obviously, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD wasn’t because they were an innocent lamb taking on the sins of the Gentiles. Jonathan’s quote shows that he believed the “servant” mentioned is indeed the Messiah, and not a nation. Therefore, Isaiah 53 is a pretty clear prediction of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, despite claims to the contrary.
” The only place it says Mashiach is G-d is in chrstian imaginations.”
Also Isaiah 9:6, amongst other passages. But, if you read them, you might have to de-canonize them.
“First, as a Noachide, I am not commanded to do so.”
Exo_12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Sorry, but you are indeed obligated to keep the eternal statutes, and all the laws of the Jewish people if you wish to sojourn amongst them, despite what Rabbis might say about it. Of course, they don’t keep the law either, so...
“Now did you read this very carefully? Even in the wilderness the Israelites did not observe the sacrificial service every single day.”
I submitted too soon. I was actually referring to the Passover lamb. Most Jews just eat some other meat, and maybe might have a bone there or something, at the most, from a lamb, whom we hope, at least, was unblemished. I wasn’t referring to the daily sacrifice, though, there really isn’t a reason not to practice it either. The Temple being destroyed doesn’t change that obligation, since they were certainly sacrificing long before the time of the Temple.
“And that brings us to the current Exile, that of Rome, the longest of all. Let’s take another look at what the Torah has to say about this period. Please turn to Deuteronomy 28:15 and following which prophesies the current Exile (as the Exile of Bavel was prophesied in Leviticus 26).”
That is not an actual prophecy. It is a warning of punishment of what will happen if they disobey God.
Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
The actual Prophecy is in Daniel 9, which predicts a period of 70 weeks which concludes with the destruction of the Jewish Temple after the Messiah is “cut off.” This was accomplished in 70AD with the destruction of the Jewish Temple by Titus, on the same day and month the first temple was destroyed. Daniel also makes it clear that this is the conclusion of the Temple period, as the destruction of the Temple is tied with making “an end of sin, making reconciliation for iniquity, for anointing the most Holy.”
Since reconciliation is made by Messiah, who is the completion of what was only a shadow as seen in the Passover and in the daily sacrifices, we are quite alright in not keeping the laws that you don’t keep either. We are dead to the Law, and certainly the law ceases to be “forever” after one is dead!
Actually, I made an error! I thought you meant Deut 28:15 was the prophecy. I didn’t catch “and what comes after.” Starting from the 45th verse, it is indeed a pretty good description of the siege of Jerusalem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.