|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 18, 2015 10:34:56 GMT -8
The problem is, I don’t seem to be able to explain the difference between a compound (or dependent) word and root word (independent word). In the Eskimos’ language all words dealing with snow have one of the three basic words for snow contained in it and then a descriptive portion of the word. Where as in the English example of water, I listed 45 unrelated terms dealing with water. I am not saying either language is wrong or right. Rather that both languages can be used to convey ideas. And the same idea can be expressed in both languages. What I am arguing in favor of is that the Oracles of God can be expressed in any and all languages.
I can’t see a difference in between what “Hebrew Roots” teaches and what is taught here in regards to language. In other concepts/doctrines most definitely there is a difference. I should have been more precise.
Not to justify my cheap shot, but you have taken more than a few cheap shots at me. I ask your pardon for implying that you are trying to conceal the Oracles of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 18, 2015 8:23:46 GMT -8
No ambiguity that I can see. You take the three basic words for snow and add prefixes and/or suffixes to from new words. Just as it is done in Hebrew: For example:
Bethel: House of God
Bethany: House of figs
Bethlehem: House of Bread
Beth-shemesh: house of the sun
Beth-haram: House of the high place
Beth-shean: House of rest
Beth-dagan: House of the fish god
Beth-baal-peor: House of the lord of the opening
Abel-beth-Maacah: meadow of the house of Maacah
Bethpelet: house of escape
Beth-eden: house of pleasure
Beth-birei: house of the creative one
Each is a new word, formed form roots to make the new compound word. In each word, the root “beth” is house and the other part of the word describes the house. It is the same in the Eskimos’ language when forming words describing snow. Distinctive words on the other hand do not share common roots. The following is a list of distinctive words that describe different forms of water in the English language: water, snow, ice, sleet, steam, vapor, cloud, rain, drizzle, mist, sprinkle, dew, drink, fog, river, stream, brook, branch, spring, creek, ocean, sea, brackish, brine, lake, pond, puddle, swamp, seep, sewerage, spa, urine, perspiration, sweet, tears, saliva, spit, aqua, hydra, H2O, well, wet, damp, soaked, emulsion, and I haven’t even used any compound words such as backwater, waterscape, watermelon, water-jacket, water-logged, waterfall, water-course, water-hammer, waterpower, waterspout, water supply, and waterworks I guess us Angels know water and it would take an Eskimo scientist a whole dictionary to describe our words for water.
I have successfully refuted the claims of errors many times on this forum as you have from time to time acknowledged. I have also been unsuccessful at refuting the claims of errors though I know I was right. And at times I have not even tried to refute the claims because my knowledge was too limited to attempt. In most of those cases, I agree with what is being said about the passage but do not agree that the English version does not teach the same thing. I agree that we are responsible to read the Word with discernment, learn from each other, and be led by the Spirit.
For the record, I have never studied snow. But I know when it will make a good snow-cream or snow-man and when it will make a northerner, who has seen a whole lot more snow than I have, scratch his head and say, what the heck is that? I am not a linguist either but have studied enough to know that translation between languages can be accomplished and that a lot of stuff taught by “Hebrew Roots” people is just as much wrong as things taught by Catholics. Israel was appointed by God to disperse His Oracles to the Greeks, Romans, English and others not to keep them away from His Oracles.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 17, 2015 14:27:45 GMT -8
[ Eskimos, for example, have numerous terms for what we just call “snow”. Dan C "In fact, the Eskimo–Aleut languages have about the same number of distinct word roots referring to snow as English does" From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 16, 2015 6:02:02 GMT -8
Maybe we should think back on our own time of leaving the “christian church”. When they refused to fellowship with us, because we had become “Judaizes”. Did that make us want to rejoin their fold or run from them.
Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Our goal is to restore those taken, in the fault of adhering to doctrines of men, to fellowship with God.
At some point, the Church will have to react, if they are unruly as alon has pointed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 11, 2015 17:36:07 GMT -8
[There is no sorrier sight than a couple of Mountaineers woken by the collapsing of their igloo, unless it is someone misled enough by scripture they miss the mark because their understanding of the original meaning of the Word is skewed, lost in translation. Dan C The sorriest site of all though is one appointed unto destruction thou he has a perfect translation. Dan 5. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 11, 2015 9:52:50 GMT -8
alon,
As I see it, we are engaged in a “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” type discussion. As I understand your position, you believe that language tends to control thoughts. Whereas, I believe that language expresses thoughts. As you know, I have a habit of expressing thoughts in hyperbole. So here is another. You mentioned that you met a person who spoke 20 languages. Now let’s say he could also juggle 20 balls while speaking his mother tongue. Now when he started learning another language, did he have to relearn how to juggle in the new language? No. But he would have to express the process of juggling in a different way/language. What if he wanted to show his juggling abilities to an audience/language that doesn’t have balls but has knives? Now he has to introduce balls into the new language and create a term for it (or transliterate ball) or he can juggle 20 knives.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 9, 2015 12:27:07 GMT -8
Alon,
I am glad you seen my rhetorical question right off.
It is never my intention to accuse anybody of anything, for there is one that accuses the brethren and it ain’t me. I do try to look at actions (overly elevating the Hebrew language in this case) and express why they appear wrong to me. I generally use scripture to support my thought process. If that thought process is Greek/pagan, I’m guilty as charged. If I have to become an Hebrew to understand God’s laws, that seems to me to make void Gal. 3:28. Have I taken Gal 3:28 out of context? Not from my prospective! What makes us one? Christ Jesus. Who or what is Christ Jesus? The Word. And what is the Word? Law and Grace. As both are in the Word.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 9, 2015 7:00:55 GMT -8
Yeshua thought like a Hebrew, NOT like a Greek, and this is a VERY important distinction!
Dan C
Which Hebrew did Jesus think like? Was it Nadab, Abihu, Korah, Dathan, Abiram …? It’s not how one thinks. Rather it’s what one thinks that matters. Many Hebrews have broken God’s laws and many Greeks have endeavored to keep it. Romans 3: 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? The advantage of the Hebrew/Israel/Jew is not their language/culture/philosophy but rather the oracles of God. Regardless what nation or tongue keeps the oracles of god, doing so brings blessings. Romans 2: For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? To elevate the Hebrew language above all others seems to be getting dangerously close to worshiping a creation of God instead of Him. Romans 1: For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Psalms 19: 1{To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. If God’s Glory and handy work can be expressed in any and all speech and language, then his oracles can too. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 8, 2015 7:01:38 GMT -8
alon,
Let me start by saying I neither believe what you argue against nor do I believe what you argue for.
In Luke 23:38 and John 19:19-20, the inscription placed over Jesus was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. I am guessing that the person who wrote the inscription(s) received it in Latin as it came from Pilate. At any rate, the Jewish leaders understood what was written. There was nothing lost in the translation. What was written, could be expressed in the three languages without misunderstanding. In Acts chapter 2, people from sixteen languages heard in their native tongue what was spoken, by the Galileans. Since God created languages, at the tower, he can speak them all. Paul spoke and read Greek as seen at Mars Hill in Acts 17. In Acts 21, Paul speaks to the guard in Greek then to the crowd in Hebrew. In chapter 22 Paul said that he was born a Roman, so he may even have spoken Latin.
The name of the King of the bottomless pit was recorded in both Greek and Hebrew, Rev 9:11.
I could go on and on, but will conclude with:
Matt 27: 33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
John 19: 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
It appears that Matthew and Mark were written in Hebrew or at least from an Hebrew prospective while John presents the Greek prospective and most likely Greek language.
To say the NT was entirely composed in Hebrew is just as ludicrous as saying the NT was entirely composed in Greek. Neither position fits the evidences that we have at hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 5, 2015 14:49:19 GMT -8
[quote author=" alon" source="/post/19010/thread" timestamp="1433535991 edit: some modern English translations use the LXX is a travesty. Dan C[/quote] Doesn't the LXX predate the Christian era by 200 to 300 years? And isn't it much older than surviving Hebrew text(s)? Didn't Jew's make that translation? Haven’t the Jew's translated the OT into many other languages: Arabic, Aramaic, German, Spanish, and English to name a few? When the NT quotes the OT, doesn't it read more closely to the LXX than the Masoretic text, which postdates the Christian era by 400 to 500 years? |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 29, 2015 6:04:38 GMT -8
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
They reaped in accordance with their sowing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 22, 2015 10:52:00 GMT -8
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,...
My understanding is the curse of the law is brought on by breaking the law. If man shed man's blood then by man shall his blood be shed. If you are under the curse of the law, i.e. have broken it in some point then you cann't regain righteousness by keeping other laws. So how does the law bring us to Christ? Is it not by showing us were we have erred? Because we have no kept God's law we need forgiveness for our transgressions not release from doing what we are taught by the law.
Nowhere do I read that Christ redeemed us from the blessing of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 20, 2015 14:23:00 GMT -8
I see I am late posting my response.
There are two categories of things being discussed. In the first part of Leviticus 27:28 it is talking about things a person gives to God. These things cannot be sold or bought back after they have been freely given.
The second part deals with things God (not man) has devoted to destruction. The Hebrew words are cherem (noun) and charam (verb). They refer to something devoted to the ban. "Its basic meaning involves taking things or people out of ordinary use and devoting them irrevocably to God. ... Whatever was put under the ban was either to be devoted to the Lord's service permanently or destroyed." Both "devoted to destruction" and "set apart" are the same Hebrew word, that is why the last phrase of 28 goes with 29.
The destruction of Jericho done under a ban (Joshua 6:17-19). That is why nothing was to be taken from Jericho, except what was to be used in the Lord's service. Achan and his family were killed for violating this ban. The Amalekites were destroyed under the ban as well (I Samuel 15:3), which is why Saul was punished for leaving the king and some animals alive.
What the law stated in Leviticus 27:28-29 is that any person under the ban could not be bought back (redeemed). He had to be put to death.
|
|
|
|
Hello!
May 19, 2015 10:12:16 GMT -8
Post by jimmie on May 19, 2015 10:12:16 GMT -8
Welcome aboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 11, 2015 13:58:31 GMT -8
So, are you saying that it isn't a joyous and festive time?
|
|
