Darkhei khoshekh - paths of darkness - straying

Slipping down a slippery slope...

Kakha - the way it is with kaf - part 2

Uses of the letter kaf as a suffix.  V'zehu {and that's it}.

Paths of darkness - the simpleton

As a companion piece to Walking the Walk, words for the WORD in Psalm 119, here are the paths of the wrong way to go from Proverbs.
Enjoy, but don't go that way........

Uses for the letter kaf - part 1

Counting the cost - Thousand

The last in this series.  Whither go we subsequently??
Shalom, shalom.

Orthography of the Sh'ma

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃ 

In Torah scrolls and many published TaNaKhs, you see Deuteronomy 6:4, commonly referred to by the short name ‘sh'ma’, printed as you see it above, with the two enlarged letters.  There are some traditional explanations for this orthography.

One is that these two letters, ayin and dalet, together spell a word which means ‘witness’ in Hebrew and this verse has indeed been called the watchword of Israel.  There are many, many more words associated with this two letter root including:

עד	Eternal	Exodus 15:18 Isaiah 9:6
עד	Witness	Genesis 31:44 Deuteronomy 17:6
עדה	Congregation	Exodus 12:3 Psalm 111:1
עדות	Testimony	Exodus 16:34 Psalm 119:129
עדי	Ornaments	Exodus 33:4-6 Jeremiah 2:32
יעד	To appoint, to meet by appointment	Exodus 21:9 Exodus 25:22
מועד	Appointed time	Genesis 1:14 Leviticus 23:4
עוד	Again, continuing action	Genesis 4:25 Psalm 139:18

All in all, this provides a beautiful picture of the Father’s concept of who we are and how we are to obey Him in this world

A second reason given for the oversize dalet is given when Deuteronomy 6:4 is compared with Exodus 34:14.

  כִּי לֹא תִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר כִּי יְהוָה קַנָּא שְׁמֹו אֵל קַנָּא הֽוּא׃

Many scrolls and texts maintain an enlarged reish in this verse.  If you have learned to read Hebrew, you know that one of the most difficult differences to discern between letters is the difference between the dalet and the reish.  The word which appears here in Exodus means ‘other’ or ‘another’ or ‘different’.  The postulated reason for the oversize reish is so that we don’t accidentally read ‘ekhad’ meaning ‘one’ as above in the sh'ma.  We do want to recognize that YHWH is One, not other, and we don’t want to worship another or a different god by accidentally reading ‘one’ in the Exodus verse instead of ‘other’ or ‘different’.

I began to think about whether there was a similar possibility behind the oversized ayin and it turns out that I had happened upon it yesterday morning while doing a totally different word study.

I was looking up the words which are translated ‘shame’ in KJV of TaNaKh.  The very first of these that appears is in Exodus 32:25.

וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי־פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם׃

This is an unusual word for ‘shame’ and used only in this one instance.  It comes from a concept of ‘scornful whispering (of hostile spectators)’ (Strong).

There is a related form, שמץ  which is used twice, in Job 4:12 and Job 26:14.  It is translated as ‘a little’, from the concept of  ‘a little sound’, related to the idea of whispering above. Klein’s Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary cites Biblical scholar Tur-Sinai who “refers to the fact that  שִׁמְצָה  can only denote something ‘shameful or disgraceful’, and that   שמץand   שִׁמְצָה in the Talmud and the Targums are always used in a pejorative sense …” and it is worth noting that it comes into modern Hebrew as a verb meaning ‘slander’ or ‘defame’.

Again, if you have learned to read Hebrew, you know that this is another pair of easily confused letters: the ayin and the tsade.  Although had the root ‘shemetz’ been used as a command form, it would have ended in a final form and thus been more easily distinguishable from the ayin. Still, the meanings of these two roots stand at opposite poles.  One says ‘hear! obey!’ and the other says ‘whisper!, scorn!’ and what follows these words is the declaration of who our God is, His Name  YHWH and the fact that He is One.  It would be a dreadful mistake to make.

Counting the cost - hundred

Very short lesson.

Nun of these diseases

Counting the cost - ten

Aleph I will

Counting the cost - nine

Sorry about the sound track.  I guess I need a new microphone....

Mem sofeet

Boo hoo hoo, youtube gives you 3 choices of thumbnails and these were all terrible....

Counting the cost - eight

Memes for mem - Part 2

Counting the cost - seven

According to blogger, this is my 77th post. On the number 7. Can you say synchronicity? Do you know what it means?

Memes for mem

This is about the uses for the letter 'mem', but do you know what memes are? Do you realize how many you see and hear every day? Do you know how to filter and counterattack them?

Counting the cost - six

who dunnit?

There has been a great deal of hoo-rah-rah concerning the changing of the name of the book currently called James in your English Bible from the name Jacob as it first appeared. King James of the King James version published in 1611 has taken the fall for this modification. Turns out this is a lot of hot air.


Here is a chronological list of uses:  
Vulgate 405 Iakobus  
Wycliffe 1382-1395 James, the seruaunt of God, and of oure Lord Jhesu Crist, to the twelue kinredis, that ben in scatering abrood, helthe.  [my guess is this spelling has been modified to add the J]

Tyndale 1525  Iames the seruaut of God and of the Lorde Iesus Christ sendeth gretinge to ye .xii. trybes which are scattered here and there.
Coverdell 1528 – 1535 Iames the seruaunt of God and of the LORDE Iesus Christ, sendeth gretinge to the xij. trybes which are scatered here & there. [look, a little j at the end of the roman numeral :) it began as a swash (left hand serif) on the bottom of the i]
Luther 1545 Jakobus

Stephanus NT 1550 Iakobou

Bishops Bible 1568 Iames a seruaunt of God, and of the lorde Iesus Christ, to ye twelue tribes which are scattred abroade, greetyng.

Geneva 1599 James a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve Tribes, which are scattered abroad, salutation.

KJV 1611 James

Westcott Hort NT 1881 Iakobou

So what happened?  It had nothing to do with the King.  The history of the name James shows that it is actually derived from the name Jacob.

English form of the Late Latin (late 12c. Middle English vernacular form)  name Iacomus which was derived from Ιακωβος (Iakobos), the New Testament Greek form of the Hebrew name Ya'aqov. This was the name of two apostles in the New Testament. The first was Saint James the Greater, the apostle John's brother, who was beheaded under Herod Agrippa in the Book of Acts. The second was James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus. Another James (known as James the Just) is also mentioned in the Bible as being the brother of Jesus.

Since the 13th century this form of the name has been used in England, though it became more common in Scotland, where it was borne by several kings.  First Scottish King James was born in 1394. In the 17th century the Scottish king James VI inherited the English throne, becoming the first ruler of all Britain, and the name grew much more popular.  http://www.behindthename.com/name/james

I had myself a multilingual party at www.biblegateway.com and checked every language whose script I could read.  What we see now is that the preponderance of foreign language Bibles maintain some form of Jacob, including the old Reina-Valera (Spanish) of about 1602-ish.


The later Spanish and current Italian and Portuguese use a form of Santiago, meaning Saint Iago, the modern equivalent of James.


But it's really the same name, and King Jimmy didn't do it.  Although I'm sure it made His Nibs feel good about himself.

Lamed to the rescue

Wow, have I been gone that long?
The famine in Amos is =not= a famine for bread, the thirst is =not= a thirst for water.  But the grammar still stands.

Back to the spring feasts

Enjoy!!

Pardes - the Fall Feasts

highly recommended

Hat tip to livnbygrac--Mark Biltz gives a clear and direct presentation of replacement theology. Start here for this 8 part series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDsKr3L9nVA

Back to the aleph-bet bet

Back to the series on the use of the letters as grammatical units and not just phonemes....Presenting the bet.

Old but interesting news

‘Yahweh’ not to be used in liturgy, songs and prayers, Cardinal Arinze says

Vatican City, Sep 3, 2008 / 05:30 am (CNA).- The Hebrew name for God is not to be used or pronounced in liturgical celebrations, songs and prayers, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has said in a letter addressed to the bishops’ conferences of the world.
The letter concerns the use of the “Tetragrammaton,” the name which uses the four Hebrew letters YHWH. In English the name is pronounced “Yahweh.”
Cardinal Arinze’s letter teaches that the Tetragrammaton is to be translated as the equivalent of the Hebrew title “Adonai” or the Greek title “Kyrios.” He lists as examples five acceptable translations of the title in five European languages: Lord, Signore, Seigneur, Herr, and Señor.
Regarding translations in the liturgical context, the letter instructs, “Adonai” is to be translated in English as “Lord” and the Tetragrammaton YHWH is to be translated as “God.”
“The words of sacred Scripture contained in the Old and New Testament express truth which transcends the limits imposed by time and place,” the letter explains. “They are the word of God expressed in human words, and by means of these words of life, the Holy Spirit introduces the faithful to knowledge of the truth whole and entire, and thus the word of Christ comes to dwell in the faithful in all its richness.”
Cardinal Arinze, citing the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, explains that translators must use the “greatest faithfulness and respect” regarding the name of God.
He describes the YHWH as “an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God,” which he says “was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: Adonai, which means Lord.”
This translation tradition has importance for understanding Christ, the cardinal explains, since the title “Lord” in fact “becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah of the Christian faith.”
Cardinal Arinze particularly cites St. Paul’s writings in the Letter to the Philippians, in which he wrote: “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name… every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
Bishop Arthur Serratelli, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, said in a note to U.S. Bishops that the instructions do not force any changes to “official liturgical texts” but might result in “some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the general intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments.”
To fulfill the directive, songs with phrases such as “Yahweh, I know you are near” will need to be modified.

Does blessed mean grafted in?

Errata first--I said havrakha was modern Hebrew; I should have said medieval Hebrew. My bad.

I've already taken some flak for this piece. The whole defense is in what the rabbis of blessed memory have said. They also said that on Purim (this week) you should get so drunk that you don't know the difference between Mordekhai and Haman. Is that your plan???

Pardes - the spring feasts

How each of the feasts can be seen within the context of history, Yeshua, personal spiritual life and the spiritual life of all history.

Counting the cost - Five

for sale

I have some old Monte Judah cassette teachings. If you're interested, drop me a line.

If the foundations be destroyed

An article I wrote some time ago to help someone understand.  I was handed all the NT scriptures which prove the law was done away with .  I'll be out of town about 10 days and when I return, I'll get back to our teaching series.

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

As a result of the continuing demonic attack on the most holy scriptures, the Christian church in America has found herself bereft of the true foundations of her faith which lie in the Torah of Moses, the prophets of Israel and the writings of the kings and scribes.  How this came to be is a matter of history: the church fathers as early as the second and third century C.E. distanced themselves from the Jews, whom they accused of killing Yeshua and therefore deemed to be eternally accursed of God Himself.  Consider this quote from the Council of Nicea, 325 C.E.:  “We ought not to have anything in common with the Jews…we desire, dearest brethren to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews…”  

"As a result of this fundamental anti-semitism within the church from its earliest days, the interpretation of scripture has been practiced in an inverted manner.  Theologians have begun with their understanding of what might be called Pauline precepts, interpreted Yeshua’s sayings in light of Paul’s, and then continued by inferring meaning from the Old Testament in light of what Yeshua said.  Indeed, the complete opposite is true.  The foundation is the Old Testament: Yeshua can be judged to be the Messiah on the basis of the Old Testament requirements, and Paul provides his own testimony for his faithfulness to that covenant.  While most Christians might give lip service to this concept, their own understanding of what is written is colored by historically established interpretation prejudices.

In fact, this misunderstanding has promulgated an even deeper misconception within the faith and that is the division of the character of God.  The supreme being of the Old Testament is viewed as a blood-thirsty, irrational and even capricious divinity, constantly testing His people and asking them to do unreasonable and possibly immoral acts to please or prove themselves to Him.  The church teaches that, in contrast, the God of the New Testament is kind, generous and loving.  However, there is only one God who said: “For I am YHWH, I change not…” (Malachi 3:6) and of Whom James wrote: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”  (1:17)

What is Yeshua’s foundation?

Yeshua was born a Jew, of the tribe of Judah.  He is the Messiah for the whole world.  The qualifications for being Messiah are listed in many Old Testament prophecies: where He was to be born, how He was to die, the sinless life He would live.  This is confirmed in the New Testament: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] .”  (Hebrews 4:15)  What is the definition of sin? “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”  (I John 3:4) 

Of what law is the author speaking?  There was only one law at the time, i.e., Torah.  Deuteronomy gives this warning: “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,  And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHWH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after YHWH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.” (Deuteronomy 13:1 – 4) 

Who is the author of the commandments of Torah: “For YHWH [is] our judge, YHWH [is] our lawgiver, YHWH [is] our king; he will save us.”  (Isaiah 33:22) and “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?” (James 4:12).

We see in fact that, despite what may currently be taught, Yeshua wrote the law, embodied the law through the incarnation and kept the law as a man.  If He had broken it, He would be, by Biblical definition, disqualified from being the Messiah.

What is Paul’s foundation?

“Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;” (Philippians 3:5)

“I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” (Acts 22:3)

“But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question,” (Acts 23:6) (i.e., not was a Pharisee before and am something different now),

“And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.” (Acts 25:7-8) 

“And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” (Acts 28:17)

In addition, Paul has written these things:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

“What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”  (Romans 6:15)

“What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”  (Romans 7:7) 

“Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.”  (Romans 7:12-14)

What was the foundation of the first believers in Jerusalem?

 “And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:”  (Acts 21:20)

And John the beloved wrote: “Whosoever committeth sin also transgresseth the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.”  (I John 3:4)

Torah is the foundation of the faith

Torah defines what sin is and what righteousness is.  The argument is =not= about salvation but about what a believer’s walk with Yeshua looks like.

Things that the church overlooks because their foundation is destroyed

The seventh day is sanctified by YHWH at creation.  There were no Jews, no Christians.  It is for all people.  Yeshua said the Sabbath was made for man.  The word Sabbath means ‘to rest’.  The Sabbath was never changed.  In fact, there is a man who is a Seventh Day Adventist who will give you $10,000 if you can prove this was changed in Scripture.  It was, as is easily proven from history, changed by the Catholic Church and they take it to their credit that Protestants still consider Sunday as the Sabbath.

Leviticus 23 gives the seven feasts of YHWH.  It is written: “And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, [Concerning] the feasts of YHWH, which ye shall proclaim [to be] holy convocations, [even] these [are] my feasts.”  (Leviticus 23:1-2)  It does not say they are feasts for Jews.  It says they are His feasts.  They were commanded to all Israel, which house and commonwealth all believers are grafted into.  (Romans 11, Ephesians 2)

Yeshua said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:17-19)

If He did not come to destroy, if it will not pass away until heaven and earth have passed away, if we are encouraged to teach the commandments, then why is it taught that they are done away with?

This is the foundation for understanding Paul’s writings, including Galatians.  Paul never spoke about doing away with Torah.  If that is what has been taught and generally understood, then there is a foundational problem in our thinking. 

Counting the cost - Four

The smallest letter yod - Jots and tittles

What did Yeshua mean when He said that not one jot or tittle would be done away with?  A Hebrew language perspective...
BTW, the final editing of tractate Soferim took place in the 8th century, a bit removed from Yeshua's time.

Principles of PaRDeS

A very old Hebraic method of Biblical interpretation, first specifically spelled out (according to the Jewish Encyclopedia) in books of kaballah (boo), but probably based on Christian exegesis of the 8th century (hahahaha).  Read the Jewish Encyclopedia article here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3263-bible-exegesis#anchor29

Here is a simple but comprehensive introduction to this tool for understanding scripture: