Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

carl39 · 04-16-2010, 03:06 PM

Carl, Sheep Wrecked is not owner of this web site or forum. I am.

You are making accusatory statements to an admin of this forum that do not apply. You can give Sheep an apology on that if you like. Further you totally ignored MY POST TO YOU> as admin and owner of this website and forum---NOT A GOOD IDEA. Then you go and post this spew? You need to reread the forum rules concerning attacking admins. or this website. You agreed to those rules when you joined. You have an issue--take it private. But DO NOT bring it to the forum like this again. THis will be your only warning on these issues. You do it again and I will permanently ban you and you won't have the option of joining again under a different nic as you have done.

Your stay here will be short lived if you continue in this vein. Take me very seriously on this Carl.

Vic,

My apologies to you. I however do not recall ever saying Sheep owned this forum. I do recall saying administrator. I would like to protest that if one read some of Sheeps return posts in which I am compared to a gnostic and constantly getting belittled and accused of promulgating Messianic beliefs, then inflammatory statements from all should be in private. Realistically, they should be abstained from. I apologize for my failure to do so. I just ask that until one knows a person's heart and knows their full intentions that care be taken in what is said. A wise person once said to me "It's not what you say that matters. It's how the person you are speaking to receives it." There may have been people in the past that have said things that are comparable to mine but that doesn't make them me nor me them. I do not subscribe to any denomination. I do however have some interests that happen to fall under what is called HR on this forum.

You are right I did rejoin under a new nic as Carl39. I had previously joined once under the nic Carl37. I did not remember the password and I never received a return email providing that. I did not disguise anything as I posted my return under Renewbie. That is the only other time I have been here on this forum.

***Vic*** · (This post was last modified: 04-16-2010 03:37 PM by Vic.)

(04-16-2010 03:06 PM)carl39 Wrote: Vic,

My apologies to you. I however do not recall ever saying Sheep owned this forum. I do recall saying administrator. I would like to protest that if one read some of Sheeps return posts in which I am compared to a gnostic and constantly getting belittled and accused of promulgating Messianic beliefs, then inflammatory statements from all should be in private. Realistically, they should be abstained from. I apologize for my failure to do so. I just ask that until one knows a person's heart and knows their full intentions that care be taken in what is said. A wise person once said to me "It's not what you say that matters. It's how the person you are speaking to receives it." There may have been people in the past that have said things that are comparable to mine but that doesn't make them me nor me them. I do not subscribe to any denomination. I do however have some interests that happen to fall under what is called HR on this forum.

You are right I did rejoin under a new nic as Carl39. I had previously joined once under the nic Carl37. I did not remember the password and I never received a return email providing that. I did not disguise anything as I posted my return under Renewbie. That is the only other time I have been here on this forum.

Carl, First on the nic issue--I never received an email request regarding password. If I had you would have gotten a new one. It doesn't matter in the scheme of things that you have the second nic. I knew you weren't hiding the fact. So we are clear on that.

Regarding the forum versus the website. The implication concerning Sheep was made when you quoted my website statements and appeared to be attributing them to Sheep and holding Sheep to them with regards to the prio0r posts. THey are my personal, and with my husband's agreement, statements of what this website is about. That's what I am about. The forum is separate and distinct in a sense. And as stated in the forum rules, the admins post as individuals first and as an admin capacity as needed.

So, regardless, I accept your apology for taking the stance you did. But I think in discussing things with Sheep, that you are right in some things which Sheep will be likely talking to you about. It's not always easy to reflect Christ on issues where there is deep passion concerning the beliefs. It's not an excuse for saying things with wrong attitude or making inappropriate statements. It merely shows everyone of us is human. And we need to always consider that what we say and how we say it matters.

I don't think any of us can ever be in a place to say we know someone else's heart. However, it is by someone words and beliefs that we are to try the spirits and check the doctrine to see if it aligns to the Word of God. That is our standard. It is the Sword of the Spriit. Therefore when someone presents particular beliefs that don't abide the Word or are clearly of a particular groups beliefs such as HR--whether the person understands that or not, then we need to address it as such. Many people don't know they are involved in beliefs that are part of a particular groups.

But, even though you claim to be non -denominational--which really can only be said of someone who has never entered a church of any kind, because bias and beliefs are part of what you have become. As you yourself said you have stuff from all of those you listed, so you might call it non denominational, but I can pick out beliefs from multiple denominations that you have sourced. Therefore to me you are more multi denominational in beliefs but don't attend those churches. That's how I would interpret it.

So when I say I see HR in your beliefs, you really can't deny it, because you are agreeing with and sourcing people like Michael Rood and Perry Stone etc. So if we point that out and show factually and Scripturally why they are in error, are you willing and able to consider those things?

I want to be clear here. THis is a discussion forum and I don't really allow endless and circular debate. Because it deteriorates fairly rapidly into unedifying attitudes and 'need to be right'.

So from my end, Carl, we start here, fresh. Agreed?

carl39 · 04-16-2010, 03:51 PM

Agreed!

On a small side note. I have listened to MR and Perry Stone and others. I do not source them. Nor would I source you or anyone else. The bible is the only source.

***Vic*** · (This post was last modified: 04-18-2010 05:03 PM by Vic.)

(04-16-2010 03:51 PM)carl39 Wrote: Agreed!

On a small side note. I have listened to MR and Perry Stone and others. I do not source them. Nor would I source you or anyone else. The bible is the only source.

Carl, if the bible is your only source for your doctrine, and you listen to all those you listed, what do you get from them? If there is nothing that they offer and a little leaven leavens the whole, does that not mean you are being disobedient to the Scriptures if on the one hand you reject their denominational beliefs and yet still access them for some beliefs? Isnt' that being hypocritical and contrary to the scriptures?

You said this in a few posts:

Quote:It has been my understanding that Hebrew was the language of God/Yahweh.

On a side note hebrew words can have many meanings. Therefore wouldn't it be prudent to know the hebrew words and meanings to ensure that the thought or message was conveyed properly in English?

For me I see a beauty in the Hebrew language with names and words expressing meaning that are totally lost in translation or transliteration.

Either God's installation of the Hebrew language was just for kicks or he placed an importance on names and what one could understand from them.

You said that the bible is your only source for doctrine. Could you please provide the scriptures for the following based on that statement?

1) Hebrew is a holy language aka the language of God
2) Hebrew is God's original language -scriptural proof please
3) The New Testament was written in Greek, there are no original Hebrew manuscripts or proof that the NT was originally written in Hebrew,-thats fact. So what importance is Hebrew when studying from the Greek? And what Scripture supports the concept that one must know hebrew or think in hebrew context in order to understand the NT or the OT? Wasn't salvation to all mankind and the gospel to be preached to all the world so all might know Christ? If only those who 'think hebrew' have the ability to understand doesn't that make it elitisim, gnosticism and not something available to all mankind?

1 Corinthians 2:9-16 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

If use of a language is somehow proof of its relevance biblically, and since more people speak english worldwide than any other language, based on the concept that use must mean importance, could we not then suggest that english could be the language of God since more and more people use it and it is foundational to bible translation? or why not Greek since the NT manuscripts are in Greek, couldnt that be God's original language? (I don't believe this btw, just following the trail of thoughts)

If you place importance on names meaning something in Hebrew alone, then when God changed Abram to Abraham and it was not in Hebrew, does that mean that language was more important also? Or less important? Or was it just that the name held meaning regardless of language?

When it was important to know in the Scripture about that issue, God inspired it to be recorded. But what of all those believers that were not of Jewish descent and those listed as believers in the NT, like Luke, and and if one reads the endings in particular of many of Pauls writings ex Romans 16, we see names of latin origin and they are greeted as the saints. So does that fact that it was not in Hebrew diminish who they were or the meanings their names have in the language they came from?

God gave all languages for all mankind. Mankind didnt invent them. You posted the Scripture that proves God made different languages and many evolved over time. Hebrew wasnt even in the mix for a long time.

Every language can and does put meaning to names. For example my name, Victoria, came from english Victoria which was a variant of Victorius in english . It means conqueror or victory or victorious in most definitions. Usage: English, Spanish, Romanian, Late Roman

Look at the definition historically and how some define it:

Quote:The girl's name Victoria. ... It is of Latin origin, and its meaning is "victory". Feminine form of Victor. Victoria was a goddess who smiled on the ancient Roman people for many centuries. Early Christians adopted the name, probably due to Saint Paul's praise of "God, which giveth us the victory". Royal associations from 19th-century England's Queen Victoria and the four-syllable pronunciation give Victoria an air of dignity, formality and distinction. [thinkbabynames.com]

Who would have guessed that from this Canadian girl. Popcorn

In other words names can be used with different languages and have the same, or similar or different meanings or no meaning at all to the person. The reality is that God provided and protected the manuscripts from the OT in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the NT in Greek, with the occassional aramaic and Hebrew word, all of which have been translated into English and every language known to man, including hebrew. It is just one of hundreds. The focus is that it is God's Word and the Gospel preached throughout the world. Isn't that what we are to be about?

Jesus said,
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

He did not say go into all the world and learn to speak and think in Hebrew.

YYZ Skinhead · 04-18-2010, 12:06 PM

(04-17-2010 05:01 PM)Vic Wrote: [color=#1E90FF]

[b]God gave all languages for all mankind. Mankind didnt invent them. You posted the Scripture that proves God made different languages and many evolved over time. Hebrew wasnt even in the mix for a long time.

Every language can and does put meaning to names. For example my name, Victoria, came from english Victoria which was a variant of Victorius in english . It means conqueror or victory or victorious in most definitions. Usage: English, Spanish, Romanian, Late Roman

Look at the definition historically and how some define it:
Quote:The girl's name Victoria. ... It is of Latin origin, and its meaning is "victory". Feminine form of Victor. Victoria was a goddess who smiled on the ancient Roman people for many centuries. Early Christians adopted the name, probably due to Saint Paul's praise of "God, which giveth us the victory". Royal associations from 19th-century England's Queen Victoria and the four-syllable pronunciation give Victoria an air of dignity, formality and distinction. [thinkbabynames.com]

Who would have guessed that from this Canadian girl.

I would have, since Canadians have cooler names than people in other countries. Icon_coolsign

(Onomastics is another of my fav sciences.)

carl39 · (This post was last modified: 04-19-2010 04:44 PM by Vic.)

***Vic edited for color for clarity***
On a small side note. I have listened to MR and Perry Stone and others. I do not source them. Nor would I source you or anyone else. The bible is the only source.

Have listened being the key. I do not listen to them now.

Carl, if the bible is your only source for your doctrine, and you listen to all those you listed, what do you get from them? If there is nothing that they offer and a little leaven leavens the whole, does that not mean you are being disobedient to the Scriptures if on the one hand you reject their denominational beliefs and yet still access them for some beliefs? Isnt' that being hypocritical and contrary to the scriptures?

Realistically, anything from a newspaper to a movie to tv to the internet can be considered leaven. If anyone partakes of any of the above then they can be considered hypocritical. Since most (most being the key word here) of anything in this world does nothing to glorify god. So if we are to set our mind upon the lord and his will then one would have to forego any of those earthly pleasures wouldn't they?

You said this in a few posts: [quote]It has been my understanding that Hebrew was the language of God/Yahweh.

You said that the bible is your only source for doctrine. Could you please provide the scriptures for the following based on that statement?

1) Hebrew is a holy language aka the language of God
2) Hebrew is God's original language -scriptural proof please

I just stated it was my understanding. I can find no scripture to support this. Nor can I find scripture to support Sheepwrecked's claim that English is god's chosen language to take the gospel to the world. (This was stated in an earlier post.) That is just Sheepwrecked's belief.

3) The New Testament was written in Greek, there are no original Hebrew manuscripts or proof that the NT was originally written in Hebrew,-thats fact. So what importance is Hebrew when studying from the Greek? And what Scripture supports the concept that one must know hebrew or think in hebrew context in order to understand the NT or the OT? Wasn't salvation to all mankind and the gospel to be preached to all the world so all might know Christ? If only those who 'think hebrew' have the ability to understand doesn't that make it elitisim, gnosticism and not something available to all mankind?

Everybody has the ability and opportunity to learn anything. They would just rather watch a movie, baseball game etc. etc. etc....

If use of a language is somehow proof of its relevance biblically, and since more people speak english worldwide than any other language, based on the concept that use must mean importance, could we not then suggest that english could be the language of God since more and more people use it and it is foundational to bible translation? or why not Greek since the NT manuscripts are in Greek, couldnt that be God's original language? (I don't believe this btw, just following the trail of thoughts)

Sheepwrecked seems to think that English is god's chose language to evangelize the world even though no scriptural proof is available.

If you place importance on names meaning something in Hebrew alone, then when God changed Abram to Abraham and it was not in Hebrew, does that mean that language was more important also? Or less important? Or was it just that the name held meaning regardless of language?

When it was important to know in the Scripture about that issue, God inspired it to be recorded. But what of all those believers that were not of Jewish descent and those listed as believers in the NT, like Luke, and and if one reads the endings in particular of many of Pauls writings ex Romans 16, we see names of latin origin and they are greeted as the saints. So does that fact that it was not in Hebrew diminish who they were or the meanings their names have in the language they came from?

As I said I am just learning. It would seem that many old hebrew names included part of god's name in them. I just find that extremely interesting. I don't think it's a coincidence.

God gave all languages for all mankind. Mankind didnt invent them. You posted the Scripture that proves God made different languages and many evolved over time. Hebrew wasnt even in the mix for a long time.

Can you tell me where I can find when Hebrew became the language of the Jewish people?

Every language can and does put meaning to names. For example my name, Victoria, came from english Victoria which was a variant of Victorius in english . It means conqueror or victory or victorious in most definitions. Usage: English, Spanish, Romanian, Late Roman

***Vic*** · (This post was last modified: 07-09-2012 04:53 PM by Vic.)

Hi Carl,

Regarding the leaven issue. Jesus said we are to be in the world not of it. That means our beliefs/doctrine is to be grounded in the Scriptures. Not the world or false beliefs. One can stay true Christ and be fully surrounded with the world and all it means, because it's about following Him.

Keep in mind that the leaven teaching has two issues: false doctrine and hypocrisy of beliefs.

It means taking the false doctrines and allowing them be part of ones belief and because of that, just like leaven, they permeate and affect how one believes. Even if one may have some solid grounding. Allowing the false affects that.

>>>Can you tell me where I can find when Hebrew became the language of the Jewish people? >>>

Hebrew is a language that evolved historically from proto Canaanite (1400 bce) into Phoenician (1050 bce) then into paleo, middle, and late Hebrew, which finally ended up becoming the Biblical Hebrew (with vowels) that we find today in the Masoretic text. From there modern words were added, and then once again it evolved into the modern Hebrew that is spoken in Israel today.

This is from a Jewish scholar:

Quote: Ø Proto-Hebrew (PH). The Canaanite dialects (c.1200-1000 B.C.E.) that would develop into Hebrew with the loss of the case endings. For details see BHA phase 2. Sources - see Harris 1939, Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard, Sáenz-Badillos.

Ø Pre-exilic Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH). The literary dialect of Jerusalem c.950-586 B.C.E (First Temple Period). This is the only widely attested form of Judahite Hebrew. It developed out of PH. See: Establishment of Jerusalem Written and Spoken Dialects (c. 1000-c. 900 BCE).

Ø Israelian Hebrew - This is a catchall term for all the dialects spoken in the villages and towns of the Kingdom of Israel c. 1000 BCE until at least the seventh century BCE. We have very little evidence of Israelian Hebrew. The use of this term does not imply that these dialects had more in common with each other than many of them had to some of the dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Judah and hence classed under the rubric Judahite Hebrew.

Ø Judahite Hebrew (BHA phase 3). This is a catchall term for all the dialects spoken in the villages and towns of the Kingdom of Judah during the First Temple Period. Use of the term Judahite Hebrew does not imply that these presumably variable dialects had more in common with each other than many of them had to some of the dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Israel and hence classed under the rubric Israelian Hebrew.

http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_abb_dia.htm#PNWS

c) AH - Ancient Hebrew[9] - All the Canaanite dialects written and spoken in the territory described in the Bible as being settled by the tribes of Israel from about 1000 BCE until the extinction of Hebrew speech with the suppression of the Bar Kochba rebellion [132-136 AD] in the mid-second century CE (BHA phase 1 - Phase 4).

----
From another source.

Quote: The Canaanite languages are a subfamily of the Semitic languages, which were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, including Canaanites, Israelites and Phoenicians. All of them became extinct as native languages in the early 1st millennium CE, although Hebrew remained in continuous literary and religious
use among Jews, and was revived as a spoken, everyday language in the 19th century by Eliezer Ben Yehuda. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages - which was source linked to the first link written by the Jewish scholar]

We see that Hebrew was revived as a spoken, everyday language in the 19th century by Eliezer Ben Yehuda. It is not the same as biblical hebrew.

Chaldee [Aramaic] Targums, or Paraphrases, have been written on all the books of the Old Testament ; some parts of the book of Ezra, and the book of Daniel. The line of written targums begins with that of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, about AD 150 in Aramaic. They were compiled about AD 300, the latter about 200 years after. The Bible [OT] contains several chapters of Aramaic.

As you can see it is a myth that Hebrew is a holy language or that it's "God's" language - it's so easy to prove from the OT itself that God spoke in other languages.

And even in Acts 2 we see the many languages spoken by Jews.

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites (Persian/Iranian dialects), and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, (various dialects, Syrian, Persian, Akkadian, Aramaic) and in Judaea, and (Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek) and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (various dialects, Greek)10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, (various dialects,Greek) in Egypt, (Arabic, Greek, Aramaic),and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, (Latin,Greek, Aramaic) and strangers of Rome, (Latin,Greek) Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes (Greek, Aramaic) and Arabians, (Arabic, Greek, Aramaic) we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

If the Hebrew language issue is just your understanding and has no basis in Scripture then it stands to reason to find the understanding of the issue from the Scriptures. And if it is a moot point or not provable then it stands to reason it is not worth holding as a valid belief worth arguing about or promoting as fact, don't you think?

>>Everybody has the ability and opportunity to learn anything. They would just rather watch a movie, baseball game etc. etc. etc....

Yes, but the point being was that you implied that it was important to learn hebrew in order to understand the Scriptures. That is a false premise. One might learn hebrew, aramaic and greek to go to the manuscripts, but it is not necessary. If one chooses that is fine. But one is not at disadvantage if one does not do that. Because our understanding of the Scriptures comes from the Holy Spirit. It was never intended to be bound to one human mindset but rather it
comes from the mind of Christ.

Therefore all believers have equal access to the things freely given by Him.

You are redirecting to Sheep. This conversation is between you and me. God did choose to use English and other languages, and that was when the Bibles got published and translated worldwide. He chose to use other languages because the majority of people speak other languages. Jews did not even speak Hebrew for many years or read it. The Scriptures tell us that the Gospel would be published throughout the world. If it was only in Hebrew, then very few would hear it. It has been put into the languages of all nations.

<<<As I said I am just learning. It would seem that many old hebrew names included part of god's name in them. I just find that extremely interesting. I don't think it's a coincidence.>>

Many of the names throughout the Scriptures are also in other languages. I mentioned Abraham , which is chaldean, a form of aramaic.
Shinar - chaldean
Moses is egyptian
Nebuchadnezzar - babylonian [chaldean]
Esther is Persian

Dan 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

They were given babylonian names, even Daniel. And in my other post I mentioned all the names of believers referenced in the NT. Jewish and Gentile. The point I made before was that when it was important as a focus we can see it clearly in Scriptures.

This article addresses these issues. I think you will find it interesting. http://www.seekgod.ca/hr/hrfaqs8.htm#holy

Myth. Hebrew will be the Holy language of heaven or Hebrew is the Holy language of heaven or the divine language of Heaven. People can learn it now, from special

Hebrew Roots scholars.

http://www.seekgod.ca/hr/hrfaqs8.htm#holy

This section addesses the name issue. I think you might find these article helpful. Names For God & Jesus It addresses the names issue you are referencing.

http://www.seekgod.ca/topichr.htm#faq4

THere is really only one really important focus and that is that at the name of Jesus, said like that in many languages or similar or with variations per language, but it will be at the name of Jesus, the person who died for our sins, that at His Name every knee shall bow. There will be no doubt as to who He is. That's where our focus should be. On Him.