What's the True Name of God?

[Mo MHuintir]

Jeremiah does refer to the written word. When you stated;

"However the context isn't about them writing the Word of God, but merely promoting their own vanities and prophets were giving false prophesies and claiming them to be of God."

that was an incorrect interpretation. Jeremiah does comment about the false prophets and their lying words;

Jer 2:8
The prophets prophesied by Baal,
NKJV

Jer 5:31
The prophets prophesy falsely,
NKJV

But in 8:8, Jeremiah makes it a point to say "et sheqer" the lying pen. In other places he refers to lying words, but here he specifically says a pen. By use of the waw consecutive, he ties the lying pen contextually to the torah, the written word of Yhwh.

When Yhwh gave Israel the Torah (the 10 words or utterances); Moses himself testified,

These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. Deut 5:22 KJV

"and he added no more."

Who then added the other 603?
This is the heavy burden that Christ referred to in Matt 23:13. Namely, the oral Mishpah, that would become the Torah Mishnah. It is a corruption of the original Torah given to Moses,

"Love Yhwh with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:But in 8:8, Jeremiah makes it a point to say "et sheqer" the lying pen. In other places he refers to lying words, but here he specifically says a pen. By use of the waw consecutive, he ties the lying pen contextually to the torah, the written word of Yhwh.

Did you miss the part that Vic posted about the other meanings of sheker? By the way I have no idea what you mean by the vav consecutive.I will post you the part of the verse where it says
אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה, עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים
No vav's there so I don't know what you mean about that perhaps you would explain.
The et sheker is indeed saying lying/vain or useless pen but from the context it seems to be saying the writing of the scribes was useless or in vain.

[Ne'arYah]

WOW!

So Vic I'm curious who are these authors your learning from and where do they get there information. Secondly, how far back does his research or any of your personal research go?

after Yahushua or for you shall I say Yeshua or before? I mean what year

[Vic]

(04-23-2011 12:27 AM)Mo MHuintir Wrote:  Jeremiah does refer to the written word. When you stated;
"However the context isn't about them writing the Word of God, but merely promoting their own vanities and prophets were giving false prophesies and claiming them to be of God."

that was an incorrect interpretation. Jeremiah does comment about the false prophets and their lying words;

...But in 8:8, Jeremiah makes it a point to say "et sheqer" the lying pen. In other places he refers to lying words, but here he specifically says a pen. By use of the waw consecutive, he ties the lying pen contextually to the torah, the written word of Yhwh.

When Yhwh gave Israel the Torah (the 10 words or utterances); Moses himself testified,

These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. Deut 5:22 KJV

"and he added no more."

Who then added the other 603?
This is the heavy burden that Christ referred to in Matt 23:13. Namely, the oral Mishpah, that would become the Torah Mishnah. It is a corruption of the original Torah given to Moses,

"Love Yhwh with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."

Hi Bill,

I believe it is imperative to always look at the context, which is shown in my prior post concerning what ch 7 and 8 were about and other passages, what was being presented previously about Israel's disobedience and sin.

And please look carefully at this, and this is totally my understanding.:

Jer 8:8 How do ye say, [God asking Israel, how can you say] We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? [He had already pointed out they weren't abiding the Law and serving Him] Lo, certainly in vain made he it; [God made the Law and it was obviously in vain or pointless because Israel was rejecting it] the pen of the scribes is in vain. [therefore, the scribes' job of copying the Book, was totally in vain because they weren't abiding it]

Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: [some were ashamed and dismayed] lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; [Israel had REJECTED the word of the Lord--- if they had changed it or made it all up, as you are implying, I think God would have said---they have CHANGED the word of the Lord] and what wisdom is in them?

rejected >

H3988
מאס
mâ'as
BDB Definition:
1) to reject, despise, refuse
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to reject, refuse
1a2) to despise
1b) (Niphal) to be rejected
2) (Niphal) to flow, run
Part of Speech:
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1139, 1140

In order to have rejected the word of the Lord and the law, that means it had to be there for them. Vain means more than lying; sheqer means more than lying. You have to look at the context.

Doing something "in vain" means that something being done has the exact same outcome as if it had never been done. It's pointless, or fruitless. Copying the Scriptures as the scribes were called to do, and claiming to believe and live to them was totally in vain, because they weren't living to God, but to themselves. They rejected God's word. They didn't change it, they just didn't apply it or live by it, even though they claimed to, as the related passages show.

H8267
שׁקר
sheqer
BDB Definition:
1) lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood
1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)
1b) deceit, fraud, wrong
1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)
1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)
1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely
1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)
1e) lie, falsehood (in general)
1e1) false tongue
1f) in vain
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H8266

shaqar on the other hand means
H8266
שׁקר
shâqar
BDB Definition:
1) to do or deal falsely, be false, trick, cheat
1a) (Piel) to deal falsely
1b) (Qal) to deal falsely
Part of Speech: verb

Let's see some parallel concepts about claiming to abide the laws but in fact were not and instead were teaching things that were contrary to it. The law, meaning the given Sinai covenant is still there and provable by the Scripture God provided, but, ...

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

transgress

G3845
παραβαίνω
parabainō
Thayer Definition:
1) to go by the side of
2) to go past or pass over without touching a thing
3) to overstep, neglect, violate, transgress
4) so to go past as to turn aside from
4a) to depart, leave, be turned from
5) one who abandons his trust
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3844 and the base of G939

in vain

G3155
μάτην
matēn
mat'-ane
Accusative case of a derivative of the base of G3145 (through the idea of tentative manipulation, that is, unsuccessful search, or else of punishment); folly, that is, (adverbially) to no purpose: - in vain.

G3155
μάτην
matēn
Thayer Definition:
1) in vain, fruitlessly
Part of Speech: adverb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: accus. of a derivative of the base of G3145 (through the idea of tentative manipulation, i.e. unsuccessful search, or else of punishment)

none effect

G208
ἀκυρόω
akuroō
ak-oo-ro'-o
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G2964; to invalidate: - disannul, make of none effect.

Psa 119:125 I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies.
Psa 119:126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.

made void H6565
פּרר
pârar
BDB Definition:
1) to break, frustrate
1a) (Hiphil)
1a1) to break, violate
1a2) to frustrate, make ineffectual
1b) (Hophal)
1b1) to be frustrated
1b2) to be broken
1b3) to break
1c) (Pilpel) to break to bits, shatter
2) to split, divide
2a) (Qal) to split, crack through
2b) (Poel) to break apart
2c) (Hithpoel) to be split, be cracked through
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1829, 1830, 1831

If the scribes had corrupted or changed the Scriptures and none of it is of God, then what logic would it be, to put a verse in saying that it was all lies?

If some of it is of God, could you please tell me how we know that, and who determines what is and is not of God?

If the intent was to mislead and deceive people as you say, why would the scribes say they lied? Wouldn't that be like shooting oneself in the foot? Like--hey I planned to deceive you all with what I am writing, but not to worry, you can believe it's true.

Does that sound realistic at all?

And if they did as you say, there is not one Scripture we can claim as being of God. Because not one person would be able to discern the difference of what was given by God -- and which then the scribes allowed to exist in amongst their lies--- and what was all fabrication, Because the scribes recorded all the Scriptures. That means, we have no Scriptures. That kind of finishes the history from Creation, to Israel, to Judaism and Christianity; declaration and belief in God and certainly Jesus Christ. Because as He said,

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

I kind of think God is much bigger than that.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Rom 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.

Neh 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
Neh 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Lev 27:34 These are the commandments, which ]the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Psa 78:1 <Maschil of Asaph.> Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
Psa 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
Psa 78:3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
Psa 78:4 We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done.
Psa 78:5 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:
Psa 78:6 That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children:

Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Act 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Sa 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, 2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Mat 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[Ne'arYah]

Shalam Vic.


I didn't want my question to fly by unanswered, and I notice you responded to Mo. I would love to get into more conversation with you and Rose both, but I feel like I have to pull teeth around here to get an answer.

On a serious note, I would like to know where these authors have gathered their information, along with what information is related to what exact time, be it A.D. B.C. or whatever?

Shalom

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:I didn't want my question to fly by unanswered, and I notice you responded to Mo. I would love to get into more conversation with you and Rose both, but I feel like I have to pull teeth around here to get an answer.

Nearyah
I enjoy discussing things with you though I will admit I find it hard to understand what you are asking sometimes..or you seem to refer to things which I didn't actually say so then I have to spend time looking for what it is that I was supposed to have said.
So I do apologise if some of your questions seem to have gone unanswered.Hey you have also not answered many of mine but am I complaining?
No since I do realise that you also have a life away from the PC and commitments just like the rest of us.
Additionally we have responded to a lot of your posts (my last post was to you ) and we have all been dialoguing.Some topics have received more attention than others and since we all pose a lot of questions to each other then its natural that some are going to be unanswered.

I have searched the last pages of this thread and I don't seem to have answered your question of what I call God.I don't call him YHVH since as I don't know the corrrect vowels it would be improper of me to do so since I'll most likely be wrong.
Even so His Name is not an issue with me..I call Him Father ,the same as Christ called Him Father too.
Even if I knew the correct vowel pointing I would not use that name since there are times in the OT where YHVH is used and it seems to be Christ speaking.So it's all too confusing to my human head.I have better things to worry about

[Mo MHuintir]

I must say, I appreciate the time you took to respond to this post. I know how long it takes to do that kind of research.

I too believe it is imperative to understand the context of the saying.

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. Jer 8:8 KJV

Sheqer (8267) is used over 100 times throughout the scriptures. It is rendered in the following ways;
false (20 times), falsely (13x), falsehood (13x), lying (22x), lie[s](28x), wrongfully (4x), without a cause (1x), deceitful (2x), deceit (1x), feighnedly (1x), prophecy a lie (1x), liar (1x), and lastly, vain (6x).

Since the definition for “vain” is to be useless or meaningless, I don’t think the KJV translators made the best choice when choosing this word. Especially since the word “sheqer” is translated almost 90% of the time to mean “false” or “a lie.”

In essence the translators were saying, it was useless for God to have made the Torah, because the scribes have rendered it meaningless by their rejection of His word.
You made a similar point when you said;

“They rejected God's word. They didn't change it, they just didn't apply it or live by it, even though they claimed to, as the related passages show.”
I think this is why the translators of the New King James version changed the translation to read;

"How can you say, 'We are wise,
And the law of the Lord is with us'?
Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood. Jer 8:8 NKJV
They removed the word vain, making the falsehood a cognitive action reflexive upon the scribes and their writings.
You wrote (Part a):
“If the scribes had corrupted or changed the Scriptures and none of it is of God,...”

This is an incorrect statement. I never said “none of it is of God.”

(Part b); “....then what logic would it be, to put a verse in saying that it was all lies?

This is an overstatement. The verse doesn’t say it was -all- lies.

You wrote, “If the intent was to mislead and deceive people as you say, why would the scribes say they lied?”
I can only believe that the scribes who later recorded the accusation Jeremiah made, felt compelled to do so by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

You wrote;
And if they did as you say, there is not one Scripture we can claim as being of God. Because not one person would be able to discern the difference of what was given by God
Of course they would be able to discern, in the same way that you do. You have the Spirit of the living God in your heart! He, the Holy Spirit, is your truth filter.

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:27-28 KJV

Since no man can pluck them out of his hand, how then can they be mislead by a scribe?

Since, “...neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Rom 8:38-39]..how can.the lying pen of the scribe prevail?

You wrote; “That means, we have no Scriptures.”

Before there were any scriptures, God credited Abraham with righteousness (James 2:23) and called him his friend, because he followed his Torah (Gen 26:5). That was about 500 years before the Torah was written.

To get back to my original point, the fact that the scribes were accused by Jeremiah of lying, doesn’t surprise me since it ‘s common knowledge today that the Masoretes altered the vowel points of Yhwh (they lied) to deliberately hide the pronunciation of the name of God (contrary to God’s command of Ex 3:15). Then they lied about the secondary set of vowel points they used to replace the original and correct rendering. They were supposed to be those of “adonai,” but are not. So why should we believe that the current set of vowel points, that produce the sound “Ye ho” are genuine?

I don’t.

[Vic]

(04-24-2011 03:14 AM)NearYah Wrote:  Shalam Vic.


I didn't want my question to fly by unanswered, and I notice you responded to Mo. I would love to get into more conversation with you and Rose both, but I feel like I have to pull teeth around here to get an answer.

On a serious note, I would like to know where these authors have gathered their information, along with what information is related to what exact time, be it A.D. B.C. or whatever?

Shalom

Ne'aryah, I had to delete yet another of your duplicate posts. I will say this one more time. PLease stop duplicating your posts, either within the post itself or as a separate duplicate.

THey all get read and answered in some semblance of order and when I have time and there are others ahead of yours that have yet to be answered. Trying to push to the front of the line comes across as showing lack of respect and patience. I am sure that is not how you want people to perceive you.

I have many posts in progress and in queue to answer, and will get to yours when I am ready to. Guaranteed.

It is very rare for posts to go unanswered. But I really do have a life and family outside this forum and I actually do take time to eat and rest occassionaly. An inconvenience I know, but...that's life.

[Ne'arYah]

Quote:Originally: VIC
The main obstacles in trying to render His name as YAHshua instead of Yeshua, is created by the fact that there is no Hebrew letter "hey" in Yeshua, and also by the Masoretic vowel pointings or nikud. The tsere that is under the Yod in "Yeshua" in the Hebrew scriptures demonstrates the vocalization of the first syllable as "yay," and not "YAH." This is also true of the Greek vowel eta, which is pronounced "Yay", and is found in the transliterated Greek rendering of Yeshua which is Iesous. Many use Y'shua thinking that it is a shortened version of YAHshua, when in fact, Yshua would represent a truncated version of the long form Yehoshua with the theophoric element "Yeho" removed. This shortening occurred with many names that possessed the theophoric element of the Name of the Almighty during the second temple period.

Another example would be Yehowseph shortened to Yoseph. Biblical names such as Yehonatan (Jonathan), Yehoyaqim (Jehoiakim), Yehoshafat (Jehoshaphat), Yehoram (Jehoram), and Yehoshua (Joshua), all have the shva under the yod signifying the "Yeh" vocalization, but the later shortened version of Yehoshua (Yeshua) does not.

Some 'teachers' have promoted in their videos and books, that the Messiah's Name is YAHshua, and that it means "Yahweh is our salvation". If we review the meanings of the correct scriptural names, we find that the long form of Yehoshua would translate as "YHVH is salvation" or "He who is (or will be) saves". I am not sure where the 'our' could possibly come from in their constructed name of YAHshua. Some of these same teachers have stated that they do not like to use the name Yeshua, because it only means "salvation". This needs to be clarified, as it is an incorrect statement. Yeshuah (H3444) written Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin-Hey, is a feminine noun that means "salvation". Yeshua (H3442) written Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin, is a masculine noun that means "He is salvation" or "He saves." It is the name that refers to Joshua in the TeNaKh (OT), and is the shortened form of Yehoshua which the name Jesus was derived from. In scripture we find in Matthew 1:21 "for He will save His people from their sins"

If someone firmly believes that the manufactured rendering of YAHshua is a scriptural name, then I would recommend that they check it out for themselves in the Hebrew texts. Creating one's own language concepts while ignoring the rules that govern transliteration and vocalization, and then applying them to other languages to aid in the formation of a Hebrew sounding name does not demonstrate sound or acceptable scholarship. It appears according to the above explanation that "YAHshua" is a manufactured name that has been assembled using faulty scholarship in an effort to support a theological agenda.

Now that I’ve addressed everything in the covenant thread, I’d like to dig into this topic a little deeper. However, you seem to have your mind made-up on what the name is so I don’t want to be the one doing most of the talking. I’ll let that be done by you to defend your ground. Trust me, this does not mean I will be silent on the issue. Let me first offend Mr. Ginsburg study by saying this to you. The man you’re learning from isn’t an Yisra’elite. We should stop right there and not assume what he says to be 100% accurate. I think Josepheus taught us a good lesson in that. So let’s carefully asses the information you’ve provided. But before we get into this I want to point to one small thing. I have never been a member of a sacred name crowd, so if they are affecting me it is indirectly through truth. The sacred name movement has nothing to do with Holman ChristianStudy Bible, which tells us his name is Yahweh, which is short for Yah.

Quote:Psalm 68:4 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
4 Sing to God! Sing praises to His name.
Exalt Him who rides on the clouds [a] —
His name is Yahweh [b] —and rejoice before Him. (A)
Footnotes:
a. Psalm 68:4 Or rides through the desert
b. Psalm 68:4 Lit Yah

So let’s revisit that point using strong’s concordance, which I’m not a fan of by the way, but I’ll stick with it because it seems to be something you rely on heavily. You said that Yah is short-hand for Jehovah according to this Ginsburg and strong’s. Why the switch-up of the Jah to Jeh or Yah to Yeh?

Strongs word # 3050
1) Jah (Jehovah in the shortened form)

[Vic]

(04-23-2011 06:23 PM)NearYah Wrote:  WOW!

So Vic I'm curious who are these authors your learning from and where do they get there information. Secondly, how far back does his research or any of your personal research go?

after Yahushua or for you shall I say Yeshua or before? I mean what year

Ne'aryah, Are you saying because you aren't used to actual legitimate scholarship and are just so overwhelmed because you are unable to absorb all the truth in it? because you are used to the pseudo scholarship of the HR and sacred name venue? I can only assume that based on your not giving an explanation for the wow exclamation, and then of course going by your posts.

The author for the one goes by the nic of Higher Truth. His letters can be read here:

Yahweh, Yahwah, Yahawah, Yahovah, Yaheveh, Yehaweh, Yehowah, Yehowih, Yehwih, Yahuweh, Yahueh, Yahuah, Jahveh, Iabe, Iahueh, Iehouah, and Jehovah: What is His Sacred Name or True Name? > http://www.seekgod.ca/htname.htm

Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus The Sacred Name or True Name > http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

There's other letters of his posted that you can read if you wish. I have full confidence that the information is very well researched, confirmed and sound. If you wish to pursue any further information about him, you are welcome to try to track him down. He changed email addresses and I no longer have that contact with him.

OH and since you bring up sources, who are the 'teachers' that Rose suggested you send to the corner for their failed attempt at teaching you hebrew? That wouldn't be people like Jeff Benner--who is a member here? or Brad Scott, David Pollina...etc ? Do tell< inquiring minds want to know.

As far as your offer ,

Quote: "after Yahushua or for you shall I say Yeshua"

OH by all means please don't use the made up name of Yahushua; and while Yeshua is the correct Hebrew--please do feel free to use that as the proper Hebrew- but for dialogue with me, please say the name of Jesus, which is the English name of my Lord and Savior. I speak English and there is no point mixing languages, especially with made up words not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, as it generally confuses people rather than giving any semblance of clarity. IN fact Paul said that,

1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Most readers that come to this forum are speaking english or translating from the english on here to their own language. No point complicating things for them. Thanks for offering to do that. I really appreciate it.

Quote: "Secondly, how far back does his research or any of your personal research go?"

Personally I research back to Genesis 1:1. Since God gave the historical record from that point on...however ,

Here's some information you can read and check out yourself.

Hebrew as an “original” language of the Bible did not exist prior to 900 BCE. Hebrew evolved from a “pagan” language – proto Canaanite/Akkadian and contains Greek, Egyptian, Aramaic, and Chaldean loan words and was known as Hebrew after 900BCE. Even in David's time it was not Hebrew, but still referred to as proto-canaanite by language historians and archaeologists.

manuscripts used for the KJV and earlier versions are validated by DSS fragments

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=292

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.

....There is an argument sometimes presented that Hebrew is the language of God, because of an errant belief that He wrote the Ten Commandments in Hebrew with His own finger into the tablets made of stone. The Ten commandments were not written in what we consider Hebrew, and we are able to discern this due to the time frame when they would have been written. The language of that time was proto Canaanite which has been definitively established through archaeological finds.

It is theorized that proto Canaanite is the language that Abraham spoke, and the language that God may have used to converse with him. (approx 1800 bce) The Ten Commandments were given before the five books of Moses (Torah), which is dated approximately 1500-1400 bce when proto Canaanite was still in effect as a language. Other languages used by many of the idol worshipping cultures of the area were also derived from it such as the dialects of the Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizites and Jebusites, and then Greek was developed from the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet later around 750 bce. If the Ten Commandments had been written in Hebrew as we know it, then Moses and the children of Israel would have not been able to understand what was written. This is because it is a different alphabet due to the fact that Hebrew script, which is a derivative of proto Canaanite,*only came into being in the 9th century bce, a full six centuries later....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=608

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

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

Quote: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] [/quote]

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.

>>>>>>

You can read more about these issues and discuss the various topics on their threads, for example:

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=292
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=285
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=668
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=608 pg10

>>>>Hope that helps. Oh one more article for you:

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