The Strong's Deception

[Laureate]

Ancient Hebrew is the product of concrete, as opposed to abstract, thought. Each ote conveys a concrete thought.

Unlike English, where letters express the phonetics of a word; and those phonetics are assigned to a definition, that can change as the language "evolves;" the otiot of Ancient Hebrew define the meaning of the word; and the phonetics are assigned to the meaning.

In the original texts there were no spaces between the otiot. It was a continuous string of otiot, that expressed a thought.

To better understand the meaning of what was written, as it was written, and to whom it was written at that time, it would serve us well to understand the culture of the time in which it was written. For Example: I've had numerous revelations regarding scripture as I've been shifting to a more agrarian lifestyle.

It would also serve us well to think like an Ancient Hebrew, in concrete, as opposed to abstract thought.

Having been raised in a culture that is steeped in the abstract Greek Philosophy, removed from an Agrarian lifestyle thousands of years removed from the culture; this is not an easy task.

However, despite my handicaps, I will attempt to bring harmony to this seemly disconnected meanings of how this word might have been understood by Ancient Hebrews

To begin, I challenge that SQD expresses "almond tree," but rather simply an almond.

In addition SQD expresses the eye. This is the concrete meaning of the word. Concrete expressions are of what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt.


"Watch" is the action of the eye. "Watch" is the action form of this word.

An almond is shaped like an eye.

This might seem like a cop out for an explanation, or maybe even crazy talk; but we must understand that Ancient Hebrews had a entirely different way of thinking than of most of the world today, and it was a completely different culture.

There are still tribal cultures that still think in concrete thought today. They have equal difficulty in understanding the way that we think.

In linguistics we simply discern between the ה Definite and the (implied) Indefinite Article, i.e., The Cat (when speaking Specifically) & A Cat (when speaking in General), which is one of the few things that philosophers happen to agree upon in terms of Concrete and Abstract, otherwise the relationship between the Abstract & Concrete is inseparable, for The Man is A Man,

When we speak of ‘A (microcosmic particle of ) Truth’ we are addressing an Organ, Aspect or Characteristic Trait etc., of ‘The (Greater Macrocosm of) Truth (and it’s Entirety)’,

The Truth being a Body that possesses many Organs, Aspects and Characteristic Traits;
The Truth is more than just a construct confined to the imagination of an intellect, it pertains to the very Laws which Govern Actuality and Reality, and the Perspectives of Truth which we contemplate in our minds, and are yet made manifest through our being;

Actuality [ענינים שוטפים] is the (prevailing) Reality of Existence, The Creator and Sovereign Author(-ity) of Heaven and Earth and everything in the Past, Present and Future that proves to have Existed, proves to Exist, and shall prove to Be Existent, for י he הוה is הוהי ‘Existence’ itself, and there is Nothing that has Existence besides (outside of) him, neither is their a Sovereign Authority besides his own;

He made the Earth of himself and fashioned Adam from and upon it, and the Only Begotten Son of Adam which continues to exercise his Sovereign Authority upon the face of the Earth (Seth), is the Express Image of Alohym, whose (recycling) Body is the Door by which everyone who enters the Kingdom Lawfully, is granted access, wherefore he is the Father of all the Living, which constitute the Many Members of his Body;

The Only Begotten Son of Alohym has declared that, (his Lips are not his own, but that the (Spirit of his) Father, who Dwells within his Bosom Orchestrates the Speech, and Animates his (otherwise unprofitable) Flesh, which happens to include every Member of his Body;

Being inseparable Sons and Daughters of the Supreme Being, Collectively we Constitute the Many Members of the Sovereign Author’s Living Temple/Body, whose fluid Spirit Dwells within and Operates through everyone of us simultaneously, Orchestrating the Speech and Animation of the Living Temple;

Unto those who neither Know nor Believe, that the Spirit of Yahuah Alohym Establishes the Work of our Hands, and Directs our Footsteps, he does so without their Knowledge or Detection, and he hands those who do not possess a genuine Love for Truth over to their own diluted imagination and with a strong Conviction he causes them to believe a Lie;

Yahuah is Fully Aware of what every individual Knows and Perceives to be True, and what every individual does Not Know and does Not Perceive to be True, wherefore he also Knows precisely what one needs to Perceive or forget at any given moment to evoke the response that he desires, that he may override the Intent of the Members of his Body, whether it be to rewrite the Convictions and Agendas of a creature, and or develop their Perspective of Reality to be more in harmony with Actuality;

One’s Harmonic or Distorted Perspective of Actuality Co-Authors the Reality in which one Operates within (the confines of) Actuality, wherefore there are many Realities coexisting in the realm of Actuality;

Each Reality comes complete with it’s own set of theoretical parameters and perceptible possibilities, thus making Knowledge of Actual Truth a Key to Liberate one from the Confines of Ignorance which imprisons and or restricts one to live in the State (and jurisdiction) of their Reality where Options are somewhat deprived and often deranged;

In short, the Hebrew Language is not the by product of mere Men, yet a Hebrew speaking individual who is not aware of this fact, is subject to treat it as if it were of Men, and subsequently Add & Diminish elements that will render one’s understanding to be neither Sound or True, this is precisely the case of the bulk of Mankind and many Contemporary Hebrew speaking people.

We can come to an Agreement as to what the Truth is by Discovery, but We should not come together and Determine by Opinion (a Vote to Establish) what the Truth is, was or shall come to be, to do so will make it Our own Truth, instead of The Truth;

To avoid looking incompetent or save face, and skirt any appearance of inferiority, the tactics of a Pseudo Scientist and Theologian (who resists triangulatable evidence) often intercalate elements that are irreconcilable, as if to say or imply, the Truth can Not be Ascertained and Declared, because…., they are also prone to make attempts to speak over one’s head (where the Truth of a matter is Veiled), to avoid personal embarrassment, or justify the withholding of a consent that gives credence to what has been presented to them.

The Truth of Actuality reveals, some Perceived Options have no Real Existence other than in the Imagination of those which Perceive them), which of course completely undermines the Concept of (a Liberating) Free Will without a Genuine Love for the Truth;

In terms of Science we discern between that which is Actual & Theoretical(ly Sound, Proven to be True or Feasibly Possible) & then there is the Hypothetical, which is a ‘far reaching’ possibility to either prove or attain, meaning there are too many unknown factors involved, wherefore to prematurely render a verdict of Viable Feasibility or Not, is best suited for those who neither take their Science or Theology serious enough to incorporate the integrity of triangulatable evidence;

Theoretical postulations always entail the Contingencies of a given Context (Situation or Circumstance) where variables are subject to vary or fluctuate, wherefore until certain details are made manifest (natural or fabricated), and determining factors are engaged, the outcome/truth (of such Abstracts) will remain uncertain, if not questionably hanging in the balance;

The more pertinence one finds in the Formula of a given Context the more Concrete (Precise) the information will be (potentially received and understood), and the less pertinence discovered will render the information more vague, ambiguous or mysterious;

A Word or Sound that does not have a (definitive) Meaning is just a (perceptible) Nonsensical Noise, whereas there is No Consensus amongst the Philosophers on the (definitive) Meaning of Concrete and Abstract Thinking, thus without such, it is in itself a Nonsensical Noise without a Harmonic Meaning;

There is One who comprises Many, and there is One of the Many, and the Many who are One, wherefore we have three viable perspectives having real value, wherefore none should be deemed irrelevant, though the perspective of the One who comprises Many is Supreme over the Many who are One, and the One of Many likewise falls within the Jurisdiction of the Many who are One;

 

[Yahudim]

Hi Laureate,

Brother, I have read and reread your posts in this thread. I researched a few more of your posts on CF too. I have performed many searches with numerous search engines focusing on your phraseology and terminology. It didn't help me in understanding why you would take such a blatantly philosophical approach to what has repeatedly been described as a technical endeavor.

???

 

[The Liturgist]

Use​

Strong's Concordance provides an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.

Strong's numbers​

Each original-language word (Hebrew or Greek) is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance. These have become known as the "Strong's numbers". The main concordance lists each word that appears in the KJV Bible in alphabetical order with each verse in which it appears listed in order of its appearance in the Bible, with a snippet of the surrounding text (including the word in italics). Appearing to the right of the scripture reference is the Strong's number. This allows the user of the concordance to look up the meaning of the original language word in the associated dictionary in the back, thereby showing how the original language word was translated into the English word in the KJV Bible.

Strong's Concordance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh really?

For years now, I have been using Strong's numbers to find the most accurate definition of the Hebrew word. The way that I do this is to look at the otiot of the word I'm researching. Then look at all of the various English translations of that word. I choose one definition that most closely conforms to the symbology of the otiot. Then I get the Strong's number for that word. Then I plug the definition that I'm testing into every verse that contains that Strong's number. If that definition doesn't work with every verse that I have tested it against; then I continue to try to understand what that word must mean.

Recently I did a similar study. I have forgotten which word I was researching; but initially I was satisfied with my understanding of the meaning of the word. Maybe a dozen or so verses were connected to that Strong's number. This did seem a bit odd for this word that is commonly found in the Bible. It didn't take long before I stumbled onto the reality that this word is used widely throughout scripture. It didn't take me long before I realized that there were at least three Strong's numbers for this same word. Within days I stumbled onto another word that had multiple numbers assigned to it.

I recently brought this up at a Bible study; and one of the well studied members within our group was as astonished as I was. He asked me what words; but I couldn't remember either of them. I told him that I would look into it; and get back to him next week.

This evening I began to reconstruct my discoveries; when I noticed that those are not rare cases.

I'm now determined to search out every Hebrew word that has multiple Strong's numbers assigned to it.

I myself try to avoid Strong’s for this reason, in addition to other reasons which might be of less interest to the Rabinnical Jewish community.

I'm trying to understand what you wrote.

There are 8,679 unique words in the Hebrew old testament. So we should see things like H4,561 or H7,231.

Apparently, the different forms of the same word are counted as separate words. It would be like conjugating a verb and counting the various forms as separate words. Not so bad in English, but definitely bad in many other languages.

My first reaction is to bail out and look for another source for this information. Is there another source?

Out of curiosity, what about Gematria and also the statistical information in the Masoretic text? I would not be surprised if among the Jewish community someone has a volume which adds the character numbers of each word together, which admittedly might not produce a unique number, but my understanding is that the statistical information used by the Masoretes, which represents the earliest instance I can think of of the concept we in computer science call a “checksum” and which is why the Masoretic Text is so admirably consistent between manuscripts, could potentially be used in addition to the Gematria to get you equivalent information.

Ironically, it would be easy to write a computer program to count different forms of the same word as separate words, but it would be somewhat trickier, but also possible, to write a program that could do the opposite, and use a common number for each word.

 

[HARK!]

I myself try to avoid Strong’s for this reason, in addition to other reasons which might be of less interest to the Rabinnical Jewish community.

I was approximately 1000 years after Yahshua admonished the Pharisees; that the Masoretes added the niqqud to scripture. What does scripture say about adding to it?

Rabbinic Judaism is an extension of the Phariseeism. I strive to understand and adhere to The Way.

It's clear that, in addition to other assumptions, Strong's work was influenced by assumptions of the Masorets. I lean more toward the more solid ground that Karaite Judaism exercises in our approach to fulfilling our heavenly Father's will.

For these reasons, and that this thread is about Strong's work, I would be interested in the other revelations that you have had about Strong's work.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

I was approximately 1000 years after Yahshua admonished the Pharisees; that the Masoretes added the niqqud to scripture. What does scripture say about adding to it?

Rabbinic Judaism is an extension of the Phariseeism. I strive to understand and adhere to The Way.

It's clear that, in addition to other assumptions, Strong's work was influenced by assumptions of the Masorets. I lean more toward the more solid ground that Karaite Judaism exercises in our approach to fulfilling our heavenly Father's will.

For these reasons, and that this thread is about Strong's work, I would be interested in the other revelations that you have had about Strong's work.

You may need to study the history of niqqud. Firstly, many of the masorets were likely karaite. Secondly, how was it that the greek translation septuagint came to be without the existence of niqqud. The answer is that Vowels were already known.

222) THE DEBATE OVER THE ORIGINS OF THE HEBREW VOWEL-POINTS:

A blog applying the wisdom of the Kotzker Rebbe to contemporary Jewish issues.

www.kotzkblog.com

 

[The Liturgist]

I was approximately 1000 years after Yahshua admonished the Pharisees; that the Masoretes added the niqqud to scripture. What does scripture say about adding to it?

Rabbinic Judaism is an extension of the Phariseeism. I strive to understand and adhere to The Way.

It's clear that, in addition to other assumptions, Strong's work was influenced by assumptions of the Masorets. I lean more toward the more solid ground that Karaite Judaism exercises in our approach to fulfilling our heavenly Father's will.

For these reasons, and that this thread is about Strong's work, I would be interested in the other revelations that you have had about Strong's work.

Well I definitely admire the Karaites and I had no idea you had Karaite sympathies. There was an Aramaic scholar on ChristianForums who at one time had briefly been a practitioner of Karaite Judaism, but he is no longer active.

For my own part I am not sure that a system like Strong’s is technically necessary, but if you wanted something like it that would instead track all of the variant cases or uses of a word, as opposed to giving each one a separate number, it would be possible to program that, and the result would likely be infinitely more user friendly, since by putting the scriptural text in a database there would be no need to assign a number to each word, although this could be done.

I was just interested in your thread because I have found Strong’s to be not very useful but it also occurred to me I might be able to help you if you desired some kind of replacement; for my part I prefer not to use scripture that way; insofar as I do want to search the text, I use a search engine with a UNIX/Linux pattern matching tool called regular expressions (regexps for short).

 

[The Liturgist]

You may need to study the history of niqqud. Firstly, many of the masorets were likely karaite. Secondly, how was it that the greek translation septuagint came to be without the existence of niqqud. The answer is that Vowels were already known.

222) THE DEBATE OVER THE ORIGINS OF THE HEBREW VOWEL-POINTS:

A blog applying the wisdom of the Kotzker Rebbe to contemporary Jewish issues.

www.kotzkblog.com

I have heard the theory that the Masoretes were Karaite, and it is possible; I don’t know, but I do appreciate @HARK! ’s pro-Karaite sentiments as well, since I think the surviving Karaite Jews who made aliyah from Syria and Egypt have not been treated as well as they ought to be by the Chief Rabbinate, for example, there is not a satisfactory or equitable solution to Karaite butchers and the use of the word “Kosher” that reflects the different standards of kosher between the Karaite and Rabinnical populations. The Beta Israel from Ethiopia and Eritrea have had similar difficulties.

 

[HARK!]

You may need to study the history of niqqud.

You may need to study the history of Hebrew, an evolving language, of multiple dialects.

More History:

Beginning in 338 BCE, Alexander the Great began an invasion of the Persian Empire. In 333–332 BCE, Alexander's Macedonian forces conquered the Levant and Palestine. At the time, Judea was home to many Jews who had returned from exile in Babylon thanks to the Persians. Alexander's empire was partitioned in 323 BCE after Alexander's death, and after the Wars of the Diadochi, the territory was taken by what would become Ptolemaic Egypt in 302–301 BCE.[1] Another of the Greek successor states, the Seleucid Empire, would conquer Judea from Egypt during a series of campaigns from 235–198 BCE. During both Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule, many Jews learned Koine Greek, especially upper class Jews and Jewish minorities in towns further afield from Jerusalem and more attached to Greek trading networks.[2] Greek philosophical ideas spread through the region as well. A Greek translation of the scriptures, the Septuagint, was also created during the third century BCE.[3] Many Jews adopted dual names with both a Greek name and a Hebrew name, such as Jason and Joshua.[4][5] Still, many Jews continued to speak the Aramaic language, the language that descended from what was spoken during the Babylonian exile.[6]

Maccabean Revolt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

You may need to study the history of Hebrew, an evolving language, of multiple dialects.

More History:

Beginning in 338 BCE, Alexander the Great began an invasion of the Persian Empire. In 333–332 BCE, Alexander's Macedonian forces conquered the Levant and Palestine. At the time, Judea was home to many Jews who had returned from exile in Babylon thanks to the Persians. Alexander's empire was partitioned in 323 BCE after Alexander's death, and after the Wars of the Diadochi, the territory was taken by what would become Ptolemaic Egypt in 302–301 BCE.[1] Another of the Greek successor states, the Seleucid Empire, would conquer Judea from Egypt during a series of campaigns from 235–198 BCE. During both Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule, many Jews learned Koine Greek, especially upper class Jews and Jewish minorities in towns further afield from Jerusalem and more attached to Greek trading networks.[2] Greek philosophical ideas spread through the region as well. A Greek translation of the scriptures, the Septuagint, was also created during the third century BCE.[3] Many Jews adopted dual names with both a Greek name and a Hebrew name, such as Jason and Joshua.[4][5] Still, many Jews continued to speak the Aramaic language, the language that descended from what was spoken during the Babylonian exile.[6]

Maccabean Revolt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm well acquainted with the history.
Here is a citation from the link i gave.

["Perhaps the earliest indication of some form of nekudot system is alluded to in the first translation of the Torah into Greek, known as the Septuagint of around 200 BCE. This is where some Hebrew words are spelt out with Greek equivalent vowel-pointing to indicate the pronunciation."]

Fairly succinct correct?

 

[HARK!]

I'm well acquainted with the history.
Here is a citation from the link i gave.

["Perhaps the earliest indication of some form of nekudot system is alluded to in the first translation of the Torah into Greek, known as the Septuagint of around 200 BCE. This is where some Hebrew words are spelt out with Greek equivalent vowel-pointing to indicate the pronunciation."]

Fairly succinct correct?

So then you are well aware of the syncretism of Babylonian and Greek influences on the culture of that time?

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

So then you are well aware of the syncretism of Babylonian and Greek influences on the culture of that time?

Culturally yes, but nothing altered the traditional written hebrew. If you read the link I shared there are varying opinions about the niqqud. So when comparing strongs work. The variations likely involve the vowels you left out. Slight differences in annunciation create more words from the same consonants. I cant tell from what you've shown in past post because there are no references to scripture.
Only consonants and numbers

 

[daq]

Culturally yes, but nothing altered the traditional written hebrew. If you read the link I shared there are varying opinions about the niqqud. So when comparing strongs work. The variations likely involve the vowels you left out. Slight differences in annunciation create more words from the same consonants. I cant tell from what you've shown in past post because there are no references to scripture.
Only consonants and numbers

The vowels are known by first understanding the context and which words are intended according to that context. Otherwise one is merely being taught by the opinions of those who added the pointing. However, according to the Prophets and the Meshiah, we are all to be taught of Elohim. There is a perfect example of this in a passage from Genesis, which I have chosen because HARK has already posted the Strong's numbers for the point to be made herein, and the division forced upon the text in the Strong's numbering system because of the Masorete pointing system which, again, did not exist in the first century or beyond that time into the past. They did not have a pointed text in the first century or before that, and they certainly did not have any sort of numbering system to divide up words according to vowels because the vowels, although they were known because it was their language for millennia, were not in the text and were only known according to one's perception and understanding of the text. This is why there could be so many different opinions on a single passage.

בקר

H1239, H1240, H1241, H1242

(@be(t)et lamed resh) Four different words?

Genesis 18:1-8 LSV (Literal Standard Version)
1 And YHWH appears to him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day;
2 and he lifts up his eyes and looks, and behold, three men standing by him, and he sees, and runs to meet them from the opening of the tent, and bows himself toward the earth,
3 and he says, "My Lord, if now I have found grace in Your eyes, please do not pass on from Your servant;
4 please let a little water be accepted, and wash Your feet, and recline under the tree;
5 and I bring a piece of bread, and support Your heart; afterward pass on, for therefore You have passed over to Your servant"; and they say, "So may you do as you have spoken."
6 And Abraham hurries toward the tent, to Sarah, and says, "Hurry three measures of flour-meal, knead, and make cakes";
7 and Abraham ran to the herd, and takes a son of the herd, tender and good, and gives to the young man, and he hurries to prepare it;
8 and he takes butter and milk, and the son of the herd which he has prepared, and sets before them; and he is standing by them under the tree, and they eat.

I would strongly suggest that not one of the underlined words in the above text means "herd", and even at that, neither are they even all the same word even though each one is bqr, (two with the article attached). The first occurrence is very likely H1239 and more likely speaks of the uggot having just been kneaded by Sarah, that is, their breaking forth, for this is unleavened bread, and therefore the reasoning behind all of the language of hurrying and rushing in the text: for the dough would begin to leaven very quickly by the natural leaven in the air. The other two occurrences are very likely H1242, as shown in several of my threads concerning the sacrifices of the Torah, (for example, a par ben boqer, (a son of the morning, meaning a morning offering)).

These things are reasoned by the actual context, and by the written facts and reasoning therein, but they are obviously not according to a simple reading the Masorete commentary that has been embedded into the Hebrew text: for they have the Most High eating one of His own living creatures after supposedly having been slaughtered, butchered, and cooked, and yet He says in His Prophets and Psalmists that such natural minded reasoning is not what He speaks about in His Torah, and are not what is pleasing to Him.

 

[HARK!]

Culturally yes, but nothing altered the traditional written hebrew.

Tradition?

Which tradition? Traditions are fleeting in the annals of mankind.

The Niqqud alter the original text. A culture is defined by its' language. As the language changes (Hebrew has), so does the culture.

Those who added the niqqud were then of a Hellenized culture, speaking in abstract thought.

By adding the niqqud, they defined the words according to their abstract understanding of a concrete message, written to a different culture.

In order to best understand the message as it was delivered, it would be expedient to come at the message immersed in concrete thought, in context to the culture to whom it was spoken.

Now let's talk about tradition a little more.

Originally there were no spaces between the ote. The scripture was written in a continuous string of otiot. Each ote has a meaning; and if we can bring ourselves to think like an Ancient Hebrew; we can begin to understand how the meanings of the otiot build on each other as they are joined.

Lets look at H1, AB. Modern Hebrews asserts that the Aleph is silent; and that it is the niqqud that give it a vowel sound. However Modern Hebrew still calls Aleph, Aleph, by the "A" sound.

In Ancient Hebrew the Aleph depicted an ox head. One way to interpret the Aleph is as a symbol of headship.

The Ancient Greeks took the Hebrew Aleph Beyt and turned the ote upside down and backwards. Then they wrote their sentences backwards. This is done in witchcraft too.

The Modern English Alphabet is derived from the Ancient Hebrew Aleph Beyt through the Ancient Greeks.

To this very day the English letter "A" still depicts an upside down ox head; and it still makes the "A" sound. No, "A" is not silent in Modern Hebrew tradition.

Now let's move on to Beyt. Modern Hebrew adds niqqud to change "B" to a "V." There is no "V" in ancient Hebrew. It depicts a tent.

when we put "AB" together they mean headship of the tent or house, the father.

I would like to see your explanation of why Strong's H1, H2, H3, H4, are assigned to AB.

I would highly dispute that H4 means AB.

However, here we go: Strong's Hebrew: 4.


The Nun that is between the Aleph and the Beyt makes it a completely different word. The Nun depicts a seed. It is the offspring of the headship of the house.


Well at least the KJV seems to have come close to correctly interpreting the word this time.

The tree is the strength of the fruit. The fruit houses the seed. the seed is the offspring of the tree.

This does not explain why both H1, and H2 are assigned to AB.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

Tradition?

Which tradition? Traditions are fleeting in the annals of mankind.

The Niqqud alter the original text. A culture is defined by its' language. As the language changes (Hebrew has), so does the culture.

Those who added the niqqud were then of a Hellenized culture, speaking in abstract thought.

By adding the niqqud, they defined the words according to their abstract understanding of a concrete message, written to a different culture.

In order to best understand the message as it was delivered, it would be expedient to come at the message immersed in concrete thought, in context to the culture to whom it was spoken.

Now let's talk about tradition a little more.

Originally there were no spaces between the ote. The scripture was written in a continuous string of otiot. Each ote has a meaning; and if we can bring ourselves to think like an Ancient Hebrew; we can begin to understand how the meanings of the otiot build on each other as they are joined.

Lets look at H1, AB. Modern Hebrews asserts that the Aleph is silent; and that it is the niqqud that give it a vowel sound. However Modern Hebrew still calls Aleph, Aleph, by the "A" sound.

In Ancient Hebrew the Aleph depicted an ox head. One way to interpret the Aleph is as a symbol of headship.

The Ancient Greeks took the Hebrew Aleph Beyt and turned the ote upside down and backwards. Then they wrote their sentences backwards. This is done in witchcraft too.

The Modern English Alphabet is derived from the Ancient Hebrew Aleph Beyt through the Ancient Greeks.

To this very day the English letter "A" still depicts an upside down ox head; and it still makes the "A" sound. No, "A" is not silent in Modern Hebrew tradition.

Now let's move on to Beyt. Modern Hebrew adds niqqud to change "B" to a "V." There is no "V" in ancient Hebrew. It depicts a tent.

when we put "AB" together they mean headship of the tent or house, the father.

I would like to see your explanation of why Strong's H1, H2, H3, H4, are assigned to AB.

I would highly dispute that H4 means AB.

However, here we go: Strong's Hebrew: 4.


The Nun that is between the Aleph and the Beyt makes it a completely different word. The Nun depicts a seed. It is the offspring of the headship of the house.


Well at least the KJV seems to have come close to correctly interpreting the word this time.

The tree is the strength of the fruit. The fruit houses the seed. the seed is the offspring of the tree.

This does not explain why both H1, and H2 are assigned to AB.

"Niqqud were from hellenized culture"? That's a baseless assertion, considering how brief the war period was. Essentially the greek rulers attempted to subdue and assimilate yhdh(yisrael proper) bc. And just as stubborn as they are yhdh resisted. Jews being multi linguistic does not conflate or equate to the Hebrew scriptures being altered. If that were the case then all is null and void. Including 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The hebrew language and script have been the same since sinai according to jewish tradition, niqqud included.
So How do you know there were no spaces in hebrew torah script or the prophets, and writing's?

The greeks had their own writting script independent of hebrew. To which there are many archeological finds as proof. So theres no need to compare cultures and languages with witchcraft.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

The vowels are known by first understanding the context and which words are intended according to that context. Otherwise one is merely being taught by the opinions of those who added the pointing. However, according to the Prophets and the Meshiah, we are all to be taught of Elohim. There is a perfect example of this in a passage from Genesis, which I have chosen because HARK has already posted the Strong's numbers for the point to be made herein, and the division forced upon the text in the Strong's numbering system because of the Masorete pointing system which, again, did not exist in the first century or beyond that time into the past. They did not have a pointed text in the first century or before that, and they certainly did not have any sort of numbering system to divide up words according to vowels because the vowels, although they were known because it was their language for millennia, were not in the text and were only known according to one's perception and understanding of the text. This is why there could be so many different opinions on a single passage.



(@be(t)et lamed resh) Four different words?

Genesis 18:1-8 LSV (Literal Standard Version)
1 And YHWH appears to him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day;
2 and he lifts up his eyes and looks, and behold, three men standing by him, and he sees, and runs to meet them from the opening of the tent, and bows himself toward the earth,
3 and he says, "My Lord, if now I have found grace in Your eyes, please do not pass on from Your servant;
4 please let a little water be accepted, and wash Your feet, and recline under the tree;
5 and I bring a piece of bread, and support Your heart; afterward pass on, for therefore You have passed over to Your servant"; and they say, "So may you do as you have spoken."
6 And Abraham hurries toward the tent, to Sarah, and says, "Hurry three measures of flour-meal, knead, and make cakes";
7 and Abraham ran to the herd, and takes a son of the herd, tender and good, and gives to the young man, and he hurries to prepare it;
8 and he takes butter and milk, and the son of the herd which he has prepared, and sets before them; and he is standing by them under the tree, and they eat.

I would strongly suggest that not one of the underlined words in the above text means "herd", and even at that, neither are they even all the same word even though each one is bqr, (two with the article attached). The first occurrence is very likely H1239 and more likely speaks of the uggot having just been kneaded by Sarah, that is, their breaking forth, for this is unleavened bread, and therefore the reasoning behind all of the language of hurrying and rushing in the text: for the dough would begin to leaven very quickly by the natural leaven in the air. The other two occurrences are very likely H1242, as shown in several of my threads concerning the sacrifices of the Torah, (for example, a par ben boqer, (a son of the morning, meaning a morning offering)).

These things are reasoned by the actual context, and by the written facts and reasoning therein, but they are obviously not according to a simple reading the Masorete commentary that has been embedded into the Hebrew text: for they have the Most High eating one of His own living creatures after supposedly having been slaughtered, butchered, and cooked, and yet He says in His Prophets and Psalmists that such natural minded reasoning is not what He speaks about in His Torah, and are not what is pleasing to Him.

Thankyou for the example of bqr. So 4 strongs numbers, one for each of the 4 renderings. Ox, herd, calf, and inquire.
Seems to be a helpful tool if utilizing in earnest.
I dont see any deception so far!
Are there any other examples?

 

[HARK!]

"Niqqud were from hellenized culture"? That's a baseless assertion,

No, you've presented a strawman argument.

Essentially the greek rulers attempted to subdue and assimilate yhdh(yisrael proper) bc

Attempted? No, that is exactly what they did. And the Greek influence on the culture is a historical fact.

Jews being multi linguistic does not conflate or equate to the Hebrew scriptures being altered

Another strawman argument.

I said that the culture was altered by Greek influence; and I said that the scriptures were altered by the niqqud.

The niqqud serve as commentary of a biased interpretation, built on an evolving language, that was influenced by abstract Greek philosophy.

The hebrew language and script have been the same since sinai according to jewish tradition, niqqud included.

That is completely false. Archaeology settles it. Yahshua admonished Pharisaic tradition.

I've already posted a chart explaining the evolution of the script within this thread.

So How do you know there were no spaces in hebrew torah script or the prophets, and writing's?

Archaeology.

The greeks had their own writting script independent of hebrew. To which there are many archeological finds as proof.

I'll post another chart from another source which refutes your claim.

I noticed that you skipped over these parts:

I would like to see your explanation of why Strong's H1, H2, H3, H4, are assigned to AB.

This does not explain why both H1, and H2 are assigned to AB.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

No, you've presented a strawman argument.


Attempted? No, that is exactly what they did. And the Greek influence on the culture is a historical fact.


Another strawman argument.

I said that the culture was altered by Greek influence; and I said that the scriptures were altered by the niqqud.

The niqqud serve as commentary of a biased interpretation, built on an evolving language, that was influenced by abstract Greek philosophy.


That is completely false. Archaeology settles it. Yahshua admonished Pharisaic tradition.

I've already posted a chart explaining the evolution of the script within this thread.

Archaeology.


I'll post another chart from another source which refutes your claim.

View attachment 344296

I noticed that you skipped over these parts:

Again you have made baseless assertions and now claim they are historical fact. In brackets below is an excerpt summary of the brief war period. And I add this information to inform the readers for educational purposes.
The underlined specifies the time period of a whole 17 yrs. So that some how according to hark completely overwrote more than a thousand yrs of Jewish identity and culture. By that logic of thought I don't believe a line of communication exist any longer. The bolded in the 3rd paragraph summarizes the relationship between the Semitic culture as whole toward the Greeks. So the assertion that the Hebrew niqqud is influenced by Greek philosophy is extremely far removed from Historical Fact.
Vassal state definition: a state with varying degrees of independence in its internal affairs but dominated by another state in its foreign affairs and potentially wholly subject to the dominating state

[ "They came unexpectedly. After two centuries of serving as a vassal state to Persia, Judah suddenly found itself the vassal state of Macedonia, a Greek state. Alexander the Great had conquered Persia and had, in doing so, conquered most of the world. For most of the world belonged to Persia; in a blink of an eye, it now fell to the Greeks.

This great Greek empire would last no longer than Alexander’s brief life; after his death, altercations between his generals led to the division of his empire among three generals. One general, Antigonus and then later Ptolemy, inherited Egypt; another, Seleucus, inherited the Middle East and Mesopotamia. After two centuries of peace under the Persians, the Hebrew state found itself once more caught in the middle of power struggles between two great empires: the Seleucid state with its capital in Syria to the north and the Ptolemaic state, with its capital in Egypt to the south. Once more, Judah would be conquered first by one, and then by the other, as it shifted from being a Seleucid vassal state to a Ptolemaic vassal state. Between 319 and 302 BCE, Jerusalem changed hands seven times.

Like all others in the region, the Jews bitterly resented the Greeks. They were more foreign than any group they had ever seen. In a state founded on maintaining the purity of the Hebrew religion, the gods of the Greeks seemed wildly offensive. In a society rigidly opposed to the exposure of the body, the Greek practice of wrestling in the nude and deliberately dressing light must have been appalling! In a religion that specifically singles out homosexuality as a crime against Yahweh, the Greek attitude and even preference for homosexuality must have been incomprehensible.

In general, though, the Greeks left the Jews alone; adopting Cyrus’s policy, they allowed the Jews to run their own country, declared that the law of Judah was the Torah, and attempted to preserve Jewish religion. When the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, desecrated the Temple in 168 BCE, he touched off a Jewish revolt under the Maccabees; for a brief time, Judah became an independent state again. "]

 

[daq]

Thankyou for the example of bqr. So 4 strongs numbers, one for each of the 4 renderings. Ox, herd, calf, and inquire.
Seems to be a helpful tool if utilizing in earnest.
I dont see any deception so far!
Are there any other examples?

You do not see that the pointing system commentary has removed your ability to observe the commandment to choose between good and evil, blessing and cursing, and life and death? The only thing you get with the M/T embedded commentary is the Pharisaic choice of interpretation and understanding having been made for you. See the commandment in Deut 30:10-20.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

You do not see that the pointing system commentary has removed your ability to observe the commandment to choose between good and evil, blessing and cursing, and life and death? The only thing you get with the M/T embedded commentary is the Pharisaic choice of interpretation and understanding having been made for you. See the commandment in Deut 30:10-20.

Accusations again!?
Since when has Hebrew scripture been, "embedded commentary"? How does that logic help refute anything strongs or the majority of interpretations into English? 3 of strongs numbers only needed a scripture reference to find the differentiation. Meaning they had prefixes and such to bqr.
Translators diligently and admirably worked to provide tools for students of Torah with an eagerness to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2
The Pharisee's were rebuked for putting forth strict religious observances that are recorded in the gospels and later letters. Which had absolutely nothing to do with reading the niqqud.

 

[HARK!]

Again you have made baseless assertions and now claim they are historical fact. In brackets below is an excerpt summary of the brief war period. And I add this information to inform the readers for educational purposes.
The underlined specifies the time period of a whole 17 yrs. So that some how according to hark completely overwrote more than a thousand yrs of Jewish identity and culture. By that logic of thought I don't believe a line of communication exist any longer. The bolded in the 3rd paragraph summarizes the relationship between the Semitic culture as whole toward the Greeks. So the assertion that the Hebrew niqqud is influenced by Greek philosophy is extremely far removed from Historical Fact.
Vassal state definition: a state with varying degrees of independence in its internal affairs but dominated by another state in its foreign affairs and potentially wholly subject to the dominating state

[ "They came unexpectedly. After two centuries of serving as a vassal state to Persia, Judah suddenly found itself the vassal state of Macedonia, a Greek state. Alexander the Great had conquered Persia and had, in doing so, conquered most of the world. For most of the world belonged to Persia; in a blink of an eye, it now fell to the Greeks.

This great Greek empire would last no longer than Alexander’s brief life; after his death, altercations between his generals led to the division of his empire among three generals. One general, Antigonus and then later Ptolemy, inherited Egypt; another, Seleucus, inherited the Middle East and Mesopotamia. After two centuries of peace under the Persians, the Hebrew state found itself once more caught in the middle of power struggles between two great empires: the Seleucid state with its capital in Syria to the north and the Ptolemaic state, with its capital in Egypt to the south. Once more, Judah would be conquered first by one, and then by the other, as it shifted from being a Seleucid vassal state to a Ptolemaic vassal state. Between 319 and 302 BCE, Jerusalem changed hands seven times.

Like all others in the region, the Jews bitterly resented the Greeks. They were more foreign than any group they had ever seen. In a state founded on maintaining the purity of the Hebrew religion, the gods of the Greeks seemed wildly offensive. In a society rigidly opposed to the exposure of the body, the Greek practice of wrestling in the nude and deliberately dressing light must have been appalling! In a religion that specifically singles out homosexuality as a crime against Yahweh, the Greek attitude and even preference for homosexuality must have been incomprehensible.

In general, though, the Greeks left the Jews alone; adopting Cyrus’s policy, they allowed the Jews to run their own country, declared that the law of Judah was the Torah, and attempted to preserve Jewish religion. When the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, desecrated the Temple in 168 BCE, he touched off a Jewish revolt under the Maccabees; for a brief time, Judah became an independent state again. "]

Ahem:

The major literary product of the contact between Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koine Greek, specifically, Jewish Koine Greek. Mentionable are also the philosophic and ethical treatises of Philo and the historiographical works of the other Hellenistic Jewish authors.[1][2]

There goes your argument regarding the Septuagint; but you would do well to read the whole article.

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then yet we have we haven't touched on why the months were named after Pagan gods after the Babylonian exile.

(CLV) Ex 23:13
You shall beware in all that I say to you. And the name of other elohim you shall not mention; let it not be heard coming out of your mouth.