The name of "Allah"

[Gxg (G²)]

Ishmael was not the right offspring from Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael came from Hagar not under God's promise. The promise was to Sarah and Abraham, not Hagar and Abraham. So this is what I was thinking. Now the Muslims try to claim that the promise came from Ishmael. It came from Isaac.

Moriah Ruth

Ishmael may not have been the child that the Lord would send the Messiah through, but that did not equate with Ishmael himself not being under God's promise - as both He and Issac received blessings/promises from the Lord. Ishmael received the Promise of a Blessing whereas Isaac received the Blessing of a Covenant - and both work together for the purposes of glorifying Christ.

The Lord ALWAYS showed Himself as being concerned for Ishmael.... whom many continually assume was "cursed"/not blessed of the Lord despite the fact that the Lord gave Isaac the Blessing of a Covenant while He gave Ishmael the Promise of a Blessing (one mirroring what Jacob had, from 12 nations just like 12 tribes of Israel to being prosperous and the Lord being with him..more discussed here and here and here). Many from the line of Ishmael were used of the Lord to protect His people/Messiah throughout the OT/NT--with some interesting examples being Amasa (who as an Ishmaelite/married into David's family ( 2 Samuel 17:24-26/2 Samuel 19:12-14 /1 Kings 2:4-6/1 Kings 2:31-33 /1 Chronicles 2:16-18 ), Jaziz the Hagrite (who took care of David's flocks, per 1 Chronicles 27:30-32 ) and Obil the Ishmaelite (who stewared the Camels of David, 1 Chronicles 27:29-31 ) as quick examples (while other Jewish believers named their children "Ishmael", per 2 Chronicles 19:10-11 /2 Chronicles 23:1-3 /Ezra 10:21-23 ).....and with the sons of Ishmael/Isaac oday, they're still being united today in the Lord

Arab leads Jews in worship - Amazing
Jews and Arabs Washing Each Other's Feet​

There was purpose and roles to be played - with Ishamel being given the role of God's faithfulness being seen when people do things that may not have been fully what God wanted - and yet God uses those people to help in His purposes and plans because of his compassion.

People often say "Well Ishmael was a Mistake" - although as it concerns PROVIDENCE, many have noted it was within the Plan of God all a long. For in that time, no one had really been spoken to fully in the way God spoke to Sarah and Abraham - and after He said he'd give them a son, there was NO indication as to how that'd come about......with years in-between (a decade, if I'm not mistaken). In those times, it was considered valid to have children through your maid-servants - and Abraham was even considering that with Elizear his servant when having him inherit his estate/all kids from him being counted as Abraham. Thus, it is NO surprise that they felt having Ishmael's birth was what God wanted for the Promise Child - and many have noted that God allowed that to happen to make a point.




Dr. Tony Maalouf discussed that in his book "Arabs in the Shadow of Israel" when breaking down - as seen here and here in Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's ... - Page 56

• The “Ishmael Promise
• I Am Not Abraham's Mistake | The Institute of Middle East Studies

Additionally, there's the resource from A question about Ismael, Muslims, and 'hostility'..- Christian Think Tank. As said there:

Ishmael is the progenitor of many Arabs, INCLUDING ARAB Christians.

Isaac is the progenitor of all Jews, INCLUDING Jewish atheists and Jewish Christians.

Most Christians (non-Jewish, non-Arabian, plus a few other groups--e.g. Esau) are NOT physical descendants of Abraham at all (only descendants by faith, as are Arab Christians and Chinese Christians and African Christians.
Not all Muslims are Arabs (obviously--since there are Jewish Muslims, English Muslims and TONS of African and Maylasian Muslims).

Some Muslims are descendents of Isaac (e.g. Edom/Esau is in the ancestry of Jordan).

The "his hands will be against this brothers" was a prophecy just about Ismael (and presumably his household, as with most such statements), with no mention of his remote decendants in the text. Genesis leaves him (with no further mention) dwelling in the Arabian peninsula in 'independence' (not 'military defiance', btw). Unlike Esau, Ishmael is never made into the 'figurehead of opposition'. Modern antagonism on the part of a small subset of today's Muslims would be difficult to trace back to this prophecy (e.g., if it WERE a prophecy of all of Ishmael's descendants, then ALL/MOST them--muslim or not-- would be 'at hostility' with all OTHER Arabs--"their brothers", see?).

God never stated anything negative about Ismael's remote 'descendents'--only that He would BLESS Ishmael (not curse him!!!) and make him a 'great nation'-- as an answered prayer to Abraham (who loved Ishmael). They (as inhabitants of Sheba/Seba), will honor the Millenial king with gold--Psalm 72.10,15. [This is important: God BLESSED Ishmael; He never BLESSED Esau. Blessing is special.]

Strictly speaking, MOST of the original Arabs (from the Arabian peninsula) were NOT descendants of Israel:

"In the Table of Nations (Gen. 10) a number of Arabian tribes are mentioned: among the descendants of Joktan (of the line of Shem), Hazermaveth, Sheba, Havilah, and others (10:26–29); and among the descendants of Cush (of the line of Ham), Seba, Havilah, and others (10:7). If Cush is to be taken to mean Ethiopia, then the relationship of the south Arabian peoples and the Ethiopic peoples (or some of them), which is clearly indicated linguistically, may lie behind the dual reference in the Semite and Hamite genealogies. We also find northern Arabian tribes mentioned among the descendants of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25:1–4) and by Hagar (25:12–15), and among the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36). At the time of Solomon, contacts with the Arabian peninsula are indicated, both in the visit of the Queen of Sheba (1 K. 9:26ff, etc.) and in the tribute from the “kings of (the) Arab” (2 Ch. 9:14)." Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 1, Page 220). Wm. B. Eerdmans.​

That being said, there is a huge religious contention between Judaism and Islam over the Abrahamic passage (e.g. which son was offered on the altar by Abraham), and over some of the 'shared' religious sites. But it doesn’t have anything to do with today's contention--as far as I can tell. Most of the extremist Muslim-subset polemic against Israel (and allies) has to do with the 1967 war, apparently, although tensions have always run high since Israel was given back the Land after WW2.

But, in context, Christian-Muslim tensions were so much higher than Jewish-Muslim tensions for centuries and centuries longer.

The OT hostilities were mostly between Israel and Egypt (non-Ishmael), Israel and Moab/Ammon (descendents of Lot, Abraham's nephew), Israel and Canaan/Philistia (no relation to Abraham), Israel and Amalek (descendants of Esau), and Israel and Esau/Edom (descendant of Isaac). The major wars with Assyria and Babylon would have involved SOME Ishmaelites, but those nations were pre-Abrahamic in origin and of mixed nationalities by the time of the wars with Judah and Israel. Some of the Midianites are associated with Ishmaelites (as Bedouins) in the OT [they were decendents of Abraham by Keturah, so they would be 'brethern' of Ishmael also], so there is SOME hositily (e.g, the Midianites that Gideon fought were said to be Ishmaelites and Psalm 83 lists them as being in league with all the other enemies of Israel (long before there was Islam, obviously!), but it is minute in comparison to other peoples...smile. The Midianites are not all bad, either, since Moses' father-in-law was one (also called a Kenite), and the Kenites are probably also Ishmael-related (as were the dutiful Rechabites). They gave gifts of gold and flocks to Solomon and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 9.14; 17.11).

[Note Glenne: Muslims MIGHT affirm that they are 'descendants of Ishmael'--spiritual or otherwise-- (just as they affirm that Abraham offered Ishmael instead of Isaac), but that doesn't mean (a) that it is true; (b) that it is relevant; or (c) that it has anything to do with God's prophecy in the bible! We might also note that Ishmael is used as a 'analogical type' for law-trusting Judaizers in Galatians 4!]
​

Muslims may try to claim that the promise came through Ishmael - and in that sense, they're off. Nonetheless, to say that Ishamel was not given excessive promise of the Lord for blessing/being used is not something they're off on

 

[Lulav]

Ok.. I stand corrected. Visionary and GXG, you are right Esau did sell his birthright. However is this still not the same as giving up his birthright? Because he did not see the importance of it? He may have later but not at that time.

"I find this verse interesting. "lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright."

Its states here that Esau was a fornicator and a profane person. So in essence he gave away his birthright for food. When you sell something you are giving it away for money. In Esau's case it was food. So really he gave away his birthright.

"As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated".

So it was Esau and not Ishmael. And Ishmael was not the right offspring from Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael came from Hagar not under God's promise. The promise was to Sarah and Abraham, not Hagar and Abraham. So this is what I was thinking. Now the Muslims try to claim that the promise came from Ishmael. It came from Isaac.

Moriah Ruth

In saying fornicator or profane I think it may mean that he either sold or gave away something precious only he had, but he, like a harlot or prostitute did not think of this in that way. Your chastity or virginity should be a precious thing, only you have and you should save it for your husband, but if you consider it a trifle and not something to be cherished until then it means the same as what Esau did.

I think the only promise Islam wants is the land covenant, but this was not given to him. In fact he was sent away before it was passed on to Issac.

The circumcision on the eighth day are those whom this belongs to, not in the 13th year.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Allah is the name given to any chief deity. So the Moon God Hubal (if he was the chief deity) would indeed be called Allah along with many other gods.

Semitic pagans use the very same names Jews call Yahweh by the way. Allah has no specific meaning but its context implies it is the main deity.

Allah is not a specific god but a title. There is much descent evidence to support the claim that many gods have been called Allah including all 360 idols int he Kaaba due to the fact that many of those idols were the chief deities of other tribes.

I have known Christian Arabs and Arabic Hindus to call their god Allah. This is a major reason why Muslims try separating Allah from other "Allahs" by saying he is the most merciful(ar-Rahim) or giving other titles to him to distinguish him.

This is an early practice in the rise of Islam to distinguish Allah from other gods called Allah. Usage of the Asma Allah al-Husna is how Muslims distinguish Allah from other gods

Very true - and thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

GXG,

Sorry I have been away from the forums the last few days. Busy with work. However I will come back to read over your info.

Moriah Ruth

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

How did we get on the subject of Esau having any sexual issues. I had mistaken Esau with Ishmael. And than I corrected myself. I never stated anything that Esau sold himself sexually. Not sure where that topic came up. Nor have I ever thought that Esau had anything to do with sex. I was referring to his birthright, not his right to sell his sex. I think that I would know the difference between selling himself sexually to selling his birthright. HMMMMM.

Moriah Ruth

 

[Lulav]

How did we get on the subject of Esau having any sexual issues. I had mistaken Esau with Ishmael. And than I corrected myself. I never stated anything that Esau sold himself sexually. Not sure where that topic came up. Nor have I ever thought that Esau had anything to do with sex. I was referring to his birthright, not his right to sell his sex. I think that I would know the difference between selling himself sexually to selling his birthright. HMMMMM.

Moriah Ruth

I am guessing you are referring to my post? If so I never said anything about sexual 'issues'.

I quoted you as saying:

Originally Posted by Moriah Ruth 777 Ok.. I stand corrected. Visionary and GXG, you are right Esau did sell his birthright. However is this still not the same as giving up his birthright? Because he did not see the importance of it? He may have later but not at that time.

"I find this verse interesting. "lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright."

Its states here that Esau was a fornicator and a profane person. So in essence he gave away his birthright for food. When you sell something you are giving it away for money. In Esau's case it was food. So really he gave away his birthright.

I was responding to the verse you quoted and was relating it to prostitution. When you sell something precious like your body for a mere triffle, that is prostitution. In it's basic form to 'prostitute' means to 'put upfront for sale'. Which is what Esau did.

to prostitute oneself means to :To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.

I was just saying that is what happened with the birthright for a bowl of soup.

There is more than one meaning regarding prostitution.

The word "prostitution" can also be used metaphorically to mean debasing oneself or working towards an unworthy cause or "selling out".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#cite_note-education.yahoo.com-12 In this sense, "prostituting oneself" or "whoring oneself" the services or acts performed are typically not sexual.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

How did we get on the subject of Esau having any sexual issues. I had mistaken Esau with Ishmael. And than I corrected myself. I never stated anything that Esau sold himself sexually. Not sure where that topic came up. Nor have I ever thought that Esau had anything to do with sex. I was referring to his birthright, not his right to sell his sex. I think that I would know the difference between selling himself sexually to selling his birthright. HMMMMM.

Moriah Ruth

Moriah..

According to your own words, you brought up the subject of Esau being a fornicator/having sexual issues:

Originally Posted by Moriah Ruth 777
"I find this verse interesting. "lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright."

Its states here that Esau was a fornicator and a profane person. So in essence he gave away his birthright for food. When you sell something you are giving it away for money. In Esau's case it was food. So really he gave away his birthright.

​

​

You noted where Esau was a forinicator and profane person - going on to say that he gave away his birthright for food. It's hard to say one doesn't think someone is a fornicator (which pertains to sexual issues) when saying they find a verse interesting which notes that he is. The fornicator issue was addressed due to showing why he was called such - as well as how that connected directly on the issue of what it meant for him to give away his birthright for material things/physical pleasures (food). No one said that you said Esau sold himself sexually - even though that did occur in the full context of why Esau was not worthy of the birthright to begin with and why he gave it up so easily.

Moreover, no one at any point said that Esau sold his right to sell his sex (as that seems way out there ) - for selling out for sexual pleasure (such as sleeping around or being with loose women as the Hittite women he married were) is not the same as selling your sex. Two radically different concepts.

There seems to be a bit of responding to and past what was noted

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Being an ex Muslim I would liek to provide a simple fact for your people. Allah literally means The God and was a title given to many god in Wathaniyya Arabia or Pre-islamic cultures.

Yahweh is Allah by definition as he is One God. But Allah is a title not a name of a specific God. This is why Muslims have a full set of names listed in usage of dhikr when they recite the attributes of Allah.

Allah is not the Christian god but the Christian God is not the Judaic god either due to the Trinity.

Christian Arabs use the name Allah all the time and I myself despite not being Muslim use the name Allah. If you understand Arabic you would know that is not a mistranslation of a Hebrew word if it has an Arabic meaning..... al-ilah or The God(male) or Allah which is The God(no gender).

Many do not even understand the basic Arabic they are using when speaking of a deity

• God at the Center: The Arabic Name for God, Allah
• Should Malaysian Christians call God “Allah”? - Patheos
• Who is “Allah”? - International Journal of Frontier Missions
• Response to Islamic Awareness: The Word Allah In The Arabic Bible
• Should Christians Use Allah in Bible Translations? by ... - The CAMEL
• Why the Bible teaches Arabs to use 'Allah' to describe the God of the Bible

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

GXG,

You are so right. I did put that verse there referring to fornicator. To be honest I never even thought of it until now. It has been a very busy week for me with work. So please bear with me. I am working again tomorrow. Hoping to be able to catch up on the forums on Monday when I have more time to read and think through.

However I do thank you for this insight. Blessings to you.

Moriah Ruth

 

[Lulav]

 

[EnemyOfReason]

• God at the Center: The Arabic Name for God, Allah
• Should Malaysian Christians call God “Allah”? - Patheos
• Who is “Allah”? - International Journal of Frontier Missions
• Response to Islamic Awareness: The Word Allah In The Arabic Bible
• Should Christians Use Allah in Bible Translations? by ... - The CAMEL
• Why the Bible teaches Arabs to use 'Allah' to describe the God of the Bible

I tip my hat to you sir .

Apparently this fear of Christians thinking Allah is a pagan god is primarily unknowledgeable propaganda. They fail to realize that as with all Semitic languages the names given to nouns are quite literal in meaning.

 

[Lulav]

I tip my hat to you sir .

Apparently this fear of Christians thinking Allah is a pagan god is primarily unknowledgeable propaganda. They fail to realize that as with all Semitic languages the names given to nouns are quite literal in meaning.

I remember going to a talk on Muslims and the terrorists in particular. It was held in a church and given by a man who was trained in jihad. He later became a believer (a Christian) and he told about how allah is not the same god as the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Really when you think about it Yeshua said that he could not be sent from Satan because a house divided against itself would fall. Same as with Islam being the perfection of Judaism Christianity etc.

 

[visionary]

So the bottom line is... shall we consider "allah" just the translation issue and not a "whose god gets this name"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I tip my hat to you sir .

Apparently this fear of Christians thinking Allah is a pagan god is primarily unknowledgeable propaganda. They fail to realize that as with all Semitic languages the names given to nouns are quite literal in meaning.

Indeed.

It generally is a matter of translation most of the time - and as much as others argue over the term "Allah", it's unfortunate to see double-standards when it comes to the term "El" (seeing how there were MANY gods in Cannanite culture who identified as such - long before anything of Hebrew culture came on the scene and the Lord identified himself as such). There was the reality of understanding what was meant when the title was used....(just as we understand when not assuming the term "God" is something only used of the One described in scripture since that term was used by many cultures). Talking to others who were involved in Islam, I'm saddened whenever hearing their stories of how often people were quick to place words in their mouths with the claims of "You must follow Satan if you adhere to Allah!!!!" (if they called the Lord that) and yet not one of them actually did real research.

Yeshua noted the same dynamics when it came to accusations given to him for accepting certain customs/practices done in other cultures that the Jews refused to agree to...

 

[Lulav]

I really don't think the issue is so much a name as that can be misleading and linguistics are at play.

I think that what they say, a picture is worth 1000 words, or in G's case 10,000 words this is what it boils down to.

It's about what you are giving worship to, not what you call it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I really don't think the issue is so much a name as that can be misleading and linguistics are at play.

I think that what they say, a picture is worth 1000 words, or in G's case 10,000 words this is what it boils down to.

It's about what you are giving worship to, not what you call it.

There's always the reality, as many have wisely noted, that a statement of truth isn't the same as something being truthfully stated.

And that is said in light of how easy it is to give pictures on an issue as if that is the same thing as dealing with people in a group that a picture represents an ASPECT of what others associated with one sect in a group do overall....or claiming what another group does in worship (as a negative) WITHOUT showing it to be negative or separate from what another does in their own camp.

The picture doesn't show Muslims around the world nor show a matter of negative as it concerns worship at all points

The same game tends to happen all the time whenever people demonize all things Israel - and pic outside of it's original text/setting will always be a con

Thus, if others are going to deal accurately with people, they need to honorably deal with people rather than rely solely on pics - and seeing what others do in everyday life before giving a claim on how all others are in a camp There's really no logical basis whenever others try to make issue over the term "Allah" - or even what "Allah" represents since the issue was never about saying that Allah according to the Quran was 100% the same as what the Torah or Scriptures say. It was about not making claims of Allah which were never based in the text that a group holds to or saying things of that group as if it's solely in their realm when the same was already true in the Torah as well.

And on the issue of pics, if people want to rely on them, there are plenty in the other direction as it concerns images of Jews AND Muslims working together - with Orthodox Jews and many in Israel long noting how much they get demonize for everyday living. From Muslims at the Wailing Wall alongside Jews praying to Jews who've gone to Mosque with Muslims and Muslims who are brothers with Jews when it comes to synagogue.

​

​

 

[Lulav]

Bowing down, touching something reverently and kissing it is worship, and that is an idol. That is not the G-d I worship, in fact he is pretty adamant about doing things such as this and anyone who knows that would recognize that looking at this picture.

I know that they say they are all bowing towards mecca to be in unity with each other, but this is what they are bowing towards and it is part of the beliefs that at least once in a lifetime you must make a pilgrimage here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Bowing down, touching something reverently and kissing it is worship, and that is an idol. .That is not the G-d I worship, in fact he is pretty adamant about doing things such as this and anyone who knows that would recognize that looking at this picture.

As is also done with Torah Scrolls and many other things in Judaism (including what occurs with the Wailing Wall as many Jews - be it believers or not - have participated in) - as has been noted by others such as Brother Contra (some places for reference being Symbols in Judaism versus Icons in Christianity. What is the difference... .. and Real Curious about Paintings - but that has long been discussed in the Judaic world whenever others from Evangelical Christianity would be quick to claim they were idolaters as well for doing those things ....or claiming anyone kissing an object is in idolatry despite where it already occurred Biblically with the Holy Objects and looking into the Bronze serpent and others. People give places symbolism - and those places may be extra-biblical...but not unbiblical provided who they are pointing something to in the first place and their intent.

As it is, never has it been the case that all Muslims everywhere kiss or bow down to an OBJECT for its own sake since it was never about the object to begin with.

A picture alone doesn't cut it (especially in light of many others not showing people kissing or doing as you note) as it concerns addressing what ALL Muslims do - or understanding what actually happens when an action goes down and seeing what other Muslims have noted on the issue. That'd be like someone taking a picture of a Torah Scroll being kissed and then claiming that's "idolatry" on the basis of a picture (or claiming that others having their hands over their chest during the pledge of allegiance to the U.S flag are worshipping the flag/in "idolatry") - that's insufficient for anyone actually working in a culture. And that's also noted when it comes to other Jews who've WORKED with Muslims/noted what actually occurs according to Judaism when it comes to picture given by yourself outside of its original context.

Muslims face the Kaaba during prayers, but they do not worship the Kaaba. For Muslims worship and bow to none but Allah and it is mentioned in Surah Baqarah Chapter 2 Verse 144, “We see the turning of thy face (for guidance) to the heavens: now shall We turn thee to a Qiblah that shall please thee. Turn then thy face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque: wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction.” When the Muslims go to Masjid-e-Haram in Makkah, they perform tawaf or circumambulation round the Kaaba. And yhis act symbolizes the belief and worship of One God, since, just as every circle has one centre, so also there is only one Allah worthy of worship

I know that they say they are all bowing towards mecca to be in unity with each other, but this is what they are bowing towards and it is part of the beliefs that at least once in a lifetime you must make a pilgrimage here

Unless one was Muslim and understands what they do, there's really no basis in saying they're simply bowing toward an object to worship IT - as that's looking into the culture from the outside in assuming that one knows automatically what they mean instead of seeing their understanding. That - and the fact that it's already the case that not all Muslims even make pilgrimage to Mecca. Even Mohammed said that righteousness was nothing to do with how many times a day you prayed - or which direction you prayed - as it was about what was in your heart and how you treated other people. Facing towards Mecca when praying was a sign of unity that all Muslims are praying in the same direction at the same time - Its an act of obedience and devotion - and it's assumed that one must face Mecca when praying. However, other groups in the Muslim world have NOT done this. In the case of Indonesia, the people thought they were praying towards Mecca..when they were not...and yet it was noted that it will not nullify their prayers.

Moreover, under current law, anyone can visit Jerusalem, and Muslim Arabs do in fact live and worship God there. Interestingly enough, the Quran notes where Mohommad also commanded Muslims to pray towards Jerusalem, the prayer direction of the Jews. Of course, the Kaabah in Makkah was the first sanctuary ever to be dedicated to Allah and that Allah has guaranteed to protect Makkah against His enemies. ..and it was at the Kaaba that its believed the angel Gabriel taught Mohommand how to offer his prayers. Thus, the object itself is NOT worshipped as much as the memory of what occurred kept sacred as others pray.

Nonetheless, some Muslims offered prayer towards the previous Qiblah (Jerusalem) before it was changed towards the House (the Ka`bah in Makkah).
According to Muslim sources Muhammad at first adopted the Jewish day of fasting, which happened to take place on the Day of Atonement, when he arrived at Medina - and many note, from a historical perspective, where Muhammad's personal feeling were behind his reason for changing locations of prayer - with others not seeing all things he noted later to be what's required of all Muslims.


For some good articles on the subject:

• Jerusalem: Jewish and Muslim Claims to the Holy City
• The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Middle East Quarterly
• The Temple, The Ka'aba, and The Christ - Answering Islamhttps://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/h...lse&aff_id=0&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=6.1.1.0</DIV>

 

[Gxg (G²)]

GXG,

You are so right. I did put that verse there referring to fornicator. To be honest I never even thought of it until now. It has been a very busy week for me with work. So please bear with me. I am working again tomorrow. Hoping to be able to catch up on the forums on Monday when I have more time to read and think through.

However I do thank you for this insight. Blessings to you.

Moriah Ruth

More than understand, sis. Shalom

 

[Lulav]

There is no way you can compare revering the Word of G-d with a meteorite.