The Language of Ashdod

[wmssid]

The Language of Ashdod; Nehemiah 13.24.

“And sons of them, half from speaking ‘Ashdodite’, and they not selling them to speaking Judahite, and as language of people and people” – Neh 13.24.

So then, Nehemiah was upset because Israel, as you have done, had forgotten their native language. You are prisoners because of the power of the Beast to change your language, and your Bible translations.

1) In the early 1940s, while I was in Middle School, our history books read like this:

“Hadrian (Adrian), first year of Nebuchadnezzar 605 BC (606), first year of Darius I 522 BC (520).”

The entries in parentheses were by “purists.” The first entry was by the “Little Horn.”
(1) A mighty church doctor changed “Adrian” to “Hadrian” because --- although there is no letter “H” recorded – he thought the punctuation marks warranted a new spelling.
(2) The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 606-18 = 588 BC. The Little Horn teaches, “Judah fell in 587 BC.” (605 – 18 = 587). Second year of Darius (Ezra 4.24) was = 521 BC for the Little Horn, and 518 BC for the purists. 587 BC to 521 BC = 67 Years.
(3) “Purist’s dates: 606 – 18 = 588 BC. 520/19* = 1 Year = 519/18 BC. 70 Years = 588 to 518 = 70 Years. NOTE *: Reign did not begin on January first (as our president swears in on January 20th), and so, first year runs 12 months into 519. Likewise, second year runs 12 months into 518 BC. 70 Years = 588 – 518 BC. E. W. Hengstenberg, and Andrew Fausset agreed with this date.
SUMMARY: But you, and your “language of Ashdod” are out in the cold dark.

2) Syllabification:
The Beast, in the wilderness after the “Thousand Year Reign” changed all of our pronunciations to make the parents and elders of the congregation “appear” foolish to our young Turks. “Car-ri-be-an” was changed to “Car-rib-e-an.” And all other pronunciations were assaulted, so that, we had two languages: English and Ashdodite.

3) Definitions:
DRA has demonstrated for us one “beauty.” He referred to a literal translation as a “transliteration.” The pure name, “Iesous” was named a “transliteration.”
A) 4) Originally Posted by wmssid
But, DRA, “Please explain to us your hatred of the names of the Living God.”
We would all like to know where you are coming from.

For the record, DRA does NOT hate the names of God. What DRA refuses to do is to take a Hebrew name, or Aramaic name, or a Greek name, or a *tranliterated* name, or a name in one particular language and dogmatically insist this is the exclusive name we must use for God the Father or His Son.

Take the name "Iesous" that you dogmatically insist is the name we should use instead of "Jesus.” Perhaps you can help us understand where exactly the *stamp of approval from God* is upon this *transliteration* that declares it is the sole way English speaking people have to refer to God's Son in order to please Him. To be both blunt and as plain as I know how, I believe you are making rules up where there aren't any – DRA.
Wmssid: “Stamp of Approval from God” for the name “Iesous”:
“Be known to all you the people of Israel that in the name of Iesous Anointed [One] of the Nazarene, whom you crucified …. And not there is the salvation in no other [Iesous], for neither is another name under [place] of the heaven, the [one] having been given in men in which it is necessary us to have been saved” – Acts 4.10, 12.

Your use of the word, “transliterate” is a “Mark of the Beast.” Your dictionary has been corrupted by the Beast to keep you in darkness. They have “cooked the books” on you.
1) “Transliterate: [1861]: to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet”; Webster’s Ninth New College Dictionary, 1989.
2) The Millennium; or, Restoration Movement, taught these “transliterations”:
(1) “Petros”, Greek to “Peter”, English. [P, E, T, R are Greek letters; second letter “E” is an English letter. “Spell in another language” was “E”, in English.]
(2) “Baptizo”, Greek to “baptize: English. [B, A, P, T, I, Z are Greek letters; the letter “E” is an English letter.]
(3) “Iesous”, Greek to “Jesus”, English. [E, S, U, S are Greek letters; the letter “J” is an English letter (only since AD 1738).
SUMMARY: What the writers of the Beast did was to take Greek words and mingle a few English letters into the Greek word, and “hide” the meaning.
3) The “new” definition of “transliterate” from the Beast.
“Transliterate: [, no date of origin ..] To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet”; Webster’s II New College Dictionary, 2001.
NOTE THE DIFFERENCE: 1989: to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet [meaning to mingle Hebrew and Greek letters with English letters to “hide” the meaning].
There is no mention of “the corresponding characters of another alphabet.” In fact, our examples of “transliteration” all have “different” and not “corresponding” letters.
“Petros” is “E” for “O.”
“Baptizo” is “E” for “o.”
“Iesous” is “J” for “I.”
A) God has instructed you to be taught by elders, in both the Old and New Testaments.
B) The Beast has changed your English words so that you do not speak the same language as your parents and your elders.
C) In 1989 “1)” is to “mingle” alphabets.
D) In 2001 “3)” is to be a “transscribed translation.”
SUMMARY: In 1989, “transliterate” was opposed to “translate.” In 2001, “transliterate” was to “translate by transscribing.” [This demonstrates the “depth” of your “brainwashing.”]
E) “Translation: [French] a rendering from one language to another”; 1989.
F) “Translate: [Latin] To express in another language, while systematically RETAINING THE ORIGINAL SENSE”; 2001. [Whoops! The Beast let that one slip through.]
CONCLUSION: “Jesus, Christ, church, preach” ARE NOT TRANSLATIONS. This is not intended to humiliate DRA, or you, but merely to bring you up to date on what the Little Horn has been doing to your minds. [By the way, Where were your church leaders while they were doing this to you? This is shocking to run across these “tricks of the trade” of the Little Horn, making them hard to miss when they were first introduced,]

The Evolution of the Name of God:
A) God divided Himself (Php 3.5-8), and became, “Heavenly Father” AND “God in the flesh, the Son”; or, “Iesous Anointed”; or, “He Is the new law of God” (Heb 8.6); or, “I Am”; or, “Who Is.”
B) Paul wrote that God would be reunited, or become “all in all” (1Cor 15.28).
C) Zechariah wrote that (near Fall of Babylon), “And being, He Is (HWHY) to kinging all of the earth (Rev 10.7, 11.15) in day the-this, he will be (HYHY) He Is (HWHY) one, and name of Him one” – Zec 14.9.

So then, the Gods, divided, and united, and reunited have many names recorded in the Bible – but not the names that you use. Who invented the corrupt names of God that you are so fond of? The Antichrist Jews and the Little Horn, and Gog and Magog promote the continued use of the “fake” names for God.

4) Paraphrased Bibles.
The stated goal of “paraprhases” is to help the one who does not understand English.
Technically speaking, that would include all of those speaking the language of Ashdod today, with your fake dictionaries.
But consider this: souls are won by “witnesses” and not by Bible reading. The leaders of the Body could help people with limited reading skills. Singing at home to praise the Living God, and developing a life of prayer, and doing good works, might content one with limited reading ability. Many young people on the web today think that they can understand the Bible, and always want to show off their “smarts.” They are fooling themselves, and making their forums shallow.
I was 50 years old before I felt schooled enough in the Bible to say anything of benefit to anyone else. The Internet has proven detrimental to the spiritual growth of many people, because they are always talking. It is a proven fact that you cannot learn anything while talking.
How are we going to save the “children of the Ashdod language”?

5) Interfaith Meetings:
This is a certain way to get your mind messed up. You are bombarded with several dialects of Ashdod simultaneously.

6) Popular Christian singers. You are better off singing yourself. In the Bible, “The Wolf will lie down with the Lamb.” But in the songs, and on the sweatshirts, they have, “The Lion and the Lamb.” This “trash” has been going on for years. Where were your church leaders?

7) New Math:
This program was part of the “dumbing down” of the United States. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Illinois published a curriculum every quarter. The courses requiring the greatest number of classes were: “Remedial Reading” and “Remedial Math.” The foreigners and ghetto children with “college scholarships” (that is where your tax money goes) filled up the classes. The foreigners could read English better than the ghetto children with “college scholarships.” BUT – they could not pronounce the words so that they could participate in class discussions. The foreigners did not need Remedial Math classes.

8) Biblical Illiteracy.
Many books and magazine articles have been written on this subject. Mostly, these were written by Bible College professors. They all agreed that you are “dumbies!” BUT – none that I read knew the answer. “The pulpit is the fountainhead of error” – Alexander Campbell.
The Living God had identified for his flock in the Old Testament who their enemies were. Iesous Anointed had identified in the New Testament who your enemies are today. In Revelation, Chapter 20, “The Filthy Five” was recorded. “The God and the Lamb” want you to be schooled about, “The Filthy Five.” But then, your “Social Gospel” teachers practice “selective reading” to keep everything useful away from you. You are living in the Twenty-first Century, but all they ever talk about is the First Century. This is the key to your pitch black prison house: “Learn about the Living God in the Twenty-first Century.”

CONCLUSION: How can we undo your 60 years of continuous brain-washing?

 

[- DRA -]

The Language of Ashdod; Nehemiah 13.24.

“And sons of them, half from speaking ‘Ashdodite’, and they not selling them to speaking Judahite, and as language of people and people” – Neh 13.24.

So then, Nehemiah was upset because Israel, as you have done, had forgotten their native language. You are prisoners because of the power of the Beast to change your language, and your Bible translations.

CONCLUSION: How can we undo your 60 years of continuous brain-washing?

Here's the way I suggest we begin to get to the truth of God's word: by considering a passage in its context. Let's begin with Nehemiah 13:24. To set the context, I'm reminded of Nehemiah's leadership and encouragement that helped the Israelites accomplish in 52 days what had NOT been done in the 92 years the Israelites had returned from Babylonian captivity - rebuild the walls of Jersusalem per 6:15. Once the major physical task was completed, spiritual "tasks" also needed to be done. In chapter 8, public reading of God's word was done so God's people could become familiar with His word once again. (I particularly like 8:8, and use the passage as the first step in discussing Bible interpretation). In chapter 9, the Israelites began confessing their sins. In chapter 10, the Israelites make a covenant with God to be keep His word. A part of that covenant was God's restrictions on marriage that He gave through the law of Moses - "We would not give our daughters as wives to the peoples of the land, nor take their daughers for our sons." After returning from a visit to King Artaxerxes, Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem in Nehemiah 13, and begins to "clean house," so to speak. Putting Tobiah out of one of the large rooms of the temple court came first. That was followed by stopping the buying and selling on the Sabbath day. And, Nehemiah's "housecleaning" was finished by addressing the disobedience of the Israelites by marrying women from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab per 13:23. As a result of these ungodly marriages, half of their children couldn't even speak the language of the Jews (verse 24), which, at that time, was Aramaic - which they had picked up from their Babylonian captors. Therefore, the issue wasn't in the language that they spoke per se, but by these men sinning as Solomon did - "pagan women cause even him [Solomon] to sin." Thus, the real problem in Nehemiah 13 wasn't the language of the children per se, but the sin of their fathers.

Let's not loose sight that the common language of the Israelites changed from Hebrew to Aramaic after Babylonian captivity. No where can I find any rebukes, chastening, or charges of sinning because they learned the language of their captors and continued to speak it. Therefore, I conclude the problem is NOT with the language they spoke, but rather with the disobedience of some Jewish men to God's law concerning marriage. It's in this context the language of the children is a concern. Teaching the childen the Jewish language wouldn't have solved the problem. The language barrier was simply a result of sin. If those Jewish men had married Jewish women as God commanded, there obviously would have been no language barrier between the father (and His people) and the children. They all would have spoken the same language - Aramaic.

Therefore, with these things in mind, I find no basis for your concerns about Israel forgetting their native language in this context.

 

[- DRA -]

... DRA has demonstrated for us one “beauty.” He referred to a literal translation as a “transliteration.” The pure name, “Iesous” was named a “transliteration.”

Originally Posted by wmssid
But, DRA, “Please explain to us your hatred of the names of the Living God.”
We would all like to know where you are coming from.

Response by - DRA -

For the record, DRA does NOT hate the names of God. What DRA refuses to do is to take a Hebrew name, or Aramaic name, or a Greek name, or a *tranliterated* name, or a name in one particular language and dogmatically insist this is the exclusive name we must use for God the Father or His Son.

Take the name "Iesous" that you dogmatically insist is the name we should use instead of "Jesus.” Perhaps you can help us understand where exactly the *stamp of approval from God* is upon this *transliteration* that declares it is the sole way English speaking people have to refer to God's Son in order to please Him. To be both blunt and as plain as I know how, I believe you are making rules up where there aren't any – DRA.

Wmssid: “Stamp of Approval from God” for the name “Iesous”:
“Be known to all you the people of Israel that in the name of Iesous Anointed [One] of the Nazarene, whom you crucified …. And not there is the salvation in no other [Iesous], for neither is another name under [place] of the heaven, the [one] having been given in men in which it is necessary us to have been saved” – Acts 4.10, 12

Here is what DRA previously posted ...

Per Strong's online edition at crosswalk.com ...

The original word is "ÅIhsou'ß" (all references are exactly as listed in Strong's). "ÅIhsou'ß" is of Hebrew origin from "[wXwhy," from which the names "Jehoshua" or "Joshua" are derived, which shows the relationship between the names "Joshua" and "Jesus," which explains the KJV's use of "Jesus" in Hebrews 4:8 when "Joshua" was intended.

Also, per Strong's, the transliteration of "ÅIhsou'ß" is "Iesous."

DRA would also like to add an additional quote:

"Iesous is a transliteration of the Heb. 'Joshua,' meaning 'Jehovah is salvation,' i.e., 'is the Saviour,' a common name given among the Jews ..."

Source: Vine's expository dictionary of new testament words. unabridged edition. Page 614.

DRA suggests you confront Strong and Vine at the judgment when they stand before the Lord per 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Question about your understanding of Acts 4:12: In what year did you come to the realization that salvation is solely in the name of "Iesous" versus "Jesus?"

And, relating to your understanding of Acts 4:12, let's contrast that understanding with Matthew 7:21, which says (ESV), "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Hmmm. This is interesting. Are folks rejected for NOT saying, "Iesous, Iesous?" Nope. They are rejected for not doing the Father's will. Conclusion: There's nothing wrong with acknowledging our Savior as the Lord and calling Him such.

Just wondering, is it okay to call the Savior "Lord," or do we have to call Him "Kurios?"

 

[- DRA -]

Your use of the word, “transliterate” is a “Mark of the Beast.” Your dictionary has been corrupted by the Beast to keep you in darkness. They have “cooked the books” on you.
1) “Transliterate: [1861]: to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet”; Webster’s Ninth New College Dictionary, 1989.
2) The Millennium; or, Restoration Movement, taught these “transliterations”:
(1) “Petros”, Greek to “Peter”, English. [P, E, T, R are Greek letters; second letter “E” is an English letter. “Spell in another language” was “E”, in English.]
(2) “Baptizo”, Greek to “baptize: English. [B, A, P, T, I, Z are Greek letters; the letter “E” is an English letter.]
(3) “Iesous”, Greek to “Jesus”, English. [E, S, U, S are Greek letters; the letter “J” is an English letter (only since AD 1738).
SUMMARY: What the writers of the Beast did was to take Greek words and mingle a few English letters into the Greek word, and “hide” the meaning.
3) The “new” definition of “transliterate” from the Beast.
“Transliterate: [, no date of origin ..] To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet”; Webster’s II New College Dictionary, 2001.
NOTE THE DIFFERENCE: 1989: to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet [meaning to mingle Hebrew and Greek letters with English letters to “hide” the meaning].
There is no mention of “the corresponding characters of another alphabet.” In fact, our examples of “transliteration” all have “different” and not “corresponding” letters.
“Petros” is “E” for “O.”
“Baptizo” is “E” for “o.”
“Iesous” is “J” for “I.”
A) God has instructed you to be taught by elders, in both the Old and New Testaments.
B) The Beast has changed your English words so that you do not speak the same language as your parents and your elders.
C) In 1989 “1)” is to “mingle” alphabets.
D) In 2001 “3)” is to be a “transscribed translation.”
SUMMARY: In 1989, “transliterate” was opposed to “translate.” In 2001, “transliterate” was to “translate by transscribing.” [This demonstrates the “depth” of your “brainwashing.”]
E) “Translation: [French] a rendering from one language to another”; 1989.
F) “Translate: [Latin] To express in another language, while systematically RETAINING THE ORIGINAL SENSE”; 2001. [Whoops! The Beast let that one slip through.]
CONCLUSION: “Jesus, Christ, church, preach” ARE NOT TRANSLATIONS. This is not intended to humiliate DRA, or you, but merely to bring you up to date on what the Little Horn has been doing to your minds. [By the way, Where were your church leaders while they were doing this to you? This is shocking to run across these “tricks of the trade” of the Little Horn, making them hard to miss when they were first introduced,]

Please provide the passage that states the use of "transliteration" is a mark of the beast.

Okay, so we are told that if you mingle English letters with the Hebrew and Greek letters the meaning is hidden. I beg to differ. Let's think about this point ...

Matthew 16:13 NASV - Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

Let's note the discussion that follows:
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am ?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Okay, so you call Jesus "Iesous," and from your perspective, I (and everyone else) call Iesous "Jesus." You suggest by the name "Jesus," He is hidden from me in some respect(s). I don't believe such is the case at all. In this context, wouldn't you identify "Iesous" as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," just as I would of Jesus, who is under discussion in this context? I don't have a problem understanding that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, just as you shouldn't have a problem making the connection. Regardless of which "name" is used, we understand the intended meaning of God's word in this context alike (at least, we should understand it alike. I'm assuming we do). Iesous/Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I don't think I've missed anything in that context by not using "Iesous."

As for "baptizo," changing it to an English form of the word ("baptize") certainly hides its meaning, right? Baptizo/baptize means "immersion," and its meaning can be seen in the baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8:38-39. Of course, we don't know any of these things because they are hidden from us, right?

By "little horn," are you referring to a Roman kings per Daniel 7, or a Grecian king per Daniel 8?

I believe I will be able to suffer through the humiliation just fine.