Two Torahs

[Laureate]

Thank you for this wonderful study. Paul is also said to believe "ALL" that is written in the Torah and the Prophets "of the Torah" (I love this)

Therefore His Teaching:

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Have a wonderful day

פלא indeed

 

[Laureate]

Apparently we do not have the same Teacher: but I am fine with that.

1 Samuel 11:14 KJV
14 Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there.

Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.
Root(s): H2318

H2320 חֹדֶשׁ chodesh (cho'-desh) n-m.
1. the new moon.
2. (by implication) a month.
[from H2318]
KJV: month(-ly), new moon.
Root(s): H2318

These are all the same word, חדש, in the original Ashuri text from the time of Ezra.
You have the Masoretes and James Strong who created the above divisions.
I have the Testimony of the Meshiah which expounds this in the Gospels.

Jeremiah 31:31 OG LXX
31 (38:31) ιδου ημεραι ερχονται φησιν κυριος και διαθησομαι τω οικω ισραηλ και τω οικω ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 T/R
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτοις λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 N/A-W/H
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτους λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

This my Teacher of Righteousness and his definition of kainos-renewed in juxtaposition with neos-new:

Luke 5:37-39 T/R
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μηγε ρηξει ο νεος οινος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται
39 και ουδεις πιων παλαιον ευθεως θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστοτερος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 N/A-W/H
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη γε ρηξει ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον
39 ουδεις πιων παλαιον θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 ASV
37 And no man putteth new [neos] wine into old wine-skins; else the new [neos] wine will burst the skins and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.
38 But new [neos] wine must be put into fresh [kainos] wine-skins.
39 And no man having drunk old wine desireth new [neos]; for he saith, The old is good.

Anyone who understands the process of making wine-skins knows that the skin formerly belonged to a living creature and therefore needs to be renewed-refreshed, (kainos), before the neos-new wine can be put into the wine-skin.

There is of course a whole lot more to this study and this passage, but the point here is clear enough to anyone who believes and bows to the Testimony of the Meshiah. And likewise the other companion passages, Mat 9:17 and Mark 2:22, are the same: neos-new -vs- kainos-renewed according to the Logos, the reasoning, the understanding, the mindset.

I therefore have the Logos-Reasoning of Meshiah in scripture context in support of what I believe and have offered here. What do you have? a text pointed by the Masoretes which is technically the most extensive commentary now embedded into the Hebrew text, and at that, only a mere one thousand years ago: and on top of that, thousands of words subdivided into many more words by the likes of James Strong, with his famous numbering system. We do not have the same Teacher and we do not read Hebrew the same way: you are relying on a third interpretation when you read any English translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text because that, in itself, is already a commentary-interpretation embedded into the ancient Hebrew text.

John 7:15-17 KJV
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

The Masoretes and Dr. Strong are also among my teachers, Dr. Strong’s Manual does not teach theology, it only records the locations and instances of the primary Biblical words, and provides a Hebrew and Greek lexicon which only imparts the renderings (of the Celtic translators) which made it into the KJV, that’s all he did, it helps one to navigate quickly amongst the passages and shows the various renderings of a word in each instance.

The works of the Masoretes which made it into the Celtic translations was truncated by Jews who were either unaware of the Masoretes divine appointment or stood in disbelief, when they (not the Masoretes) decided to unify the works of the Masoretes, which resulted in many omissions.

The Masoretes primary purpose was to preserve the Oral (version of the) Law in writing, the Oral version was a crucial aide to those who were learning how to read the written Torah, however the vast contextual meanings and diversities of the Masoretes fell upon those which exercise favoritism, which led to divisions and debate, thus the unification of their work was an attempt to purify the language and bring everyone into one accord with a Fixed Punctuation/Reading, this is not the doing of the Masoretes, but the doing of those who looked to the Masoretes for authoritative knowledge.

The fixed punctuation is a Breech in the Torah, the untampered knowledge of the Masoretes is a surviving record of the Oral Law, which teaches and preserves the understood meanings of the Torah.

You sound like someone who only knows about the Madoretes and Dr. Strong via those who reference their works ineptly, because anyone who handles their works firsthand can see that they only provide a copy of existing reference, nothing by way of personal interpretation.

At either rate your ascribing someone’s slant to be the result of such records, is misapplied here, seeing how I have the Masoretes and Dr. Strong also among my teachers, yet I do not agree with his slant, yet stand more or less in harmony with your take of the matter at hand.

You do know what Misapplied entails? Please reconsider the stigma, and amend your perspective.

The fixed punctuation is essentially the Wine of Wrath, remove the Permanent Fixing and read the text again via the vast knowledge of the Masoretes in order to remove the Wrath from the Wine.

 

[daq]

The Masoretes and Dr. Strong are also among my teachers, Dr. Strong’s Manual does not teach theology, it only records the locations and instances of the primary Biblical words, and provides a Hebrew and Greek lexicon which only imparts the renderings (of the Celtic translators) which made it into the KJV, that’s all he did, it helps one to navigate quickly amongst the passages and shows the various renderings of a word in each instance.

The works of the Masoretes which made it into the Celtic translations was truncated by Jews who were either unaware of the Masoretes divine appointment or stood in disbelief, when they (not the Masoretes) decided to unify the works of the Masoretes, which resulted in many omissions.

The Masoretes primary purpose was to preserve the Oral (version of the) Law in writing, the Oral version was a crucial aide to those who were learning how to read the written Torah, however the vast contextual meanings and diversities of the Masoretes fell upon those which exercise favoritism, which led to divisions and debate, thus the unification of their work was an attempt to purify the language and bring everyone into one accord with a Fixed Punctuation/Reading, this is not the doing of the Masoretes, but the doing of those who looked to the Masoretes for authoritative knowledge.

The fixed punctuation is a Breech in the Torah, the untampered knowledge of the Masoretes is a surviving record of the Oral Law, which teaches and preserves the understood meanings of the Torah.

You sound like someone who only knows about the Madoretes and Dr. Strong via those who reference their works ineptly, because anyone who handles their works firsthand can see that they only provide a copy of existing reference, nothing by way of personal interpretation.

At either rate your ascribing someone’s slant to be the result of such records, is misapplied here, seeing how I have the Masoretes and Dr. Strong also among my teachers, yet I do not agree with his slant, yet stand more or less in harmony with your take of the matter at hand.

You do know what Misapplied entails? Please reconsider the stigma, and amend your perspective.

The fixed punctuation is essentially the Wine of Wrath, remove the Permanent Fixing and read the text again via the vast knowledge of the Masoretes in order to remove the Wrath from the Wine.

You've posted opinions without any evidence in support of those opinions: you expect me to repent of what I know and understand just because you disagree? It does not appear to me that you understand the basic early evolution of the Ashuri text.

The original Ashuri, (Assyrian or Babylonian), block Hebrew script from the time of Ezra, (some say Yoshiah, (Josiah)), was not separated. I understand how this has become arguable in modern times, and there are no doubt others of a different opinion, but this is what I have found in my own studies. The original Ashuri text was written in a form of scriptio continua similar to the oldest Greek Uncial texts of the Apostolic writings. The waw/vav in the original Ashuri script doubled as a word separator, and was sometimes to be read as the particle of continuance, ("and", etc.), and sometimes not to be read at all because it served merely as a word separator. This was in addition to the fact that the waw/vav is of course a letter used in the formation of words, and moreover there were no sofits, the five final-form letters, (some of which we see beginning to be introduced in the DSS). The sofits were introduced in order to separate the text because without them certain words may easily be confused with words that follow, joining two words and making one word out of the two. Thus, without the waw/vav as a word separator, the sofits became a necessary tool in the lengthy process of separating the text.

We see this process of the evolution of the Hebrew text ongoing and in progress in the scrolls and fragments recovered at Qumran-Dameshek. However one may see and understand by the modern Hebrew text itself, and also by a close comparison with the Old Greek Septuagint, that the original Ashuri text was not separated. Moreover those who rendered the Hebrew text into the Septuagint did not separate the text in the same manner as it is separated today. Unfortunately the process of separating the text caused much debate because not everyone agreed with how it should be separated, and the Pharisee view of the separation and understanding of the text naturally won out in the end because all other holders of opposing views disappeared as major sects following 70-135 AD. The fact that there was an ongoing dispute over these things is fairly evident by the fact there were competing texts in the era of the first century BC/BCE and simply by the mere existence of the Old Greek LXX-Septuagint itself.

What therefore happened when the Hebrew text was finally completely separated as we find it today? An untold number of word separators, (the letter waw/vav), dropped out of the text: and in some places one may even find a separator that probably should not have been read, and rather more likely should have dropped out of the text but was left in place because of interpretation, whether for the good or for the bad. One may even find some of these instances being corrected in the Apostolic writings.

We have an entire body of opposing evidence in the OG (Old Greek) LXX-Septuagint that disagrees with your proposals and opinions: and that body of evidence is the most often quoted body of evidence employed in the Apostolic writings.

Example:

Romans 14:11 N/A-BYZ-T/R-W/H
11 γεγραπται γαρ ζω εγω λεγει κυριος οτι εμοι καμψει παν γονυ και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησεται τω θεω

This is quoted from Isaiah 45:23-24, which is now split into two verses in the Hebrew text because of the opposing text separation now found in the Hebrew text, which did not exist in the time when the passage was rendered into the OG LXX-Septuagint.

Isaiah 45:23-24 WLC
בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי יָצָא מִפִּי צְדָקָה דָּבָר וְלֹא יָשׁוּב כִּי־לִי תִּכְרַע כָּל־בֶּרֶךְ תִּשָּׁבַע כָּל־לָשֹֽׁון׃
אַךְ בַּיהוָה לִי אָמַר צְדָקֹות וָעֹז עָדָיו יָבֹוא וְיֵבֹשׁוּ כֹּל הַנֶּחֱרִים בֹּֽו׃​

Who spaced and separated this text? Who removed the word separators? Who added the sofits? Who pointed the text? The only one of these questions which we know for sure is the final question: the Masoretes pointed the text. The other questions are answered only in the manner of a time frame and that time frame is about 280BC to 100BC because we see the differences in separation of the text and the adding in of the sofits in that time frame by comparison with the OG Septuagint.

This is the separation of the text according to my forefathers the OG LXX-Septuagint:

Isaiah 45:23 OG LXX
23 κατ εμαυτου ομνυω η μην εξελευσεται εκ του στοματος μου δικαιοσυνη οι λογοι μου ουκ αποστραφησονται οτι εμοι καμψει παν γονυ και εξομολογησεται πασα γλωσσα τω θεω

And they read it from a Hebrew text similar to the following, in a scriptio continua format, but I have left the sofits in the text and did not add the word separators back into the text.

בינשבעתייצאמפיצדקהדברולאישובכיליתכרעכלברךתשבעכללשוןאךביהוהלי

Know therefore that יה is rendered many more times as ΘΕΟΣ in the OG LXX than what people have imagined.

 

[JohnD70X7]

The Torah of Moshé is the Torah which Alohym gave unto Moshé, thus according to this context, the Torah of Moshé is the Torah of Alohym.

I’m not saying that there are (or were) not two Torahs, I’m saying, you are trying to make a distinction here that simply does not exist.

Ah, but there is:

Jeremiah 31:31–34 (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 NOT according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put MY law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

1 Corinthians 9:21 (NIV84)
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

Two Torahs under God:

• Torah Moshe (the Law of sin and death)
• Torah Moshiakh (the Law of Grace and Forgiveness)

Both still stands.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV84)
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

• the letter (Torah Moshe) kills / accuses / convicts
• the Spirit (Torah Moshiakh) gives eternal life and salvation and forgiveness

Peace

 

[Laureate]

Ah, but there is:

Jeremiah 31:31–34 (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 NOT according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put MY law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

1 Corinthians 9:21 (NIV84)
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

Two Torahs under God:

• Torah Moshe (the Law of sin and death)
• Torah Moshiakh (the Law of Grace and Forgiveness)

Both still stands.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV84)
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

• the letter (Torah Moshe) kills / accuses / convicts
• the Spirit (Torah Moshiakh) gives eternal life and salvation and forgiveness

Peace

You are mistaking the Torah/Law, (which is not an Agreement) with a Covenant (Binding Contract Agreement to keep the Law), though both can be Broken the consequences are not the same.

When you Break a Contract there is a Forfeiture of rights and privileges (usually involving Access and Possessions), there is no imprisonment or penalties (unless agreed upon), as when one Breaks the Law.

The New Testament is not the New Covenant, nor is the Old Testament the Old Covenant as many Christians loosely associate, neither are either one of these synonymous with a New Torah (Law) or an Old Torah (Law).

As Disciples of Immanuel we are Bound by the Torah of the Prophets (which includes Moshé) and the Testimonies of the Disciples of Yeshuah (Isaiah 8), and if one does not speak according to this word, we are informed that it is because the Light does not Dawn upon them.

Genesis 17:1-12

And when Abvram was ninety years old and nine, Yahuah appeared to Abvram, and said unto him, I am El Shadai; Walk with me, and be you perfect.

And I will make My Covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.

And Abvram fell on his face: and Alohym spoke to him, saying, As for me, behold, My Covenant is with you, that you may be the father of many nations.

Neither shall your name any more be called Abvram, but your name shall be Abvraham; for a father of many nations have I made you.

And I will make you exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come out of you.

And I will establish My Covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for a perpetuating Covenant, to be an Alohym unto you, and to your seed after you.

And Alohym said unto Abvraham, You shall require My Covenant to be kept, to include, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.

This is My Covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you;

Every man child among you shall be circumcised, wherefore you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a Token of the Covenant between me and you.

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of your seed.

He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with your money, is required to be circumcised: that My Covenant may be in your flesh for a perpetuating Covenant.

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be Cut Off from his people; he has Broken My Covenant.

Carefully note, this is not a Torah being made, but a Covenant (Contract) in accordance with, (and to be upheld by) Torah/Law.

 

[Laureate]

You've posted opinions without any evidence in support of those opinions: you expect me to repent of what I know and understand just because you disagree? It does not appear to me that you understand the basic early evolution of the Ashuri text.

The original Ashuri, (Assyrian or Babylonian), block Hebrew script from the time of Ezra, (some say Yoshiah, (Josiah)), was not separated. I understand how this has become arguable in modern times, and there are no doubt others of a different opinion, but this is what I have found in my own studies. The original Ashuri text was written in a form of scriptio continua similar to the oldest Greek Uncial texts of the Apostolic writings. The waw/vav in the original Ashuri script doubled as a word separator, and was sometimes to be read as the particle of continuance, ("and", etc.), and sometimes not to be read at all because it served merely as a word separator. This was in addition to the fact that the waw/vav is of course a letter used in the formation of words, and moreover there were no sofits, the five final-form letters, (some of which we see beginning to be introduced in the DSS). The sofits were introduced in order to separate the text because without them certain words may easily be confused with words that follow, joining two words and making one word out of the two. Thus, without the waw/vav as a word separator, the sofits became a necessary tool in the lengthy process of separating the text.

We see this process of the evolution of the Hebrew text ongoing and in progress in the scrolls and fragments recovered at Qumran-Dameshek. However one may see and understand by the modern Hebrew text itself, and also by a close comparison with the Old Greek Septuagint, that the original Ashuri text was not separated. Moreover those who rendered the Hebrew text into the Septuagint did not separate the text in the same manner as it is separated today.

Dude, I have preached all of this from day one, aughhhh, you totally misunderstood my disposition, nevertheless I use Deuteronomy 4 to establish the premise that we are not to Add or Diminish anything from the received Torah.

The misapplication that I was calling you on is that you ascribed the teachers of the O.P. to be the reason why he was disagreeing with Us as it pertains to the topic at hand, Us as in you and I, and others who all agreed that the O.P. was mistaken, yet if he was mistaken how can it be due to Dr. Strong and the Masorah, when I also have learned from Dr. Strong and the Masorah yet stand in agreement with you on the particular matter at hand?

When I read Torah, I remove all diacritic markings (to include spacings and distinguishing soffits) and follow the counsel of Yeshuah, that my righteousness may exceed the righteousness of the Scribes (recorders) and Pharisee (lawyers).

The Masorah reveals how a word or formula may be read, the only disagreement the LXX, and the Masoretic text has is not how a word or formula may be read, but how a particular text of the Torah should be read/punctuated.

I am more interested in How the Torah may be read, than what either suggests is the appropriate reading.

 

[daq]

Dude, I have preached all of this from day one, aughhhh, you totally misunderstood my disposition, nevertheless I use Deuteronomy 4 to establish the premise that we are not to Add or Diminish anything from the received Torah.

The misapplication that I was calling you on is that you ascribed the teachers of the O.P. to be the reason why he was disagreeing with Us as it pertains to the topic at hand, Us as in you and I, and others who all agreed that the O.P. was mistaken, yet if he was mistaken how can it be due to Dr. Strong and the Masorah, when I also have learned from Dr. Strong and the Masorah yet stand in agreement with you on the particular matter at hand?

When I read Torah, I remove all diacritic markings (to include spacings and distinguishing soffits) and follow the counsel of Yeshuah, that my righteousness may exceed the righteousness of the Scribes (recorders) and Pharisee (lawyers).

The Masorah reveals how a word or formula may be read, the only disagreement the LXX, and the Masoretic text has is not how a word or formula may be read, but how a particular text of the Torah should be read/punctuated.

I am more interested in How the Torah may be read, than what either suggests is the appropriate reading.

And yet the OP keeps underlining and highlighting new covenant while you apparently pay no mind to where one would receive such an understanding of kainos as it is used in the Apostolic writings: there is really only one way to come to his conclusions regarding these things if he studied them out, (especially using modern lexicons like Strong's). I don't believe you even understood my initial post to which you responded.

 

[Laureate]

Your

And yet the OP keeps underlining and highlighting new covenant while you apparently pay no mind to where one would receive such an understanding of kainos as it is used in the Apostolic writings: there is really only one way to come to his conclusions regarding these things if he studied them out, (especially using modern lexicons like Strong's). I don't believe you even understood my initial post to which you responded.

Your too much, try and look at the 3rd post (back from here, I just so happened to touch on such things.

I did exactly what you said because when I read everyone’s posts, I did not see anyone else elaborate on such distinctions.

 

[JohnD70X7]

You are mistaking the Torah/Law, (which is not an Agreement) with a Covenant (Binding Contract Agreement to keep the Law), though both can be Broken the consequences are not the same.

When you Break a Contract there is a Forfeiture of rights and privileges (usually involving Access and Possessions), there is no imprisonment or penalties (unless agreed upon), as when one Breaks the Law.

The New Testament is not the New Covenant, nor is the Old Testament the Old Covenant as many Christians loosely associate, neither are either one of these synonymous with a New Torah (Law) or an Old Torah (Law).

As Disciples of Immanuel we are Bound by the Torah of the Prophets (which includes Moshé) and the Testimonies of the Disciples of Yeshuah (Isaiah 8), and if one does not speak according to this word, we are informed that it is because the Light does not Dawn upon them.

Genesis 17:1-12

And when Abvram was ninety years old and nine, Yahuah appeared to Abvram, and said unto him, I am El Shadai; Walk with me, and be you perfect.

And I will make My Covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.

And Abvram fell on his face: and Alohym spoke to him, saying, As for me, behold, My Covenant is with you, that you may be the father of many nations.

Neither shall your name any more be called Abvram, but your name shall be Abvraham; for a father of many nations have I made you.

And I will make you exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come out of you.

And I will establish My Covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for a perpetuating Covenant, to be an Alohym unto you, and to your seed after you.

And Alohym said unto Abvraham, You shall require My Covenant to be kept, to include, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.

This is My Covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you;

Every man child among you shall be circumcised, wherefore you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a Token of the Covenant between me and you.

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of your seed.

He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with your money, is required to be circumcised: that My Covenant may be in your flesh for a perpetuating Covenant.

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be Cut Off from his people; he has Broken My Covenant.

Carefully note, this is not a Torah being made, but a Covenant (Contract) in accordance with, (and to be upheld by) Torah/Law.

Then Deuteronomy 28 was just a waste of ink?

Is this what you are saying?

 

[daq]

Your

Your too much, try and look at the 3rd post (back from here, I just so happened to touch on such things.

I did exactly what you said because when I read everyone’s posts, I did not see anyone else elaborate on such distinctions.

Again you are mistaken for not having understood what the OP states in his first three posts of this thread where such distinctions are clearly made, or at the very least, inferred. You did not follow the flow of the discussion and instead decided to let me know that you are offended because of what I said about Strong's concordance because you use it and do not see any problem with how it separates single words into multiple words with multiple meanings. This was in my initial post which you quoted and to which responded.

The Hebrew text of the first century was not pointed, and there was no such thing as what is now found in the Strong's concordance where words are separated by number classifications supposedly for convenience, (and all other more modern Christian lexicons now follow the same Strong's numbering system, and essentially make the same distinctions regarding such words which were not partitioned in such a manner in the first century). Moreover the pointing system, again, is an interpretive decision in many cases: and hadash is one of those cases where the number classifications in Strong's can and do mislead people as evidenced in my initial post to which you responded.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

Again, the two words above are not actually two different words but are rather the same word without the pointing and word number classifications. One is merely the verb and the other is an adjective: and yet one says new while the other says renew, rebuild, repair. Who decided that the verb has a different meaning than the adjective?

Can you make something brand new which was never before made? Yes, of course.
Can you renew something that has been tarnished or broken? Yes, of course.

See therefore that these are not the same words and principles in the English language. There is a theological bias embedded in this distinction in the Strong's entries posted above when it comes to this topic, (whether the covenant is a totally brand new replacement covenant or whether the covenant is renewed, which things are very often argued by way of the definitions found in lexicons), and yet you see no problem with Strong's? It is not me who needs to repent or reconsider what I have presented herein because it is the truth. If you cannot see it, or choose not to, so be it, and I'll drop this issue here with this post: but perhaps you might keep in mind that the initial post to which you responded was not addressed to you to begin with.

 

[Laureate]

Then Deuteronomy 28 was just a waste of ink?

Is this what you are saying?

When my child is not ready to stand among his peers (as if to say, a place where he belongs), then I make provisions to prepare him to stand where he belongs.

 

[Laureate]

Again you are mistaken for not having understood what the OP states in his first three posts of this thread where such distinctions are clearly made, or at the very least, inferred. You did not follow the flow of the discussion and instead decided to let me know that you are offended because of what I said about Strong's concordance because you use it and do not see any problem with how it separates single words into multiple words with multiple meanings. This was in my initial post which you quoted and to which responded.

The Hebrew text of the first century was not pointed, and there was no such thing as what is now found in the Strong's concordance where words are separated by number classifications supposedly for convenience, (and all other more modern Christian lexicons now follow the same Strong's numbering system, and essentially make the same distinctions regarding such words which were not partitioned in such a manner in the first century). Moreover the pointing system, again, is an interpretive decision in many cases: and hadash is one of those cases where the number classifications in Strong's can and do mislead people as evidenced in my initial post to which you responded.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

Again, the two words above are not actually two different words but are rather the same word without the pointing and word number classifications. One is merely the verb and the other is an adjective: and yet one says new while the other says renew, rebuild, repair. Who decided that the verb has a different meaning than the adjective?

Can you make something brand new which was never before made? Yes, of course.
Can you renew something that has been tarnished or broken? Yes, of course.

See therefore that these are not the same words and principles in the English language. There is a theological bias embedded in this distinction in the Strong's entries posted above when it comes to this topic, (whether the covenant is a totally brand new replacement covenant or whether the covenant is renewed, which things are very often argued by way of the definitions found in lexicons), and yet you see no problem with Strong's? It is not me who needs to repent or reconsider what I have presented herein because it is the truth. If you cannot see it, or choose not to, so be it, and I'll drop this issue here with this post: but perhaps you might keep in mind that the initial post to which you responded was not addressed to you to begin with.

Not offended to say the least, yet in the Bible Code thread that I posted you will see me applying what your elaborating here, I take a relatively small strand of 20 Hebrew variables (extracted from Zechariah), then translate and retranslate over and over and over again, pointing out the pertinence and harmonic precision of an alternate reading.

 

[Laureate]

Again you are mistaken for not having understood what the OP states in his first three posts of this thread where such distinctions are clearly made, or at the very least, inferred. You did not follow the flow of the discussion and instead decided to let me know that you are offended because of what I said about Strong's concordance because you use it and do not see any problem with how it separates single words into multiple words with multiple meanings. This was in my initial post which you quoted and to which responded.

The Hebrew text of the first century was not pointed, and there was no such thing as what is now found in the Strong's concordance where words are separated by number classifications supposedly for convenience, (and all other more modern Christian lexicons now follow the same Strong's numbering system, and essentially make the same distinctions regarding such words which were not partitioned in such a manner in the first century). Moreover the pointing system, again, is an interpretive decision in many cases: and hadash is one of those cases where the number classifications in Strong's can and do mislead people as evidenced in my initial post to which you responded.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

Again, the two words above are not actually two different words but are rather the same word without the pointing and word number classifications. One is merely the verb and the other is an adjective: and yet one says new while the other says renew, rebuild, repair. Who decided that the verb has a different meaning than the adjective?

Can you make something brand new which was never before made? Yes, of course.
Can you renew something that has been tarnished or broken? Yes, of course.

See therefore that these are not the same words and principles in the English language. There is a theological bias embedded in this distinction in the Strong's entries posted above when it comes to this topic, (whether the covenant is a totally brand new replacement covenant or whether the covenant is renewed, which things are very often argued by way of the definitions found in lexicons), and yet you see no problem with Strong's? It is not me who needs to repent or reconsider what I have presented herein because it is the truth. If you cannot see it, or choose not to, so be it, and I'll drop this issue here with this post: but perhaps you might keep in mind that the initial post to which you responded was not addressed to you to begin with.

I’m sorry it may have helped if I would have also mentioned that Strong!s and the Masorah are Not my only Teachers, however along with Brown Drivers and Brigs (BDB), and even Kohlenberger were crucial teachers in my early introduction to עברית

Even still it was not a matter of me trusting and relying on them to forge any bottom line, I merely conducted an earnest study of their works, and yet if one does not possess Rûakh H’Kodesh nor have the Spirit of Truth to assist their navigation through the text, then one is bound to find themselves lost at sea.

 

[Laureate]

The first Bible Heaven placed in my hand is the most watered down Bible that I am aware of, I have come a long Way since 1989.