See for more themes.

Results for self

(1) master of self Baal

(2) self exaltation

(3) selfishness

(4) Master powers of self

(5) The study of bold; self; or indulgent people

(6) Study of fill with self

(7) Self-indulgent are filled

(8) Study of high; self or indulgence

(9) Paul preaches lowing himself

(10) lowering yourself before others

(11) Self indulgent people have no need of Jesus

(12) Study of unclean or self-indulgence

(13) Introducing self indulgance

(14) Diseases caused by self indulgance

(15) Self powered person

(16) Lawlessness or self indulgance

(17) Self serving or self indulgance

(18) The SELF-POWERED principle spoiling salvation

(19) One cannot self love

(20) Can the Heavenly Father exist by Himself?

(21) One cannot self love

(22) Is 'Self-love' Biblical?

(23) our selfishness

(24) learning to avoid self or Master of Self

(25) Breath of salvation with self subdued

(26) The Father sacrificed Himself in Christ

(27) self

(28) self abuse

Scholar remarks on Ancient Hebrew Pictograph Theory

Q14: Scripture Secrets : Scholar Scoffing

Jeff Benner has a forum where scholars who read Hebrew fluently critique the Ancient Hebrew Pictograph Theory.

In the beginning GOD gave mankind "one lip" that looked on paper like this:

It would have been lip sounds written as picture sounds. Each picture sound would have had a basic meaning. This is the overall idea of the Ancient Hebrew Pictograph Theory.

Some scholars assert pictographs exist in Modern Hebrew, others don't. The world was intentionally mixed by GOD for a reason, so only those who want salvation will find it.

In an ocean of scholars who read Hebrew fluently, and us poor children who don't, how do we find the gold among the mixing of scholarship, the precepts and traditions of men?

Robertt: "Greetings Ethan and Mira, nice of both of you to get back to me about Jeff Benner's Mechanical Translation of Genesis 1:1, and my help in asking it in Ancient Hebrew pictograph form. You see I am very influenced by Jeff Benner for a number of reasons, and while we may not agree over the meanings of some words, we do agree that in Hebrew once has pictograph meanings for there letters. And yes to a large degree, you can get this information from Modern Hebrew letters.

Read more

Mira: "I have never seen Jeff's Lexicon so I cannot have an opinion about it. I have briefly seen an excerpt of his mechanical translation. I certainly don't dislike it, why should I? It's just not for me. I am lucky to be fluent in Hebrew so I can read the AHL myself without translation, and I do this every day. It's sort of like the ocean. Someone who has never had the opportunity to observe it may be quite fascinated by a chart listing its chemical components or a mathematical formula expressing its size. Someone who has thinks of seeing the sun's rays dance on the vast expanse of water, hearing the roar of the waves, and inhaling the mineral rich air, a very different experience from a chart.

Read more

Scholars who read Hebrew may have a distinct disadvantage to those who don't. Take the millions of people who read Chinese fluently. Do they understand why the "chinese pictures" are the way they are? Where did the Ancient Chinese pictures come from?

So reading Hebrew is really nice. Is the scholar influenced though by Greek culture and modern Hebrew culture, since we live in a world of mixing, since Babel times, when GOD intentionally mixed the "one lip" into different sounds.

Eliah:" Definitely no translation in the word can convey the real meaning of the Biblical Hebrew language, although Arabic language not considered a translation because Biblical Hebrew and classic Arabic are the same with a slightly deferent script shape, just like the Palo script vs the square Aramaic script.

Third , I do agree that the biblical Hebrew language which was derived from the phenesion language is a pictographs language no doubt,

Read more

So some see evidence for Ancient Hebrew Pictograph Theory and some scholars don't.

Aavichai: "I don't know exactly what's going on here

But I hear about this theory, and basically, I don't agree with it

when the first man pronounced he didn't think about some logic combination of consonants and surely when the words started to develop with the languages itself, it is just impossible to create such a thing

and I can't think that the language is based on symbols or that the symbols (when they were created) represented the words? (which the words were created a very long years before the writing even began - and no symbols can follow the spoken words as it was already developed

Read more

This is an interesting comment. I suppose all languages over the world speak "words" and the letters have nothing to do with the sound, and sometimes even the spelling doesn't matter.

But this leads to a hypothesis, was the "one lip" GOD gave to man, based on "picture sounds", thus each "letter" was a "word if you like" on it's own?

Robertt: "Aavichai, you have an interesting idea concerning the Hebrew word "el", suggesting the "one lip" language would have spoken the word "god", rather than use the "picture sounds" "ie strong authority". But this is not true because the "word" meaning does not fit all the contexts of "el" but the "pictograph meaning does".

The letter "A" is a picture of a bull and means "strong". The next picture is a shepherd's staff and means the "Authority" of the shepherd. Thus we can suggest this Ancient Hebrew word, Strong's number 410, means "strong authority", not necessarily God.

Now because years ago we did not know this Ancient Hebrew script, we assumed Hebrew was a confused bunch of letters, and so scholars have wrongly assumed words in Hebrew have many different meanings.

For example, Strong's word 410, spelled "el" or "al" means according to Strong, the following meanings:-

  • (1) God (god),
  • (2) goodly,
  • (3) great,
  • (4) idol,
  • (5) might(-y one),
  • (6) power,
  • (7) strong.

    See the problem? This Hebrew word "al" can have seven English word meanings...The translators should try to make one English word fit, because this would alert the reader to know each Hebrew word is translated consistently and faithfully.

    Now notice what KJV does with this Hebrew word in some verses, and what Ancient Hebrew meanings do as well:-

    Ps 80:10 The hills were covered .. (with).. the goodly "'el" cedars ('erez).. (KJV)

    The hills were covered (with) the strong authority of cedars

    Ps 36:6 Thy righteousness is like the great "'el" mountains (harar).. (KJV)

    Thy righteousness is like the strong authority of mountains

    Isa 57:5 Enflaming yourselves with idols "'el".. (KJV)

    Enflaming yourselves with (other) strong authorities (idols)

    Eze 32:21 The strong "'el" among the mighty (gibbowr).. (KJV)

    The strong authority among the mighty humans..

    See it is possible to make Scripture words consistent in meaning. God is a "strong authority". But so is an idol, and a cedar tree and even a mountain, are symbols of strong authorities.

    So since the pictograph meaning "strong authority" fits all contexts of "el" or "al" and a "word meaning doesn't" unless you assume polysemy, therefore this example alone proves the "one lip" language was based on "picture sounds", which we term today "pictographs". Shalom

    Read more

    The Author does not know Hebrew rules of translation or grammar very well, hence one battles with those who read Hebrew fluently, who know such things.As the saying goes "I little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

    If the Author was to learn to speak Hebrew, which Hebrew would this be following which rules of grammar? The kind of speaking language that exists today, 5000 years later from the Ancient Hebrew one. Some scholars boast these two languages are the same, I don't think so. All languages are influenced by slang, evolution and the precepts of men, hence learning to speak and read Hebrew must by definition, follow the precepts of men. So learning to read Scripture presents a problem here, how does one remove the precepts and traditions of men from modern Hebrew?

    The Author is trying to expound the Scriptures in Hebrew as Jesus did about Himself to the two followers on the road to Emmas (Luke 24:27). Where clearly are the places Jesus used of Himself in the OT Scriptures?

    Mira: Firstly the verb isn't wait but hope or look forward to. Secondly the object is possessive, so "I have looked forward to your help." A proper noun is never possessive. Also in English no one would say "I am looking forward to your Robert."

    SOURCE

    So I guess one can translate Genesis 49:18:-

    "I am looking forward to Your Yashuah O YHWH".

    It sounds funny. So the possessive verb context requires the word "yashuah" to be a common meaning, according to our fluent Hebrew reader Mira.

    "I am looking forward to Your yashuah O YHWH". or

    "I am looking forward to Your salvation O YHWH"

    How does one unravel a common noun and a proper noun? in contexts? without trusting the translation rules of men?

    Mt 11:19 But wisdom is justified of her children.

    Here is a "common noun" used in context as a "personified meaning", ie a Proper noun? Would Hebrew fluent readers agree wih this? Since poetry pictures have double applications of meanings, can the common term "yashah" also refer to a proper term "Yashah"? Hence, can the common noun "wisdom" also refer to a proper noun "Holy Spirit" ?

    What about this context?

    1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    How can a common noun like "rock" become a "proper noun" of a Person, who followed them ?

    Scholars Scoff , should not surprise us. So do mockers mock. And pious people pout.

    The Author has respect for scholars and their different world views. Often it is our world view that clouds our minds and causes different focus, and finally bias. Everybody comes with their own world view, and hence their own religion, whatever that term means. On Jeff Benner's forum, the fluent Hebrew readers do not see the NT as part of their world view, hence all their Scripture is based only on the OT. This causes a huge restriction to meanings. The NT is a key to unlocking the OT in many respects. Such examples are

  • definition of Elohiym
  • defining the messiah

    But if you exlcude the latter teachings and read only the former teachings, your world view is restricted.

    Salvation simply sown is the aim behind Spiritual Springs. We hope readers remain encouraged. May the Divine Family in heaven, continue to bless you. Shalom

    (to be continued- perhaps?)

    Scripture Secrets theme

  • Created by Rob Thompson. Hosted since 10/01/2012.

    Visitors ISP GoDaddy. A thin website for browsers.