Tehilah Ba'Aretz

What cha gonna do bout it?

It was correctly stated that this is a reference to the Common Era and Before the Common Era. They are used because Ano Domini is not accurate anyway. Since the term is not accurate, why should Jewish people and other scholars feel they need to give it honor. The Gregorian calendar was not formulated until the 11th century. It does not correctly identify dates that are Biblical.

I studied Biblical Hebrew in Bible College with one of the finest Biblical Hebrew scholars alive today, Dr. Stanley Horton. That was a long time ago, of course. It is true that there are differences between Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew. For one thing, Biblical Hebrew does not have as many words. Modern Hebrew is a living language that changes and grows with time and use. Literally all of Biblical Hebrew is included in Modern Hebrew but the styles and some forms used in ancient times have been adapted in modern Hebrew. There are also some changes that would continue today but do not because we don't have anyone around writing out passages of revelation from God that I know about. You see, the Biblical record of God's speeches show that God reversed the tenses of time. God's past is our future so as to speak. (No, that is not what happened in Genesis one.)

It is not my intention to disparage the great bible commentaries and concordances you guys are using. I love to use, "Strongs" myself. I am only offering you my observations and questions because I may see things differently when I am thinking in Hebrew. It's a bit unusual I suppose but I really do see Israel differently in Hebrew and some of that translates into the way I read the Bible. I am not claiming to be either an authority or an expert. I think Dr. James Strong had an amazing grasp of both the Hebrew and the Greek.

Lot's wife _ tahi_ Became. Not Lehiyiot - was. It is not the same word.

My goodness. Tehilah, was that your sole intention-lol-shiloh62 Yod posted an article that said that silence is a sin and I don't want to sin. It's really all his fault. Well, actually, I may also have been influenced by Isaiah 62 where is says that we should not be silent. So, I guess I have to type?

This may sound strange but I find your question confusing. I am a Hebrew speaker/thinker. To me, the words have meaning because that is what they mean. A rose is not a tractor. I am sure that you will agree that ancient Hebrew was a language of the culture and was in common usage by a national/ethnic group. With that as a given, it is impossible to accept that there was no understanding of past, present and future. As is true in every language, it is possible to express these qualities and quantities. In fact, Hebrew is excellent for defining the nuances. Can you explain to me why the word, "became" doesn't mean "became"? I've been waiting a long time, and I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Became is the infinitive form of Haya. That is, it is not the same word. The word in Genesis 1 is Hayita which is not the infinitive. Hebrew uses the series of words that English speakers think of as, "to be" in a way that is not the same. Sorry that I didn't answer earlier. As noted above, I was confused by the question. To me, it seemed like you were asking why apples are not bananas. Anyway, one of the wonderful things about Hebrew is the usages and the nuances that can be understood from what may seem like minor changes. The root word for both was and became are the same but the usages give them completely different meanings.

Yup! Ain't God fantastic?

This may sound strange but I find your question confusing. I am a Hebrew speaker/thinker. To me, the words have meaning because that is what they mean. A rose is not a tractor. I am sure that you will agree that ancient Hebrew was a language of the culture and was in common usage by a national/ethnic group. With that as a given, it is impossible to accept that there was no understanding of past, present and future. As is true in every language, it is possible to express these qualities and quantities. In fact, Hebrew is excellent for defining the nuances.

The question begs an additional question. Why did God send Jesus at all? To get at the answer, we should look at the progression of God's revelation to mankind. The first man, Adam, had a direct and personal revelation of God. He was able to walk and talk to God in the Garden. But, he fell and left that idyllic relationship. Later, God revealed Himself to many great men and we have a record of those revelations. One of the greatest was Moses. With Moses, God revealed many things about Himself. He taught us about the things He loves and things He hates. God gave instructions that reveal His passions. God also taught us that we must reach out to Him by grace through faith just as Moses reached out to Him. The people who received and recorded those revelations, the Jewish People, failed to fully comprehend and implement the things revealed. They interpreted them according to the world around them. They edited the meanings and built systems and formulas that corrupted God's intentions. So God sent prophets, judges and men of faith. Each time, God increased the level of revelation and at the same time demanded faith. Mankind just didn't get it. It was a willful rejection of God by some. In other cases, the revelation was encased in traditions and wrapped in racial boundaries. Israel was situated on the best piece of property on the planet for the spreading of information along all of the ancient super highways. Still, even when the Jewish people were conquered and dispersed among the nations, the world didn't turn to God. The timing of the first advent of Yeshua was perfect! The Romans had come and conquered and that made it inevitable that the message would go planetary. The Hellenists had already spread their poison to the known world and that made the revelation of Yeshua an automatic conflict as Yeshua is the eternal antidote for the death bearing culture of Greek thinking. Why did God send Jesus when he did? I say the answer is because God's timing is perfect.

Political deception and distortion. A proportionate response would be random acts of terror that targeted civilians. Israel will never do that. So, a disproportionate response would be completely out of the question. Mr. Olmert is simply posturing for political campaign reasons and there is no truth in him.

Actually Gods word states that He first created the the Earth became. That is not adding it is just a proper translation. I do believe there was something that happened between Gen 1:1 and 2. The earth became something then God restored the earth. I find it wild that the Bible puts God created first then the earth being void, rather than the earth being void then God created. Doesn't make sense. Riddle me this: when did God create something that had no shape? Let's see ... air for one. The vacuum of space for another. Time comes to mind. Lets look at His word. Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Notice the "And", meaning a continuance of the first sentence. The period finished the statement in the first verse, but does not exclude the connection with the second verse. Now lets look at that same thing considering the word and with the proper translation of that word there. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Sorry, my question was wrong...forgive me for that. Lets actually look a little more at without form and void. Without form meaning waste...or worthless, vain. So God created earth a waste huh. Void meaning ruin empty...like a bombed out city. That is how God created the earth? I don't see the word, "became" in the Hebrew. Where are you getting that? I see the word, "Hayita" which is properly translated "was" and is in the past tense. On the other hand, you will notice that God creates the "Great lights" to rule the day and the night on the fourth day. This would seem to suggest that the first three days are defined by some other limitations. Some day I want to ask God for the definition of the words morning and evening as used in the first chapter of Genesis.

I would like to officially apologize for noticing that Germans are humans and not members of the Angelic beings who are not human. It was not appropriate to notice that Germans are normal human beings. I will attempt in the future to refrain from mentioning that fact. I would like to also give official notice that I consider the Bible to be literal in every circumstance including those places where the Bible itself declares that it is using symbols because those symbols must be taken as real symbols. If I ever decide to use a symbol or non-literal depiction in any of my posts, I will try to make it clear that I intend for my words to be taken in a non-literal sense. For the most part, interpretation will not be needed to understand what I have to say. Disclaimer: Occasionally I may be tempted to use humor. In the case of humor, all of the previous statements can be safely discarded. But concerning Germans, I would never consider making any implication that they are not human or human as the case requires, even in an attempt to create humor.

Ummm... Revelation 8:8 The second angel sounded and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea; and a third of the sea became blood, and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and has life, died; and and a third of the ships were destroyed. or maybe Revelation 16:3 The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like that of a dead man; and every living thing in the sea died. Of course, we all know that the Germans are not angels though.

Just for the sake of clarification, the attack this morning was not a retaliation. It was an unprovoked attacked. Just like all of the previous unprovoked attacks. That is actually part of the definition of terrorism. Use of the word retaliation plays into the tactic of moral equivalence. So, for the sake of clarity, Israel does not deserve to be compared in any way with the outrages of the haters. Let's call them straight. If a criminal attacks a police officer who has arrested him, it is not retaliation, it is a crime.