This is Qadash

This is qadash קדשׁ


Quph: The horizon.

The quph represents a concrete sense of a cyclical process, or revolutionary process – as in a scattering to a collecting; a separating to a gathering. All of the Hebrew words derived from this parent root share a collective theme; that of a circle or revolution. The concept itself is embedded in the pictograph – that of a circle with a horizontal line intersecting. Quite similar to a linear depiction of the sun as it met the horizon in either rising or setting – another completed revolution or cyclical process come full about. It is from this depiction that its often employed sense of condensing is also derived – as the scattered light during the day condenses or gathers towards the sun as it approaches the horizontal divide. If such divide is approached during its rise, the light first appears condensed around the circle of the sun, then it scatters as the day grows in length until it again approaches the opposite horizontal divide in setting, at which time, the scattered light is recollected or condensed towards the center of the circle as the remaining sky becomes dark as it gives up its light..


Dal, or dalet: The tent door.


The very meaning of the word dalet is door and it is derived from the parent root letter dal, which also means door – things enter and exit through an opening. It is the opening in the family tent through which things came [gathered] and went [separated], the flap itself being swung back and forth. Accordingly, one finds the meaning of dalet to be a back and forth movement, as well as a dangling, as the tent door dangled down from a Hebrew roof pole of the tent, and so it is often also used to mean weak, or poor, as one might be seen as dangling the head downward when they are in a weakened state. Centrally, it was the

Shin: The two front teeth.

The ancient pictograph here is one of the two front teeth, and in fact, the Hebrew word shin means tooth. Teeth are sharp. In the eating process, they are used to select and separate off a smaller piece from a larger whole. Then, they are used to separate the bite taken into even smaller portions before swallowing. It also represents the concept of again, and second, which can be seen in the process of separating a small from a larger, then making the smaller, even small, through a repetitive process we call chewing.

Combined: A collection, gathering, or condensing [quph] through [dalet] separation from a larger whole [shin] – generally for a specific purpose presented contextually in the biblical texts.

The concept is not one of exclusion like might be compared to obtaining salt from sea water by eliminating or excluding the water from the mixture so that only salt remains. Rather, the concept is one of collecting or gathering through separating from a greater whole like might be compared to obtaining cream from raw milk. Cream is not obtained from raw milk by identifying then excluding all non-cream elements from the raw mixture until only cream is left, but rather, by allowing the cream to collect or gather, then removing the cream from the raw milk – e.g., the use of centrifuge (or separator). In more ancient times, the separating process was done manually from the top of a pouring pan.

A central biblical theme – the Shabbat is brought about, or collected, through separation from the days of the week – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Noah and his family are collected through separation from the world which was to come to an end – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Abraham is collected through separation from the Sumerian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Moshe and the Hebrew collected through separation from the Egyptian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; and so on. In none of these examples, was the greater whole eliminated through process to a core left remaining, but rather a process of separating from a greater whole.

Some Favorite Quotes Regarding the Trinity

"In the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt with consequences of a pernicious nature. The subject of this fatal controversy which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches." - J. Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History [New York: Harper, 1839], 1:399.

"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity ... we shall perceive that few dctrines have produced more unmixed evil." - Andrews, Norton, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ [Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833], 287 [page 374 in the 14th Edition].

"Christological doctrine has never in practice been derived simply by way of logical inference from the statements of Scripture [...] The Church has not usually in practice [whatever it may have claimed to be doing in theory] based its Christology exclusively on the witness of the New Testament." - Maurice Wiles, The Remaking of Christian Doctrine [London; SCM Press, 1974, pages 54-55].

"The Greeks distorted the concept of Jesus' legal agency to ontological identity, creating an illogical set of creeds and doctrines to cause confusion and terror for later generations of Christians." - Professor Buchanan, from correspondence, 1994.

"Nowhere does the New testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography [Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1975, page 782]

"The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma: the Trinity is true, since the Church - the universal Church speaking by its Bishops - says so, though the Bible does not! [...] We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition [1936], 7:501, 502; "Dogma, Dogmatics Theology".

What it is all about is the primitive Christian [and Hebrew and Jewish] doctrine that simply states, "God is one" Spend some time and sweep away the Nicene encrustations.

This is Ra

Ra
רע
Ra, the adjective form, comes from the primitive root verb, ra’a, meaning to be bad, or be evil. This is the same root which occurs in the Ugartic as well. In Akkadian, as well as Phoenician, it is raggu. The essential meaning of the word can be seen in its frequent juxtaposition with the Hebrew word, tov, or good.

The first use of tov is in Genesis chapter one where Jehovah calls his handiwork "good". But in Hebrew, word constructs represent function as viewed from the five senses. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When Jehovah looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional; perfect for its intended purpose. In contrast, the Hebrew word "ra", while often translated as evil or bad, is probably best translated as dysfunctional; imperfect for its intended purpose. But why?

The word righteous is an abstract word so an understanding of the concrete is needed. One of the best ways to do this, is locate the original concrete meaning of a word in direct context, in a sentence where its concrete meaning can be seen, if possible. For example the word yashar is usually translated as upright or righteous (abstracts) is also translated as "straight". From this we can conclude that a "yashar" is one who walks a straight line. With tsadiyq however, and its verb form tsadaq, there are no direct usage of this word in its concrete meaning. But there are then parallels with synonyms and comparisons with antonyms. When we look at the word tsadiyq we find that it is commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains on the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Jehovah provides the outline, and the instruction, the knowledge, and the wisdom, and the insight, which leads to life, which is functional for the intended purpose of man – whereas as departure from this, leads ultimately to dysfunction – death.

How then, does one find them self coming to be departed from the path and thus lost? By choice. The choice is made to personally depart, just as the choice is made personally to remain on Jehovah’s path. Here is Eve, for example:

Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon.
Genesis 3:5

As in all Hebrew word constructs, the paleo supports the concrete meaning. One who is following the path established by Jehovah, is called tsadiyq; whereas one who departs from the path established by Jehovah, is called rasha. And ra, as indicated in the paleo, is the cause for departing from the path established by Jehovah. So what is the foundational paleo behind the concrete cause for departing from the path established and becoming lost, dysfunctional?

Resh: The ancient picture for this Hebrew letter is the head of a man, having the meaning of the head, or man, as well as chief, top, beginning, or first.

Ayin: The ancient picture is one an eye, representing the concrete ideas of seeing, and watching, as well as knowledge, as the eye is the window of knowledge.

Combined you have the knowledge, or insight, of man [or man’s sight or knowledge]. In fact, from the above verse, one can readily see that Eve relied upon her own knowledge, her own personal sight, her own personal decision to determine for herself a path different from that presented to her and her husband – in direct opposition to the insight and instruction provided by Jehovah. Soon after her self-reliant choice was made, she departed, and became lost. She committed ra, and thus became rasha.

Jehovah has provided a path to life/functionality. Departure from this path leads to death/dysfunctionality. Always in the bible – two paths – one laid by Jehovah in all his sovereign insight, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and love – and the other – well, it comes from man – and yet we are told, “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step”, and conversely about the righteous, one reads “The law of God is in his heart, his steps will not wobble”.

Ra - Man’s own determination of his own steps on his own path based on what man himself, independent of Jehovah, determines to be knowledge and insight regarding that path and its direction. Following oneself, or man, versus following Jehovah..

And it came about that, as soon as Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab immediately said to him: “Id this you, the bringer of ostracism upon Israel?”

To this he said: “I have not brought ostracism upon Israel, but you and the house of your father have, because you men left the commandments of Jehovah, and you went following Ba’als”

1 Kings 18:17-18

“Then Elijah approached all the people and said: “How long will you be limping upon two different opinions?

If Jehovah is the true God, go following him, but if Ba’al is, go following him. And the people did not say a word in answer to him.”
1 Kings 18:21

“Know that Jehovah is God

It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves. We are his people and the sheep of his pasturage”
Psalms 100:3

“Therefore Jesus spoke again to them, saying: “I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life”
John 8:12

Now if it is bad in your eyes to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods that your forefathers who were on the other side of the river served or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are dwelling. But as for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.
Joshua 24:15

Tom [taw-mem] - A Word of Integrity

The Hebrew word for integrity [tom] is depicted quite simply in ancient Hebrew pictographs actually – but before getting to that description there is a relevant biblical concept which serves as a foundation – that being, the Hebrew word for heart, or lev [or some transliterate “leb”].

Lev is represented by the combination of the lamed and the beyt. The lamed is represented by the ancient pictograph of the staff--standing for authority, as it was used to direct the flocks and it was the motivator serving to move the flock in the desired direction. It is combined then with the beyt--the picture of the tent floor plan, meaning inside, as the family lives inside the tent.

Combined, you have the “authority within”, or heart – a person’s true authority within themselves. A similar English phrase, “the heart of the matter” still reflects this understanding [also reflected in Matthew 12:40, Exodus 15:8, Jonah 2:3, 2 Samuel 18:14]. It is the lev which proves the inner most core motivator of the human being – the authority within.

Indeed, the FDS correctly states in this matter, when it quotes from the Journal of the society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1882, page 67, in the Insight Volume 1, page 1057, 4th paragraph “It is said to stand for ‘the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs, his reasonings, his memory, and his consciousness”, and they go on to state, “not mere outward appearances but what a person really is inside is what counts with God, who is an examiner of hearts.”

In this same regard, the FDS also notes accurately that the literal heart must be whole in order to function properly, and it must be full with blood, in order to pump properly, the life giving blood through the body. Just as a literal heart must be full and complete in order to function [tov] properly, so also must the figurative heart [see Volume 1, page 1058]. As they state, “One seeking to please God must be neither halfhearted nor double hearted, but must serve him with a complete heart.”

In further substantiating this concept, the subtitle “What is meant by being in want of heart”?” they go on to describe that such a person is lacking, void or empty, of certain traits in their lev, or authority within - such as void of understanding, lacking good judgment or discernment, lacking experience, lacking wisdom, et al – showing that the “positive qualities of the inner person” are deficient. And so the heart or lev is not full, it is lacking, deficient, dysfunctional, and perhaps even corrupted.

It is upon this foundation that the concrete meaning of the Hebrew “integrity”, or tom, relates. The Hebrew word tom is the combination of the taw, and the mem [taw-mem].

The taw is depicted by the picture of two crossed sticks, as in “x” marks the spot, which is indeed, its concrete meaning, a mark. The mem is depicted by the waves of the water, like an upside down English “m” or an upright English “w” depicting the waves of water, meaning liquid, water, or sea – and in certain primary usages, it can mean mighty and massive [from the size of the sea] and chaos from the storms; being an often feared, and unknown place to the Hebrew. For this reason, mem is letter used as a question word, such as who, what, when, where, how and why, but its primary meaning is water--from mayim, meaning water.

In tom, the taw is the first character or picture, and as such, it is hold the predominate place in understanding the meaning. The taw combined with the mem, means simply a mark of water, such as is left on the shores of a lake or river which can be seen should the water level drop below that of “full” or if the lake or river is not “completely full”.

In some Hebrew containers, a mark was often placed a line around the top edge of the container, on the inside, so that when water was poured into the container, and the water reached the established mark, it was known to be “completely full” and could be carried without risk of spillage. Additionally, one could easily measure the emptiness or deficiency of the container, be it a lake or that of a water vessel, by simply comparing the liquid level relative to the mark. In this way, being completely “full” was determinable and measurable, as was being deficient, or lacking in fullness.

Additionally, a rock, tree or tree stump, located in, and surrounded by water, often served as a permanent positioning mark for areas around lakes, or bodies of water – as they were firmly grounded in the underlying dirt bed below. Regardless of how turbulent the water in which they stood became, these marks remained in place – they did not sway, they did not wash away. In this sense, these marks could be repeatedly relied upon in navigating the lakes, or navigating the shores surrounding the bodies of water.

Note also the meaning of the English word “integrity” - when it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing—meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness, as the solid tree stump or protruding rock in a lake remains intact regardless of the turbulent water. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness or fullness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity, a complete fullness - it is therefore not deficient, uncorrupted, not in want.

Just as tom [taw-mem] is the mark of water, or waterline, used to assess fullness, completeness, intactness – a way to measure the fullness of a lake, a water vessel, or even the human vessel [by the fullness, or “integrity” of heart], or conversely, a way of assessing whether something is not completely full, and therefore in want, or lacking something, in need of something, deficient, divided, or corrupted.

In Psalm 7:8, David states, “Jehovah himself will pass judgment on the peoples. Judge me, O Jehovah, according to my righteousness [tsedeq] and according to my integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure] in me.”

In Psalm 26:1, David writes, “Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure]”

As an aside interest, which I have not yet looked into, the plural form of tom, or tummin, “perfections”, describes the Thummin, the precious stones of Aaron’s breastplate.

I hope that is of some assistance in understanding integrity – the line of measurement of a full and complete heart, as is a lake, or any contained body of water [mem], measured against its own line, or mark [taw].

070927 - SARI "On Dying"

The scripture emphatically states, “Ume'ets hada'at tov vara lo tochal mimenu ki beyom acholcha mimenu mot tamut.” Bereshit 2:17

Mot [or muwth] is a state (no longer breathing) while tamut [ata-mut] is how you (ata') will get there (i.e., a process), as is contextually indicated in Genesis 3:17 “ … all the days of your life”, and in 19 - "by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread. Finally [or until] you will return to the ground, for it was from [the ground] that you were taken. You are dust, and to dust you shall return " – a process of death which humans inherited from the first pair. Everyone born begins this process of dying from the day he or she is “born.

Mankind was made of the dust of the ground, there was no existence before that time. They were nephesh chayah - a living soul. They were made exactly as the animals who are also called nephesh chayah - living souls. Genesis 1:20,21.

It is just as Solomon states: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity.”

If, as pagan Christendom teaches - that all personality, disposition, thinking ability, emotion, and reasoning come from something esoteric that dwells within [immortal soul] and that said immortal soul lives on after death - then it is you who believes that what Satan told Eve is the truth and God is the liar.

SARI 070925 Lake of Fire

How is death thrown into "the lake of fire?" Revelation 21:4 tells us that "death will be no more." It will be done away with completely. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:27 explains that death will be "abolished." It will no longer exist. As this is an explicit statement of what will happen to one thing that is throne there outside of figurative language, we can conclusively see how the symbolism is to be interpreted. Compare Isaiah 25:8

Some have pointed to Revelation 14 where we do read of the wicked being tormented with fire and brimstone. These ones are not described as being in the lake of fire and we find that the torment spoken of actually takes place while they are alive on Earth. Revelation 14:9 tells us that those who will receive the torment are those that worship the beast and have his mark. Their punishment will be to drink the wine of the wrath of God.

It is in drinking this cup that they are tormented with fire and brimstone. When would this take place? Apparently it is well before the final judgment, as we find that the thousand year reign of Christ takes place between the time when the beast is thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20) and when the final judgment occurs. (Rev. 20:5, 12-15)

The ones who experience torment are said to do so in that they "will drink the wine of the anger of God." (Rev. 14:10) Chapter 15 introduces us to seven angels that will pour out seven bowls, which has completed in them "the anger of God" (Rev. 15:1), as the bowls that they pour out are "filled with the anger of God." Therefore, it must be through these seven angels that they experience this anger and thus through them that these people are tormented.

Examining the plagues in chapter 16 of Revelation we find that they can be classified as nothing less than torment. When these ones experience the plagues undoubtedly they "have no rest night and day" (Rev. 14:11), though we are never told that this is for eternity.

It is only the smoke of their torment, not the torment itself, which goes up forever. This text takes us back to Isaiah 34:10, where Edom is symbolically said to have smoke go up forever and also forward to when Babylon the Great "will be found no more at all" (Rev. 18:21) and yet "her smoke rises up forever and ever." (Rev. 19:3) How so?

Smoke can be seen from afar. When a person looks into the distance they can see smoke without actually seeing whatever is causing the smoke. In the same way, we can look back in time at Edom and it serves as a warning example of God's judgment. It is in this same way that the smoke of those who turn against God will go up forever. They will be judged and then punished by plagues that lead up to their deaths. We will forever remember the judgment that they were given and so the smoke is described as ascending for eternity.

It can further be confirmed that Revelation 14 is not reference to the final judgment by comparing it to other Scriptures that speak on the matter. In Revelation chapter 14 and verse 9 we read that the torment experienced here is done "before [or, in the presence of] the holy angels and before the Lamb." That this is done in the presence of Jesus himself is key, for the execution of the final judgment is done apart from his presence. These ones, we are told, will experience "everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord." (2Thes. 1:9) While those who experience the torment of Revelation 14 are before the Lord, the ones who experience everlasting destruction are "from the face" of him. This "has simply the sense of separation,"[12] as Vincent explains. In the final judgment those executed will find themselves apart from Jesus' presence, in contrast to these ones that are experiencing the torment of Revelation 14 while in it.

Having examined these texts, let us now reference back to Jesus' words where he speaks of a "fiery furnace" where individuals experience "weeping and gnashing of teeth." This expression of anguish is used seven times within scripture both in Jesus' discussions and his parables, where ones are also said to be thrown into the “outer darkness.” (Mat. 8:12)

Examining the meaning of the expression in relation to the fiery furnace, we will consider Matthew 13:24-42. We here learn of a sower who sewed good seed but had his enemy come and sew bad seed amongst what he had sewn. The sower then waits until the harvest time to separate the good seed from the bad. The harvest occurs at the end of the age. The harvest is described in Revelation 14:14-20, where the vine of the earth is said to be ripe and the angels went out and harvested the wicked and executed them. This harvest of the wicked takes place through the seven cups of God’s judgment and the final execution of the beast’s army. (Rev. 16:1-21; 19:21)

During the time of these plagues, is the weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is seen in both their anger against God and in the pain they suffer. Yet this is never described by Jesus as an eternal state.

That this is not the final judgment can be seen in that this takes place at the harvest and not after the thousand years. This is not "the second death", it is the first death, a physical execution that might be compared to God’s execution of Sodom or to the many other nations that he has destroyed. It is during this time that they experience a weeping and gnashing of teeth. The final judgment of the lake of fire does not take place until after the 1,000 year reign and the final judgment. This is a judgment, but it is not the final judgment that comes out of what is written in the scroll of life.

In Matthew 25 we find another case of weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the outer darkness”, which apparently occurs at the final judgment, where the righteous go to everlasting life, but the wicked to the lake of fire. (Mat. 25:41) Looking to verses 30-45 we see that those condemned are not sent off to their punishment until after the righteous are given their reward.

Here they do not understand why they are not being given life, asking Jesus how they were expected to do the things he demanded, which was to feed and cloth him when they never saw him. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is found in what they experience while watching the others go off to their reward while not understanding their condemnation. This concludes in their destruction.

Can it then be said that mankind really experiences the eternal punishment that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25:46 if they are not tormented? Indeed many do experience torment through the bowls of God’s anger and all of the wicked will experience punishment, but there is nothing to indicate that the punishment is eternal. The Apostle Paul tells us that the wages sin pays is death (Rom. 6:23), not any type of torment. Just as flesh is destroyed by fire, so will the soul be destroyed in Gehenna, the lake of fire. (Matt. 10:28)

T'ien Ming or Pontifex Maximus

There is a very old Chinese belief that a valid government needs a mandate from "heaven" [e.g., t'ien ming], and that any corruption experienced within the ruling classes or infrastructure, would remove that mandate. This ancient belief is most commonly attributed to the Chou kings who overthrew of the Shang. The Chou were largely regarded as barbarians by the Shang, but it was in fact the Chou who brought a political life to the t'ien ming concept.

The original t'ien ming involved the Chou defining the kingship as being an intermediary position between heaven and earth [you should by now, see where this is leading].

The handwritten Chinese character for lord or emperor [in essence - divine], "ti," demonstrates this in its own ideograph as it consists of three separate horizontal lines being joined together by a vertical line - thus representing the believed connection between heaven (the top line) and that of the earth (the bottom line). The relationship between heaven and the earth is mediated over by the emporer or lord or emperor; himself or herself being in fact, the center horizontal line. Hence the common suffix also added to so many Chinese emperors - Huang Ti; Wu-ti, Weng-ti; and so on.

Under the ancient belief, "heaven" wants that all humans be provided for in all their immediate and long-term needs - and it is the emperor, lord, or divine being, who is appointed by "heaven" to see that the welfare of the people is enacted upon in accordance with the divine will. This is the mandate, this t'ien ming.

The only way, according to the belief system, that one can know that this mandate has "passed", is the overthrow of an existing kingship or system of government, by another - if usurpation succeeds, then the mandate is "known" to have passed to the challenging victor; if it fails, then the mandate remains with the existing king or system of government. And the one defeated, is assigned the label of corruption, as it was this perhaps seen, or unseen corruption, which changed the favoring of the "heavenly" mandate.

Although a very old tradition, it remains a very important political and social concept in a great majority of Chinese culture. It not only provides a platform for understanding much of the political history in China, but it also has historical served as a "moral" political and ideological theory [a re-creation of sorts of Shang-Ti], which is supposed to prompt selfish acts and dedication of the government to the general populace, and imposes a moral universe.

This concept, is not at all unlike that which certainly occured to Constantine, as he declared himself, Pontifex Maximus, meaning that he was the self-proclaimed titular head of the Roman Pagan-Christian religion later to be referred to as Catholic, or universal, religion. It meant that he, Constantine, as the first in a long line of Roman emperors, and later simply called Popes - who believed themselves to be the mediator, between the heavenly will, and mankind on earth.

The Roman mediator is not Chinese, so perhaps one can see how the Chinese government might see any organized belief system as a threat to their monopoly on power - for if they are removed, the mandate they lose, and they will be assigned as "corrupt".

In both cases, it is and always has been politics - driven by religion - religion has historically held the reigns over government - each one, in its own way and culture, proclaiming the same thing - whether it be a "mandate from heaven" or "In God We Trust" - that they are the "kingdom from the heavens".

Or as the book of Revelation [Revelation Chapter 17] unravels the same mystery - who is this woman, this harlot, which the beast is carrying? False religion straddles the back of this political beast, attempting to influence its decisions and to control its direction - whether from Rome, from China, from London, or the Grand 'Ole US of A.

This is Olam

This עלם - is olam

One of the unique things about language is its dependence upon its own beneficiary’s view of the world – not only to the immediately observable physical world in which they exist, but to the beneficiary’s greater concepts of time, space, and events in which their world’s journey is ultimately conceptualized. Language verbal systems (tense and aspect) are most sensitive to, and often directly reflect, the beneficiary’s concepts of time, space, and events. In fact, lingustical studies of current modern languages often speak in terms of “deictic center”, “event time”, and “reference time” in models developed for academic application.

Specifically for English, nearly the entirety of its verbal system can be explained as a function of tense and aspect relative to our current abstract view of linear and geometrical time, space, and event, according to many if not most of these models. And to a greater extent, extrapolation of these models to the English ancestral verbal systems – e.g., Latin, Indo-European, and Greek, such models are quite sufficient in establishing tense and aspect which are clearly defined; just as in English. The primary reason for this is that our English ancestral languages held very similar views of time, space, and events; that is – in the abstract sense. Without going into too much boring detail, suffice to say that our current modern views of time, space, and events are abstract based (that is to say, we presume space to be the primary dimension, and so time is described in terms of an abstract special phenomenon), allowing for metaphors such as “time line” and “point in time” as related to geometry - thus facilitating abstraction wherein time is now a construct independent upon its contents.

This primarily Greek way of conceptualizing time was quite alien to the ancient Hebrew way of thinking in regards to the world around them. Semitic languages are much older than Greek (based on the best information which we currently have in order to make such estimates), and the further back in time one goes, the further language departs from abstract views, and centers on the concrete. The Hebrew language of old, is very attached to the concrete – i.e., that which one can see, feel, hear, touch, or smell – the five basic human senses. In this sense, the phrase “concrete language” is often invoked. Hebrews did not say "I think, therefore I am," they said, "I am, therefore I think”. Nor did they see events stemming from cause, but rather cause, which stemmed from events.

To the concrete thinking Hebrew, there was no separation between an event, and the “time” in which it occurred – the distinguishing characteristic of the Hebrew verb forms is in fact the expression of continuity, rather than past, present, and future.

And to often, the above discussed linguistic models, which operate so well against the abstract based languages, fail miserably when extrapolated to the concrete languages. It possible to extrapolate from English to Greek, and even Latin, but quite difficult to do so to Hebrew. Case in point, because it concrete concept of time, space, and events, Hebrew verbs can refer to past, present, and future (tense) as well as events which are incomplete as well as complete. For all practical purposes, Hebrew lacks tense (a grammaticalized location in time) and aspect (in the English sense of the word) – yet aspectual qualities are indeed found. To further your confusion, the same words used to describe time, are also used to describe direction.

For example, the exact same Hebrew word, qedem, means both the ancient past, as well as the direction east – case in point, Genesis 3:24, “He drove out the man; and at the east [qedem] of the garden he placed the cherubim” as compared to say, Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old, I remember the years of long ago [qedem].”

And so we finally get to subject of this post – which is to consider one of my favorite Hebrew words – olam. Olam has a unique characteristic which so eloquently describes, in my opinion, how the Hebrew language works. While olam is most frequently translated into English as eternal, everlasting, or forever (abstract based concepts which were foreign to the Hebrew understanding of time, space, and event) – it means literally, a “distant time”, equally in the past, as well as the future. For example –


Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old [olam], I remember the years of long ago [qedem].” As compared to –

Genesis 9:12, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you ad every living creature that is with you, for all future [olam] generations.”


The Hebrew word olam is most likely descendant from the Hebrew root alam (Laird Harris/Gleason Archer – TWOT, page 671-672) meaning specifically “to be hidden” and is most frequently used in the very literal sense of hiding to a place where one cannot be seen (one of the five senses in that details are not often clearly detected when looking off at the far distance – that to which is beyond the immediate horizon cannot be seen – or as relates to time, and olam, the distant past or distant future, like that which lies beyond the horizon, cannot be seen – hence, olams relationship to its parent root, alam. In this sense, the word if often conceptualize in the western, Greek based mind, as meaning a continual span of unending time. But the Hebrew did not see it that way, for as all nomads knew, as you walked towards the horizon, what was once hidden and unseen, becomes clearer, more focused, until you are upon it.

A common phrase in Hebrew is "l'olam-va'ed" and is sometimes translated as "forever and ever" but to the Hebrew it simply meant "to the distant horizon and again" - meaning "a very distant time and even further then" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

Departure from Base Text

In Judges 7, verse 5, the NRSV renders, "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; all those who kneel down to drink, putting their hands to their mouths, you shall put to the other side.'

A comparison of the NRSV rendering to the various Hebrew base text, does not show the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" occurring in verse 5, but rather, verse 6 (where the NRSV leaves it out - yet the Hebrew places the words 'putting their hands to their mouths' after the word 'lapped' in verse 6).

It would also appear that the phrase "you shall put to the other side" does not find support in the Hebrew in verse 5, nor in any verse prior or subsequent (likely a dynamic license in place of "likewise" or "also") The NRSV has apparently inserted the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" into verse 5 from 6, and has added as a bolt from the blue "you shall put to the other side".Most other translations remain loyal to the underlying Hebrew and render "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; likewise (or also) all those who kneel down to drink"

In verse 5, the Hebrew (BHS and WLC base text) reads, "Yarad'am mayim Yhwh 'amar Gid`own laqaq mayim lashown keleb laqaq yatsag kara` berek shathah" It is not until verse 6 in which the phrase "yad peh" (hand to the mouth) appears in the Hebrew base text.The NRSV is not known for its bolts from the blue as is the NIV and a few other dynamic translations – so their removal from verse 6 and placement to verse 5 was likely based on a textual variant, or some other indicator, which the committee was convinced adequately justified a departure from the base text.

Unfortunately, the NRSV (at least that I can find) does not notate or otherwise explain the departure.As far as the indications of why the lappers from their hands were chosen over those who got down to the water level to drink? Take your pick – Rabbinical tradition holds that the lappers were chosen because they refused to bow down to an idol (see Tanhuma – Buber; Toledot 19; Yalqut Shim'oni, Judges 62:1 and 1 Kings 29. On the other hand – Josephus (Antiquities V.vi.3, 216-217) claims that the lappers were the cowards, scared to turn their backs kneel and drink, supposedly highlighting an even more important victory miracle by choosing cowards.

Anarchy or Monarchy

"Really, can you blame them for wanting a monarch? We just finished a book, Judges, which is all about what happens when there is no leader—mass murder, gang rape, anarchy, and so forth." ~ Unknown


That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah's disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.The books of Judges was not all about what "happens when there is no leader" – indeed, it is all about what "what happens when one rejects the leader" – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).


It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why "appoint for us a King" when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).

"for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you."

There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24). Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne'phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one's "lev" - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.

Shib'im (70) Versus Hamishshim (50) and Daniel's 70 Weeks

Shib’im is literally 70 (ten sevens), as the numbering system in Hebrew is base 10, as is said, “Shib'im Panim la-Torah" (Seventy Methods of the Explanations of the Torah)” – The Jubilee, the 50th year (not 49th year which you would get by multiplying 7 x 7 under your method), is not referred to as shib’im, as that would mean 70, not 50 – you are confusing hamishshim (means 50) with shib’im, two completely different words, as is evidence in a comparison to Leviticus 25:10 (which defines the Jubilee in terms of hamishshim) to Daniel 9:24 (which speaks not of hamishshim, but rather shib'im) – they are separate cardinal numbers.

Hamishshim (50) comes from the root hamash (fifth), whereas shib’im (70) comes from the root sheba (seven).

Misquoting Babylon the Great Has Fallen

"Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years until 562 BC"


This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).

On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.

In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.

The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)

You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.

Yom - Creative Days

The creative work was accomplished in six time periods called days, each beginning with an evening, when the creative work for that period is undefined, and ending in the brightness of a morning, as the glory of the creative work becomes clearly manifest.

The fact is that the Hebrew word yowm translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4)

In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.

On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.

Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”

When light from the Andromeda nebula takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, this is indicative of the fact that the universe must be at least millions of years old. Also the end products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the word yowm has meanings, which include ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

The "Lexical Aids for the Old Testament" edited by Spiros Zodhiates for yowm expands on Strong's comments and repeatedly emphasizes that yowm can be a period of time.

As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. Strong's does not show this since the King James Versions retain the translation of day, but other translations recognize that in this case yowm refers to the time of the entire creation of the heavens and earth as recognized by the The Bible: An American Translation and others, "At the time when God made the earth and the heavens."

Studies are out there which show that the period called days does not mean a literal 24 hour period, but epoch’s of time. Couple that with geological studies, we can be sure that a creative day is thousands of years in length and the creation of the universe covers a time period of millions or more years.

The Congregator's Words Christians Hate the Most

Dabar qoheleth - The words of the congregator, the assembler – the Tanakh rightly footnotes its transliterated "koheleth" with "probably the assembler; i.e., the hearer of sayings".

It is a title, not a name.

Qohelet is a Qal participle from the verb qahal, which in the Niphal means, "to come together" and in the Hiphil, "to bring together", and in its noun form, relates to an "assembly" – as the word is preceded by the definite article "ha" in Eccl 12:8, give credence to the claim that word is intended as a title and a description, but not a personal name.

The words of the congregator.

Tradition holds that the congregator mentioned, the ha'qoheleth, was Solomon. This is based in part no doubt that there was only one "son of David", namely Solomon, who was the "king over Israel in Jerusalem", for kings after Solomon did not rule over all Israel – Eccl 1:12

It is also likely the most sobering written words to nearly all subscribers of the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures who hold fast to a belief that man (or woman) is inherently immortality (e.g., that something of man transcends death, and continues on following the death of the body).

If the congregator is clear on one thing, he is clear on death.

It is the final point in each one's ma'aseh (deed, work, action that which comprises one's life) and is the one immutable event that each and every human, animal and other organism must succumb to, and it cuts cleanly across all categories of morality and class. And it is keenly in agreement with other portions of the Bible that treat the same subjects.

For example, it agrees with Genesis on man being made up of a body composed of dust of the ground and being animated by the very life-force of Yhwh and the breath that sustains it (Eccl 3:20-21, Eccl 12:7; Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:22; Isaiah 42:5).

It affirms the biblical teaching that man was created upright, but willfully chose a path away from his creator, to disobey the life instructions given to him by his creator (Eccl 7:29; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 3:17; De 32:4-5), and it acknowledges Yhwh as the creator (Eccl 12:1; Genesis 1:1).

And it concurs with the rest of the Bible as to the state of the dead.

"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten." Eccl 9:5 [NKJV]

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." - Eccl 9:10 [NIV]

"His [God's] spirit goes out, he [man] goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." - Psalms 146:4

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return" - Genesis 3:19 [KJV]

"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence" – Psalms 115:17 [KJV]

"He said these things, and after this he said to them: "Laz´a•rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep." Therefore the disciples said to him: "Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well." Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: "Laz´a•rus has died" - John 11:11-14

In the Bereshit (Genesis), where was Adam before Jehovah created him from the dust? He was nowhere - he simply did not exist – God formed him from the dust of the ground. So when Jehovah said that Adam would "return to the ground," he meant exactly that - that Adam would die and return to the elements in the ground. There was never any mention Adam would mystically cross over to the spirit realm. At death Adam would once again be nonexistent. His punishment after all was death—absence of life—not a transfer to another realm to continue living .— Romans 6:23.

If you have been following Plotz' bible blog of the Hebrew Scriptures, and you are a Christian, you might do well to note that you are now 85 percent of the way through – and there is no mention of an immortal soul, or immortal spirit, for mankind – as the Qoheleth so correctly notes –

"For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the, and they have the same eventuality. As one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the beast … all are going to one place - they have all come to be from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." – Eccl 3:19-20.

And of course, without an immortal spirit, the falsehood of a place for eternal torment for people who have died as "unbelievers" or anyone else - becomes impotent and exposed. You would think it would give cause to a small spark of thought to the average believer in the biblical texts that those two such important doctrines in Christianity (and to a lesser degree modern Rabbincal Judaism) as the immortal soul of man and eternal punishment in hell – are never spoken of in the Hebrew words of Yhwh.

Mystery Religions and Death by Immortality

The great mystery religions believe that all religious text is allegory, and all reality illusion, and mere shadow of unseen truth - all "layers", if you will, which are a representation of what is unseen in this world of illusion that we live. And these stories, or allegories, can not be understood or "peeled back" except by the those initiated through ritual into the mystery - such religious initiation is not available to the common public person.

This premise is often adopted by modern Pagan-Christianity, as indeed that is its roots, that unless one is taken over by the holy "ghost", and aparition, or mysterious spirit, no truth will be revealed and comprehension never reached. The Bible teaches quite the opposite.

Here is a post from June of last year (I think) - it is rather long - but that's because I could not sleep that night anyway. I see an obvious irony in what the Bibile teaches as compared to modren day religions, and to that effect, I refer to it as "Death by Immortality".

Dominion is not Superiority

"if both animals and humans ARE souls, how does one have dominion over the other ?

"From below, Eccl 3:18, "For there is one eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies, and they all have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place, they have all come to be from dust, and they are all returning to dust."

Superiority is quite different from dominion - superiority, in the quote above, the Hebrew word mowthar, which basically means a profit type advantage - contextually it is quite clear, mankind has no advantage in anyway over an animal - both share the exact same fate in the end - they die.

The text for setting dominion (Bereshit 1:26, and again in 28), the word used is rada, and it is used in conjunction with kabash in verse 26 (subjection). A fox is more cunning than a snail, a bird more free than a barnacle, a dog more compassionate than a frog, and so on.

Rabbi Hirsch states, "But man has been given the position [of rada], not [mowthar], to exercise his mastery over living creatures, and on the earth itself, to bring some of them out of their free independence under his hand for the fulfillment of his human assignment. If man approaches the world as rada and demands its service only in the serive of God, then the earth gladly renders it, gladly recognizes man as its ruler, jis mastery is no enslavement or degradation, but rather a raising and elevation of all earthly material elements into the sphere of free-willed God-serving purposes. But if man misuses his position, if he does not approach the world as rada, as the assigned representative of God, but under his own power and mastery, or mowthar, then the earth, and animals too, will reject and oppose him, for he has attempted enslavement versus stewardship."

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, man was assigned, indeed, created for, the very purpose of stewardship and headship over the creation, in an image similar to how Yhwh has dominion over man.There is an established hierarchy in all of nature, which when implemented correctly, establishes pure balance, yet when deviated from, creates chaos and imbalance of the worst sort.


"does dominion over the earth give us the right to pollute it wantonly ?"

Does being given the keys to your neighbors house, to watch over it, and care for it, while they are gone, include the right to trash it, partially or completely destroy it, even knock down walls and paint or remodel it?


"is the hope of an after-life just that i.e. a hope, a vanity ? (was it "borrowed" ?)"

In the sense of being in vain, no matter what you do in this life, no matter how much you accumulate, no matter if you are good or bad, your end fate is no different than the slug, or the fox, or the dog - you will eventually die, and return to dust.To the Hebrew, an "after-life" was not a transcending of death to some place on a cloud to play harps and eat grapes - the "after-life" was purely a hope of perhaps being remembered by Yhwh himself, and raised back (resurrected), not to some esoteric plane of existence, but back to "life", right here, on earth.


"I mean well you know the Romans had their own agenda interesting the schism between Greek and Latin. And it's just that they seem so nice and pious and all but how much of the truth is lost in all that pomp and circumstance ?"

Well, that's just it - depends on your subjective personal conclusions regarding the god of the Bible. The development of modern Christianity is quite easy to back-trace - it was quite weel documented - biases and all. Layers can in fact be pealed back, and have been, and likely more layers still remain to be pealed back, but the major ones occurred years ago - that being "hell", and an "immortal soul" for mankind, and a triunal godhead of divine unity. Eliminate these three foundationally Pagan traditions from not only the translations (where they primarily exist), but your western head as well, and you will find a quite different Bible written by Hebrews and Jews exists than that which you thought you knew existed.

God Deprecates "Hell", and a Few Finer Points

As Plotz scuttles to present a political message from his favored sponsor (i.e., whether a person who warns his nation should be considered a traitor or a patriot) – he casually skims over a few details.

Since I do not speak on the politics of this or any country, I thought I could at least explore some of the minor details skimmed over by Plotz in pursuit of his political agenda. For example, in Jeremiah 19:2-6 [bible.oremus.org] we see Jehovah deprecating "hell" (that is, denouncing it as a thing which never came up upon his mind or heart).

That's right.

"Hell" was never an idea of concept of Jehovah. Specifically, Jehovah commands Jeremiah to organize a field trip of sorts by purchasing a potters jug (or flask) and escorting a few of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests to valley just outside of Jerusalem – destination – "valley of the son of Hinnom" - that's geh'hinnom in Hebrew by the way. Here, Jeremiah is to present them with a few additional charges aside from those already covered in earlier Chapters of Jeremiah, such as; failure to abstain from idol worship; solicitation and participation in religious prostitution; general adultery; institutional corruption and unjust gain; reluctance to keep the Sabbath; encouraging general and institutionalized apostasy; bloodguilt; grafting themselves to foreign political parties; basking in the blanket of amnesia towards God; and producing and honoring false prophets (all originally forbidden in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers).

As though these were not enough to make even the most reluctant district attorney giddy, there are a few other charges – building altars and images in honor of Ba'al and Molech at Topheth in the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom - that's geh'hinnom in Hebrew by the way - and sacrificing their children (sons and daughters) by burning them alive in fire as encouraged by Ahaz and Mannasseh.To prevent its use again for such religious purposes, King Josiah had the valley polluted, particularly the part called Topheth (2 Kings 23:10).

The Jewish commentator David Kimhi (1160 C.E) writes about this valley, "It is a place in the land adjoining Jerusalem, and it is a loathsome place, and they throw there unclean things and carcasses. Also, there was a continual fire there to burn the unclean things and the bones of carcasses. Hence the judgment of the wicked ones is parabolically called Gehinnom. "The Valley became the dumping place and incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem.

Not unlike the use of the mote surrounding the Tower of London, bodies of dead animals were thrown in to be consumed in the fires to which sulpher or brimstone was added to assist in the fires – and bodies of executed criminals, and others, who were considered undeserving of a decent burial in a memorial tomb mnêmeion [www.perseus.tufts.edu]. We can even go along, of sorts, on this filed trip, as the Hebrew Bible provides some rough coordinates of the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom - that's geh'hinnom in Hebrew by the way - in Johsua 15:8 [bible.oremus.org], and Joshua 18:16 [bible.oremus.org] - and if you are more visually oriented, you can view photos of geh'hinnom here [en.wikipedia.org], and again here [en.wikipedia.org], and even a neat topographic rendition here [www.blueletterbible.org] (look to lower bottom for the Valley of Hinnom as it lays to the west and south of ancient Jerusalem).

In addition to the images and alters and child sacrifice, at Topheth was practiced sorcery, magic, soothsaying and augury, often employing mediums, and wizards – and these thing too Jehovah found disgusting and in specific violation with the commands previously given.But it is not the sorcery, magic, soothsaying and augury which is so emotionally confronted to the field-tripping elders and priests – no, it is the burning of people, alive, in fire that seems to most disturb Jehovah about the atrocities performed in the Valley.

In Jeremiah 32:35 [bible.oremus.org] it states, "They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination".And in Jeremiah 7:30-32 [bible.oremus.org] it states nearly the same, "For the people of Judah have done evil in my sight, says the LORD; they have set their abominations in the house that is called by my name, defiling it. 31 And they go on building the high place* of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire—which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind".

In both Jeremiah 32:35, and 7:30-32, the word rendered by the NRVS above for "mind", is the Hebrew word lev, which literally means heart [fray.slate.com]. The burning of people, alive, in torturous fire – is not a thing which came up unto Jehovah's heart.

So here, Christians who have adopted the Zoroastrism belief in an endless, conscious, torturous punishment in a fiery "hell" in the 4th century C.E. for all non-believers and other assorted sinners following death, to be in direct conflict with the very heart of God. Seems God's heart is not inclined to burning of people alive in fire.

I'll be darned.

In the Greek form of the Hebrew word "geh'hinnom, is simply "gehenna". In Joshua 18:16, where Valley of Hinnon occurs, the Septuagint [en.wikipedia.org] reads "Gehenna". The same word occurs 12 times in Christian Greek Scriptures, first appearing in Matthew 5:22, then in Matthew 5:22, 29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 23:33, and in Mark 9:43, 9:45, 9:47; and in Luke 12:5; and James 3:6.Jesus often used this place (geh Hinnom) in his warnings of where one would not wish to be sent upon one's death, as culturally, it was a loathsome place, a place for executed criminals, and basic ones rejected – those not fit to be buried in a memorial tomb (John 5:28-29, ironically renders mnêmeion [www.perseus.tufts.edu] – a memorial, or memorial tomb).

Those not deemed worthy Jews were tossed into Gehenna following death – and their dead bodies were consumed, and they had no memorial tomb – hence they would not be "remembered" by their God when the time for resurrection came about. Jehovah did not much care for the Valley of the Sons of Hinnon, and it even became a cursed place, in Jeremiah 7:32, it is stated, "Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the LORD, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter: for they will bury in Topheth until there is no more room".

If you were a Jew, this would not be where you would want to end up. Jesus was a Jew, and so his figurative use of Gehenna did not indicate the "hell" so well known by the Pagan and especially the Zoroasters – for after all, Jesus also knew the scriptures, and knew death meant non-existence, the opposite of life, knowing nothing, nothing at all (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

Qanah

The word you are looking for in Proverbs 8:22 is qanah (often rendered created, brought forth) which comes from the parent root qen which means "nest" - qen in its concrete paleo applies literally as, "a gathering [the Quph - the horizon, the gathering place] for the seeds [the Nun - the seed, meaning continuance].

Just as a bird before laying eggs will go around gathering and aquiring materials and bind them together to construct a nest.

Proverbs 27:8, "As a bird that wandereth from her nest [qen], so is a man that wandereth from his place".Its child root, qanah, suffixes with the Hey, which in its paleo form was that of a little man, with his arms raised, one beholding an incredible sight. Qanah means literally, to build a nest, to bring forth from the process of gathering and acquiring in preparation for the seed of an incredible sight.

Tanakh renders qanah in Bereshit 14:19 as "Blessed be Abraham of God Most High, creator [qanah] of heaven and earth". The main usage in Ugaritic for qen, was also to "bring forth" through procedural aquiring and gaterhing - The NIV in Proverbs 8:22, renders qanah as "The Lord possessed me .." with the footnote "Or, 'The Lord brought me forth ."

God acquires things by means of creating them, which is why the LXX translates this to ektisen, which translates directly as created. Further reading, we find that Wisdom in Proverbs is spoken of as being brought forth as with labor pains (Proverbs 8:24, and again at 25), or brought to birth. The Bible in Basic English renders it here as "given birth." (The NLT, "I was born", the NIV, "I was given birth", the JPS Tanakh renders it "before the hills I was born").

The JPS Tanakh renders Proverbs 8:22, "The LORD created (qanah) me at the beginning of his course". In fact, Qanah, refers to acquisitional gathering by any means, including creation, as noted in verse 22. It is also clear from verse 23, "in the distant past I was fashioned". (JPS TNK).

Proverbs 8:22-31

Colossians 1:15-17, "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things" - NASB

John 17:4-5, "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given me to do. And now, O Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was". – KKJV

"Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding. Who set its measurements, in case you know, or who stretched out upon it the measuring line? Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all of the sons of God began shouting in applause?" - NWT

Proverbs 8:22-31, "The Lord [Yhwh} created me at the beginning of his course. As the first of his works of old. In the distant past I was fashioned, at the beginning, at the origin of earth. There was still no deep when I was brought forth, no springs rich in water; before {the foundation of] the mountains were sunk, before the hills I was born. He had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first clumps of clay. I was there when He first set the heavens into place; when he fixed the horizon upon the deep; when he made the heavens above firm, and the fountains of the deep gushed forth; when he assigned the sea its limits, so that's its waters never transgress His command; when he fixed the foundations of the earth, I was with Him as a confidant, a source of delight everyday, rejoicing before Him at all times, rejoicing in His inhabited world, finding delight with mankind." – Tanakh – JPS Oxford (tetra indicator - mine).

Thoughts? Discussions? Trinitarians?

Who exactly does Jesus think he is? A son of God who applauded at the world's creation? The first son of God? Maybe even the only "begotten" son of God (or as John calls him, monogenes theos)? Interesting questions.Why do so many Christians not feel that the Hebrew Scriptures have anything to offer them?

Point of View About Sex in Christianity

"so that its somehow considered 'good' or 'desireable' for a man to reach the age of 30 and be completely asexual?"

"Good" and "desirable" were not the consideration at all, for since procreation (which is accomplished through sexual intercourse in most cases), was a directive of God himself, it is not khate (see Genesis 1:28).

According to the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, at the time of Adam's departure from tsadiyq [fray.slate.com] and his being sentenced to death, his offspring, or entire race of humans, were all unborn in his loins, and so all died with him (compare Hebrews 7:4-10, also Romans Romans 5:12-19). Jesus, as a tov tsadiyq man, "the last Adam" (1 Co 15:45), had a race or offspring of humans unborn in his loins, and when he died as a perfect human sacrifice, this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation.

Instead, jesus uses the authority granted him by Yhwh on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those of Adam's offspring who will suffer death simply because they were born of a man condemned to die – through procreation, death spread to all men (and women), through no fault of their own, they were born to die (compare Romans 5;15-17 to 1 Co 15:45). Remember the law, a life for a life.Jesus served as a corresponding ransom – not for the redemption of the one – Adam – but for the redemption from the "law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2, 5:21, and 6:23, James 1:14-17)) for those who have descended from Adam. He has repurchased them, so that they could become his family, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice, who does not pick and choose the applicability of his own laws (Hebrews 9:24).

He thereby gains "a bride", a heavenly congregation, formed of his immediate followers (compare Eph 5:23-27; Revelation 1:5-6; Revelation 5:9-10; and 14:3-4). Messianic prophecies also show he will have "offspring" and an "Eternal Father" (Isaiah 53:10-12, and 9:6-7). To be such, his ransom must embrace more than those of his "bride". In addition to those "bought from among mankind as firstfruits to form that heavenly congregation, therefore, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life (not immortality) through their release from the law of sin and death to which they now slave (Rev 14:4; 1 John 2:1-2). Since those of the heavenly congregation serve with the Christ as priests and kings "over the earth", such other recipients of the ransom benefits must be earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom, and as children of an "eternal father" they attain everlasting life (Rev 5:10, Rev 20:6; 21:2-4, 21:9-10; and 22:17, compare Psalms 103:2-5).

The one who has died is freed from the law of sin through his death (Romans 6:7), but he is now dead (i.e., no life is in them) – the entire arrangement manifests Yhwh's wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while also showing undeserved kindness and forgiveness (Romans 3:21-26).

The Churches of Ekklêsia

"Churches" is a late interpolation/translation – the word used is ekklêsia (in its feminine plural form), and literally means "a regular assembly of the citizens" for the purpose of calling out or calling together an assembly or collection; or the "legislative assembly" if from classical source rather than the koine. I would suggest "congregation" or "assembly" – as the earliest Christians had no "church", but rather assembled in each others homes for biblical study and worship. The English word "Church" on the other hand is expressed in the koine as kuriakos, or kuriakon (which derive from kurios) – and since kuriakos is not used in 1 Corinthians 14:34, why render its English equivalent in the translation?

Tree of Knowledge of Tov and Ra

"Okay, here's a question that really interests me (and have never gotten a definitive answer).....so the forbidden fruit imparted some kind of knowledge/awareness. What was it?"

The bible does not state that the fruit imparted any kind of knowledge or awareness. It was simply a tree. The only difference between it and any other tree - was its restriction. Simply put, the command was important, not the tree.

He made a pronouncement decreeing it to be "out-of-bounds" for the human pair - Yhwh's right to determine and set the boundries of existence [tov and ra] for man in order to experience life, versus man's right to determine his own boundries through his own eye as if he were god and creator of himself. And so now we have waited, and watched the results of man - acting as god and creator of himself. The entire creation has suffered because of his self-declared righteousness, ego, and lack of humbleness to simply be what he was created to be. But that point has almost nearly been made - when it is finally made, there will no longer be any doubt whether man is god over himself, or simply a dismal failure at acting as god.

"I know some folks believe it was some kind of sexual awakening"

This route is usually difficult to support, as the command to them as male and female [before the tree episode], was to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth". Procreation.


".....first thing they do is go from romping like innocent children to covering their genitals and feeling awkward."

The thing to notice is [1] when man was allowing Yhwh to decide tov and ra for his own creation including man, being naked was declared "tov" and they were not ashamed, then [2] once both had already departed from listening to Yhwh and chose to listen to their own eye - selecting their own path, they decided that it was no longer "tov" - but something of which to be ashamed.

There is a noticeable shift in the text as to who was now deciding what the boundries for life were - from Yhwh as god to man - now shifted as man a god to man.

It was their third decision as gods.


Yet others say its a knowledge of 'good and evil'...in the sense that they start judging others (even though there was noone else there to judge).....

Before following through on her own decision to follow her own eye's desire regardless of the results which Yhwh had warned them about, Eve reiterated Yhwh's rule - she knew wrong from right. So did Adam.

They had sufficient knowledge to discern tov from ra regarding their life's existance because Yhwh had instructed them. As their creator and designer, of course he would know how they would function [tov] and how they would not [ra]. Man believes that he is perfectly capable of being the creator and designer of himself.

Let's suppose that a fish was created and designed to live a perfectly fine [tov] life under water. He can swim left, or right, he can mate and reproduce, he can eat, and play, and travel long distances, hide on rock outcropping, sleep when he wants, swim when he wants, do backflips, blow bubbles, chase other fish, and so on. There is only one rule. His creator warns him, do anything you like, just don't leave the water, for if you leave the water, you will die. As long as the fish obeys this one little boundry [remain in the water], he is in perfect balance, and he lives. If one day, he should purposely decide for himself that he does not need to live in water, he is better than that - why should god determine for him what the boundries are afterall - he is fish, immortal, and can act as a god unto himself. And so he begins to see that the land is a much preferable place for him - so he leaps out of the water and flops himself on dry land. Bad move. He shortly learns that he has difficulty breathing and the air and sun are drying out his scales. He flops about - struggles to perhaps get in the water. But he cannot make it.. And so he went from being tov [perfectly functional] to being ra [dysfunctional] - and the results of his decision to depart from the path laid before him by his creator [e.g., khate, he sinned] he now has become ra - and the result? Death. He dies.

Should his god be kind enough to resurrect him back to life - though the fish certainly did not deserve it - he would have learned a very valuable lesson. And so would all of the other fish who witnessed the results of his action to decide all things for himself even when he lacks perfect knowledge to do so.

Naham - Regret

Jeremiah 42:10 presents the Hebrew word naham (or nacham as transliterated by some) – for which the NSRV (as well as the NLT) has chosen (ruefully?) to translate as "sorry". The KJV and its loyalists stick with the equally vague "repent", while a few others tinker with "relent", while the NIV gets much closer with "grieved" though they have misunderstood the associated verb.

The JPS Tanakh more closely offers "regret", as does the NWT, but the NWT gives better treatment to the associate verb (in Hebrew, aspect is grammaticalized and but not tense) presenting "for I shall certainly feel regret …" versus the JPS's "For I regret …" [I'll save that for some other discussion].

None seems to be entirely adequate, though each offers some portion of the concrete sense of the Hebrew word naham. The JPS and the NWT appears to be the closest with "regret" (though relent would not be an entirely bad choice if not for its implication of leniency for simple leniency sake). I do take note of the slim difference between sorry [www.answers.com] and regret [www.answers.com], though regret tends to imply a more adequate sense of loss and personal distress about a desire for things which should have or could be different - more towards situational and circumstantial empathy, providing comfort, support, quite often absent of any personal cause or attribution of mistake, and most often meaning the mere opposite of pleasurable satisfaction and rejoicing – versus the ordinary sympathy commonly associated with being sorry in an apologetic sense for a personally accepted mistake.

But sorry, repent, relent, and even regret, do not seem altogether adequate for the concrete application of the Hebrew word naham.Naham is never used of man's "repentance" towards the will of God, the word used is always shub – meaning to turn, as in turn away from and find the correct path.M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia offers this, "God himself is said to repent; but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct towards his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or infliction of evil – which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent".

In fact the origin of the root of naham reflects the idea of "breathing deeply", hence the physical display of one's feelings and emotions, usually compassion, empathy, or comfort. The root occurs in Ugaritic, and is used almost exclusive as "to console or comfort and support", and it is noted in the Hebrew proper names such as Nehemiah [Jah comforts], Nahum, [comforter, encourager]and Menehem [one who comforts].

The Hebrew word was likely quite well known to every pious Jew living in exile as he recalled the opening words of Isaiah's "Book of Consolation", reading "nahamu nahamu 'ammi" [comfort ye, comfort ye, my people]. People were comforted (naham) for the death of a child (2 Samuel 12:24), a teenager (Genesis 37:35), a mother (Genesis 24:67), a wife (Genesis 38:12) et al.Of some interest, it is noted that God's "compassion (nihum, a derative of naham) grows warm and tender" for his people (Hos 11:8).

God's righteous "standards" remain constant, stable, unchanging, free from fluctuation (Mal 3:6, James 1:17). No circumstances can cause him to change his mind about these standards; to turn from them, or to abandon them. However, as indicated by M'Clintock and Strong's blurb above, the attitudes and reactions of his intelligent creatures toward those "standards" and towards God's application of them can be good (tov) or bad (ra).

If good, this is pleasing to God; if bad, it causes regret [naham]. The coming of regret stems from compassion and empathy towards his creation, and is always associated when used of God to a simultaneous promise to re-establish, re-build, and restore – to make or assign new heirs to his creations.Such was the case in the deluge – regret [naham] set in, and a remnant was offered salvation from the coming disaster if they would act accordingly (build an ark); such was the case with Moses when regret set in regarding those God had provided escape from Egypt and God had decided to re-establish from Moses alone; such also was the case when a group of those who remained in Jerusalem (to undergo destruction by divine judgment) had apparently decided to "turn-back" and requested Jeremiah intercede on their behalf pleading that "in behalf od all this remnant" that "Jehovah your God tell us the way in which we should walk and the thing that we should do" – Jer 42:2-3.

And it was this action which brought God to naham – the attitude and reactions of the remnant in Jerusalem – and to offer through naham a new start, with safety, rather than destruction in Jerusalem, requiring only that they remain in Jerusalem, and not flee to Egypt.

In the paleo-Hebrew, naham is comprised of three characters: first the nun, [n] which is the ancient pictograph of a seed sprout, representing the concrete ideas of continuance to a new generation, perpetuation, offspring and heir; and second the hhets, [ch, hh] the ancient pictograph of the nomadic tent wall, the function of which was to provide protection to the inhabitants inside from the elements; and lastly the mah, or mem, [m] an ancient picture of waves of water, meaning liquid, water sea and mighty, often chaotic and unpredictable, strife with raw emotion emanating from the heart.

Combined [nchm, or nacham, naham] gives the best sense of the Hebrew concrete meaning, to provide divine protection, like a wall, removed from chaotic for the purpose of preservation of those to become heir to his very kingdom. The very thing he offers to the remnant through Jeremiah in Jerusalem. To the degree that mankind "repents and returns" [shub], so to does Jehovah regret [naham] – offers protection and a kingdom to his creation, those of his seed. Shub brings no apology from God, but it does bring naham, comfort, preservation, a kingdom - or as Jeremiah 42:10b, c puts it:

"I will also build you up and I shall not tear you down, and I will plant you and I shall not uproot you; for I shall certainly feel regret [naham] over the calamity that I have caused to you."

khate'

The Hebrew word translated as 'sin' is khate, the root being khaw-taw', which in its concrete meaning meant to miss the mark; as used Biblically, it refers not to some physical or spiritual separation from God, but refers by usage (as a verb) to conduct, any conduct not in harmony with Jehovah's standards.

It has a close connection to tsadiyq (righteous) commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains of the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Also connected is "good", or "tov", the first use of which is in Genesis chapter one where calls his handiwork "good".

It should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well oiled and tuned machine – in contrast is "ra". These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil". While "ra" is often translated as evil it is best translated as "dysfunctional". Sin is missing the established mark, by straying off the established "path" given to mankind by his creator – resulting in man being "dysfunctional" – or as the Bible states, the wages of sin is death.

Faith and the Hebrew Emunah

The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a "secure" place. Derived from this root is the word emun meaning a craftsman. A craftsman is one who is firm and secure in his talent. Also derived from aman is the word emunah meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions.

When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith" misconceptions of its meaning can often occur. Faith is usually perceived as a "knowing" while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action.To have faith in God is not knowing that God exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward God's will. Faith and action (or works) are respresented in a united fashion - taken alone - each are impotent.

In our western minds faith is a mental exercise in knowing that someone or something exists or will act. For instance, if we say "I have faith in God" we are saying "I know that God exists and do what he says he will do".The Hebrew word for faith (emunah) however is an action oriented word meaning "support". This is important because the Western concept of faith places the action on the one you have faith in, such as "faith in God".

But, the Hebrew word emunah places the action on the one who "supports God".It is not knowing that God will act, but rather I will do what I can to support God.This idea of support for the word emunah can be seen in Exodus 17:12."But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady (emunah) until the going down of the sun."It is the support/emunah of Aaron and Hur that held of Moses' arms, not the support/emunah of Moses.

When we say "I have faith in God", perhaps it would be more appropriate to be thinking "I will do what I can to support God". Is this though so really different from the Greek Christian teaching?

In Hebrews 11:1-8, Paul states that, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear."Two examples of "faith" given by Paul then include (Hebrews 11:7,8) ...

"By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household ... " – He performed an act in support of Jehovah."

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, although not knowing where he was going. By faith he resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which [city] is God. – He performed an act in support of Jehovah.

In both examples, "faith" was not knowing that God will act, but rather what these persons did to support God. Is this not the same idea as expressed in the ancient Hebrew word for faith "emunah"?The Bible says: "A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law." It also says: "A man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone." Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? — Romans 3:28; James 2:24.

The harmonious answer from the Bible is that both are correct, and both have much in common with "emunah".

For centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements.According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, such "works of law," or simply "works," were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice.—Romans 10:4. But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus' superlative sacrifice did not mean to ignore the Bible's instructions did it? It says: "How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?" — Hebrews 9:14.

How do we "render sacred service to the living God"? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world's immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: "Fight the fine fight of the faith," put off "the sin that easily entangles us," and "run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus." And the Bible urges us not to 'get tired and give out in our souls.'—1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21.

We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. But does one really have "faith" or "emunah" if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience (our support to God) by doing the things that the Bible says God and Jesus want us to do?Without works to demonstrate our faith (our "emunah" or support for God and his purpose), our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, for the Bible clearly states: "Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself." — James 2:17.

Do you not need to know, intimately then, the revealed will of God in order to fully and completely support him? In order to invoke "emunah" – one needs to know what actions are supporting actions, and which are not.I wonder if the average "Christian" even gives this much thought – it seems I always hear from Christendom about what God can do for you, or for me, or for one's life or peace of mind ...But this is not faith as it anticipates regarding what God can do for us, when perhaps we should be thinking more about what we are supposed to be doing for him (emunah) ... in the way and form which he requires regardless of our personal situation, gain or loss.