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.