) to the extent they were afraid to even say the word “god” or “Jesus” in English
there are two ways to look at language, in the normal way like most folk in hereGot two new questions for @Koichos
First is pretty simple but just annoying how I recently was talking to a Hebrew Israelites and they kept going on about names and proper names to use (as they seem to obsessively focus on
Anyways the question is, what is the word “YAHUAH” in Jewish context
what does it derive from and what’s the translation back to in Hebrew if it even does work that way
Is that word/title even in the Torah and was it used (said) by the Israelites instead of YHWH similar to Jehovah or Yah, Yaweh, etc.... and what does it matter today?
If you ask me it’s not even a big deal. But people are so caught up on language these days and
I know your an expert on language so....
www.thecoli.com
as I said before, its tricky
www.thecoli.com
'YAHUAH' is not a real name, but know-it-alls and ignoramuses insist on using it because it artificially begins with the letters Y, a, h. It seems to me that some people have an unhealthy obsession about 'names'. I remember when these nutcases used to go around claiming the 'original Hebrew name of messiah' to be 'Yaohushuwa' (or any of the several other similarly impossible and absurd transliterations).Got two new questions for @Koichos
First is pretty simple but just annoying how I recently was talking to a Hebrew Israelites and they kept going on about names and proper names to use (as they seem to obsessively focus on
Anyways the question is, what is the word “YAHUAH” in Jewish context
what does it derive from and what’s the translation back to in Hebrew if it even does work that way
Is that word/title even in the Torah and was it used (said) by the Israelites instead of YHWH similar to Jehovah or Yah, Yaweh, etc.... and what does it matter today?
Wow! Thank you for your kind words, but I lay no claim to any expertise in linguistics.I know your an expert on language so....
In other words, you can't answer the questions—but thereagain, they weren't even addressed to you! When a post is addressed directly and explicitly to me, by name, it is not very polite of you to jump in with both feet and reply to it without giving me a chance to do so.
The passage goes on to list four more דְּבָרִים ('things' or attributes) before ending with וְחִלּוּפֵיהֶן בְּגוֹלָם ('but the opposite [is true] in a גּוֹלֶם').
and
—instead of בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן and הַמֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאֶרֶץ.
The spurious chapter-division at 'Genesis 3' (which, incidentally, occurs in the middle of a sentence) obfuscates a pun, a play on words.an interesting paradox i showed another poster is in genesis 3 here regarding the identity of "the serpent" with respect to Rahab I mentioned earlier in this thread
Why does satan rock with cacs so heavy?
that's why testing & proving is a forever thing it's about finding accurate account of what's going on in the world around you within you on the macro & micro level people that stop doing the work of having a active mind & choose to live inside the words of long dead individuals hold...
Hardly! פּוּנְדְּקָאִית is Hebrew, not Aramaic. The term used to describe Rohov in Y'hoshuʿa 2:1 is זוֹנָה, which is derived from the verb-stem זון (to feed) and means 'a [female] innkeeper', whereas the seemingly identical word זוֹנָה in B'reshıth 34:31, 38:15 et al., is derived from the verb-stem זנה (to wander, go astray, commit offense) and means 'a prostitute'. Furthermore, Yonothon ban ʿUzziyʾel (floruit late first century BCE) translates זוֹנָה in his tarğum on Y'hoshuʿa 2:1 (the officially recognized tarğum of the N'viʾim) using the Aramaic פּוּנְדְּקִיתָא.
I wasn't moved...
I have never heard שִׁירַת דְּבוֹרָה וּבָרָק referred to as 'The Song of Bee and Lightning' because, in truth, ordinary personal names in Hebrew do not really have 'meanings'. In ancient times, a Jewish newborn would often (note: often, not always) be given a name that was based on, or a derivative of, a comment that had been made by the mother or father, or even by the midwife (for example, in B'reshıth 38:29), to reflect something that had happened at, or around the same time as, the birth; e.g., פֶּרֶץ was given his name (B'reshıth 38:29) because the midwife exclaimed: מַה־פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פֶּרֶץ ('What a strong effort you made!')—but פֶּרֶץ actually 'means' a breach, or possibly an opening.something I meditated on that is building off of the "female assembly" post and its link to Cain and Abel with respect to the history of the Old Testament. A lady in a group that I follow said that the last day to some would be like a sledgehammer. The first story that came to mind was of Sisera and the battle in Judges 5 also called "The Song of Deborah and Barak" or "The Song of Bee and Lightning"
Bible Gateway passage: Judges 5 - King James Version
Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day, saying, Praise ye the LORD for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves. Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes; I, even I, will sing unto the LORD; I will sing praise to the LORD God of Israel. LORD, when...www.biblegateway.com
One need not look further than the T'na"ch itself (Shof'ṭim 5:27), where it says that Sis'roʾ went down בֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ (lit., 'between her legs').
The keyword here is 'according to the Midrash'. Midrosh is not p'shoṭ (the actual meaning), but d'rush (sermons derived from, or based on, it). You ought to know better than to use midrosh to derive the meaning of a text as midrosh is never meant to be taken too literally; it is essentially an amazing exaggeration (or 'flight of fancy') intended to teach some supplementary message. This is why, for example, prophecy, can only be derived from a text's p'shoṭ, not d'rush. You must understand that these 'interpretations' are all at the d'rush level.
For starters, although there is more than one account, there was only one sequence of events. Secondly, the first Hebrew division of our Holy Scriptures starts at B'reshıth 1:1 and ends at B'reshıth 2:3; the chapter breaks are arbitrary inventions and, at any rate, non-Jewish. The first four Hebrew divisions of the book B'reshıth—as regards the chapter-division referencing system—are 1:1-2:3, 2:4-3:21, 3:22-4:26 and 5:1-6:8; accordingly, you will see that account (i., 1:1-2:3) of Man's creation occurs in the first division, account (ii., 2:4-4:26) occurs in the second and third divisions, and account (iii., 5:1-5:2) occurs in the first two p'suqim (that is, verses) of the fourth division.
Not only is it impossible to bring this point out in a translation, but the pun is further obfuscated by the separation of 2:25 and 3:1 into two separate artificial 'chapters', which is concealed by inserting the chapter-divisions between the two halves of the sentence (and the two verses are one continuous sentence: 25Now the man and his woman were both naked but they were without any sexual inhibitions, 1and so the snake said to the woman...; in the Hebrew, verse 3:1 reads as an explanation of why the 'snake' behaved as it did). And yet, even without knowledge of the pun, it can be seen that the logical end occurs at B'reshıth 2:24, and a new subject begins with verse 25.
That passage is grammatically very difficult to translate into English accurately, without the text appearing somewhat clumsy.
to me, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has to do with gorem philosophy
The noun דְּבוֹרָה ('bee') is derived from the verb-stem דבר ('speak'), which is virtually synonymous in the T'na"ch with the verb-stem אמר ('say'), except that דבר is usually intransitive and אמר is usually transitive. However, that is not to say that the verb אמר can only be used transitively (i.e., to say); it can also sometimes be used intransitively, with the sense of to speak. For example, the text of B'reshıth: 4:8,
The second part of the quoted speech in Sh'moth 2:14 is difficult to translate because it includes a vernacular usage—הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר—that translates literally as 'is it to kill me you speak?' It is understood from this rather odd phrasing that Moshah had killed the Egyptian by pronouncing the Four-Lettered Divine Title at him (this is one of [at least] three occasions in the T'na"ch where the Sacred Title was was used in this manner—two other instances of disastrous consequences can be found in Sh'muʾel ʾAlaf 17:45 & M'lochim Béth 2:24).
I suggest you forget about 'Abarim Publications' (which, incidentally, ought to be transliterated 'Avarim' because עברים is pointed עֲבָרִים and not עֲבָּרִים); the author does not include fully conjugated verb paradigms and even the definitions he/she gives of Hebrew words are very dubious in many cases. Furthermore, seven of the eight transliterations are incorrect: the only ב that is marked with dogésh (i.e., בּ - changing its value from 'v' to 'b') should be the eighth word מדבר, which is correctly pointed מִדְבָּר. And 'dibrah', which is spelled דִּבְּרָה, is not a noun (that would be דִּבְרָה) but a verb in the feminine form and means 'she spoke'. The eight words listed are pointed as follows:
For someone who has never used a Hebrew dictionary before, I would suggest he tries Marcus (Mordochai) Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature first (it is available free online in its entirety at www.etana.org: volume 1 here and volume 2 here) and sees how he gets on with that; because in a Hebrew dictionary terms are listed under their verb-stems and anyone who is unfamiliar with diqduq (i.e., Hebrew grammar) will find it very difficult to find anything in one: for example נִרְאֶה ('is seen' or 'seems'), יֵרָאֶה ('he will be seen/appear') and מַרְאֶה ('is showing/manifesting') will all be found under the verb-stem ראה.
Given the subject of the Scriptural character שְׂרוּג, maybe you are thinking of סֽוֹרֶג, the 'lattice'-styled partitioning that was erected in the Second Temple for the purpose of separating the Jews from the non-Jews, similar in manner to the separation between men and women in Jewish prayer halls. סֽוֹרֶג is derived from the root סרג, corresponding to the earlier שׂרג; the latter occurs, for example, in ʾIyyov 40:17. In later Hebrew this word was spelled with ס sammach rather than שׂ sin, hence: סרג. The Scriptural שְׂרוּג is derived from the earlier שׂרג.remember when i mentioned "Serug"? What is "lattice" in hebrew?
Serug - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Well a Sullam must be a support for a reasonI wasn't moved...
I have never heard שִׁירַת דְּבוֹרָה וּבָרָק referred to as 'The Song of Bee and Lightning' because, in truth, ordinary personal names in Hebrew do not really have 'meanings'. In ancient times, a Jewish newborn would often (note: often, not always) be given a name that was based on, or a derivative of, a comment that had been made by the mother or father, or even by the midwife (for example, in B'reshıth 38:29), to reflect something that had happened at, or around the same time as, the birth; e.g., פֶּרֶץ was given his name (B'reshıth 38:29) because the midwife exclaimed: מַה־פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פֶּרֶץ ('What a strong effort you made!')—but פֶּרֶץ actually 'means' a breach, or possibly an opening.
Similarly, the first man to be called יְהוֹשֻעַ (occasionally spelled in full יְהוֹשׁוּעַ) was originally called הוֹשֵׁעַ and Moshah changed his name to יְהוֹשֻעַ as a prayer when he (i.e., יְהוֹשֻעַ) was dispatched as one of the Twelve Explorers to take a first look at the Land of K'naʿan (the prayer being יָהּ יוֹשִׁיעֲךָ מֵעֲצַת מְרַגְלִים 'May Yohh rescue you from the other explorers' counsel'). So, Moshah gave his [eventual] successor the name יְהוֹשֻעַ based on the words of his prayer יָהּ יוֹשִׁיעֲךָ (meaning 'May Yohh rescue you..'), but the word does not actually mean this. Have you ever heard the joke about the native North American who was given the name 'Two Dogs Mating'? Well, this is quite similar.
רָחֵל means a 'ewe' (i.e., a female sheep); but was Yaʿaqov's favorite wife—the mother of Yosef and Bin'yomin—a sheep? דְּבוֹרָה means a 'bee', but did the sixth Judge of Yisroʾel (although only the fourth in the book Shof'ṭim) who defeated the K'naʿani king Yovin's general Sis'roʾ at Mount Tovor (Shof'ṭim 4:4ff) live in a hive and make honey? (D'voroh was the sixth Judge because Moshah (Sh'moth 18:13) and Y'hoshuʿa also held the status of 'Judges'; I cannot find any verse that explicitly associates Y'hoshuʿa with 'judging' but, as he was preceeded by a 'Judge' and followed by a long sequence of leaders called 'Judges', it is reasonable to assume that he, too, was a Judge.)
One need not look further than the T'na"ch itself (Shof'ṭim 5:27), where it says that Sis'roʾ went down בֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ (lit., 'between her legs').
The keyword here is 'according to the Midrash'. Midrosh is not p'shoṭ (the actual meaning), but d'rush (sermons derived from, or based on, it). You ought to know better than to use midrosh to derive the meaning of a text as midrosh is never meant to be taken too literally; it is essentially an amazing exaggeration (or 'flight of fancy') intended to teach some supplementary message. This is why, for example, prophecy, can only be derived from a text's p'shoṭ, not d'rush. You must understand that these 'interpretations' are all at the d'rush level.
For starters, although there is more than one account, there was only one sequence of events. Secondly, the first Hebrew division of our Holy Scriptures starts at B'reshıth 1:1 and ends at B'reshıth 2:3; the chapter breaks are arbitrary inventions and, at any rate, non-Jewish. The first four Hebrew divisions of the book B'reshıth—as regards the chapter-division referencing system—are 1:1-2:3, 2:4-3:21, 3:22-4:26 and 5:1-6:8; accordingly, you will see that account (i., 1:1-2:3) of Man's creation occurs in the first division, account (ii., 2:4-4:26) occurs in the second and third divisions, and account (iii., 5:1-5:2) occurs in the first two p'suqim (that is, verses) of the fourth division.
Many people (myself included!!) have never understood why we continue to duplicate in T'na"ch editions printed by Jews the spurious chapter breaks between the verses numbered 'B'reshıth 2:25' & 'B'reshıth 3:1', and between the verses numbered 'M'lochim ʾAlaf 22:54' & 'M'lochim Béth 1:1'—both of which are right in the middle of their respective paragraphs and the first of which is even in the middle of a sentence! There are many other examples of this kind of thing, too. Take a look at the following picture, which is a scan of the last four lines of page 3 (containing B'reshıth 2:23b-3:1a) of the standard T'na"ch edition published by Koren Publishers Ltd, Y'rusholayim:
This extract contains the last couple verses of 'chapter 2' and part of the first verse of 'chapter 3' of B'reshıth, the first book of the Bible. Can you spot where 'chapter 2' ends and 'chapter 3' begins? I very much doubt it, because the 'chapters' do not exist in the Hebrew text. But there is an even greater deception at work here: I bet you were not aware that there is a Hebrew 'play on words', a 'pun', created by the repeated use of the same word (עָרוּם) in two very different senses in the two verses (עָרוּם - plural עֲרוּמִּים - means 'naked' in 2:25 and 'sneaky' or 'crafty' in 3:1), which very strongly demonstrates that the two verses numbered 'B'reshıth 2:25' and 'B'reshıth 3:1' are linked:
Not only is it impossible to bring this point out in a translation, but the pun is further obfuscated by the separation of 2:25 and 3:1 into two separate artificial 'chapters', which is concealed by inserting the chapter-divisions between the two halves of the sentence (and the two verses are one continuous sentence: 25Now the man and his woman were both naked but they were without any sexual inhibitions, 1and so the snake said to the woman...; in the Hebrew, verse 3:1 reads as an explanation of why the 'snake' behaved as it did). And yet, even without knowledge of the pun, it can be seen that the logical end occurs at B'reshıth 2:24, and a new subject begins with verse 25.
That passage is grammatically very difficult to translate into English accurately, without the text appearing somewhat clumsy.
The point I was making is that Hebrew names were often chosen to reflect some remark or comment that the mother or the midwife (or the father or another person) made, based on an event that had happened at the time of the birth (e.g., Moshah's naming, Sh'moth 2:10). In any case, I really only included the joke about the Native who had been given the name 'Two Dogs Copulating' as a humorous aside.Well a Sullam must be a support for a reason
i have not heard this tale of someone being named: "two dogs mating "? Can you explain?
As a point of interest, how about the Hebrew word for a 'breath', נְשִׁימָה, which is subtly different from the word for a 'soul', נְשָׁמָה; both start with a נ nun, if that's what you're looking for. Moreover, the letter ה is connected with the property of speech, and all things were created by what the T'na"ch refers to as 'God's speech'. Put simply, the ה hei is the onset of 'breath' which develops into actual speech:
The primary letters are three: א ʾalaf, מ mem, שׁ shin. The א ʾalaf is the beginning of sound, with the opening of the mouth; the מ mem is the conclusion of sound, with the closing of the mouth; and the שׁ shin is the synthesis between sound and silence, with the clenching of the teeth and the parting of the lips. Thus: א ʾalaf, the sound of voice; מ mem, the sound of silence; שׁ shin, the balance between the two.
Etymologically speaking, both אֲדָמָֽה ('soil' or 'land') and אָדָֽם ('man' or 'humanity') are connected with אָדֽוֹם, אָדֹֽם (the reddish-brown color of soil, also the color of red lentils (B'reshıth 25:29-30)); compare the feminine inflection of אָדֽוֹם, אָדֹֽם (i.e., אֲדֻמָּֽה) which crops up in the phrase פָּרָֽה אֲדֻמָּֽה (B'midhbar 19:2) and means 'reddish-brown cow'. אָדֽוֹם, אָדֹֽם (masc.) or אֲדוּמָּֽה, אֲדֻמָּֽה (fem.) is the reddish-brown color of the אֲדָמָֽה that the אָדָֽם was taken from—but אָדָֽם does not itself mean 'red'. אָדֹֽם and אָדָֽם may look alike, but they have different meanings.
The meaning of the English word 'serpent' has changed since the early 17th century when King James' PerVersion was first published; serpens just means a 'snake' in Latin and 'serpent' was the regular word for that reptile in English at that time. For that matter, Charles Dodgson (aka 'Lewis Carroll') also used 'serpent' meaning a snake in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and that was not written until 1865. Yet, today, nobody would ever refer to a snake as a 'serpent' (the use of the older term now being limited to mythical creatures).
Well, the parallel may be seen in their worship by misguided individuals: the b'nei Yisroʾel were told to look intently toward the copper snake—that is to say, upward, toward Heaven (because Moshah was specifically instructed to mount the copper snake on top of a pole, B'midhbar 21:8). However, in time, some Jews began to worship it and burn incense to it (although there is no textual record of anyone PRAYING to it); thus the pious king Hiz'qiyyohu, responsible for the longest period of peace in the southern province, had it destroyed
Rash"i describes the word נְחוּשְׁתָּן n'hush'ton as לְשׁוֹן בִּזָּיוֹן l'shon bizzoyon ('a term of contempt'). נְחוּשְׁתָּן is actually a diminutive form of נְחוֹשֶׁת n'hoshath ('copper'), so that the last three words of M'lochim Béth 18:4 can be translated as וַיִּקְרָא־לוֹ נְחֻשְׁתָּן 'and he called it just a silly little lump of copper'. Note: the word נָחָשׁ nohosh (stressed on the second syllable) 'a snake' is no more related to נְחֹשֶׁת n'hoshath (stressed on the first syllable) 'copper' than either is to נַחַשׁ nahash (stressed on the first syllable) 'sorcery', 'magic'—B'midhbar 23:23.
Thread started off dope then got derailed into religious babble
perhaps the real illusion is the "veil"
youve made this same post atleast 3 timesThread started off dope then got derailed into religious babble
in the same thread
