Discussion of Hebrew Language (New thread from Hebrew Pictographs in Bible Study)

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

I don't understand this. If we can't be "like" God, then why did He create us in His "image and likeness"?

We can be "like" God, but not of our own volition. We must accept God to be like Him, and let His guidance prevail. (To be "holy" is to be "like" God). Can't approach God in this mortal fleshy existence, certainly, but in the spirit we shall be in His presence.

To be "Holy" is not to be "Like God". Qodesh קדשׁ means to be separated for a specific purpose. In the Hebrew Text we have examples of Holy Ground, Holy Occasions, Holy Articles. All of these were designated for a specific purpose, that being the worship and service of God. None of this requires the ground, occasions, or articles to be "like God".

God is also Holy as it says:

כִּ֣י׀ אֲנִ֣י יְהוָ֗ה הַֽמַּעֲלֶ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִהְיֹ֥ת לָכֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִ֑ים וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָדֹ֖ושׁ אָֽנִי׃

For I am YHWH, the One Bringing you up from the land of Egypt, to be God to you; you shall be holy, for I am Holy (Qadosh) Lev. 11:45

God is Qadosh for Israel as He promised to be their God, and Israel is Qadosh to God as they are His people.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

I don't understand this. If we can't be "like" God, then why did He create us in His "image and likeness"?

We can be "like" God, but not of our own volition. We must accept God to be like Him, and let His guidance prevail. (To be "holy" is to be "like" God). Can't approach God in this mortal fleshy existence, certainly, but in the spirit we shall be in His presence.

I find it rather strange you say we can become like god, but not of our own "volition". Yet you also say we must accept God to be like him. Is then our acceptance of God coerced? Are we forced to accept Him? If no, then we use our volition in choosing to accept Him. Volition is by definition a conscious choice or descision.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[episkopos]

To be "Holy" is not to be "Like God". Qodesh קדשׁ means to be separated for a specific purpose. In the Hebrew Text we have examples of Holy Ground, Holy Occasions, Holy Articles. All of these were designated for a specific purpose, that being the worship and service of God. None of this requires the ground, occasions, or articles to be "like God".

God is also Holy as it says:

כִּ֣י׀ אֲנִ֣י יְהוָ֗ה הַֽמַּעֲלֶ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִהְיֹ֥ת לָכֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִ֑ים וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָדֹ֖ושׁ אָֽנִי׃

For I am YHWH, the One Bringing you up from the land of Egypt, to be God to you; you shall be holy, for I am Holy (Qadosh) Lev. 11:45

God is Qadosh for Israel as He promised to be their God, and Israel is Qadosh to God as they are His people.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

It is one thing to be holy for God's use...like a utensil. It is quite another to be holy in nature and character...ie...sinless. This can only be accomplished by being born from above (in Zion) though Christ. To walk in holiness then is to walk as Jesus Christ in this world...the same way He did. This is the New Covenant of the new creation in Christ.

Eph_4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

I don't understand this. If we can't be "like" God, then why did He create us in His "image and likeness"?

We can be "like" God, but not of our own volition. We must accept God to be like Him, and let His guidance prevail. (To be "holy" is to be "like" God). Can't approach God in this mortal fleshy existence, certainly, but in the spirit we shall be in His presence.

You claim we can not approach God in this mortal fleshy existence. However, this is not what the Text teaches. Adam was the first to stand before God in the flesh. Enoch walked with God. Abraham had lunch with God, Moses spoke to God face to face; and then Moses, Aaron, Nadav and Abihu along with 70 elders of Israel approached God and had dinner with Him. God has never required perfection of action, only perfection of heart. If God only demanded perfection of action, then there would be no commands concerning reparations and penalties to crimes; repentance would be fruitless.

On the contrary, God has provided the perfect Torah (Instruction) given at Sinai by which the people can live, worship and receive forgiveness. Many, sadly, do not understand what sin is, or what it really means to be forgiven.

There are many interpretations as to what sin is, however, many of these interpretations are not based upon fact. What does sin mean? How does one commit an act of sin? These are some important questions in order to know and understand, just what sin is.

Simply put, sin is the transgression of the Law according to the King James Version:

Whosoeuer committeth sinne, transgresseth also the lawe: for sinne is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

This however, is not an accurate translation of the Greek Text. A more accurate translation would be:

πας ο ποιων την αμαρτιαν και την ανομιαν ποιει και η αμαρτια εστιν η ανομια

All who are doing sin, also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Anomia is the Greek word which means literally without (a) law (nomos). This is simply stating that sin is acting outside or without the authority of the law. What law? There is only One Law in the Hebrew and Greek Texts, this is what is called Torah. The Torah is what was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, which was written upon two tablets of stone.

And the Lord sayd vnto Moses, Come vp to me into the mount, and be there, and I will giue thee Tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandements which I haue written, that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12

The KJV translators make a clear mistranslation here. They translate the word Law as if it were indefinite (a Law), while the Hebrew has it definite (the Law):

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה עֲלֵ֥ה אֵלַ֛י הָהָ֖רָה וֶהְיֵה־שָׁ֑ם וְאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת־לֻחֹ֣ת הָאֶ֗בֶן וְהַתֹּורָה֙ וְהַמִּצְוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר כָּתַ֖בְתִּי לְהֹורֹתָֽם׃

And the LORD said to Moses, ascend the Mountain to Me, and be there, and I will give to you the Tablets of Stone, The Law (HaTorah) and The Commandments I have written so you may Instruct them (l'horotam).

The Law in the Hebrew is Torah, which actually means instruction. It is from the same verb used as the end of the verse which I translated Instruct and the KJV translates as teach. The Greek has it as:

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἀνάβηθι πρός με εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ ἴσθι ἐκεῖ· καὶ δώσω σοι τὰ πυξία τὰ λίθινα, τὸν νόμον καὶ τὰς ἐντολάς, ἃς ἔγραψα νομοθετῆσαι αὐτοῖς.

And the Lord said to Moses, Come up to me into the mountain, and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, the law (ton Nomon) and the commandments, which I have written to give them laws (nomothetesai).

This is the only Law ever recorded which was written by the Hand of God and given to people to live by. So when you read "law" in the Hebrew Text it is Torah, and in the Greek it is Nomos. There is no difference, as they are both speaking of the Stone Tablets given to Moses.

Sin is not a moral stain upon the soul, but an actual offense, an infraction against the Divine Laws, Webster defines it as:

"The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts, purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God's commands or law."

God gave the Law to the Israelites at Sinai. This Law encompassed religion, civil law, military law, economic law and also penal laws. This means that God not only gave the Law, but gave the penulty for violating this Law. Contrary to popular opinion, to commit sin was not always punishable by death as Paul claims:

For the wages of sinne is death Romans 6:23

There are sins which do not lead to death:

All vnrighteousnes is sinne, and there is a sinne not vnto death. 1John 5:17

The Law makes it clear, there are sins which demand certain payments, restitutions, or certain other recompense. However, there are some sins which clearly do not have these other options, rather the offender must be put to death. Among these are adultery, idolatry, breaking the sabbath command, or murder as defined by the Law. All these crimes or sins do not allow a ransom for the life of the offender.

What is a sacrifice? What does this mean? The word "sacrifice" comes from the Latin sacrificare meaning to make something sacred. Sacred in turn comes from the Latin sacer meaning devoted to a Divinity (for destruction). Hence, to sacrifice means to devote a thing to a divinity for destruction.

In the Hebrew Text, sacrifices are called by various terms. The most common is zebach, which means literally to slaughter. A zebach can be one of many classes such as an oleh which is completely burned upon the altar, shlamim which is only partially burned, the rest of the zebach is eaten, etc.

Zebach is given for many reasons, namely as a votive gift, or freewill offering. It can be given for recompense for certain crimes, etc. It can also be given as a religious rite.

The Hebrew Text lists several crimes for which a zebach is given. The Sin Offering with all its regulation can be found in Leviticus 4:1-35. What we can glean from this instruction is that the laws which the LORD gave to Moses for the people were to be kept, but if a transgression was made, through ignorance, then the Sin Offering would be the restitution and ransom for the crime.

Along with sacrifice we have two words which are used synonymously, and which are central to the Sin Offering. These are forgiveness and pardon. Forgiveness and pardon depends intimately upon atonement:

Lev 4:20 And he shall do with the bullocke as he did with the bullocke for a sinne offring, so shall he do with this: And the Priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiuen them.

Lev 4:26 And he shall burne all his fat vpon the Altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the Priest shall make an atonement for him, as concerning his sinne, and it shall be forgiuen him.

Lev 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the Priest shall burne it vpon the Altar, for a sweet sauour vnto the Lord, and the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiuen him.

Lev 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lambe is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings: and the Priest shall burnt them vpon the Altar, according to the offerings made by fire vnto the Lord, and the Priest shall make an atonement for his sinne that he hath committed, and it shal be forgiuen him.

Forgiveness comes from the Old English forgiefan, which means to give away. Pardon comes from the Latin perdonare meaning for "for a gift". Notice how these two terms go hand in hand with the atonement, which is given by the offender. It is only after the atonement is given that the offender is considered forgiven, or pardoned.

and the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiuen him.

What then is an atonement? Atonement is a contrived English word used by translators to explain the Hebrew words כִּפֻּר kippur and כֹּפֶר kofer. Both of these words come form the verb כָּפַר kafar, which means to cover. In the sense of crime and punishment, the atonement was the gift given by the offender to the Authority (in the Biblical sense God Himself) as a ransom for his own life. Once the kofer is given to the Authority, the offender is deemed forgiven, meaning he has already given the ransom to the Authority.

In a literal sense a kofer is a type of bribe, given to an authority to "blind the eyes" to an offense:

Gen 32:20 And say ye moreouer, Beholde, thy seruant Iacob is behind vs: for he said, I will appease (akaf'rah) him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peraduenture he will accept of me.

1Sa 12:3 Behold, here I am, witnesse against me before the Lord, and before his Anoynted: Whose oxe haue I taken? or whose asse haue I taken? or whom haue I defrauded? whom haue I oppressed? or of whose hand haue I receiued any bribe (kofer) to blinde mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.

There are some sins, such as murder (as defined by the Law) which do not permit the offender to give a kofer, and no ransom then is take for his life, and the offender is then executed.

Num 35:31 Moreouer, yee shall take no satisfaction (kofer) for the life of a murderer, which is guiltie of death, but he shalbe surely put to death.

For the sake of clarity and ease I will use an analogy by comparing the U.S. Legal System with that of the Torah. The Torah would be the Constitution, the Priesthood as the Legislative and Judicial Branches, and the High Priest as both the Solicitor and Supreme Judge. The penal laws would be filled with punishments from fines, restitution to even capital punishment. In all these cases, the Kofer would be equal to the fines and restitutions. In the Biblical times, the sacrifices were the fines paid to the court system.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

It is one thing to be holy for God's use...like a utensil. It is quite another to be holy in nature and character...ie...sinless. This can only be accomplished by being born from above (in Zion) though Christ. To walk in holiness then is to walk as Jesus Christ in this world...the same way He did. This is the New Covenant of the new creation in Christ.

Eph_4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

We are never called to be "holy" in nature or character, we are called to be holy in action; as well we are called to be perfect in heart, Gn 20:6; Dt 10:12, 18:13; Josh 24:14; 1 Sam 16:7. David was a man after God's own heart; yet he was also an adulterer, a serious violation which required the offender to be executed, and in this case Bathsheva would have also been executed. However, David was a repentant man, and above all Loved God in his heart.

I am not a christian as defined by modern definition; however, Jesus was a righteous Judean, and followed Torah; and I also follow Torah; so I do follow the example of Jesus.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Ceegen]

You claim we can not approach God in this mortal fleshy existence. However, this is not what the Text teaches. Adam was the first to stand before God in the flesh. Enoch walked with God. Abraham had lunch with God, Moses spoke to God face to face; and then Moses, Aaron, Nadav and Abihu along with 70 elders of Israel approached God and had dinner with Him. God has never required perfection of action, only perfection of heart. If God only demanded perfection of action, then there would be no commands concerning reparations and penalties to crimes; repentance would be fruitless.

On the contrary, God has provided the perfect Torah (Instruction) given at Sinai by which the people can live, worship and receive forgiveness. Many, sadly, do not understand what sin is, or what it really means to be forgiven.

There are many interpretations as to what sin is, however, many of these interpretations are not based upon fact. What does sin mean? How does one commit an act of sin? These are some important questions in order to know and understand, just what sin is.

For the sake of clarity and ease I will use an analogy by comparing the U.S. Legal System with that of the Torah. The Torah would be the Constitution, the Priesthood as the Legislative and Judicial Branches, and the High Priest as both the Solicitor and Supreme Judge. The penal laws would be filled with punishments from fines, restitution to even capital punishment. In all these cases, the Kofer would be equal to the fines and restitutions. In the Biblical times, the sacrifices were the fines paid to the court system.

Sin is a transgression of the law, but there are no legal loopholes with God. He has ALWAYS made sure we knew how important it was to police our own hearts with His loving guidance; our intent. He knows what's in our hearts, and wants us to be righteous. God doesn't want us to be lawyers and judges, bringing up charges of lawlessness against our fellow human being. Uhg, could you imagine? Oh wait, that's most all large church systems today!

You know, I don't celebrate Easter. But today, I went to my wife's friend's mother's granddaughter's baptism today. (It's a small town, in case you didn't notice by the long-winded explanation of relationship). One person joined that church today, and it wasn't me or my wife. I just found it funny that when the invocation of membership was read, the priest asked if the new member would be loyal to that particular church system. My heart sank into my belly as the poor fool said "Yes"! Can you believe that?

But that's what legalism has done to us. Righteousness is the only way to correctly interpret what the law actually says, compared to just the "crime and punishment" legalistic aspect of it. Yes, the law still applies, but forgiveness... Forgiveness feels great. I love God.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

Sin is a transgression of the law, but there are no legal loopholes with God. He has ALWAYS made sure we knew how important it was to police our own hearts with His loving guidance; our intent. He knows what's in our hearts, and wants us to be righteous. God doesn't want us to be lawyers and judges, bringing up charges of lawlessness against our fellow human being. Uhg, could you imagine? Oh wait, that's most all large church systems today!

You know, I don't celebrate Easter. But today, I went to my wife's friend's mother's granddaughter's baptism today. (It's a small town, in case you didn't notice by the long-winded explanation of relationship). One person joined that church today, and it wasn't me or my wife. I just found it funny that when the invocation of membership was read, the priest asked if the new member would be loyal to that particular church system. My heart sank into my belly as the poor fool said "Yes"! Can you believe that?

But that's what legalism has done to us. Righteousness is the only way to correctly interpret what the law actually says, compared to just the "crime and punishment" legalistic aspect of it. Yes, the law still applies, but forgiveness... Forgiveness feels great. I love God.

I understand what you mean by legalism, however, righteousness has a part in this legalism. To be righteous means to act within the Law. This is a very specific word in the Hebrew Text, צדיק Tsadiq. One who is Tsadiq, is one who follow the Law, and is in right standing with it. It doesnt mean one who is sinless, well not exactly. God gave a Law at Sinai, and this included the penalties for violating this Law. One who is Righteous, even though he commits a sin, if he follows the prescription for violations as laid out in the Law, is still righteous, and his sins removed; hence he is sinless after the restitution is made; there is no double jeopardy in the Torah.

God doesnt demand perfection in action, He knows we will slip, and hence he made a way for us to return (repent) to the Torah. In the Hebrew Text, repentance is Teshubah, which means to return, meaning to return to God by returning to the Instruction He gave. In the Greek we have metanaia, which means literally after thought, from metanoeo meaning to perceive afterward, or to change the mind, or to think differently.

A Righteous man is a Godly man, one who continues to serve God, even though he slips, or makes mistakes.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Ceegen]

I understand what you mean by legalism, however, righteousness has a part in this legalism. To be righteous means to act within the Law. This is a very specific word in the Hebrew Text, צדיק Tsadiq. One who is Tsadiq, is one who follow the Law, and is in right standing with it. It doesnt mean one who is sinless, well not exactly. God gave a Law at Sinai, and this included the penalties for violating this Law. One who is Righteous, even though he commits a sin, if he follows the prescription for violations as laid out in the Law, is still righteous, and his sins removed; hence he is sinless after the restitution is made; there is no double jeopardy in the Torah.

God doesnt demand perfection in action, He knows we will slip, and hence he made a way for us to return (repent) to the Torah. In the Hebrew Text, repentance is Teshubah, which means to return, meaning to return to God by returning to the Instruction He gave. In the Greek we have metanaia, which means literally after thought, from metanoeo meaning to perceive afterward, or to change the mind, or to think differently.

A Righteous man is a Godly man, one who continues to serve God, even though he slips, or makes mistakes.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

Yes exactly, I agree. We have no differences, really, except that one thing... You know, that Jesus guy.

Hey wasn't this thread originally about pictographs? I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if the words aren't pictographs, the words still paint a visual image of what the text contains. When I read the bible, it's like a movie in my head. That's how it is for me with any book I read though, but the bible was the best movie I've ever read. That to me, is pictography in reverse, and to me makes more sense. That's probably why it took so long for us to read ancient Egyptian pictographs, since most of the world operates in the reverse of the Egyptian system.

That being said, I believe the bible (when it is using metaphors, and things of that nature) to be a type of pictograph. On the flip side, I believe all the events recorded as happening is the truth, but carries prophecy and other information within each story. If you can start to "see" these things, these patterns, things become clearer. And there may be a "bible code" or other things contained in the bible that is "hidden from the foundations of the earth", but the only reason it's "hidden" to us is because we live in the flesh, and by default are sinful. Because of our sin, we can not see very well, hence "seeing through a glass dimly" and the like.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

Yes exactly, I agree. We have no differences, really, except that one thing... You know, that Jesus guy.

Hey wasn't this thread originally about pictographs? I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if the words aren't pictographs, the words still paint a visual image of what the text contains. When I read the bible, it's like a movie in my head. That's how it is for me with any book I read, though, but the bible was the best movie I've ever read. That to me, is pictography in reverse, and to me makes more sense. That's probably why it took so long for us to read ancient Egyptian pictographs, since most of the world operates in the reverse of the Egyptian system.

That being said, I believe the bible (when it is using metaphors, and things of that nature) to be a type of pictograph. On the flip side, I believe all the events recorded as happening is the truth, but carries prophecy and other information within each story. If you can start to "see" these things, these patterns, things become clearer. And there may be a "bible code" or other things contained in the bible that is "hidden from the foundations of the earth", but the only reason it's "hidden" to us is because we live in the flesh, and by default are sinful. Because of our sin, we can not see very well, hence "seeing through a glass dimly" and the like.

Yes, it was about pictographs. It seems everyone gets side tracked at times; it makes life interesting.

Egyptian hieroglyphs were so difficult to interpret because the language was banned by the church, ironic. Therefore no one knew what the glyphs represented. If they were merely pictographs, as some in history have claimed, it should have been no problem deciphering them. The pictures are clear, and everyone can see how they are used. Unfortunately, this isnt how Egyptian works. The most common pictures are actually phonetic signs, which would represent either one sound, two sounds, or three sounds. Ideograms were used to represent contracted sounds, and to save space in writing the Egyptian language, while Determinatives were used at the end of words to give a more precise meaning to the word being written. Egyptian can never be deciphered based upon a pictographic approach, as the pictures do not represent the pictures themselves, but a phonetic sign.

Hebrew works the same way, as well as all other Semitic languages. The first Semitic language utilized cuneiform, which was originally a hieroglyph. Even at that time, the cuneiform was used the same way as the Egyptian, with phonetic signs, ideograms, and determinatives, etc. The new idea of Pictographic Hebrew is not correct, and those who employ such methods only delude themselves, and any others they lead down that road, regardless of how well the intentions are.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Ceegen]

Yes, it was about pictographs. It seems everyone gets side tracked at times; it makes life interesting.

Egyptian hieroglyphs were so difficult to interpret because the language was banned by the church, ironic. Therefore no one knew what the glyphs represented. If they were merely pictographs, as some in history have claimed, it should have been no problem deciphering them. The pictures are clear, and everyone can see how they are used. Unfortunately, this isnt how Egyptian works. The most common pictures are actually phonetic signs, which would represent either one sound, two sounds, or three sounds. Ideograms were used to represent contracted sounds, and to save space in writing the Egyptian language, while Determinatives were used at the end of words to give a more precise meaning to the word being written. Egyptian can never be deciphered based upon a pictographic approach, as the pictures do not represent the pictures themselves, but a phonetic sign.

Hebrew works the same way, as well as all other Semitic languages. The first Semitic language utilized cuneiform, which was originally a hieroglyph. Even at that time, the cuneiform was used the same way as the Egyptian, with phonetic signs, ideograms, and determinatives, etc. The new idea of Pictographic Hebrew is not correct, and those who employ such methods only delude themselves, and any others they lead down that road, regardless of how well the intentions are.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

Then what is the point of prophecy, if no "pictographic" elements are in play? Or maybe I am not understanding exactly what you mean by pictograph in how it relates to interpreting the bible? Please, tell me what you mean, exactly. Won't hurt my feelins' none!

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

Then what is the point of prophecy, if no "pictographic" elements are in play? Or maybe I am not understanding exactly what you mean by pictograph in how it relates to interpreting the bible? Please, tell me what you mean, exactly. Won't hurt my feelins' none!

Prophecy, just what is the point? In reality, the Torah is sufficient, and there is no need of prophecy. A prophet is not a lawgiver, and so they never come with new laws or legislation; rather a prophet is an admonisher, admonishing the people of Israel to return to the Torah. According to Torah obedience was to YHWH and His Torah, period. In fact, there would be prophets who were sent as a test for Israel, as God was tempting them. He wanted to know if Israel would follow His Torah with all their heart. God sent angels as lying spirits into the mouths of some prophets in order to perform His will upon the earth. Yet, no matter what, God said that there is a simple test to know if a prophet is false. 1) If the prophet teaches the people to disregard Torah and follow another path, the prophet is false; 2) If a prophet speaks a prophecy, and it doesnt come to pass, the prophet is false. In either case, the Torah doesnt change.

The idea of pictographic Hebrew is not new, but it has lately received lots of publication by men such as Jeff Benner. He promotes the idea that ancient Hebrew was written with pictures, and further that these pictures added to the meaning of the words in which they are employed. This is actually not true. Hebrew was never written in any pictographic script, and even if it was, pictographic writing does not work the way Benner is claiming the pictographic Hebrew works. I used Egyptian for my example, as it is more well known than cuneiform, and the pictures are easier for people to see, as opposed to cuneiform. Any Egyptologist, and for that matter, any Chanese or Japanese person can explain to you that the way Benner is promotig pictographs is incorrect. Chinese and Japanese are based upon Hieroglyphic style writing.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

[Ceegen]

Prophecy, just what is the point? In reality, the Torah is sufficient, and there is no need of prophecy. A prophet is not a lawgiver, and so they never come with new laws or legislation; rather a prophet is an admonisher, admonishing the people of Israel to return to the Torah. According to Torah obedience was to YHWH and His Torah, period. In fact, there would be prophets who were sent as a test for Israel, as God was tempting them. He wanted to know if Israel would follow His Torah with all their heart. God sent angels as lying spirits into the mouths of some prophets in order to perform His will upon the earth. Yet, no matter what, God said that there is a simple test to know if a prophet is false. 1) If the prophet teaches the people to disregard Torah and follow another path, the prophet is false; 2) If a prophet speaks a prophecy, and it doesnt come to pass, the prophet is false. In either case, the Torah doesnt change.

So then are the prophecies of prophets a "shadow of things to come"? As in, some prophecy is intended for future events? I believe so.

In the Garden of Eden, God said to the serpent "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

This is a prophecy, is it not? Directly from God, no less. When will this event occur? Isn't it inferred by the texts, that "the serpent" is a singular noun, an actual entity? If "the serpent" is just a metaphor for a lack of God and holiness in your life, then why was it necessary to use "bruise thy head" in such a manner?

I am assuming that you hold to the prevalent Jewish doctrine that "the serpent" is not an entity or person, but rather a concept or idea, right? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

The idea of pictographic Hebrew is not new, but it has lately received lots of publication by men such as Jeff Benner. He promotes the idea that ancient Hebrew was written with pictures, and further that these pictures added to the meaning of the words in which they are employed. This is actually not true. Hebrew was never written in any pictographic script, and even if it was, pictographic writing does not work the way Benner is claiming the pictographic Hebrew works. I used Egyptian for my example, as it is more well known than cuneiform, and the pictures are easier for people to see, as opposed to cuneiform. Any Egyptologist, and for that matter, any Chanese or Japanese person can explain to you that the way Benner is promotig pictographs is incorrect. Chinese and Japanese are based upon Hieroglyphic style writing.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

But that is just biblical legalism, isn't it? Isn't there more to the words themselves? A concept or idea, or do the words mean exactly what they mean? In what context is it important to understand why Hebrew is not a pictographic written language, if it is not directly related to prophecy? (This last question is what I am really trying to get at).

[episkopos]

Prophecy, just what is the point? In reality, the Torah is sufficient, and there is no need of prophecy. A prophet is not a lawgiver, and so they never come with new laws or legislation; rather a prophet is an admonisher, admonishing the people of Israel to return to the Torah. According to Torah obedience was to YHWH and His Torah, period. In fact, there would be prophets who were sent as a test for Israel, as God was tempting them. He wanted to know if Israel would follow His Torah with all their heart. God sent angels as lying spirits into the mouths of some prophets in order to perform His will upon the earth. Yet, no matter what, God said that there is a simple test to know if a prophet is false. 1) If the prophet teaches the people to disregard Torah and follow another path, the prophet is false; 2) If a prophet speaks a prophecy, and it doesnt come to pass, the prophet is false. In either case, the Torah doesnt change.

The idea of pictographic Hebrew is not new, but it has lately received lots of publication by men such as Jeff Benner. He promotes the idea that ancient Hebrew was written with pictures, and further that these pictures added to the meaning of the words in which they are employed. This is actually not true. Hebrew was never written in any pictographic script, and even if it was, pictographic writing does not work the way Benner is claiming the pictographic Hebrew works. I used Egyptian for my example, as it is more well known than cuneiform, and the pictures are easier for people to see, as opposed to cuneiform. Any Egyptologist, and for that matter, any Chanese or Japanese person can explain to you that the way Benner is promotig pictographs is incorrect. Chinese and Japanese are based upon Hieroglyphic style writing.

Ya'aqov ben Yisrael

It goes beyond the realm of credulity to state that pictograms don't exist in ancient Hebrew. Before the time of Ezra and the Babylonian captivity we see symbols such as arms, staffs, eyes, doors and other pictures being used as letters. That words can be formed with these pictures in an accurate and coherent form cannot be made out to be happenstance.

Even a shallow and superficial look into the letter symbols reveals a very clear picture. Each word in Hebrew is formed of a descriptive sentence made up of symbols. I have included a few of these in earlier posts.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

It goes beyond the realm of credulity to state that pictograms don't exist in ancient Hebrew. Before the time of Ezra and the Babylonian captivity we see symbols such as arms, staffs, eyes, doors and other pictures being used as letters. That words can be formed with these pictures in an accurate and coherent form cannot be made out to be happenstance.

Even a shallow and superficial look into the letter symbols reveals a very clear picture. Each word in Hebrew is formed of a descriptive sentence made up of symbols. I have included a few of these in earlier posts.

There is absolutely no proof what so ever that Hebrew was ever written in a pictographic style, it is a fact that the earliest Hebrew writing was in Phoenician letters. Pictographs are not sufficient to provide any useful method of understanding in a written language; not even those languages which utilized picture writing used the pictures to give meaning to the words these pictures formed.

If you claim the Hebrew language was indeed picture writing, and these picture letters gave meaning to the words, then I would love to hear how you would explain the subtle changes between passive, active, the participles and even the various verb stems. In Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and even Assyrian there are verb patterns which are made that are identical in the written form, yet inflected differently depending on the stem, is is active, passive, a participle, etc. There is absolutely no way to provide for this by claiming the picture letters were used to enhance the meaning of the words. If this is what you are claiming, then I have a slew of Semitic verbs I would like to offer for you to demonstrate how the picture letters provide a lucid and informative meaning to them. I will begin with just two simple Hebrew verbs, please use the pictures to explain to me hhow the verbs provides the correct meaning.


ברך יברך למד ילמד these two verbs are spelled the same in both the active and passive; how do you account for this with picture writing?

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

[Ta-An]

There is absolutely no proof what so ever that Hebrew was ever written in a pictographic style, it is a fact that the earliest Hebrew writing was in Phoenician letters. Pictographs are not sufficient to provide any useful method of understanding in a written language; not even those languages which utilized picture writing used the pictures to give meaning to the words these pictures formed.


l

Shalom Yaakov (A 'q' in Yaaqov )

Surely when I read the ancient writings I can get to the meaning of the word without being able to read the language, when I know what each letter means
I studied Hebrew Word Pictures by Dr Frank T Seekins.... an amazing study