Did you just use more than 100 words?
Asygo: It may be that God used a particular word at a particular time. But we can't conclusively say that He only meant one thing. Neither can we say that the word always means the same thing every time He used it. If we are looking for that kind of precision, the 10C would have needed a mountain of stone to write.
Elle : That's a good way to water down the power of the Word; if that's your objective. But from what I've known you from this forum, you don't strike me as such an individual. I believe you seek to behold the Lord's power.
Jesus is the Word. We know He spoke creation into existence with Words. There's power in His words and language. To say such statement does show that you haven't tasted the Hebrew language.
Asygo : I appreciate the value of studying the Bible in its original form, but I don't agree that the words themselves have inherent power.
I agree with you.
Their true power is their ability to help us understand Jesus, the Word.
There is some truth in there. Then yet, not even that much power can be given in the word for we know that no one can even understand Jesus (or receive any spiritual truth) unless the Lord open up his mind.
That was basically the problem with Israel. They had received the law on "stone"
(instead on their hearts) and were 40 years in the desert seeing first hand the Lord's leading in the pillar of smoke and fire and receiving all the Lord's corrections ... and Moses still said the following : AV Dt 29:4 "
Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." (see also Is 6:10; Jer 5:21) Until the Lord opens the mind, words are only words despite they can be pure truth.
The power from the Word comes only when that "Word becomes flesh" in us. But that requires an ability to hear-obey(shama) His words FIRST which requires the Lord to open up that spiritual ears to be able to hear. We may hear and read the law given on "stone" or on paper a million times and still yet have not really heard it or understood it. Without those spiritual ears opened, our understanding is limited to an "intellectual" understanding of some words -- like the Jews received for millennias by which never gave them any power whatsoever. The only gain they got is a superiority complex.
Just review this thread. Can't we find a better use of time than to argue whether or not Cain broke the law by killing Abel? Is it reasonable to imagine that Simeon and Levi had no hatred for the man who defiled their sister, but were merely seeking a legalistic way to disobey Jacob? Or that it was some form of misguided righteous hatred? As one with extensive experience in disobedience, I can tell you that the passions of the carnal heart and mind are sufficient to lead one to sin.
sure
Jesus warned us of the danger of focusing on the words while rejecting the Word. Let's not entertain the idea that His words are some kind of magical incantation with inherent power. The power is in the Word, not the words. If it were not so, there would have been no need to expound beyond the Ten Words on stone.
I agree up to the underlined-bolded section. I don't really know what you mean by it. Could you rephrase it for me?
The article you posted postulates that Hebrew is the language God used at creation, but cited no biblical proof.
I agree that there's no proof that Hebrew was the language used at creation; but the Lord still used words to create things into existence. I'm sorry but I believe there is power in His Word -- the power only comes when the Lord speaks them versus us reading the same.
Despite we do not know the original language of Creation; we do know the Lord did use the Hebrew language and concept to convey the law, the OT and the NT (in Aramaic which is a Hebrew dialect) to us.
It gives examples of words with related meanings to show that Hebrew is special, but anyone who has studied for standardized tests knows that Latin-based languages do the same thing (e.g. transgress, progress, regress, etc).
I will disagree here. It is not the same at all as your example of the latin-based languages. I do agree that there are some derivatives of sources words at time in other languages as with your example. But this is not the same "essence" the article writer was trying to convey in that link.
The Hebrew words derives its meaning from the essence of the letters that forms the word. Each letter is a word of its own. And the combination of these letter-words make up the Hebrew words. No other language have that basic structure that I'm aware of.
I was trying to save myself some typing and explaining by pointing to this link. The article didn't really explained this very clearly. Sorry about that.
I have given some example of this further down and other differences found in the Hebrew language compare to other languages.
If Hebrew is the only way, God could have figured out a way to use it for the NT also.
He did do a transfer of this OT-Hebrew with all the writer's in the NT being fluent in Aramaic. They were all Jews (well all Benjamites with the exception of Judas) who were familiar with the Laws, traditions, and customs. Most weren't men of the law in the exception of Paul. However, they weren't ignorant of it because much of the law is embedded in the traditions and customs and their economic system.
This fundamental understanding is what Christianity lost after the first apostles, disciples, and early Church fathers had past away. This Hebrew background-understanding was gone and replaced by a Greek or Latin background & philosophy that is embedded in their own words.
The writers of the NT did have a good understanding of the Law by which it is conveyed in all their writings. Despite all we have left is copies of a translated Greek source text -- the text has still the Hebrew concept and understanding of the law that transpires God's character and the plan of salvation in it.
The problem is all of us today, after 1700+ years being incalculated by the teachings of men, none of us have barely any understanding of the law. The translations have watered down the gospel message with today's Babylonian words that have different meanings than those defined in Scripture or behind the Hebrew words.
Here's some example :
1. Redemption : We use this words all the time, yet our definition-concept is not the same than what is defined in Lev 25. What we have as concept is a reduced superficial version of the word. This leads that we miss a good understanding of what the Lord really means when we read texts using that word.
2. Destroy: Another word that is widely employed that means something to us -- annihilated, done away, terminated, etc... -- that is totally different from the essence of
abad in Hebrew which means -- "to wander away... lose oneself" -- causative form, "destroy". There's a big difference here in the definition.
The definition of ABaD derives from the 3 capitalized Hebrew character that constitute the word :
A -- Aleph means : ox,strengh
B -- Beth means : house, family
D -- Daleth means : door,opening.
A house or family is a place of refuge and strength. Also a place of safety from the bad weather, of unfriendly people, or wild animals. We become lost when we go through that door leaving the strength and safety of the house.
All Hebrew words derives its meanings from the letters that constitute the word. That's the "essence" of the word the article was talking about. Switching the letters around or adding another Hebrew letter gave slightly another meaning.
This is what I did to try to get the meaning of
Khawlaf h2498 from Gen 35:2 in the discussion "
Giving up Jewelry. Strong's definition and the biblical context usage wasn't clear to me what the word meant. So resorting to extract the meaning from the Hebrew characters is another means that we can use. It's not always easy to employ that method, but sometimes the meaning pops up at you whereas other times it's not so obvious since our Hebrew background is shallow.
3. hear & obey : These two English words means one word in Hebrew
Shama. It is not that shama means either hear or obey, it means both of these words together. You cannot obey without hearing or vice versa. This type of concept I have found repeated in many words in Hebrew; so I haven't yet determined if this applies to all words.
So we do an error when we say that
abad means either lost or destroy. No
abad primarily means "to wander away" or "to lose oneself", and yes when you are not in the security of the household, yes you do suffer some destruction; but it doesn't necessarily means its a terminal destruction like our English language implies. Not the same concept behind it at all.
So when Jesus said "The Son of man came to save the lost". His usage of "destroy" (=apollumi in Greek) is totally Hebrew and He's also saying that He came to save those that have been destroyed by being away from the security of the household.
