I know this. You must be completely misunderstanding me. I said that minchah are like nedabot but more in the since of tributes or doing homage. Does this not make any sense to you at all?
No, it makes no sense whatsoever.
A Mincha is brought with every Qorban Tamid (daily offering) and Qorban Mussaf (extra offerings for holidays), as well as other times.
It isn't about the function of the offering (vows, tribute, atonement, thanksgiving, etc.), but of what it serves.
I may not be a walking, talking concordinance, but I HAVE learned quite a bit about the regular sacrifices (I'm using this word generically), because I made it my business to recite the passages daily, painstakingly reciting every word. It is part of the Jewish morning service, the extra service for holidays, and (for Sephardic and Israeli Jews) the afternoon service.
I agree, if we are agreeing with the definition of qorban being something brought near the alter and nothing other. This would indicate that both zebach as well as minchah are considered qorban.
That's exactly correct. MANY things are Qorbanot. Not simply things that are offered on the altar. Zevachim and Menachot are ALSO Qorbanot.
If they are English words then one should have faith in the correct definition. Same with defining the Hebrew words within their correct context. Putting ones own definitions on words confuse those of us who use well established dictionaries that have been accepted for centuries.
What works better than someone who actually knows what the Qorbanot WERE, because I've studied them.
It is more helpful than a simple definition. It helps to know the context of such things. And just because Strong has been accepted by CHRISTIANS for centuries doesn't mean that Jews who are knowledgeable in Torah particularly care.
Unless there be some evidential proof like in the form of ancient text that shows another meaning than that which has already been accepted then we must stick to the latter.
Exactly. Like someone who has studied Torah law, including the general circumstances of how Qorbanot were brought.
I might not have every last detail about how the animals were slaughtered, but I DO actually pay attention to what I read come every Biblical Jewish holiday (Purim excepted, because it didn't find its origin in the Five Books of Moses).
I again disagree. One can offer a sacrifice but an offering, as is stated in the Hebrew text as minchah, is not a zebach/sacrifice.
Instead of focusing on Zebach, and Mincha, it is more helpful to understand the function of a Qorban when it is referred to as an Olah, a Chatat, a Todah, a Chagiga, a Tamid, a Mussaf, a Pesach, a Nedava. These are all words that define the function of a Qorban.
Zebach merely refers to the fact that it is an animal being brought. A Mincha (from Leviticus onward) refers to the fact that it is brought from grain. In Genesis, the word Mincha referred to an offering of an important nature. That was what Abel's sacrifice was called. That is what Jacob's offering to Esav was (when Esav came after him with 400 men).
O.k. but dont hold your breath if you think that I am going to take the word of your sister over that of a well accepted concordance, and other respected lexicons, without factual evidential proof.
Believe what you will. However, many years in Yeshiva and actually learning of the sacrifices, and mentioning them daily, weekly, and whenever holidays pop up, I've learned a thing or two.
Maybe you won't be convinced. That is your right. However, it is one thing to put one's faith in scholarship that has no background in the application of Jewish law. It is entirely different to put one's faith in scholarship that makes use of the regular application of Jewish law, even when the actual practice of said sacrifices is currently on hold.
