Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you I acknowledge that there is a Vav in the middle of Horse; it still is contextually comparing Yeshua (Salvation H3444), and the Beast/Grub/Worm that shall come S+S (H5580) in Isaiah 51:8.
There are specific prefixes to words that elaborate on the meaning: Prefixes in Hebrew - Wikipedia
I'm always open to learning, if the evidence can be shown...
I'd not trust either, and the idea of not assessing it ourselves with evidence is crazy, when we're down near Hell according to the texts, and the whole world has been deceived.
Someone can show evidence contrary, and we can examine the workings of the sum, that is logical...
So the word is different, you acknowledge that. Great start. Now, if the word isn't "beast" then there can't be any comparison to a beast. Next, the first verses discuss the triumph and victory of God, using nouns conjugated in a few different ways. This triumph/victory is compared to the insults of men. Verse 8 then says that "they" will be eaten up like a garment (to which the earth was compared a couple of verses earlier) or wool eaten by moths and worms. So the comparison is between the triumph of God and the worn-out earth and its human insults. I have no idea what you mean by S+S.
Those prefixes indicate a change in particular meaning. Adding a Y to the verb changes its tense to a particular conjugation of a future tense. Y is not added to a noun. Sus (or even Sas) is a noun. You can't add a Y prefix to it. So your "add a Yod" is meaningless.
Names get additional letters not as grammatical constructs, but to invoke other ideas -- generally to bring out the presence of and protectioon of God. Saying that adding the Yod to make a grammatical change not in line with the other uses of the Yod is wrong. Adding and removing letters was done with Abram, Sarai, Yirmiya, Yeshaya and Chizkia among others. If you look at the case of Abram --> Abraham, the general reference, but not meaning of the name is discussed textually. The name isn't a word. It is a more complex collection of ideas, so claiming that adding a word turns it into a word that can be used as a lexical entry is false. But you have heard this all and insist that you know Hebrew better than anyone else, even though you think that Sus and Sas are the same.
Except:
There hasn't been any replacement of God being the Savoir; Yeshua is a being made by the Source of our reality, for it to have fulfilled prophecy, and what it showed is that God offers salvation not by believing in animal sacrifices, yet by simply asking the Lord for repentance (Yehoshua - Lord Saves).
Yeshua was meant to cut off Judah for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11), and placing the Curse of Moses on them (Deuteronomy 28)...
The most probable when we get how precise some of the prophecies are, and how we can show most people in this world have very little clue about it...
We have causes in places, history, and prophecy to show it has all happened as expected...
I'm learning Ancient Hebrew from the texts, where find it works more like Hieroglyphics, and with two letter words... Thus as letters are added it changes the symbolism.
AB (H1) = Father.
S+S = סס H5580
Latin grammatical ideas like nouns, verbs, etc did not exist at the time of Isaiah, David, Moses in a pictographic writing.
But you claimed it changed meaning via tense. Can't have it both ways.
Exactly -- implies an idea. You claimed that the added Yod changed the direct translation of the meaning.
Of course, you mean סָ֑ס, worm (so why use +?). You shouldn't rely on Strong, by the way. Go to Klein and use that.
You are confusing written language with language. At the time, people didn't speak in pictographs and had nouns and verbs etc which drove how they spoke. The grammatical structures existed. Adding a Yod in speech to a noun made no more sense just because the written language used a different system of writing. Your citing prefixes would make no sense if your position was that nouns and verbs didn't exist.
Actually we can have it both ways, the modern language is derived from the ancient sources, so we can check ideas, and compare if they work in a clearer system.
The Yod added to a start of an existing word, makes it add 'shall+', to the translation.
Sorry for the confusion.
With Esword Bible software, and Strongs Concordance, HebrewOT+, KJV+, GreekApostolic+, we can search every word by Strongs reference number, and examine the language next to it....
Only in the structuring in your mind, in a system where each letter is a symbol, and adding symbols together creates patterns of meanings, we don't need to have a system of certain words only being applicable in one usage, that to me came after.
In that case, you have no problem with their being nouns and verbs in ancient Hebrew.
Not in front of a noun it doesn't.
No it doesn't. Names don't have direct definitions but, as you say, they present ideas. Adding letters does not work to make grammatical changes to names. If my name is Bob, adding an -S doesn't make it a singular.
But Klein does a better job of connecting to ancient middle eastern sources. If that's what you want...And you can use Even Shoshan if you want to search for the words.
and none of this impacts that "tense" is a function of the verb so the prefix has to be applied to a verb. You can't have a future tense of a noun. ANd "to you" it came after? Good thing you know better than everyone else, I guess.
So Moses was wrong? Hosea didn't deliver his people into the promised land?
Words in Ancient Hebrew are not defined by being a noun, verb, etc the rules of adding additional letters apply to all words, like adding pictures to a story line.
Tho this sounds perfectly reasonable that a name in our modern understanding couldn't have additional letters added to it, to change its tense...
According to my beliefs, it is impossible for the same man Jesus to return in the same body because the physical body of the same man Jesus is not still alive in heaven. Heaven is a purely spiritual world so a physical body cannot live in heaven. The soul of Jesus is very much alive in heaven in a spiritual body, but souls do not come back to earth, as that would be reincarnation. Instead, what I believe happened is that the ‘spirit’ of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, and the Holy Spirit returned to earth in the body of another man who was the promised Messiah of the OT and the Comforter/Spirit of truth that Jesus promised to send from heaven in the NT.
True, but generally speaking, I have found atheists to be more logical.
The latin 'Jesus', isn't from hebrew beast. The greek uses tranliteration, the way the names were said.Thank you I acknowledge that there is a Vav in the middle of Horse; it still is contextually comparing Yeshua (Salvation H3444), and the Beast/Grub/Worm that shall come S+S (H5580) in Isaiah 51:8.
There are specific prefixes to words that elaborate on the meaning: Prefixes in Hebrew - Wikipedia
When we see the contextual application, that Moses added a Yod to the start of Hosea, and we get Shall be Saviour (Yehoshua) or the Lord Saves...
Adding a yod to grubs, makes it Shall be a Beast, which is what Revelation is referring to the fake jesus of the Roman Catholic church, instead of the Hebrew Messiah Yehoshua.
In my opinion.
Latin and greek differ from hebrew. When they wrote jesus in greek and latin, they didn't transfer an alphabet to word meaning, necessarily. It does sometimes, in the spelling, ie the spelling can be the same, using letter correlates, however this is transliteration.So Moses was wrong? Hosea didn't deliver his people into the promised land?
Words in Ancient Hebrew are not defined by being a noun, verb, etc the rules of adding additional letters apply to all words, like adding pictures to a story line.
Tho this sounds perfectly reasonable that a name in our modern understanding couldn't have additional letters added to it, to change its tense...
This is a pictographic writing before the creation of these divisions, where every jot and tittle adds additional meanings.
In my opinion.
With all due respect, if Jesus finished His mission on earth, why would Jesus come back to earth again?In my opinion.
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am
coming to you. Holy Father...
This is not saying that Jesus will not come again. He's talking about His
mission.
Please note that maybe Jesus said the first sentence, but Jesus did not say any of the rest of what you quoted.
Do what?
True, but generally speaking, I have found atheists to be more logical.
I mean there is nothing illogical about a God not existing since there is no verifiable proof, but Imo it is illogical to believe that a physical body came back to life after three days and then floated up into the sky behind the clouds and that it is going to come floating back down someday and "every eye" will see Him.... I just cannot understand how people can believe that, but on the other hand, I have found that my beliefs about God, the soul, and a spiritual world sound like a stretch to nonbelievers.
That is okay. After years of posting almost exclusively to atheists, I understand why it is a stretch.
That is okay. After years of posting almost exclusively to atheists, I understand why it is a stretch.
But it is a stretch for me to believe that this world is all there is because it makes no logical sense to me.
As for God, He is an enigma and not a character I choose to tangle with...