logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

13 Pages«<111213
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#601 Posted : Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:49:01 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
LB wrote:
Shalom alychem Yada;
Just wanted to share an insight I carelessly overlooked many times. I looked and beheld a man standing there with a measuring line, how many times have I read this without thinking? Have you ever seen an ancient plumb line? Yeah ..neither have I, until I was watching a documentary on Egypt, the whole of Mesopotamia shared building skills, sometimes willingly, other times not so willingly, this measuring line spoken of was made from hemp [7 leaf plant] and a stone, now if I look up the word stone in Hebrew and pulled it apart into the Paleo--it all suddenly fell into place for me. Abeyn, is the stone attached to the cord that connects us to Yahowah. And then I was thinking about the words Hayah asher hayah. It all makes sense. Not that it did not before, but this is a perfect little jewel connects it for me much better. Asher is the line, and hayah connects [asher] to hayah-what a pearl !!


Say, on another unrelated topic I have a question/query. I know that many have a problem calling Yahowah our King, but he describes himself as such, it is man’s perversion of what a King is...that is revolting, in my mind there is only one who stands above all men, He who created us, yet he is humble, kind, patient, just and loving-like no earthly king. I can separate the mundane from that which is set apart, so why the trouble with this term? Is Yahowah our King or is it just a title? I’m a little confused about this, did they not call him King of Yahuwdah? Am I off base with this? I see that a real King is one who takes counsel IE Towrah, and every king was expected to write a scroll of Towrah as part of the duties of his office, he is also to be a messenger like Dowd, but not a tyrant like earthly kings, is my viewpoint wrong, if it is I have no trouble adjusting my views but I do not have trouble saying Yahowah is my King without the need to diminish myself or worship him in any way, to me it is the highest honor to be a member of his inner rooms in His house, is this wrong or off base thinking?

Always Curious;
L.B.


Yada wrote:
LB,

If 'abeyn is with an Aleph, then it is a compound of 'ab - Father and byn - understand by making connections. That's rock solid if true.

'Asher has long been my favorite Hebrew word. I'm here because of 'asher. It may have been Dowd's too. In the first words of his first Mizmowr he used it twice...

“Blessed and happy is (‘ashry – by walking the correct and straight path the enjoyment of a favorable outcome and a meaningful life awaits) the individual (ha ‘iysh) who (‘asher – beneficially and relationally, correctly and meaningfully, in an upright fashion) does not walk (lo’ halak – who does not travel, conducting their life (qal perfect)) in (ba) the defiant counsel, advice and idolatrous schemes (‘etsah – the revolting approach, plans, deliberations, and direction) of the wicked and unrighteous (rasha’ – of those who are evil and condemned for having opposed and violated the standard). In (wa ba) the manner (derek – path or conduct) of those who have missed the way (chata’ – of the offensive and immoral sinners who are wrong, of those who when exposed will be condemned), he is not present and does not stand (lo’ ‘amad – he does not appear and does not bow down). Nor in the assembly (wa ba mowshab – in the dwelling places and settlements, the communities and sites, the residences and seats of power, the company and habitations) of spokesmen who deride and mock (lets – of those who boast about their interpretations while showing no respect for others, talking like bigshots in contempt while arrogantly scoffing), he does not stay (lo’ yashab – he does not dwell, live, settle down, abide, sit, or remain, even marry).” (Mizmowr / Melodious Lyrics / Psalm 1:1)

“To the contrary, instead (ky ‘im – by way of contrast rather, strengthening this statement as a point of emphasis, because truthfully), in (ba – with and within) the Towrah of Yahowah (erft efei – the Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction of Yahowah), he prefers and desires, finding enjoyment and pleasure (chephets huw’ – he refers and enjoys, he delights and is pleased by, eagerly and willingly choosing to experience, displaying an attitude of genuine affection, never swaying nor wavering in regard to his personal preference).

And regarding (wa ba – so in association with) His (huw’) Towrah (Towrah – teaching, instruction, guidance, and direction), he ponders it and then speaks thoughtfully and purposefully (hagah – he reviews the information, meditates upon its implications, considers its interpretations, exercises good judgment to render a rational conclusion, and then makes the decision to roar, declaring these conclusions forcefully, emotionally, and powerfully (qal imperfect – telling us that these informed declarations on behalf of Yah’s Instructions are genuine and ongoing)) in the daytime (yowmam – in the heat of the day) and at night (wa laylah – in the darkness and shadows).” (Mizmowr / Melodious Lyrics / Psalm 1:2)

It is also used here...

“Without prophetic revelation (ba ‘ayn chazown – with no communication from God, without prophecy, without a covenant agreement establishing the relationship; from chazah – without seeing and perceiving, without understanding) wicked people take charge and become unrestrained, leading the unaware to their death because they lack the ability to respond rationally (‘am para’ – individuals act as leaders over ignorant people and those in charge take their own initiative, running wild, while the people behave like an uncontrolled mob, unthinking, their responses become inappropriate).

But (wa) he who actually observes and genuinely focuses upon (shamar – he who closely examines and carefully considers (qal participle – literal interpretation of a highly descriptive verb whereby the individual becomes known and is influenced by his willingness to observe)) the Towrah (Towrah – the Source of Teaching, Instruction, Direction, and Guidance) walks along the path which gives meaning to life and is blessed (‘esher / ‘asher / ‘ashur – steps forward and strides upright on the correct path to a fortuitous relationship and experiences great guidance and teaching, living a joyous upright life having advanced and progressed along the restrictive, right, certain, and valid, straight way to be encouraged, become prosperous, be enriched, and become safe and secure).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 29:18)

Based upon what I've learned about 'asher over the past month or so, I should retranslate "hayah 'asher hayah." There is a lot more to 'asher than "who."

I have not only seen such a device as a plumb line, I've used them, albeit not with hemp and a stone - twine with a teardrop shaped and pointed metal casting at the end.

On your other point, human kings are so universally evil and self serving, and so into lording over and controlling their subjects, I find it difficult to use the term malak / melek in association with Yah. Your points are all valid, but since the term has been so maligned by men, I'm not comfortable associating it with Yah. I much prefer "Heavenly Father," "Spiritual Mother," and "God" as titles and of course Yah or Yahowah by name. He is the Word, leaders of leaders, shepherd of shepherds, father of fathers, mother of mothers, creator, author, savior, light, and so much more. He is only king of kings in reference to a short list of kings, Dowd and Solomon, for example.

Yah is so approachable, fatherly, non-political, un-lordly, and yes even humble, king is among the last ways I tend to see Him. But then again, I've often shared that on the scale between being comfortable with Yah and being awestruck by Him, I tend to embrace the far end of the spectrum, largely because it is a way of contrasting this approach to man's erroneous perceptions.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#602 Posted : Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:51:19 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
Continued from Thread 616

R wrote:
Wow, You are absolutly right, I did not contribute the contribution of free will to Rons actions, within the adherance to Yahs the gift of free will.

Rons findings are epic, and his discriptions of said findings are reafirming, and purpossful for us.
The crystaleen wall behind the A.O.C.... Amazing!

Yah never pulls any punches.

Straight as a true arrow.

Thank you for reminding me, and straightening my point of view.

I live and work in Las Vegas, (missing the mark city), I live and breath by the archives you have made created via Shattering Myths.
Thank you.
Its my bread, its my oxygen, it qwenches my thirst for truth.
I have Yada Yah early editions... I read them. but you know I already know what it says as I read through them.
Mostly because I am addicted to S.M archives.
I have listened to them all, over and over.
It's almost as Yahs plan IS written in my brain, my heart, my nephesh.
Because of your brain mind you.
Anywho. Thank you.

You have been a father to me in my journey torwards being right.
Weather you like it or not...


Yada wrote:
I struggled with the same concerns my friend, and it was only when confronted by your question that the answer became clear to me. Fact is, I like Ron and I'm bothered that so many have sought to undermine him, negate his findings, or take credit for themselves. I've learned a lot from what he found and shared. I've just had to use the same religious filter on him that I use when reading the lexicons.

Kirk and I devoted the Observations show this past week to your question. We used it to affirm that Yah can be trusted because He is consistent. He is as you have written.

Yah does not impede our search for the truth, so He would not have tried to stop Ron. Whether He helped Ron in some way is subject to debate. It is possible that He helped him to help us.

LV is a tough place to live. I've been there many times but it's not my kind of town. Some of the golf course communities outside of town are nice, however.

I enjoyed everything about Yada Yah, even the edits. It was so much more enjoyable that POD or QP. It was a learning experience for me, one which I shared knowing that others like you would enjoy it too. But I'm no more than a fellow student. Sharing what we learn makes learning more fun and rewarding. So I see myself as someone holding up the map home who is conveying what it says to all of those who care to follow that same path to Yah.

I'm so very glad that I had the opportunity to do SM and that Richard devoted the time to archiving those programs.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/9/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#603 Posted : Thursday, December 8, 2016 8:59:35 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
T wrote:
Hello Yada,
My name is Tom. I am working my way through your books and I find them very informative. I also like to hear the radio shows. At age 60, learning Hebrew seems like a big job. I also have a very hard time now with the KJV - trying to correct everything in my minds reading voice. Is there a place that your translation work is being collected and kept up to date? Is there any current English translation that has been taken directly from Hebrew? Or an English translation that will take less correction during reading?
Also, are you aware of any covenant family members in the Oklahoma City area? If you know of any, it’s fine to give them my contact info. Or I would happy to contact them.
Sorry to hear about the departure of Richard. He helped me several months ago when I first found his site.
Thank you for your work and availability.
Sincerely,
Tom

T


Yada wrote:
TK,

Learning to translate Hebrew is fairly easy because there are many effective tools at our disposal. Take it one word, one sentence, one conversation at a time.

The KJV is the worst of a bad lot, but every English bible is essentially worthless. I tell this story in chapter 09 of Observations which is posted on Richard's site.

I am constantly working to improve my translations so there is no place where they are compiled without commentary. And I translate to understand, so it's not possible for me to do so without commenting or sharing.

There are many Covenant members in TX which isn't very far away.

I miss Richard too.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/9/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#604 Posted : Monday, December 19, 2016 12:19:27 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
J wrote:
Hi Yada,

Where did you amplify Mizmor 105:15?
How is one to know Yah's truly anointed?
I realize this is a very rudimentary query.
Thank you.

J


Yada wrote:
The subject is the "eternal and everlasting family covenant relationship" with 'Abraham, Yitschaq, Ya'aqob, and Yisra'el. So the "anointed ones" not to be touched are Yisra'elites who are part of the Covenant. They are also Yah's prophets whom we are not to harm.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
Fred Snell on 12/20/2016(UTC)
Offline James  
#605 Posted : Monday, January 9, 2017 5:01:35 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
LB wrote:
I’m having the most incredible time understanding Dabaryim 33:2 [MT] I simply don’t get it, what is this ?!? http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0799.html
You and I both know the inscribed instructions are not law, but I think I have a clue as to what the compound word means…but I’m not sure or certain, so I’m stumped.
I was reading …. and tripped over it like a wire….I know the context, and what happened, just not this word or its meaning. Any clues?
Always Curious;
L.B.


Yada wrote:
LB,

There are two words which are difficult to translate in Dabaym 33.2, so it's little wonder you were "tripped." I will share my thoughts, recognizing that there is no way to be dogmatic. This is up for interpretation. But here is what we know...

The speaker is Moseh. He is offering Yisra'el a blessing on behalf of Yah. He reminds us that Yahowah "bow' - arrived" and "zarah - appeared, becoming visible as shining light" to approach the Children of Yisra'el. "yapha' - His presence shown brilliantly." He came with "rababah - innumerable abundantly empowered" "qodesh - set apart ones" "min - from and out of" "yamyn - those who are right, who have sworn an oath, of the sea, from His right hand." They "'eshdath - ...

First, 'esh or 'ish means "fire or individual," as well as "there is." Transliterated 'osh it speaks of a "foundation." Then dath means "decree, directive, or requirement." So combined it is "an individual requirement" or "an enlightening decree." Tied to the "arrival of the shining visual appearance as light and brilliant presence" of Yah the references to "fire, individual, and foundation" all fit as do His "decrees, directives, and requirements," which are directions describing the requirements of the Covenant. This would also correspond with the innumerable and empowered with Him who were set apart as a result of Yah's hand and for being right.

For what it is worth, of the 15 lexicons I use, none of them got it right, and there were many acceptable options. They came up with "a pouring out, mountain slopes, angel, warrior, fire a law, strange fire, and foothills."

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#606 Posted : Friday, January 13, 2017 11:37:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
J wrote:
Hi Yada,

I'm 45. Grew up a pk, graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 1993 with a "Bible Theology" degree. Spent four years as a youth pastor. That "tour of duty" ended on a sour note with the typical elder uprising against the pastor which happened to also be my dad. I thought about going back, but never made it. I felt like I wasn't cut out for that kind of thing. It was always a struggle for me in many ways. I didn't "fall away" immediately, but I certainly had a different perspective on many things. I began the process of reprogramming...first it was just looking for a church that didn't have elder or deacon control, which meant the willow creek clone was the place to be. Eventually though it was too much to stomach the use of even their version of scripture exegesis. I was "educated" in hermeneutics after all. The out of context, the proof texting, you know what I'm talking about. Then the thing that really got me started down an alternate path was Greg Boyd's book "God of the Possible". The only way we have free will is if the future isn't determined...and anyway, I'm assuming you're familiar with his attempt at reconciling free will and God's foreknowledge.

Then I'm proud to claim that I figured out on my own that we should be using God's proper name (although at the time there were a few options). It's so clear when you read even the crappy English that many things He does are for the sake of His name. The idiots who have erased that for millions I agree should be held responsible.

The trinity was the next domino to fall for me. Doing a little research led me to realize how lousy that concept was.

What followed was a few years of just hands off religion while feeling guilty that I wasn't bringing up my kids with the same foundation that I had, and feeling the heat from dad for sure. I figured I knew enough that if the shit started hitting the fan, I'd know which side to choose when the time came. And to be honest, I was pissed at God for not making it easier to find the truth. But I knew there had to be real truth out there. I never stopped believing there was a creator. I still think that those who have struggled to find Yah in their own way should be considered for the next life in His family because I don't think we've been given enough to get it right.

So my dad decided he wanted to take me and my kids to Israel before my oldest leaves for college next fall. And it was while I was researching some places for the trip that I stumbled on one of your sites. I think yadayah. So it's only been about six weeks of reading and listening and I'm intrigued for sure, and concerned about some for sure. I'm inclined to believe that Paul is bogus, but I don't know if I can use all the evidence you do as proof. Maybe it's the translations I'm trying to use still.

You say some other alarming things that you don't readily back up. I've had to start making notes so that I can try to look things up later. Today on a shattering myths archive you made a comment that seemed a lot like you were putting words in Yah's mouth...speaking for Him as you might say. You said that none of this would be easy concerning the study of what YHWH wants from us, but that he wants it that way. You continued that He wouldn't want anyone around who hadn't put in a substantial effort to get to know Him. Is this pure speculation on your part? It seems like it.

Now if you don't mind I would like to ask a few questions. I'm not looking for a short cut. Other than the brief hiatus I mentioned earlier, I have sought YHWH my entire aldult life and even some before that. You can relate possibly to searching for this needle in a haystack, only to realize the needle is somewhere else. You might just simply respond with a comment like, keep listening, or keep reading, and all these will be answered. However, if you would throw out a few key nuggets, it would be appreciated.

YHWH can't hear or respond to someone he doesn't know. Where do you get that from?
He is not omniscient or omnipresent. Where do get that?
Three destinations of souls based in Noah's ark? How?
The Ruach is some kind of maternal manifestation? Being? Portion? Huh? Aren't genders in language just invented by man? We could have just as easily created another part of speech like verb, noun, etc. Or take English. Other than calling a boat a she and things like that, there is no gender in our language and it serves quite well to communicate.

Why do you point out the term gospel as so egregious? It seems that you are correct that it came from God Spell, but most christians associate the word with what seems to be the original intent, good news. Just doesn't seem to be a strong case for condemning Christianity. Although, I will agree with you that without Paul, there is no Christianity. But speaking of the "gospels" that is all you have when it comes to the life of yahowsha and yet you condemn the sources so completely. If you are using your interpretation of what yahowsha did during his time here from your interpretations of the Torah and prophets and psalms, then aren't you engaging in circular reasoning? This is what he must have done because this and this say he was going to do this and this. And if you want to use Matthew as you source, but yet claim that it's not a very reliable source, then how can you pick and choose what portions you will trust?

What kind of answer can you possibly have for how ritualistic and seemingly pagan all the levitical stuff is? I mean from ceremonial washing to the animal sacrifices, to the doing it this way and only this way... sounds a whole lot like religion. And between that and slaughtering the canaanites they seem like your typical Bronze Age people group minus possibly the child sacrifice.

The term lord being so horrible, you mention a lot. You said something about Jeremiah, but can you give me something more specific? And I think you or someone else vaguely referenced Adonai as also being a term that YHWH does not like. Can you show evidence for that also?

Many modern Christians, maybe not many, but a good number are beginning to investigate the appointed times. They really only care about celebrating Pesach, but I'm wondering if you think since Chrisitianity is the most sane of the abominations that we call religion, and they seem to have the principle players at least in the room together, and live the most moral lives overall, that maybe YHWH is doing a little nudging to wake a few people up so that so many of them won't be doomed.

My name is J. Thanks for your time.


Yada wrote:
J,

You have been deeper into the lie that is Christianity than most of us, but other than that, some aspects of your path away from Christianity are similar to many of us who have chosen the Covenant. I was your former foe, an ordained ruling elder.

Church politics is a nasty thing, swirling in hypocrisy. Affirming this, it was Christians acting like Christians that initially caused you to be concerned about the way you had been programmed. The same was true for me.

Yes, Christians almost always seek to justify the unjustifiable by citing mistranslated and truncated statements out of context. Their attempts to prove their positions actually refute them when the statements are accurately translated and considered in context. They get this from Paul, who built his entire case against the Towrah in this fraudulent and misleading manner. If you haven’t yet read www.QuestioningPaul.com I would encourage you to do so, even though you are already inclined to reject him.

I’ve never agreed with Calvin regarding predestination, so this was never an issue for me. Just because Yahowah knows the future does not mean that we are being controlled. He has simply reported in our past the result of our future choices. And as I’ve studied Yah’s prophecies, I’ve come to appreciate the nature of time, especially as it relates to light. This is the best perspective to appreciate prophecy, because as light the past, present, and future can be seen simultaneously.

Freewill is a gift of God. He will never compromise on it because it is essential to the Covenant.

Yahowah is serious about His name. And as you noted, it is obvious even in the crappy English bible translations. His name is the basis of the 3rd statement He etched in stone. Negating it is unforgivable. Those who have removed it from His Word will be held accountable. And nothing could be more irritating to Him than replacing His name 7000 times with Satan’s title, Lord.

The Trinity is Babylonian. It is pagan. It is false. Yahowah is one. Yahowsha’ and the Ruwach Qodesh are set apart from Yahowah and thus are not separate individuals.

I too avoided raising my children to be religious. There were too many conflicts, contradictions, fallacies, and unanswerable questions to push them toward where I had been. And I had experienced way too many Christians justifying lying and stealing. I now see Christians as ignorant, irrational, hypocrites. There are no exceptions.

A decade ago I was briefly frustrated with God for making the truth somewhat difficult to find. Now I’m in complete accord with Him, realizing that He could not have been any more forthright. Had God provide a summary, a simple answer, few if any would go beyond that and therefore never grow. To cease growing is to die. Even God must grow to live. It is the very basis of what it means to be infinite.

Yahowah is a clear and consistent communicator. His Towrah is His teaching and guidance. It’s our religious indoctrination which has confused humankind, not His testimony. The fact is, according to Yahowah, we have been given all we need to be right. Most either ignore, reject, or despise what He conveyed.

I’m glad that I went to Israel. It was an awakening for me. But I won’t go back before Yahowah removes all of the religious rubbish.
Most have come to Yada Yah after reading Prophet of Doom, my book on Islam. Others have heard me discuss these things on one of the 3000 radio interviews I’ve done, and have sought to validate what they heard. Few have come this way due to a search on Israel.

About half of those reading YY, QP, or ITG, and now Observations as well, begin by questioning my translations, something I strongly encourage. The other half find Yahowah’s message so consistent with their perception of God and so credible, they read and read, never seeming to get enough of Yah. Most begin as either agnostics searching for the truth with an open mind or as former Christians who have left the religion based upon its many lies.

If you are concerned that I’ve played too strong a case against Paul, I’d encourage you as I’ve already mentioned, to read Questioning Paul and then Observations (which is available free at www.BlessYahowah.com, www.YahowahBeryth.com, or I can send it to you for free via Word attachments). You can also buy YY, ITG, or QP at http://claitors.com/yada.htm). I’ve barely scratched the surface on Paul. Turns out Yahowah had more to say about Paul and his religion than anyone else in human history. He hates him and calls him the plague of death.
Addressing your initial criticism, I very seldom write something that I don’t back up, and very seldom write anything that isn’t derived from Yahowah’s Word. However, the radio programs are different. Most who listen have read or are reading YY, ITG, QP, O, and PoD, so they are aware of the basis for these statements.

You asked whether the following conclusion is pure speculation on my part: “none of this would be easy concerning the study of what YHWH wants from us, but that he wants it that way. You continued that He wouldn't want anyone around who hadn't put in a substantial effort to get to know Him?”
And yet you acknowledge that getting to know Yahowah takes a considerable amount of time, in your case a lifetime, and requires substantial thinking, therefore is not easy when compared to other endeavors. In fact, you are angry at God for making it difficult. So let’s begin there. Did God make it difficult by design or is this a failure on God’s part?

If we acknowledge that Yahowah created the universe and then conceived life, then we should give Him credit for being capable of doing whatever He wants. Further, He proved though prophecy (accurate depictions of history from creation to recreation) that He authored the Towrah, Naby’ (Prophets), and Mizmowr (Writings/Psalms). He then claimed that His Towrah was complete, lacking nothing, fully capable of restoring souls. It is therefore as He intended it to be.

And yet there isn’t any fast way to come to know Yahowah or understanding what He is offering. He did not provide a summation, a way of figuring it out with very little effort. By reading an English translation, there simply isn’t any way to quickly assess how we can go about availing ourselves of His Covenant – as they are too errantly and inadequately translated. This isn’t God’s fault. It is man’s fault – the deliberate attempt by religious leaders to make it difficult to know Yahowah. And God had to allow it because of freewill. So if you want to blame someone, blame the goddamn religions of Christianity and Judaism.

Worse, those who have been corrupted by religion, when confronted by the truth, typically reject what Yahowah inspired because they like what Paul wrote better. They trust their church or country more than God.
Since Yahowah is a brilliant communicator and has the ability to do most anything, we should be asking ourselves why He made it difficult for a religious person to know Him. He obviously wrote it this way for a reason. That is simple logic based upon the facts as they are presented to us.

Turns out Yahowah hates religion and He does not want anyone who is religious to be part of His family, to live in His home, or to ruin eternity for the rest of us. Religion is so stupid, so obviously false, those who accept it without thinking would hate eternity with Yahowah anyway. The only way Yah can keep it entertaining for His Covenant children, is to create an environment where we grow by exploring, learning, and sharing. So He created a filter to keep the faithful away from the rational. But more than this, why would any rational being want to spend eternity with individuals who never invested the time to know Him, who prefer the testimony of liars, who trust religious, political, economic, and military institutions over Him?

You seem to believe that God should grade on the curve, and accept those who are wrong, but have at least tried. I suspect that is self serving. But it isn’t in Yah’s nature. He is forgiving of bad but not wrong.

Yes, Yahowah gave us our mortal life (nepesh / soul) and freewill. But He also gave humankind a neshamah / conscience – the ability to reason. It is what gives us the ability to be like Him, to know Him, to engage in a relationship with Him. But like any computer, garbage in – garbage out. You have to consume and digest His Word and then process it rationally, making connections, to understand. We were designed to find Him, to know Him, to understand what He is offering and what He wants in return. Most however, no longer think rationally. They are no longer judgmental. They operate on faith. They have thereby excluded themselves. Yahowah stated, “My people are destroyed by their ignorance.”

Had God made Himself and His plan obvious, He would have negated the value of our conscience and freewill. And He would have devalued us. He gave us the ability to process His testimony and come to rational conclusions, and He trusts us to do so. Further, nothing is more rewarding, more enjoyable, or more beneficial than taking the time to listen to Him and think about what He has conveyed.

In hindsight, I no longer see the path to Yahowah as difficult. I’ve studied His words in Hebrew and I’ve come to understand what He is offering. It all makes sense. It is all accurate. There are no contradictions. There are no invalid statements. Yahowah is straightforward and unchanging. It was my prior religion and politics that led me astray. The only real challenge was clearing my mind of the lies so that I could embrace the truth. That is what Yahowah intended.

You are only a fraction of the way home. You’ve begun to question your religion but you have not yet studied Yahowah’s Towrah as He conveyed it in Hebrew. I don’t know if you ever will. But there is no other way.
Yahowah has stated that thousands will shamar – observe, closely examining and carefully considering, the terms and conditions of His Covenant relationship and thereby receive His mercy. That is one in a million. He is not interested in saving billions of souls. He is content with a family comprised of those who have come to know, love, respect, accept, and trust Him.

Let’s be honest. You sought the god of Christianity. He is not Yahowah. Paul’s god and the real God bear nothing in common, including their names, their plan, their nature, or their purpose. Further, this isn’t a needle in a haystack, but instead Yahowah, the creator of the universe, in His Word. Your perspective is so flawed you are not ready to begin an honest search.
Yahowah said that He does not hear the prayers of the Towrahless. He can and does reach out to those He wants to know. He did so with Abraham and Moseh – and even me.

Yahowah tells us that He does not know the sins of His children because they are cleansed and forgotten. And often He asks for information, indicating that He does not possess it. It is only in religion that god is seen as the micromanager who is involved in the minutia of life, favoring some and opposing others.

The notion of God being omnipresent is so absurd, so rationally impossible, I’m surprised you asked. Do think that God is in the middle of the sun, in all stars, in empty space, in the core of our planet, in a rock, in every plant, animal, and person? Is He in a mosque, in a church, in every temple and shrine, in every national capitol, in every business, in all military weapons?

How would one chose not to associate with God if God were everywhere including in them? This errant religious notion is so irrational it is only acceptable to those who have no understanding whatsoever as to why Yahowah insists that He, His name, His Towrah, His Spirit, His Son, His Covenant, His Land, His Shabat, and His Invitations are qodesh - SET APART. Set apart from what? Until you come to understand that set-apart defines His relationship to His creation, you will remain lost in the realm of false gods. There is no “holy” in Yahowah’s vernacular.

Beyond this, it is impossible for all of God to enter or exist anywhere in 3D. He has to exist in a dimension beyond what He spoke into existence via His words. Communicating with us in 3D is the purpose of His Towrah, His mal’ak, the ruwach qodesh, and at times the most set apart, the most diminished manifestation of Yahowah, Yahowsha’.

Three destinations for human souls is so obvious in Yahowah’s Word, so repeated, I’m amazed that so few have come to understand it. If God said, “Choose me or I will torture you forever,” He would be a monster. But that is the essence of the Christian and Islamic doctines of just Heaven or Hell. And yet Yahowah speaks of the death and destruction of souls 100 times for every mention of eternal separation or eternity in His home. So I’m afraid that you are still looking at things from a religious mindset – one that is rationally impossible.

Understanding requires two things: knowledge and making rational connections. The three destinations for souls is presented throughout Yahowah’s Word. The Ark with its three doors is simply an affirming reference to this. In fact, every aspect of the story of Noach and the Ark is symbolic of the Covenant. But you’ll have to read the Towah in Hebrew or baring that, the first 3 volumes of Yada Yah, to know enough to make these same connections.

Yahowah’s language is Hebrew. He invented it. He conceived it with masculine and feminine nouns. Ruwach is His term. It is feminine. But God presents hundreds of other insights directed at revealing that the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit is the Maternal manifestation of His nature. Family, after all, is Father, Mother, and child.

Hebrew is interesting in that all verbs are unconstrained by time. Most verbs are relational and establish a relationship between the subject and object. And many verbs are volitional, and thus convey freewill.

I don’t care what sailors call a boat in English. I care what Yahowah called the Set-Apart Spirit. Yah could have used a masculine noun, but that is not what God chose.

I’m beginning to lose interest now in your questions because of your poor attitude. There is nothing more debilitating. For example, you state that Gospel is from God’s Spell when it is actually from Gott’s Spell. Yahowah is not Gott and He does not inflict spells. It is neither a translation or a transliteration of the Greek, and like church, Gospel represents a completely invalid alteration. Moreover, neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha’ spoke Greek. Yahowsha’ affirmed the correct term: Towrah. Why do you prefer man’s religious replacement? Do you prefer man’s terms to God’s. If so, you’ll never come to know Yahowah.

The Greek eugellion means “good news,” but not Gospel. It is just like ekklesia, which does not mean “church.” Both are deliberate corruptions.
Half of the Christian NT was written by the Plague of Death, a false prophet, and demon-possessed egomaniac who contradicted everything Yahowah said. Therefore, if you don’t question the rest of it you are not being rational.
Yahowsha’ was Towrah observant. He was not “Gospel” observant. There is no such thing.

I don’t condemn Mattanyah. I only state that the Hebrew conversations were translated by someone other than Mattanyah more than one hundred years thereafter and must be questioned. And I condemn the many changes that have been made to Yahowchanan, not the man, himself. Luke was Paul’s pal and was not present for any of this. Mark is hearsay as well. Neither would be admissible in a court of law. They are all written in Greek.

Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew. In the 9th chapter of Observations I detail the history and corruptions in the CNT. You’d have to be ignorant or irrational to trust it. There are more variants than words. That is a fact.

If you are unaware that Yahowsha’ fulfilled Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven in accord with the Towrah I cannot help you. Yahowah, Himself, cannot help you. If you see Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Yahowah’s Towrah promises as circular reasoning then there is no way to reason with you.

Yahowah provided us with the means to know what He inspired and what He did not inspire. His test was presented twice in Dabarym. I use it. Shouldn’t you? Or are you unaware that He provided such a test because you are not Towrah observant?

If you believe that Qara’ / Leviticus is religiously ritualistic and pagan, then you need to take this up with Yahowah because He authored it. It is little wonder you don’t know Him. I suspect based upon your letter that you wouldn’t like Him.

Have you ever considered who consumes the “sacrifices?” How is eating something a “sacrifice?” The Miqra’ey are Festival Feasts. The lamb is part of the meal. Almost every civilization from Sumer to Rome engaged in child sacrifice – not Yahowah. Very few slaughtered animals like lambs or cows for food as part of any meeting with their gods. They killed for their gods, not to celebrate a meal with God.

You are only fooling yourself. Like almost every Christian, you are not just unaware of the Towrah, you are adverse to it. You mock Yahowah’s testimony, calling it ritualistic, religious, and pagan. Had I read your entire email prior to commenting on each paragraph, I would not have bothered to reply. There is nothing I find more reprehensible than someone who claims to be searching for God while at the same time demonstrating an aversion to His testimony.

Thank God, God has a filter to keep those who mock Him away from those of us who love Him. Your assessment of Yahowah’s Towrah is akin to Paul’s. It is disgusting.

I could provide you with a translation of Yahowah’s statements against being called “the Lord” in Yirma’yah and in Howsha’, but you’d simply reject His testimony and justify your religious preference. So it would be a waste of my time.

Pesach without Matsah is counterproductive. It is Satan’s ultimate triumph: eternal life separated from God like himself.
Calling Christianity “sane” is akin to calling the blend of a thousand lies truthful.

J, I no longer care if you read YY, QP, ITG, and O or not. But please don’t reply to this email. I’ll ignore it. I do not want to be your pen pal or your answer man. I strongly suspect that I’ve wasted my time.

If you read all four books and want to engage, I’ll do so. But that will require 400 to 500 hours of your time. And even then, none of it will do you any good until such time as you completely reject Christianity and open your mind to what Yahowah has to say. You are no where near that point currently. Your current attitude is in opposition to Yahowah. That must change.

Yada

Edited by user Friday, January 13, 2017 11:55:43 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#607 Posted : Friday, January 13, 2017 11:56:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
J wrote:
Ignore me for asking questions? Did your ego get in the way or are you really that much of a jerk? I'm sorry, are those questions offensive? If you really did used to be a Christian, what caused you to lose the compassion for those who are in the process of reprogramming? Six weeks man, six weeks. And you want to berate me and belittle my journey. Shame on you. I have my own business and three kids. I don't have 10 hours a day to spend like you. And if Yah didn't care about all the Christians bring deceived, then why all the warnings?

You have jumped to some incorrect conclusions about me, but you wouldn't care would you. I'm sure someone as smart as you doesn't like being wrong especially when you think it's worse than being sinful. I'll clue you in mister know it all. I'm as smart as you. I'd stack my intellect up against anyone. In fact I know how to pronounce NUCLEAR. Or how about Electoral college? Ha! You say NUCULAR and ELECTORIAL. Do you need a Hebrew transliteration to help you figure it out?

I'll probably keep reading and listening despite your uncalled for ridicule toward me. But you won't have to worry about being my pen pal. I like a lot of what you've had to say so far. So maybe after four or five hundred hours, I'll get back to you. But until then...middle finger asshole.


Yada wrote:
J,

After I read your disparaging comments regarding Leviticus, and thus of Yahowah’s Towrah, I immediately realized that I had wasted the five hours I had spent reading and then responding to your initial email – at least with regard to you. My assessment of your attitude, which was derived from the slanderous manner in which you framed your questions, was affirmed by your most recent reply. With the exception of the cheap shots which have no bearing on this discussion, you manifest every criticism you have sought to project on me.

Thankfully, emailers like you are rare, less than one in a hundred. And even though I cannot help you, your letters and my replies will be posted on number of sites in anticipation that many of those who read our exchange will find the God you likely will never know.

Time on this planet is a limited resource for those of us in the Covenant. And since it is foolish to squander it, I’m going to present my response to your statements and questions within the context of what you initially wrote. The resulting correspondence has the greatest likelihood of enlightening others when presented in that fashion.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Hi Yada,
I'm 45. Grew up a pk [preacher’s kid], graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 1993 with a "Bible Theology" degree. Spent four years as a youth pastor. That "tour of duty" ended on a sour note with the typical elder uprising against the pastor which happened to also be my dad. I thought about going back, but never made it. I felt like I wasn't cut out for that kind of thing. It was always a struggle for me in many ways. I didn't "fall away" immediately, but I certainly had a different perspective on many things. I began the process of reprogramming...first it was just looking for a church that didn't have elder or deacon control, which meant the willow creek clone was the place to be. Eventually though it was too much to stomach the use of even their version of scripture exegesis. I was "educated" in hermeneutics after all. The out of context, the proof texting, you know what I'm talking about. Then the thing that really got me started down an alternate path was Greg Boyd's book "God of the Possible". The only way we have free will is if the future isn't determined...and anyway, I'm assuming you're familiar with his attempt at reconciling free will and God's foreknowledge.

To which I replied…
J,
You have been deeper into the lie that is Christianity than most of us, but other than that, some aspects of your path away from Christianity are similar to many of us who have chosen the Covenant. I was your former foe, an ordained ruling elder.

Church politics is a nasty thing, swirling in hypocrisy. Affirming this, it was Christians acting like Christians that initially caused you to be concerned about the way you had been programmed. The same was true for me.

Yes, Christians almost always seek to justify the unjustifiable by citing mistranslated and truncated statements out of context. Their attempts to prove their positions actually refute them when the statements are accurately translated and considered in context. They get this from Paul, who built his entire case against the Towrah in this fraudulent and misleading manner. If you haven’t yet read www.QuestioningPaul.com I would encourage you to do so, even though you are already inclined to reject him.

I’ve never agreed with Calvin regarding predestination, so this was never an issue for me. Just because Yahowah knows the future does not mean that we are being controlled. He has simply reported in our past the result of our future choices. And as I’ve studied Yah’s prophecies, I’ve come to appreciate the nature of time, especially as it relates to light. This is the best perspective to appreciate prophecy, because as light the past, present, and future can be seen simultaneously.

Freewill is a gift of God. He will never compromise on it because it is essential to the Covenant.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Then I'm proud to claim that I figured out on my own that we should be using God's proper name (although at the time there were a few options). It's so clear when you read even the crappy English that many things He does are for the sake of His name. The idiots who have erased that for millions I agree should be held responsible.


To which I replied…
Yahowah is serious about His name. And as you noted, it is obvious even in the crappy English bible translations. His name is the basis of the 3rd statement He etched in stone. Negating it is unforgivable. Those who have removed it from His Word will be held accountable. And nothing could be more irritating to Him than replacing His name 7000 times with Satan’s title, Lord.

You wrote…
J wrote:
The trinity was the next domino to fall for me. Doing a little research led me to realize how lousy that concept was.


To which I replied…
The Trinity is Babylonian. It is pagan. It is false. Yahowah is one. Yahowsha’ and the Ruwach Qodesh are set apart from Yahowah and thus are not separate individuals.

You wrote…
J wrote:
What followed was a few years of just hands off religion while feeling guilty that I wasn't bringing up my kids with the same foundation that I had, and feeling the heat from dad for sure. I figured I knew enough that if the shit started hitting the fan, I'd know which side to choose when the time came.


To which I replied…
I too avoided raising my children to be religious. There were too many conflicts, contradictions, fallacies, and unanswerable questions to push them toward where I had been. And I had experienced way too many Christians justifying lying and stealing. I now see Christians as ignorant, irrational, hypocrites. There are no exceptions.

You wrote…
Yada wrote:
And to be honest, I was pissed at God for not making it easier to find the truth. But I knew there had to be real truth out there. I never stopped believing there was a creator. I still think that those who have struggled to find Yah in their own way should be considered for the next life in His family because I don't think we've been given enough to get it right.


To which I replied…
A decade ago I was briefly frustrated with God for making the truth somewhat difficult to find. Now I’m in complete accord with Him, realizing that He could not have been any more forthright. Had God provided a summary, a simple answer, few if any would go beyond that and therefore never grow. To cease growing is to die. Even God must grow to live. It is the very basis of what it means to be infinite.

Yahowah is a clear and consistent communicator. His Towrah is His teaching and guidance. It’s our religious indoctrination which has confused humankind, and hidden His truth, not His testimony. The fact is, according to Yahowah, we have been given all we need to be right. Most either ignore, reject, or despise what He conveyed.

Dowd / David wrote the following…
“Yahowah’s (efei) Towrah (Towrah – Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around, bringing back, and renewing) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahowah’s (efei) everlasting testimony (‘eduwth – restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding (hakam – educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Psalm 19:7)

Yahowah seems to think that His Towrah is complete, lacking nothing. He says that it is sufficient. I concur.

You wrote…
J wrote:
So my dad decided he wanted to take me and my kids to Israel before my oldest leaves for college next fall. And it was while I was researching some places for the trip that I stumbled on one of your sites. I think yadayah. So it's only been about six weeks of reading and listening and I'm intrigued for sure, and concerned about some for sure. I'm inclined to believe that Paul is bogus, but I don't know if I can use all the evidence you do as proof. Maybe it's the translations I'm trying to use still.


To which I replied…
I’m glad that I went to Israel. It was an awakening for me. But I won’t go back before Yahowah removes all of the religious rubbish.
Most have come to Yada Yah after reading Prophet of Doom, my book on Islam. Others have heard me discuss these things on one of the 3000 radio interviews I’ve done, and have sought to validate what they heard. Few have come this way due to a search on Israel.

About half of those reading YY, QP, or ITG, and now Observations as well, begin by questioning my translations, something I strongly encourage. The other half find Yahowah’s message so consistent with their perception of God and so credible, they read and read, never seeming to get enough of Yah. Most begin as either agnostics searching for the truth with an open mind or as former Christians who have left the religion based upon its many lies.

If you are concerned that I’ve played too strong a case against Paul, I’d encourage you as I’ve already mentioned, to read Questioning Paul and then Observations (which is available free at www.BlessYahowah.com, www.YahowahBeryth.com, or I can send it to you for free via Word attachments). You can also buy YY, ITG, or QP at http://claitors.com/yada.htm). I’ve barely scratched the surface on Paul. Turns out Yahowah had more to say about Paul and his religion than anyone else in human history. He hates him and calls him the plague of death.

You wrote…
J wrote:
You say some other alarming things that you don't readily back up. I've had to start making notes so that I can try to look things up later. Today on a Shattering Myths archive you made a comment that seemed a lot like you were putting words in Yah's mouth...speaking for Him as you might say.


To which I replied…
Addressing your initial criticism, I very seldom write something that I don’t back up, and very seldom write anything that isn’t derived from Yahowah’s Word. However, the radio programs are different. Most who listen have read or are reading YY, ITG, QP, O, and PoD, so they are aware of the basis for these statements.

You wrote…
J wrote:
You said that none of this would be easy concerning the study of what YHWH wants from us, but that he wants it that way. You continued that He wouldn't want anyone around who hadn't put in a substantial effort to get to know Him. Is this pure speculation on your part? It seems like it.


To which I replied…
And yet you, yourself, acknowledge that getting to know Yahowah takes a considerable amount of time, in your case a lifetime still without success (I have sought YHWH my entire aldult life and even some before that.). Therefore, by your own admission, it is not easy when compared to other endeavors. In fact, you stated that you are angry at God for making it difficult (And to be honest, I was pissed at God for not making it easier to find the truth.). So let’s begin there, now that you have affirmed my premise and confirmed that my premise isn’t a matter of speculation.

That brings us to my conclusion: it’s not easy by design. Recognizing that it isn’t easy and that there are no short cuts, we must ask ourselves: did God make it difficult on purpose or is the fact that it appears to be difficult a failure on God’s part to make it easier? Also possible, has man altered and occluded what Yahowah actually communicated, thereby making something that was straightforward difficult to see and comprehend? Is God’s Word inadequate and ineffective, did religious institutions edit God’s Word so that it now appears inadequate and ineffective, or is God’s Word adequate and effective, but also challenging (and if so, is that by design).

If we acknowledge that Yahowah created the universe and then conceived life, then we should give Him credit for being capable of doing whatever He wants. Further, He proved though prophecy (accurate depictions of history from creation to recreation) that He authored the Towrah, Naby’ (Prophets), and Mizmowr (Writings/Psalms). He then claimed that His Towrah was complete, lacking nothing, fully capable of restoring souls. It is therefore His Word and as He intended it to be.

And yet there isn’t any fast way to come to know Yahowah or understanding what He is offering. He did not provide a summation, a way of figuring it out with very little effort. That is a fact. Is it on purpose? If so, what is that purpose?

Making matters more challenging still, by reading an English translation, there simply isn’t any way to quickly assess how we can go about availing ourselves of His Covenant – as they are too errantly and inadequately translated. But this isn’t God’s fault. It is man’s fault – the deliberate attempt by religious leaders to make it difficult to know Yahowah. And God had to allow it because of freewill. So if you want to blame someone for making it especially difficult to know God and understand what He is offering, blame the goddamn religions of Christianity and Judaism.

Equally problematic, those who have been corrupted by religion, when confronted by the truth, typically reject what Yahowah inspired because they like what Paul wrote better. They trust their church or country more than God.

Since Yahowah is a brilliant communicator and has the ability to do most anything, we should be asking ourselves why He made it difficult for a religious person to know Him. He obviously wrote it this way for a reason – telling us not to add or subtract anything from His Towrah. And He was fully aware that religious and political institutions would remove His name and deliberately and reckless edit His testimony. That is simple logic based upon the facts as they are presented to us.

When we seek to understand why this is so in the context of everything Yahowah has shared with us, the reason is obvious. Yahowah routinely states that hates religion and He does not want anyone who is religious to be part of His family, to live in His home, or to ruin eternity for the rest of us.
Religion is so stupid, so obviously false, those who accept it without thinking would hate eternity with Yahowah anyway. The only way Yah can keep it entertaining for His Covenant children, is to create an environment where we grow by exploring, learning, and sharing. So He created a filter to keep the faithful away from the rational, the irritating away from the respectful.
But more than this, why would any rational being want to spend eternity with individuals who never invested the time to know Him, who prefer the testimony of liars, who trust religious, political, economic, and military institutions over Him, whose attitude toward Him is inappropriate?

You seem to believe that God should grade on the curve, and accept those who are wrong, but have at least tried. (I still think that those who have struggled to find Yah in their own way should be considered for the next life in His family because I don't think we've been given enough to get it right.) I suspect that is self-serving. But it isn’t in Yah’s nature.

Yah is forgiving of bad but not wrong. For example, Dowd / David was bad and yet because he was right about Yahowah, Yahowah declared that he was perfect. Dowd is presented in a relationship with God, knowing Yahowah and understanding His Towrah, from the beginning. Whatever time was invested during his childhood seeking to know Yahowah is seldom mentioned – and thus isn’t considered valuable. His Psalms sing of his understanding – not seeking. Rather than citing the Towrah, Dowd explains it, celebrates its benefits, and reveals the nature of the God who wrote it. His every assessment, conclusion, and statement is correct.

Yahowah gave us our mortal life (a nepesh / soul) and freewill. But He also gave humankind a neshamah / conscience – the ability to reason. It is what gives us the ability to be like God, to know Him, to engage in a relationship with Him. But like any computer, garbage in – garbage out. You have to consume and digest His Word and then process it rationally, making connections, to understand. We were designed to find Him, to know Him, to understand what He is offering and what He wants in return. Most however, no longer think rationally. They are no longer judgmental and able to discern between fact and fiction. They operate on faith. They have thereby excluded themselves. Yahowah stated, “My people are destroyed by their ignorance.” They don’t even know where to look. Which is why Yahowah continued by telling Howsha’, “Because you have forgotten My Towrah, I will forget your children.”

Based upon these statements and countless others, to be spared, one must know. To know one must observe Yah’s Word. Then by using or neshamah / conscience we must think about what we have come to know which in turn leads to understanding. When we understand, we are empowered to make reasonable, rational, and beneficial choices regarding Yah. We have the opportunity to be right. This is the path which leads to Yahowah and to His Beryth. It is the way of the Miqra’ey. And both are found in only one place: His Towrah.

Had God made Himself or His plan any more obvious, He would have negated the value of our conscience and freewill. And He would have devalued us. He gave us the ability to process His testimony and come to rational conclusions, and He trusts us to do so. Further, nothing is more rewarding, more enjoyable, or more beneficial than taking the time to listen to Him and think about what He has conveyed.

In hindsight, and now that I’ve rid my mind of Pauline deceptions, I no longer see the path to Yahowah as difficult. I’ve studied His words in Hebrew and I’ve come to understand what He is offering. It all makes sense. It is all accurate. There are no contradictions. There are no invalid statements. Yahowah is straightforward and unchanging. He is an entertaining, effective, and brilliant communicator. Everything He says conveys insights on multiple levels.

It was my prior religion and politics that led me astray – that obscured my vision. The only real challenge was clearing my mind of the religious lies so that I could embrace the truth. That is what Yahowah intended. That is the reason knowing Him is challenging. That is the reason as few as one in a million come to know Him.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Now if you don't mind I would like to ask a few questions. I'm not looking for a short cut. Other than the brief hiatus I mentioned earlier, I have sought YHWH my entire aldult life and even some before that. You can relate possibly to searching for this needle in a haystack, only to realize the needle is somewhere else. You might just simply respond with a comment like, keep listening, or keep reading, and all these will be answered. However, if you would throw out a few key nuggets, it would be appreciated.


To which I replied…
You are only a fraction of the way home. You’ve begun to question your religion but you have not yet studied Yahowah’s Towrah as He conveyed it in Hebrew. I don’t know if you ever will. Four years at the Moody Bible Institute was a step in the wrong direction. So were your four years of being a youth pastor. These experiences may be the reason that the attitude conveyed along with your questions suggests that your mind is not open – that it is still corrupted by the Christian myth.

Yahowah has stated that thousands will shamar – observe, closely examining and carefully considering, the terms and conditions of His Covenant relationship and thereby receive His mercy. That is one in a million. He is not interested in saving billions of souls. He is content with a family comprised of those who have come to know, love, respect, accept, and trust Him. All of those things require a considerable investment of time, the proper approach, focus, and especially attitude.
Let’s be honest. Based upon your letter, you sought the god of Christianity, not Yahowah most of your adult life. Paul’s god and the real God bear nothing in common, including their names, their plan, their nature, or their purpose.

This isn’t a needle in a haystack, as you have stated, again displaying the improper attitude to approach God. It is instead, Yahowah, the creator of the universe in the midst of His Word – His Towrah. Your perspective on this is so flawed you are not ready to begin an honest search. Until this attitude changes, your “needle in a haystack” approach, you are wasting your time. It is demeaning to God and to His Word. It devalues what He is offering. It is offensive.

While you are equating Yahowah to a “needle” in your analogy, if it wasn’t for what follows, a reader might otherwise assume that you were inferring that the wrong “haystack” was the Christian New Testament. This would suggest that you now realize that “the needle is somewhere else.” And if that were true, I’d owe you an apology for overreacting. Unfortunately, however, since you disparage the Towrah later in your email, my initial assessment remains valid.

You wrote…
J wrote:
YHWH can't hear or respond to someone he doesn't know. Where do you get that from?


To which I responded…
Yahowah said that He does not hear the prayers of the Towrahless. He can and does reach out to those He wants to know. He did so with Abraham and Moseh – and even me.

You wrote…
J wrote:
He is not omniscient or omnipresent. Where do get that?



To which I responded…
Yahowah tells us that He does not know the sins of His children because they are cleansed and forgotten. And often He asks for information, indicating that He does not possess it. It is only in religion that god is seen as the micromanager who is involved in the minutia of life, favoring some and opposing others. Yahowah exists in the spiritual realm of the heavens. He has no interest in snooping on what is said in churches or mosques, in military briefings or political speeches. To believe otherwise, demeans Him. He knows what is important to Him. He knows His children. He knows what He has said to us and what He has committed to do for us.

The notion of God being omnipresent is so absurd, so rationally impossible, I’m surprised you asked. Think about what it would mean for Yahowah to be present everywhere. Do think that God is in the middle of the sun, in all stars, in empty space, in the core of our planet, in a rock, in every plant, animal, and person? Is He in a mosque, in a church, in every temple and shrine, in every national capitol, in every business, in all military weapons? Is God in the air you breathe, in the light you see, in the food you eat? Do you envision your god where you want him to be but not where you don’t? Most important of all: how would one chose not to associate with God if God were everywhere including in them?

This errant, albeit popular, religious notion is so irrational it is only acceptable to those who have no understanding whatsoever as to why Yahowah insists that He, His name, His Towrah, His Spirit, His Son, His Covenant, His Land, His Shabat, and His Invitations are qodesh - SET APART. Set apart from what? Until you come to understand that set-apart defines His relationship with His creation, you will remain lost in the realm of false gods. There is no “holy” in Yahowah’s vernacular. There are few things more important than “qodesh – set apart.” It is among the most important insights needed to view everything associated from the proper perspective. Mankind and God are set apart from one another. There is only one way to bring us together. And that way requires us to set ourselves apart from the ways of man, from religion especially. By being set apart, Yahowah cannot be omnipresent.

Beyond this, it is impossible for all of God to enter or exist anywhere in 3D. He has to exist in a dimension beyond what He spoke into existence via His words. This is simple physics. Communicating with us in 3D is the purpose of His Towrah, His mal’ak, the ruwach qodesh, and at times the most set apart, the most diminished manifestation of Yahowah, Yahowsha’.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Three destinations of souls based in Noah's ark? How?


To which I responded…
Three destinations for human souls is so obvious in Yahowah’s Word, so repeated, I’m amazed that so few have come to understand it. If God said, “Choose me or I will torture you forever in hell,” He would be a monster. But that is the essence of the Christian and Islamic doctrines of just Heaven or Hell. And yet Yahowah speaks of the death and destruction of souls 100 times for every mention of eternal separation or eternity in His home. So by asking such a question, I’m afraid that you are still looking at things from a religious mindset – one that is rationally impossible. For God to be fair, for God to be loving, there must be a third option – the death and destruction of the soul.

Understanding requires two things: knowledge and making rational connections. The third destination for souls, that of their death and destruction (and thus neither heaven nor hell) is presented many hundreds of times throughout Yahowah’s Word – sometimes bluntly and at other times symbolically. The Ark with its three doors is one of many affirming references to this. In fact, every aspect of the story of Noach and the Ark is symbolic of the Covenant – not only of its nature and purpose, but of how we go about participating in it. But you’ll have to read the Towah in Hebrew, or baring that, the first 3 volumes of Yada Yah, to know enough about things like the Ark’s construction, to make these same connections and thus conclusions.

You wrote…
J wrote:
The Ruach is some kind of maternal manifestation? Being? Portion? Huh? Aren't genders in language just invented by man? We could have just as easily created another part of speech like verb, noun, etc. Or take English. Other than calling a boat a she and things like that, there is no gender in our language and it serves quite well to communicate.


To which I responded…
Yahowah’s language is Hebrew. He invented it. He conceived it with masculine and feminine nouns. Ruwach is His term. It is feminine. Beyond this, God presents hundreds of other insights to reveal that the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit is the Maternal manifestation of His nature. Family, after all, is Father, Mother, and child. The Covenant is a Family.

Hebrew is interesting in that all verbs are unconstrained by time. Most verbs are relational and establish a relationship between the subject and object. And many verbs are volitional, and thus convey freewill. The language was perfectly conceived to convey His nature, purpose, plan, and message: a relationship subject to freewill which makes us eternal – like God, akin to light.

I don’t care what sailors call a boat in English. I care what Yahowah called the Set-Apart Spirit. Yah could have used a masculine noun, but that is not what God chose. Details matter when it comes to Yah’s Word. That is why Yahowsha’ spoke of the eternally enduring nature of the Towrah’s Yad (smallest letter) and defining strokes (speaking of the composition of Hebrew letters). You may believe that English would have served to communicate God’s message quite well, but the fact remains, Yahowah chose Hebrew because it is better.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Why do you point out the term gospel as so egregious? It seems that you are correct that it came from God Spell, but most christians associate the word with what seems to be the original intent, good news.


To which I responded…
I’m beginning to lose interest now in your questions because of the attitude that surrounds them. You aren’t simply asking questions, but are now accompanying them with disparaging comments regarding Yahowah. There is nothing more debilitating.

For example, you state that Gospel is from God’s Spell when it is actually from Gott’s Spell. Yahowah is not Gott and He does not inflict spells. It is neither a translation or a transliteration of the Greek, and like church, Gospel represents a completely invalid alteration. Moreover, neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha’ spoke Greek. Yahowsha’ affirmed the correct term: Towrah. Gospel is therefore unacceptable. Why do you prefer man’s religious replacement? Do you prefer man’s terms to God’s. If so, you’ll never come to know Yahowah.

The Greek eugellion means “beneficial message,” which can be interpreted as “good news,” but not Gospel. It is just like ekklesia, which does not mean “church.” Both are deliberate corruptions. They are not godly. They are wrong. By seeking to justify them you are displaying favoritism of man’s terms over God’s terms.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Just doesn't seem to be a strong case for condemning Christianity. Although, I will agree with you that without Paul, there is no Christianity.


To which I responded…
Half of the Christian NT was written by the Plague of Death, a false prophet, and demon-possessed egomaniac who contradicted everything Yahowah said. Therefore, if you don’t question the rest of it you are not being rational. And if you question it and conduct a comprehensive study of the history of the text, especially the Greek text, what you will find is that most of it isn’t reliable and is not accurate.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#608 Posted : Friday, January 13, 2017 11:56:46 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
Yada wrote:
You wrote…
J wrote:
But speaking of the "gospels" that is all you have when it comes to the life of yahowsha and yet you condemn the sources so completely. If you are using your interpretation of what yahowsha did during his time here from your interpretations of the Torah and prophets and psalms, then aren't you engaging in circular reasoning? This is what he must have done because this and this say he was going to do this and this. And if you want to use Matthew as you source, but yet claim that it's not a very reliable source, then how can you pick and choose what portions you will trust?


To which I respond…
Yahowsha’ was Towrah observant. He was not “Gospel” observant. And to suggest that “the "gospels" are all you have when it comes to the life of Yahowsha” is ignorant of the fact that the most important and accurate portrayals of what He accomplished were presented in the Towrah, Naby’, and Mizmowr – all written 500 to 1500 years before He fulfilled what they promised. Yahowsha’ literally walked out of the pages of the Towrah and Prophets. He was resolutely Towrah observant. His life is defined by the Towrah and described by the prophets. Your statement dismisses much of the content and purpose of Yahowsha’s life and forestalls any understanding of His mission while negating the only way to properly understand His testimony. It’s the ridiculous Christian perspective of viewing everything from the end to the beginning rather than as it was revealed and occurred. It removes Yahowsha’ from His source.

Words do not suffice to explain how errant your statement is regarding what can be known regarding Yahowsha’.

If you are unaware that Yahowsha’ came to fulfill Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven in accord with the Towrah I cannot help you. Yahowah, Himself, cannot help you. If you see Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Yahowah’s Towrah promises as circular reasoning then there is no way to reason with you. And once again, you are displaying the kind of inappropriate attitude and perspective with the way you are now framing your questions that will absolutely preclude you from knowing Yahowah or understanding His plan. It’s not your questions, but your statements, and what they convey about your mindset that is keeping you away from God, away from the truth.

I don’t condemn Mattanyah. I only state that the Hebrew conversations were translated from Hebrew to Greek by someone other than Mattanyah more than one hundred years thereafter and therefore must be questioned. And I condemn the many changes that have been made to Yahowchanan, not the man, himself. Luke was Paul’s pal and was not present for any of this. Mark is hearsay as well. Neither would be admissible in a court of law. The oldest extant MSS are written in Greek. Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew. Greek is not convey Hebrew effectively or accurately.

In the 9th chapter of Observations, which is sent to your, I detail the history and corruptions in the Christian New Testament. You’d have to be ignorant or irrational to trust it based upon its history. There are more variants than words. That is a fact.

You wrote…
J wrote:
…how can you pick and choose what portions you will trust?


To which I responded…
Yahowah provided us with the means to know what He inspired and what He did not inspire. His test was presented twice in Dabarym. I use it. Shouldn’t you? Or are you unaware that He provided such a test because you are not Towrah observant? Rather than disparaging my approach, which is Yahowah’s approach, if you want to know God, you need to learn, accept, and then use His test for determining what can and cannot be trusted. You’ll find it in YY, ITG, and QP.

You wrote…
J wrote:
What kind of answer can you possibly have for how ritualistic and seemingly pagan all the levitical stuff is? I mean from ceremonial washing to the animal sacrifices, to the doing it this way and only this way... sounds a whole lot like religion. And between that and slaughtering the canaanites they seem like your typical Bronze Age people group minus possibly the child sacrifice.


To which I responded…
If you believe that Qara’ / Leviticus is religiously ritualistic and pagan, then you need to take this up with Yahowah because He authored it. It is little wonder you don’t know Him. I suspect based upon your letter that you wouldn’t like Him. You certainly don’t like or respect what He wrote.

Have you ever considered who consumes the “sacrifices?” Is eating something a “sacrifice?” The Miqra’ey are Festival Feasts. The lamb is part of the meal. Almost every civilization from Sumer to Rome engaged in child sacrifice – not Yahowah. Very few slaughtered animals like lambs or cows for food as part of any meeting with their gods. They killed for their gods, often humans, and did not serve lamb as part of a celebratory meal with God. I cover this in great detail in the 11th chapter of Observations. Since it is germane to your criticism of the “animal sacrifices” which were part of the “ritualistic and seemingly pagan livitical stuff,” I’d like to provide it as an “answer.”

“And (wa) Yitschaq (Yitschaq – Laugh and Play) spoke (‘amar – communicated (qal imperfect)) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome), his father (‘ab huw’), stating (‘amar – bringing to light and declaring (qal imperfect)), ‘Father of mine (‘ab ‘any – My father).’
So (wa) he responded (‘amar – he, ‘Abraham, provided assurance, promising (qal imperfect)), ‘Here I am (hineh ‘any – look up at me and pay attention to the details in this discussion, presently, right now I am here) my son (‘any ben).’
Then (wa) he asked (‘amar – he mentioned, inquired, and questioned), ‘Behold (hineh – looking up right now and paying especially close attention, noticing all of the relevant details) the fire (ha ‘esh – the source of light and warmth, radiant energy and the means to properly prepare food so that it is eatable) and (wa) the wooden pillars (ha ‘ets – the timbers and planks), but (wa) where is (‘ayah – serving as an interrogative in a relational circumstance) the lamb (ha seh – the sheep (masculine); related to sahed – a brilliant witness comprised of light providing direct knowledge about the situation and teaching regarding the subsequent event who serves as an advocate and spokesman on behalf of the accused) for the elevating offering (la ‘olah – to approach by rising; from ‘alah – to ascend and go up, to be withdrawn and carried away)?’” (Bare’syth / Genesis / In the Beginning 22:7)

There are a surprising number of Hebrew words for “lamb,” each providing a nuance which is appropriate to the context and designed to enhance our understanding. In this case, at least based upon the most closely related words, ha seh draws our attention to “the brilliant witness comprised of light providing direct knowledge about this specific situation while teaching us about the subsequent event destined to occur in this same place who serves as an advocate and spokesman on behalf of the accused.” The seh is the set-apart and diminished manifestation of Yahowah known as Yahowsha’.

Yitschaq’s question regarding the lamb, while seemingly subtle, affirms two profoundly important aspects of their adventure to Mount Mowryah. For him to have recognized that they needed a lamb to roast on the fire requires an understanding of the Towrah. ‘Abraham had obviously shared it with him, even at an early age. And even more revealing, they were intending to celebrate Passover, just as Yahowsha’ did forty Yowbel later on this same mountain.

As proof that ‘Abraham and Yitschaq were operating out of an entirely different playbook, one composed by God and in universal conflict with the rest of humanity circa 1968 BCE, in the cradle of civilization, indeed, ‘Abraham’s birthplace, the Sumerians were sacrificing humans, not lambs. Six years ago, archaeologists at the University of Pennsylvania reached this conclusion after conducting CT scans on the skulls of over 2,000 victims buried in sixteen golden tombs in a single royal cemetery in Ur, Sumer. These researchers reported that human sacrifice was conducted on a very large scale. The common characteristic of these ancient remains was that two one-inch-diameter spikes had been driven through the heads of the men and one through the women while they were still alive. Their bodies were then baked, albeit not burned, and then doused with mercury so that they wouldn’t decompose and could be put on display during religious ceremonies. ‘Abraham’s countryman sought to appease their gods through religious mass murder.

Especially wanton, during this time Sumerian and Egyptian lords, priests, and kings had countless servants, concubines, musicians, handmaidens, grooms, guards, and soldiers murdered because their clerics claimed that the dead would continue to serve their masters in the afterlife. Worse, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to their gods. In one cemetery alone, urns containing the tiny bones of 20,000 ritualistically murdered children have been found.

It has recently been discovered that the Greeks practiced human sacrifice as did the Romans through the second century BCE. The Mongols, Druids, Chinese, Japanese, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, Polynesians, and Africans prolifically, barbarically, and religiously sacrificed innocent human lives on behalf of make-believe gods. So, the only reason that Yitschaq would have asked his father about a “lamb” is because he was aware of Yahowah’s instructions regarding Passover.

There is sound justification for translating ‘olah as “elevating offering” rather than “burnt offering.” And yet the latter is how it is rendered in virtually every English bible. So I’d like to explain why I have chosen a different approach. First, virtually every Hebrew noun is defined by its actionable root, and ‘olah is based upon the verb “‘alah – to ascend and to go up, to be withdrawn and to be carried away.” In fact, ‘olah and ‘alah are written identically in the original Hebrew text: elo.

Graphically, the letters elo encourage us to observe the perspective and purpose of the Shepherd if we want to stand with Him. Therefore, ‘alah conveys the result of being Towrah observant. We grow to appreciate what Yahowsha’ did on our behalf on Pesach and Matsah, enabling us as the Covenant’s children “‘alah – to ascend as a result of being withdrawn and then being carried away” by God.

Second, since the preponderance of the Passover lamb is consumed by the celebrants after it has been cooked above the fire, and is thus not “burned,” there is absolutely nothing associated with ‘olah which would suggest a “burnt offering” or anything of value being offered in the fire. Burning the inedible portion of the lamb is no more a sacrifice than incinerating one’s garbage. Beyond this, ‘olah has no etymological connection with burn, burnt, burning, or fire.

Therefore, in the context of its use, ‘olah presents a visual and symbolic portrait of what God is offering to do for us – raising us up to Him – and not something we are sacrificing to Him. We are being nourished and we grow as a result of the consuming the lamb which we roast on the fire. It creates the kind of celebratory feast Yahowah intended for His family’s enjoyment. We are not only warmed by the blaze; its light is symbolic of what Yah has in store for us. And as we witness the smoke rising up to the heavens we can envision “being withdrawn and carried away, ascending to” the home and presence of Yah. ‘Olah speaks of His offer to immortalize, perfect, and adopt us and it is His sacrifice which makes this all possible. We are the beneficiaries of Yahowah’s magnanimous offer. We are not giving God anything other than the opportunity to serve His children.

This next statement from ‘Abraham suggests that this assessment is valid...
“‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) responded (‘amar – promised, declaring (qal imperfect)), ‘God (‘elohym) will actually and continually reveal the proper perspective to understand how (ra’ah – will literally show by consistently making visible, providing the proper perspective to understand (qal imperfect)) to approach Him by way of (la huw’ – on His behalf and in accord with Himself, concerning Him and to move toward Him, and in reference to the proper direction according to Him) the lamb (ha seh – the sheep (masculine); related to sahed – a brilliant witness comprised of light providing direct knowledge about the situation and teaching regarding the subsequent event who serves as an advocate and witness on behalf of the accused) for the elevating offering (la ‘olah – to approach by rising; from ‘alah – to ascend and go up, to be withdrawn and carried away), my son (‘any ben).’ Then (wa) the two of them walked together in one accord (wa halak shenaym hem yahdaw – and so both journeyed in unity with each other, reciprocating with one another, united and alike in love; from yachyd – begotten and beloved son (qal imperfect)).” (Bare’syth / Genesis / In the Beginning 22:8)

They continued to excel at every aspect of Yahowah’s test because they were following His instructions. ‘Abraham and Yitschaq had learned to trust that God would take care of them – guiding, instructing, teaching, and directing them to every relevant answer.

I went on to convey…
You are only fooling yourself. Like almost every Christian, you are not just unaware of the Towrah, your words are averse to it. You are mocking Yahowah’s testimony by calling it ritualistic, religious, and pagan. Had I read your entire email prior to commenting on each paragraph, I would not have bothered to reply. There is nothing I find more reprehensible than someone who claims to be searching for God while at the same time demonstrating an aversion to His testimony. Leviticus, actually Qara’ / Invitations, is the Word of Yahowah. It is the heart of the Towrah. It presents the Miqra’ey and the Yowbel. Nothing other than the Beryth is as essential to engaging with Yahowah. And yet you dismiss it as ritualistic, religious, and pagan. Shame on you.

Thank God, God has a filter to keep those who mock Him away from those of us who love Him. Your assessment of Yahowah’s Towrah is akin to Paul’s. It is disgusting.

You wrote…
J wrote:
The term lord being so horrible, you mention a lot. You said something about Jeremiah, but can you give me something more specific? And I think you or someone else vaguely referenced Adonai as also being a term that YHWH does not like. Can you show evidence for that also?


To which I responded…
I could provide you with a translation of Yahowah’s statements against being called “the Lord” in Yirma’yah and in Howsha’, but you’d simply reject His testimony and justify your religious preference. So it would be a waste of my time. That has been the approach you have used in this letter, so it is what I’d expect from you.

Lord and father are opposites. Yahowah’s desire is to be our Father. Satan’s ambition is to be lord, which is why Ba’al / Lord is used by Yahowah to describe him. Understanding the difference between lord and father is essential to knowing Yah.

As for ‘adon / Lord and ‘adony / My Lord, Masoretes used it 7000 times in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms to replace YHWH. That is another reason Yahowah does not like the term. It is also the basis of Adonis, the Greek god, while Bel was the god of Babylon – both Lords.

For others who may be interested, proof is found throughout Yada Yah and An Introduction to God as well as in Observations.

You wrote…
J wrote:
Many modern Christians, maybe not many, but a good number are beginning to investigate the appointed times. They really only care about celebrating Pesach, …


To which I responded…
Pesach without Matsah is counterproductive. It is Satan’s ultimate triumph: eternal life separated from God like himself. To appreciate this reality, you will first have to refrain from seeing the “levitical stuff” as pagan and begin to appreciate the purpose of the Miqra’ey / Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.

You wrote…
J wrote:
…but I'm wondering if you think since Chrisitianity is the most sane of the abominations that we call religion, and they seem to have the principle players at least in the room together, and live the most moral lives overall, that maybe YHWH is doing a little nudging to wake a few people up so that so many of them won't be doomed.


To which I respond…
Calling Christianity “the most sane” is akin to calling the blend of a thousand lies the most truthful. But I will give you credit for recognizing that all religions are an abomination.

Christianity does not have the “principle players in the room together”. They have created a caricature of Yahowsha’ with their “Jesus.” The Christian “Jesus” has more in common with Dionysus than the Towrah. They don’t have any appreciation for Adam, they changed his wife’s name to Eve, they are unaware of the reason behind the story of Noach, the Ark and flood. They know almost nothing of the conversations between Abraham and Yahowah. They despise Moseh and the Towrah. They miss the entire point of Dowd / David. They do not understand the prophets. They are completely clueless regarding the Set-Apart Spirit.

You, yourself, criticized the behavior of Christians in your opening comments. They are not moral. And with Yah, being right is vastly more important than being moral, and none of them are right.

No religious person can be awakened from their ignorant and irrational stupor. Religion is very good at being bad. God, Himself, cannot or will not do so.

Christians are not “doomed.” They simply die at the end of their mortal lives and their souls cease to exist. The only people who are doomed are those who promote religion, politics, patriotism and militarism to the point that they mislead others sufficiently that those who believe them ally themselves with the lie rather than the truth. Very few people are doomed to an eternity in hell – and you are not among them. The moment you stopped promoting Christianity as a minister you were no longer in jeopardy of your soul being cast into She’owl. Even your dismissal of the Torwah as pagan isn’t enough to get you there.

J, I no longer care if you read YY, QP, ITG, and O or not. But please don’t reply to this email. I’ll ignore it. [As you can tell, I decided to restate and augment my reply into the context of your original letter in the hope that this discussion will help others.] I do not want to be your pen pal or your answer man. I strongly suspect that I’ve wasted my time with you because of the positions you have taken. The way you have framed your questions is disturbing and irritating. You seem to think that God has somehow failed, that His Word is either inadequate, or worse, pagan. You don’t seem to respect Him or Hebrew, much less His Towrah. I find it repulsive.

If you read all four books and want to engage, I’ll do so. But that will require 400 to 500 hours of your time. And even then, none of it will do you any good until such time as you completely reject Christianity and open your mind to what Yahowah has to say. You are no where near that point currently based upon your letter. The attitude expressed in your words is in opposition to Yahowah. That must change.

Yada

Then, proving that my assessment was correct regarding your attitude, you wrote…
J wrote:
Ignore me for asking questions? Did your ego get in the way or are you really that much of a jerk? I'm sorry, are those questions offensive? If you really did used to be a Christian, what caused you to lose the compassion for those who are in the process of reprogramming? Six weeks man, six weeks. And you want to berate me and belittle my journey. Shame on you. I have my own business and three kids. I don't have 10 hours a day to spend like you. And if Yah didn't care about all the Christians bring deceived, then why all the warnings?

You have jumped to some incorrect conclusions about me, but you wouldn't care would you. I'm sure someone as smart as you doesn't like being wrong especially when you think it's worse than being sinful. I'll clue you in mister know it all. I'm as smart as you. I'd stack my intellect up against anyone. In fact I know how to pronounce NUCLEAR. Or how about Electoral college? Ha! You say NUCULAR and ELECTORIAL. Do you need a Hebrew transliteration to help you figure it out?

I'll probably keep reading and listening despite your uncalled for ridicule toward me. But you won't have to worry about being my pen pal. I like a lot of what you've had to say so far. So maybe after four or five hundred hours, I'll get back to you. But until then...middle finger asshole.


There is no need to respond.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#609 Posted : Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:08:02 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
N wrote:
Yada!!
So so happy I was refered to your site by a dear friend who found the truth a few years ago and shared it with me. I went through a horrible major depressive episode. During that time my family and church felt I was being attacked by the devil because I had so many thoughts that the Bible couldn't answer. Their advice to me was always biblical and when I would read I would feel more depressed. At one point I felt suicidal because I couldn't feel God, understand him, couldn't tap into my faith and felt like I was becoming a non believer. Just those thoughts alone sent on a downward spiral. How can I live if there is no God? How can God be love but threatens to torture me in hell for eternity if I don't do as he says? God seemed terrifying yet the thought of no God was equally terrifying so I settled to just "fight the enemy" and be obident anyway by having blind faith and going up church. After talking to my friend about this he sent me to your site. I have been reading for days now but not only reading but confirming and doing research of my own. I can't believe how liberating this experience is. I will NEVER go back to church or force myself to do things that are just ridiculous rituals being masked as signs of obidiance towards Yah.

However (I'm still reading and learning), I have a few questions and maybe you answer them in your book and I just haven't gotten to it yet. Here goes: If Yah knows everything and sees the future then why not stop the human suffering if he loves us? Why create humankind? Like didn't he know we where going to sin then suffer because of it? Does he really know our every move? And if you can answer this question what are your sources? How do you know. I had some really really bad and dark thoughts during my depression and some still plague me today and disturb me to the core because while I respect and honor Yah, I want to understand him too and that's one of the most important questions I have and really want to try and comprehend. Maybe you can help?


Yada wrote:
N,

I'm sorry for your suffering. And I'm sorry that religious people misled you regarding God's nature.

If Yah knows everything and sees the future then why not stop the human suffering if he loves us?
Freewill. He can't intervene without making a mockery of life. Suffering exists because almost all humans have rejected God.

Why create humankind?
For a relationship.

Like didn't he know we where going to sin then suffer because of it?
That is why He created a solution.

Does he really know our every move?
No.

And if you can answer this question what are your sources?
His Word.

How do you know.
I've translated and studied His Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. You can know too. Read Yada Yah and then An Introduction to God.

I had some really really bad and dark thoughts during my depression and some still plague me today and disturb me to the core because while I respect and honor Yah, I want to understand him too and that's one of the most important questions I have and really want to try and comprehend. Maybe you can help?

His Word is the only source of help. No one in His family is depressed for any length of time. He can be known and the benefits of His Covenant can be accepted.

Take your time and read Yada Yah, An Introduction to God, and then Observations. He will heal you and bring you great joy.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#610 Posted : Monday, January 23, 2017 8:53:47 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
C wrote:

I have a question. A lady contacted me because is concerned about what day to celebrate the Sabbath. She is convinced that there was a 360 calendar (http://www.360calendar.com/) and that our days are off. Seriously, I'm not interested in a 360 calendar, but she is uptight about it.

Please tell me what you feel about the 360 calendar. Is there a better site that I can direct her to? Personally, I feel like some people get fixated on issues that just distract and detract us from simply studying the Torah. It is a good thing to keep our eyes open for information that may help us better understand the Torah, but we should never let something dwarf our time of study.

Thanks,
C


Yada wrote:
CM

The solar year is 365.25 days. It is not 360 days. If Yah's year was 360 days the Miqra'ey would meander around the seasons. They would no longer correspond to their symbolic harvests. Lunar months are 29.5 days. That is not divisible into 365 or 360 either. Moreover, Yahowah never once equates His Shabat with months or with years.

Therefore, the seventh day is not based upon months or years. It is simply the seventh day. Neither 365.25, 306, nor 29.5 is divisible by 7. So it would be impossible to follow Yahowah's instructions of every 7th day using any of these options.

Personally, I only consider things outside of the Towrah when they shed light on the Towrah's depiction of science, history, or prophecy.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#611 Posted : Monday, January 23, 2017 11:34:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
JS wrote:
Greetings,

My name is Jeremy. I obtained this email address from the yada forums while browsing a topic concerning the name of the Almighty.

It concerns the spelling of the name of the Almighty as I noticed that it is different than what is accepted, generally, from other sources as Yahweh.

I have attached a PDF file that deals with this evidence, but I am most interested in seeing what evidence you have that would show it to be in error.

Thank you for your time. I await your response.


Yada wrote:
JS,

Read http://anintroductiontog...2.0-Shem-His_Name.Torah.
An Introduction to God - Shem
anintroductiontogod.com
As you are now aware, this Introduction to God makes no accommodation to garner popular support, and it was not designed to appeal to a religious audience.


YHWH are all vowels. Y-aH-oW-aH. Yahweh ignores the sound of the W and is inconsistent with regard to the sound of the H.

If you are unaware of the sounds and meanings of the 22 Hebrew letters, read: http://anintroductiontog....0-Dabar-His_Word.Torah.
An Introduction to God - Dabar
anintroductiontogod.com
The evidence affirms that Yah’s Word was as inerrant as language allows when it was revealed to Moseh and to the Children of Yisra’el, and when it was scribed in ...


JS wrote:
Yada,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

I am in the process of reading that article, but I would like to clarify concerning the PDF file I sent you.

As I am not an expert on the Hebrew pronunciation and am still learning; I would like to see if you have some solid evidence against the historical reference to the Pharisees, as linked in the article, to claiming that the Messiah committed Blasphemy according to their Tradition in that this blasphemy was pronouncing the name as it was spelt.

There is also historical material referenced in that PDF that you can verify online that they also accused the Samaritans of Blasphemy as they pronounced the name as it was spelt...and all the evident points towards Yahweh. Pronounced "ee, ah, oo, eh".

The underlying point is that the Ineffable Name doctrine was started by the Pharisees and the Messiah condemned that practice as it is part of the Traditions of the Elders. So they had to know how it was pronounced else they could not call it blasphemy.

Another question, if I may, is how would you address the Messiahs words in Matthew 23:2-3?

If a lot of what we have is corrupted today in some form or another and is also based inherently on the religious doctrines of men...then how would this be accurate?

How could the Messiah tell the people to listen and do things the way the Pharisees say they were done according to Moses, the reference being judgment, "law" or "towrah" if what they had was not the way it was supposed to be?

I do not know if your the specific author of this quotation, but I would like to point out this portion;

http://anintroductiontog...02.0-Shem-His_Name.Torah



"God’s seventh arrival, which is for reconciliation, is on our horizon, and will transpire on Yowm Kippurym in the Yowbel Year 6000 Yah (at sunset, October 2nd, 2033). The date has been set. It will happen. Are you ready?"

How would show that this is not a contradiction of the Messiahs words in Matthew 24:36?


Yada wrote:
JS,

Messiah is not accurate. The closest Hebrew name is Ma'aseyah - Work of Yahowah. The closest word is mashiach, but it is never used as a name or a title. In Daniel it is used as an adjective modifying messenger. You should refer to Him by His proper name: Yahowsha' - Yahowah Saves.

I translate the whole of Mattanyah 23 in Yada Yah. It is not rendered correctly in English bibles. Yahowsha's testimony is wholly consistent with His Towrah.

You are free to read, accept, challenge, or reject the evidence presented in the Word and Name Volumes of An Introduction to God regarding Yahowah.

Based upon your depiction of the PDF you seem to believe that the proper pronunciation of YHWH can be derived by means other than considering the pronunciation of all of the other words and names formed by the same 22 Hebrew letters used by Yahowah in the Towrah, Naby' (Prophets), and Mizmowr (Psalms). That does not sound rational to me. Why look elsewhere when His name is written 7000 times in His Word?

Speaking of irrational, the Pharisees were not the first to make saying Yahowah's name a crime. This occurred before there were Pharisees. Predicting that Yisra'el would do so, and presenting the consequence, is the purpose of the 3rd statement on the 1st of 2 tablets.

If you read the statements Yahowsha' cited during His trial they contain Yahowah's name. The religious scum hated Yahowah's name. So they had a conniption fit when He said it. They were wrong. Yahowsha' was right.

There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. 17 are consonants and 5 are vowels. You can prove this to yourself by examining the pronunciation of the most recognizable Hebrew terms, such as shalowm, 'elowah, towrah, and gowym, even hayah, the verb which serves as the basis for Yahowah's name.

Yada


JS wrote:
Yada,

http://yadayah.com/Yada_...h-Genesis-Chay-Life.YHWH


I have noticed that you believe in Evolution or at least some part of it. I would recommend that you watch the Kent Hovind series that completely destroys this concept of origination. Your entire premise is based upon an impossibility invented by those who desire a different origin of life and you are attempting to join the two together as compromise.

They are simply not compatible.

Your arguements stem from the assumption that whatever we have today is either corrupted or an amalgamation of religious and doctrinal positions from fallible men. That alone makes yourself suspect. Why is it that you take the same materials along with several others that you claim are corrupt to make your case but then argue that the material your referencing should be translated differently as its corrupted in the first place and not accurate?

Genesis 2:3 the word "rest" is in the Perfect Qal stance which you should know means the complete summation of the event referenced back when it was done. THe Almighty ceased from doing what He did...proving that your entire contention of billions of years in the creation process to be absurd.

This is verified by the fact that Exodus 20:11 in which this is repeated by Moses in reference to the seventh-day sabbath of the weak. That is in the Qal/waw-consecutive and you would also know that this is referencing an event that had already happened and Qal means that the subject of the verb performs the actions or is in the state described by it. Hence, rested, past, as what is being spoken to the Israelites is a reference and comparison of why they should be doing the same for the weekly Sabbath.

Yet, I doubt you would listen as you seem to have it within your head a notion that all that we have today, minus what you consider to be authentic, a corrupted form and not trust-worthy.

I also looked at your translation of Matthew 23 and perhaps I did miss it, but I did not see a reference to verses 2-3 in which the PHarisees sat in Moses seat and whatsoever they bid to observe and do...that observe and do. That alone destroys your entire position and practically everyone who has heard of them in relation to the Son of the Almighty knows what day they considered a Sabbath and how it was a literal day not representative of a billions of year creation process.

You make some good points, yes, in that we should be studying the Hebrew but your entire work is laced with doctrinal issues of your own while condemning others as false.

Perhaps you could show clear-cut evidence without adding in third party dogma(Science/evolution) and prove from the scriptures that the creation process was not a literal six days and therefore billions of years. I dare-say that you will not be able to. If you cannot...then your foundation cannot be trusted and you have to re-examine everything.


JS wrote:
Yada,

My question to you is why do you seem to have an adversion to believing that the Almighty would "command" us to "keep" a "law, statute"?

Half the time when I read your book of "Introduction" I get the distinct impression that you have a thorough dislike for "Law" or anything that gives the concept of instructions that people are required to obey to show by action that they are doing what the Almighty says to do.

For instance, in the "Psalms 119" portion of your website at the following address under Volume Three, Part Three;

http://anintroductiontog...owrah-His_Teaching.Torah

You say the following;

"Therefore, if you believe that “observing the Torah” means “being obedient and obeying God’s laws,” you will be disappointed. Even in this, Scripture’s most comprehensive presentation on how to observe and respond to Yahowah’s Towrah, you will find nothing to support a legalistic perspective."

You go on, after this, to translate the Psalms according to your rendering and take effort to make sure the translation avoids a "legalistic" perspective of which additional scriptural context would show this view to be in error.

You translate the word "testimonies" as the following;

"(‘edah – His restoring and eternal witness; from ‘ed – witness, testimony, and evidence which endures forever, a contracted form of ‘uwd – to repeatedly testify about restoration and to exhort, warn, and affirm through solemn testimony)"

While this word does have "witness" as part of its definitions and usage you ignore scriptural usage of this word in context of other passages and hinge on very specific portions of definitions to prove your case. This word is used in Deuteronomy 4:45 in direct connection and correlation and context of "statutes and judgments". Now, Im using the English here and I know what the Hebrew means, but the usage of these words in context of what exactly was told the children of Israel shows that they were indeed laws and commandments.

This is repeated again in Deuteronomy 6:17,20 in context of what the Israelites were to do. You know as well as I do that it refers to the way of the Almighty in what the Israelites were to do as exemplified in the Almighty's commandments, statutes and judgments.

You try to quote Genesis 26:5 and use that as a reference to say that nothing specific was mentioned, but you ignore scriptural context in that it is obvious this was an oral telling to Abraham while what happened at Mount Sinai was the oral put into graven form...as that same covenant was promised to the seed of Abraham in Genesis 17:7. Same covenant. Everlasting covenant. Same way given. Same testimonies. Same judgments. Same law. This context right here shows you to be completely in error in trying to tell people that there is no requirements given to anyone by the Almighty.

Yet, back to this word translated "testimonies". It is used again in Psalms 78:56 in which it is used to refer specifically to a commandments that were given, namely the first and second. Are you seriously going to attempt to translate this away to mean what you want it to mean and ignore the obvious context?

After all...according to you, there is no "law" given to us by the Almighty. Its specifically instruction and direction only and not any type of requirements. How ironic that you only speak of half the equation. It is not possible to have a requirement without knowing the instruction in the first place. They go hand-in-hand.

You also seem to be thoroughly convinced of the notion of "free-will" being in complete opposition to the reality in which we live and to have a "law" given to us by the Almighty is in violation of that "free-will". Well, if you truly had "Free-Will" in all sense of the term...then you would definately be able to choose not to be presented with a choice of doing what the Father wills in the first place. See the contradiction?

We are created in this world and we have to deal with everything we are presented with and you have a choice to follow the Almighty in doing EVERYTHING that the Almighty wills/says/commands/requests or any other word I missed, or refusing said situation.

You do not have the freedom or "free-will" to not be presented with that choice. That is woven into our reality and you cannot escape it...so why try to say that there is no "law" and only instruction/direction/guidance?


Yada wrote:
If you want towrah to mean "law" and and not "teaching and guidance," shama' to mean "obey," rather than "listen," and shamar to mean "keep" in the sense of "obedience" rather than "observe," then you are in the majority. But there is no etymological reason to support these connotations. And the majority is most often wrong.

That said, I agree that the religious lexicons all tilt in favor of your conclusion, not so much with regard to towrah, shamar, or shama' but with a number of other words which can readily rendered in a legalistic fashion.

Then that begs the question: are the legalistic connotations a result of erroneously rendering the meaning of towrah, shamar, and shama' for the benefit of religion, and in keeping with the concept of a fearsome Lord, or was Yahowah being inconsistent, asking us to listen and learn on one hand and then be obedient to His laws on the other? That not only sounds more like a Lord than a Father, a Kingdom rather than a Family, it all but negates the purpose of our conscience and freewill.

I have consistently admitted that I see the Towrah as parental guidance and the Covenant as a family with Yahowah in the role of Father. Therefore, when given equally viable options based upon word studies I render every statement consistent with that perspective. I am admittedly at the extreme end of that paradigm. Those who concur are few.

Most disagree. That is your option, your choice. But since much of what is written in the Towrah is predicated upon that which no longer exists or is inaccessible, some of which are illegal, how are you going to "obey" these "laws?" Where are the Priests, the Judges, the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple?

I have no issue in doing much of what Yah asks. I am not, however, going to kill someone for picking up sticks on a Saturday or for adultery. I'm not going to pitch a tent in Yahuwdah on Sukah. I'm not going to slaughter a lamb in front of my family that I brought into my home four days before Passover.

I am in support of accepting and acting upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant. And yes, instructions and requirements go hand in hand regarding admission into His family. But they are not laws. Acceptance and obedience are different concepts. His instructions and guidance are in our interests. And I can learn from everything He says.

But, I am completely opposed to a Lord telling us to obey his laws or die. If your view of Yahowah is valid, I don't want to spend an eternity obeying him. I'd rather die. I am not that kind of father and I don't think Yah is either.

So my question to you is simple: why are you tormenting yourself with YY, ITG, O, or QP? Why read something that is fundamentally opposed to your perspective on God? Surely, there are books which coincide with your thinking.

Yada


JS wrote:
Yada,

I am not saying that "Towrah" means only "law" or that "shama" means only to "obey". I am saying that your using only half of the definitions of the words. I do not dispute at all that they also mean teaching and guidance and listening intently. I am pointing out that you seem focused only half of the definitions and half of the usages.

I do not disagree that the Almighty created things for the purpose of a family. I see that as much as you do, but I also see that there are rules and regulations. There are ways to do things. You don't steal from each other. You don't charge interest to your neighbor. You don't kill each other. You don't lie to one another. You do not rape. You do not cross-dress...etc. Doing these things causes a lot of harm to other people and they are a legalistic concept as much as guidance.

Considering your position I would imagine you would have a problem with Ezekiel 18:4 in which the "soul" or "person, life" that sins shall die. "Chata"...misses the mark. "Muth"...to die. What mark are we missing? The context are all things contained in verses 4-23...but you should pay attention to verse 23; the Almighty wants us NOT to die...therefore choose life and obey and live. If you hold to your position then you would seem to have a hard time with this passage.

You should also take this in lock-step with Ezekiel 33:11. The Almighty does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked. He wants us all to turn back and follow and live. That sounds like a loving Father to me. All ways outside of Him lead to death. Following His ways leads to life because your "shamar" to him. You are following and obeying.

When in regards to the so-called "impossibility" of observing the Almighty's ways because we no longer have a Temple, ark and of the like...you are under a misconception. I have attached a word document concerning this explanation. It is probably base and simple compared to what you are used to, but it should get the point across that there was a difference between animal sacrifices(Levitical Priesthood) and the "commandments, statutes and judgment" and that the latter remains while the former was prophesied to change. Still a sacrifice, but no longer of animals.

However, your admission of doing "much" of what Yah asks while not doing the rest is a blatant error. It is defiance. You acknowledge that there are things that you would not do and by default admit that you would ignore portions of the "Towrah", the "instruction/direction/guidance" if it required you to do so if it conflicted with what you wanted to do.

You then reference specific events such as killing someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath; a reference to Numbers 15:32-36. That is a instruction event...but also a legalistic once; obey. You have contradicted yourself.

When in regards to "obey or die" you only have one half of the equation. I should also mention that a Father punishes as well as rewards. You have the instruction part down pat. I do not dispute that, but you willfully and admitted ignore the other half. Perhaps these passages concerning death would fill that other half;

Exodus 21:12, 14
Deuteronomy 13:10, 17:5, 18:20, 19:12
Jeremiah 31:30.

Those are just a few. Your problem, Yada, is that you admit you take only what you want and ignore the rest. That shows that your belief system is based in your own personal desire and wants and is, by definition, partly defiant of the instruction that you claim the scriptures are all about.

So how can anything you teach be trusted in full?

Lastly, I was reading those books of yours because I desire to see any and all contentions against the scriptures in any form to see if they are true. Primarily I was focused on finding additional evidence concerning Paul speaking against the Law and the Prophets. I had only just recently uncovered the evidence concerning Paul before I even came across your documents on the web.

Yada, I would surmise that you have probably taken offense to a lot of what I have told you, but at the very least I would think that you should re-confirm your beliefs to make absolutely sure the scriptures tell you what to believe and then you have to make the choice to do it.

I came from a position of dogmatic and almost fanatical belief that Paul was an apostle of the Messiah(I'm still unsure of your translation, but I reference the one from Daniel and the Gospel accounts and Psalms) and that shook my entire foundation. Perhaps this is doing the same for you?

I try not to be long-winded, but my final question is this concerning the name of the Almighty and His Son;

In the PDF file I referenced to you initially the external evidence as well as a few of the internal evidence suggest that the pronunciation was "Yahweh" and based upon the prophecy of Zechariah 3 the name of the coming Messiah would have been equivalent to the Hebrew pronunciation of "Joshua" which would have been "Yahushua"...meaning Yah/Yahu/Yahweh saves.

Your argument is based strictly(as far as I can tell) upon an examination of the letters of the alphabet and words ending with the "he" and that the name is spelt and pronounced "Yahowah". I have heard that the contention against this is that the verb form changes how a word is pronounced.

So when Moses was told "I am that I am", this was in the first person form, but in Exodus 3:15 the Almighty used the third person form and the pronunciation therefore was "eh" and not "ah" at the end of the name.

How would you answer these contentions?


Yada wrote:
Sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. All it took was your first paragraph...

You worte: "I am not saying that "Towrah" means only "law" or that "shama" means only to "obey". I am saying that your using only half of the definitions of the words. I do not dispute at all that they also mean teaching and guidance and listening intently. I am pointing out that you seem focused only half of the definitions and half of the usages."

Towrah does not mean "law." No aspect of the word means "law." Law isn't half of the definition - it isn't any part of the definition.

Shama' does not mean "obey." No aspect of the word means "obey.' Obey isn't half of the definition. It isn't any part of the definition.

The religious lexicons which say otherwise are wrong. They are often wrong. Wrong is popular. But wrong is never right. Popular isn't proof.

Towrah means "source from which teaching, guidance, instruction, and direction flow." It is from yarah. Shama' means "to listen." That is all it means.

There is no "also." You are wrong.

Believe what you want, but don't support your opinions with inaccurate translations.

If you don't like my translations, read something else. I love it when somebody finds an error in my work, because I make more than my fair share, and can correct my mistakes. But there is nothing to be gained by your assessment. It is not valid. It isn't even remotely accurate regarding towrah or shama'.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#612 Posted : Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:31:34 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,430
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 184 time(s) in 129 post(s)
DH wrote:
Dear Yada,

I have learned so much from your writing, and I have read most of it. I am impressed that you have modified your beliefs and knowledge over the years. That is evidence of growth. I am profoundly grateful for your efforts.

May I return the favor in a very small way?

I think that the 2 BC/33 AD dates for the physical life of Yahowsha are off by two years. I have several reasons to conclude this.

First, you state:

"Tertullian, a trustworthy historian and lawyer born about 160 CE, stated that Augustus began his reign 41 years before the birth of Yahowsha’ and that the emperor died 15 years after the Ma’aseyah’s redemptive advent, placing Yahowsha’s arrival in 2 BCE. The 42nd year of Augustus ran from the autumn of 2 BCE to the fall of 1 BCE. Tertullian also noted that the Ma’aseyah was born 28 years after the death of Cleopatra in 30 BCE, which is consistent with the 2 BCE date."

There is a counting problem with this. If 43 BC is the first year of Augustus' reign, then the 41st year is 3 BC. You have to count from 44 BC, not 43 BC. Also the 41st year may have started in late 4 BC. 2 BC is too late to satisfy this condition! However, 4 BC or 3 BC would be correct.

I am 65 years old. I was born in 1951. Yet 2017 is the sixty seventh calendar year in which I have lived. It seems as though there is a two year error. I have to count from 1950, not 1951. And I will turn 66 later this year.

The second problem relates to the amount of time that Yahowsha spent in the grave. The sign he gave was to be three days and three nights in the grave (Matthew 12:40). In 33 AD, passover was on a Friday. From sunset on Friday to before sunrise on Sunday there is one day and less than two nights. Three days and three nights just don't fit in that interval.

We know that Yahowsha died on passover (Matt 26:2, Luke 22:7). The next day was the first day of unleavened bread, an annual sabbath. The first day of unleavened bread is always the day after passover. The day following Yahowsha's death was a "high day" or a "special sabbath," not necessarily the same as the weekly sabbath (John 19:14, 31).

There were multiple sabbaths after the burial and before the empty tomb was discovered. In Matthew 28:1 the word "sabbath" was plural in the Greek, but mistranslated as singular. NIV notes admit this. It should read, "after the sabbaths at dawn..."

So the multiple sabbaths had to be (1) the first day of unleavened bread, and (2) the weekly sabbath.

Now everything fits. If the year was 31 AD, passover was on a Wednesday. The burial was just before or at sunset on Wednesday. Thursday was the special sabbath the next day. Yahowsha spent three days and three nights in the grave just as he said. The three nights were Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights. The three days were Thursday (special sabbath), Friday, and Saturday (weekly sabbath). The resurrection would have been just before or at sunset on Saturday evening (the weekly sabbath). The empty tomb wasn't discovered until some hours later, before dawn on Sunday.

If this understanding is wrong, I would like to know.

With my warmest regards,

DH


Yada wrote:
DH,

We are going to disagree here. While I could be wrong about 33, and while I'd enjoy considering evidence to the contrary, the many arguments presented for it in Yada Yah for 33 are better than yours in favor of 31.

First, I don't much care if Yahowsha' arrived in 2BCE or 1BCE. It is irrelevant. It is relevant that He arrived on Sukah. God was not born, so dating His "birthday" is a waste of time. I cover it briefly, but not seriously, in YY.

I would not trust any Christian historian on anything. I've studied their propaganda. My review of them can be found in Volume 7 of www.YadaYah.com.

Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and FirstFruits transpire over three days, meaning that Yahowsha's body did not and could not be in the grave 3 days. It was actually destroyed immediately after Passover and His soul and Spirit were reunited early on Bikuwrym. Matsah is only 24 hours. And there is no question historically that His soul was released from She'owl on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Similarly, He was crucified on a Friday. This timeline only fits 33CE and does not fit 31CE. Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym all fall on the days of the week attested in Mattanyah.

The Daniel prophecy points to four days before Passover in 33 CE, not 31 CE. It trumps all notions to the contrary. Yahowah is precise, and so it only makes sense that the special Shabat of Matsah would fall on a natural Shabat, just as the special Shabat of Sukah in 2033 also falls on a natural Shabat. Here is my analysis of the Daniel prophecy regarding Yahowsha's pre-Passover arrival.
http://yadayah.com/Yada_...-Set_Apart_to_Serve.YHWH

In the Mow'ed - Appointed Meeting Times chapter of the Good News volume of YY (http://yadayah.com/Yada_Yahweh-Good_News-Mow'ed-Appointed_Meeting_Times.YHWH) I present what I think is a much more compelling and consistent explanation of the Yownah 3 days and 3 nights statement.

Dowd / David set the cornerstone of the Temple in 968 BCE, 20 Yowbel from 33 CE. Rabbi Akiba promoted Simon bar Kokpha to Messiach in 133 because it was a Yowbel year. 31 was not a Yowbel.

I've never said that I'm certain 4000 Yah was 33, but the evidence is overwhelming in favor of it. My issue has and remains the difficulty of calibrating Yah's calendar with the Imperial Roman Pagan Catholic replacement.

Year 4000 Yah is of the utmost importance as is Year 6000 Yah. So the only reason that I care about locating 4000 Yah on the Roman calendar is so that I can locate Year 6000 Yah on it as well. That is the year He will return, on Yowm Kippurym. If you are right, we have 2 fewer years to share what we know. If you are right, the Tribulation will begin in the fall of 2024. But if I'm right, then there is a reason the timing of Apophis coincides with its arrival in 2029 as predicted in Revelation.

Yada


DH wrote:
Yada and Larry,

Thank you both for your extensive replies. I have a lot more to study!

All of this started after I heard Yada on "Coast to Coast AM" way back in 2003. Since then I have read Tea with Terrorists and Prophet of Doom (both in hard copy), Introduction to God, Questioning Paul, and I am now on chapter 3 of Yada's Genesis. I started reading Questioning Paul a few years ago, the same way Yada started writing it - as a defense of Paul. I thought I had Paul in a well-contained little box, where with much waving of hands I thought I had myself convinced that there were no contradictions between him and Yahowah. Boy was I wrong. 1/3 of the way into Questioning Paul, I had come to see it. I have heard claims elsewhere that II Peter is pseudonymous, which may be another reason to disregard what seems to be an endorsement of Paul (in English translations, anyway) at its end.

All of this sure makes me wish I were fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek.

I'll keep reading. I have a lot more to cover.

Again, thank you for your time and effort.

DH


Yada wrote:
DH,

I don't cover the evidence behind 33 and 2033 in ITG or QP, but instead in YY - which you are just beginning to read. While the support for those conclusions is presented in the two chapters I identified and provided links, you'd be better off ignoring them for now so that you can continue to read YY from the beginning. The "Genesis" volume is eyeopening. You'll get to those chapters and volumes in due time. And when you are done, consider Observations. It's available at www.YahowahBeryth.com.

In context, and properly translated, "Peter" destroyed Paul's credibility. But I was once with you, believing that there were no contradictions between Paul and Yahowah. I believed this because I did not know Yahowah and did not understand His Towrah. Sadly, the opposite is true. Paul is the plague of death.

There is no advantage to learning Greek because half of the NT is trash and the rest is far too unreliable to trust. If you are interested in why these conclusions are irrefutable, read the 9th chapter of Observations. Bottom line: focus on Hebrew and the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

Yada
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Users browsing this topic
13 Pages«<111213
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.