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

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#1 Posted : Saturday, December 8, 2012 6:48:15 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
Dear Yada, I sent ITG to a woman who believes she had done a fair amount of research.
I sent ITG because I want to reach out to people so that they also may be saved.

Her response was...
Quote:
"Page 2 says, "
Just don’t call Him “Lord,” “Allah,” “Jesus” or “Christ,” as these names and titles are either offensive or hold no meaning to Him whatsoever. "

So I stopped reading at that line. If the author is so uninformed he doesn't know that Ho Christos and Kurios are JEWISH GREEK TRANSLATIONS of the Hebrew OT in the Greek OT, of HaMaschiach and YHWH respectively, then there's nothing to learn from him. JEWS wrote the Greek OT. Not Christians. 'Jesus' is Yeshua, the Messiah's real first name for His Humanity. The author of the story is blissfully unaware of the Hebrew OT, and even more unaware of the provenance of the Greek OT! And frankly, the word 'allah' is just the Arabic for 'God'.


Yada, what could i say to rebut her statement?

R


Yada wrote:
R,

So you found someone who is poorly informed and irrational and claims to be otherwise. Why is that a surprise?

The answer to all of her claims, and thus your response, is included in the Word and Name sections of the ITG. So why are you asking me to provide a rebuttal?

Nonetheless, the short answers are: neither Christos nor Kurios are written in any first through third century MSS of the "Christian New Testament." And when the placeholders are used, Kappa Sigma typically replaces Yahowah in the Hebrew text, so it's not a "translation." Moreover, there is absolute proof that the Chi Sigma placeholder was based upon chrestus, not chirstos, words with entirely different meanings. There is no title written "HaMaschiach" in Scripture. That too is a religious myth. The word is used as an adjective in Dany'el, and means "set apart to serve." And when this concept is deployed as a name / title, it is spelled ma'aseyah, which means the "work of Yahowah."

There is no translation or transliteration connection between "Jesus" and "Yeshua," and "Yeshua" isn't Yahowsha's name. Yahowah knows how to spell this name and you'll find it written "Yahowsha'" over 200 times, beginning in the Towrah.

There is no "OT," but the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were all scribed in Hebrew by Yahuwdym inspired by Yahowah, not in Greek. And there are no reliable extant copies of the Septuagint, so this translation is hardly "provenance." Moreover, all early MSS use the Hebrew names and titles in the midst of the Greek text, eventually changing to the same placeholders found in early "Christian NT" MSS.

Yahowah associates "Lord" with Satan and says that He hates it when the term is applied to Him.

And not that it matters as much, but in the Qur'an ilah is the word for god and Allah is one of the names of the Islamic god.

Not a word of her rebuttal was accurate.

Please don't send something out until you know what it reveals, until after you have read it, verified it, and understand it. Yahowah's goal is not to save people, especially someone like this woman, so that should not be your motivation either. His goal is for you to become observant so that you come to know and understand Him and His Covenant and then respond appropriately. This woman has no interest in learning, so she will never come to know Yahowah.

Listen to Yahowah. Study His Towrah. Embrace His Covenant. Share His Word once you come to know and understand it with those who are open to His teaching.

Yada

Edited by user Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:33:19 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  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:34:33 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
WT wrote:
Dear Sir,

I spent this weekend on a few Facebook groups created by those who claim to be “Observers of the Torah” and students of your writings. While I have enjoyed your material, I must profess, the people in these groups who promote your material are the most vile people I have ever encountered. The most despicable of the bunch is Larry Hendricks. Having read just about everything he has posted, he uses his knowledge of Intro To God and Yada Yah, to taunt, belittle, berate and curse anyone who challenges his beliefs or refuses to abandon their beliefs to follow his teachings. He seems quite willing to rob anyone of their God given free will, only to force his will on them.

Having heard you collaborate with him during the radio show and learning he will be filling in for you in February. If you consider this person to be a representative of your works, I have no choice but to terminate any further involvement.

It’s shameful that such a despicable person uses your work in such a way as to offend and drive away anyone who may have come to a better understanding of Yahowah.

WT


Yada wrote:
WT,

This is the first and only negative letter or comment that I've received regarding Larry. But if your concerns are valid and can be confirmed, I'll address them.

So that you know, by design I have never been to Larry's Facebook group, so I don't know what is presented there. But I do know Larry via hundreds of email exchanges and phone calls over the years and I've grown to like him. Many have come to know Yahowah and embrace His Covenant as a result of Larry's outreach. I receive their letters regularly.

Larry is an "observer" of Yahowah's towrah, but no one is a student of my writings. Those who read Yada Yah and Intro to God become students of Yahowah's writings. That is the point.

As for vile, I list the likes of Paul and Muhammad. I put preachers, pastors, popes, and politicians, even generals and international bankers in that list.

I read your letter this morning to my producer because I was concerned and he went to the site in question. His view of Larry's posts was dissimilar to your own - but he only read those that time would permit during the show. He then sent me a thread from one of the sites, and what I read was vile, but not from Larry, from others criticizing him.

Now I haven't read everything in that thread. There was way too much nonsense being spouted to endure it. But if you can show me proof that what Larry wrote constitutes being among "the most vile people you have ever encountered," I'll confront him. Please, send me the evidence. But if your concern is simply him "belittling and berating" those who challenge Yahowah's testimony, then I'm going to side with Yahowah who does the same.

There is a myth which proposes that to be loving you cannot hate. And yet Yahowah tells us that He hates, because if you do not hate that which is harmful you are not loving. This is the fallacy of of style over substance.

I differ from Larry in two ways. First, I don't care what people say about me. The moment antagonists resort to ad hominem arguments, or style over substance, I realize that I'm wasting my time. Since I see myself as irrelevant, I seldom if ever defend myself. But based upon what he said today on the show, in the face of ruthless and sometimes invalid attacks on him, Larry may have defended himself personally. If so, I would not have taken this approach. But then again, I've been crucified publicly and no longer care what anyone says about me. A person has to endure many lashings before they no longer sting. This was part of my preparation for this mission.

Second, I don't seek a fight, nor does Yahowah. I respond to those who write and call me, to those who come to my websites or shows. This is just as Yahowah responds to those who seek Him in His towrah but largely ignores everyone else. So in keeping with this strategy, if a person seeks me out and says things which are invalid, I'll confront them bluntly and aggressively. And that is because if I ignore the deceptions it appears as if I either embrace them or have no answers to refute them.

The site Larry may have been on may have been soliciting a fight. And in that case, if this is the case, we differ on tactics.

As for robbing folks of their freewill, it is belief systems, religious and political, which do this very thing. Evidence and reason are seldom considered, thereby negating the benefits of freewill. Bluntly stating the disparity between Yahowah's testimony and religious teaching presents a choice and reinforces the importance of that choice.

I can't speak for Larry in this regard but I can speak for Yahowah and myself. Neither God nor I have any interest in imposing our will on anyone. I don't care what anyone believes. I only care when either I'm asked questions by someone who is trying to get to know Yahowah or I am confronted by people who are leading souls away from Yahowah. And even then, while I'll respond to both, my mission is to expose and condemn lies while expressing Yahowah's witness. The response of the individuals, pro or con, is not up to me.

Yahowah's Towrah and Prophets present a message that is bold and blunt, completely uncompromising. And yet that message and God are at odds with religious interpretations, so when those exposing lies and witnessing to the truth are confronted by those who embrace lies, they are seen as mean and antagonistic. It is the leading complaint against me.

WT, if you can show me where Larry responded in a way that is "vile" or "despicable," or where he sought to "rob someone of their freewill," then I'll confront him, and if necessary, disassociate. But if your concern is only that he was "offensive" toward the apologists on behalf of religion and politics, then I'll embrace him.

Please, since you invested the time to read what Larry had written, and invested the time to express your concerns to me, invest a little more time and show me why you have come to hold these views.

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 FredSnell  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:39:53 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
^
Larry, be like me, will you? Just kidding. I like your, take no prisoner style, Larry, and sometimes standing your ground is all you have. Yah bless you and keep learning.
Psalms 2: 1-12
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHWH, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: YHWH shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my set-apart hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve YHWH with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3PB1jWO3_E
Offline James  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:46:24 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
WT wrote:
Yada,

You should know something about me. Larry seemed to assume I am a typical christian, I am not. I have only been to a church once. It was for work and nearly cost me my job when the priest complained to the company, that I disrespected him because I refused to address him as father. I was bold, I stood up for my beliefs and prevailed without using insults or bad language.

Yada wrote:
Unfortunately, we all seem personalize arguments. Exposing religious deceptions while witnessing to the truth should be universal and thus, apart from the leaders and founders of religion and politics, our positions shouldn't differentiate between belief systems or focus on specific individuals. You should not have been targeted personally and you should not have personalized this online discussion. It should have been about what is true and what is false.

While it is good to be bold, and even better to stand up, especially when opposing a religious institution, this is best done when advocating Yahowah's testimony rather than our own beliefs.

Yahowah insults religion and the advocates of it. And sometimes, the religious are so foolish it's hard not being insulting. Read my replies to Muslims on Feedback at Prophet of Doom for a dose of that.

As for bad language, there are useful descriptive terms and inappropriate ones. God damn and bull shit, for example are used by Yah to describe His view of religion. But, I concur that there is very little to be gained by using even these phrases without explaining why God chose them.


I have studied the word of God for more than thirty years, gleaming knowledge where I could, and always testing the spirit. I have long detested the catholic church and it’s deceit. I know all too well of the influence it has on main stream christianity and the paganism forced on those who live in self imposed ignorance. I observe the weekly Sabbath and the annual Sabbaths. I do not subscribe to faith without works or the doctrine of grace. I know what is at stake and I am a stickler for the truth. In my opinion, the use of vulgar language is the sign of a small mind.

Yada wrote:
Hopefully in your studies you will focus upon the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And the test for what is of Yah and what is not is delineated in Dabarym 18.

The RCC is rotten to the core, but so is the whole of Christianity. It is good that you recognize this. Very few do.

I am glad to hear that you observe the Shabat and Miqra'ey. I hope you do so in the context of the Covenant.

Faith is counterproductive. And works is best understood in the context of the 119th Psalm, where we focus on observing the Towrah, think about it, come to understand it, and then respond to and act upon what Yahowah is offering. And when we come to understand the Towrah, the most important "work" we can do is share what we have learned, starting with our children.

So long as our definition of vulgar language is the same, I concur.


I can not offer you any proof. I have been banned from the groups and blocked by Larry and most other members of the groups.


Yada wrote:
That is a shame. I'm sorry. I was genuinely hoping to see the evidence. I have asked a trusted friend to look around and see what they can find but so that their search is fruitful, could you please share the specific FB location of this particular episode? I have forwarded both of your emails to him.


I listened to the show this morning for the last time. I heard Larry tell you half truths and lies, while you sided with him and his policy of boldness, even though by your own admission you had not witnessed what I saw take place last night between midnight and three am this morning.


Yada wrote:
I'm sorry once again. But I hope that you will continue to study www.IntroToGod.org, www.YadaYah.com, andwww.QuestioningPaul.com. I think that they will help you better understand Yah's teaching. And I don't say that because I have some unique revelation, because I don't, or that I'm perfect, because I'm not, but only because there are so few books devoted to accurately presenting what God actually had to say in a way that helps readers understand what He is offering and what He is opposing.

As you have said, I don't know enough about what happened that night to be judgmental. All I can do is speak in general terms. The Larry I've come to know I like. And the Larry you speak of I do not know.


I was content to sit back and read the posts before making any comments. I was shocked by what I read. It’s quite obvious Larry is the ring leader and serves to enable the others. I watched christians plead for the members of the group to stop attacking every word they posted, to no avail. My only comment was to ask why the members of the group were being so mean. That drew the ire of everyone, including Larry. I watched as they called me and others names. I was even ridiculed by one woman for having served in the military, since she went through the photos on my page and saw an old photo of me in uniform. Had she asked, I would have told her I was a 20 year old, drafted for the Viet Nam war in 1972, not that it would have made a difference.

Yada wrote:
I don't promote my study of Yahowah's testimony and I never seek out foes to fight, so it is hard for me to relate to any of this. Additionally, I don't partner with anyone nor have I joined any group, including Larry's, and for some of the reasons highlighted in your letter.

I don't see my job as being anything beyond studying Yah's Word and sharing what I learn with those who want to know. I only debate those who first confront my witness on behalf of Yahowah. And even then, I never take it personally.

It is the proper response of one who knows the truth regarding Yahowah to protest every word which is misleading. When it comes to truth and lies, and knowing what God said, words are all we have.

Names are also important, but only so long as they are wielded correctly. And "name-calling" in the sense of slandering a perceived opponent is seldom helpful.

Where we still seem to differ is that I do not see "mean" as bad. Yah hates religious deception and we ought to hate it as well. It is the most loving response.

I too am easy to ridicule. The fact that you were drafted ought not have been used against you. That was completely inappropriate. Moreover, it personalizes a discussion that should have never been personalized.


What particularly drew my attention was the behavior of Larry. Sure, he would copy and paste paragraphs from your material. However, once three or so posts were made and the target christian would reply out of ignorance, he started getting belligerent and spewing his vitriol. I watched Larry repeatedly say good night, only to return twenty minutes later and begin his attacks anew. This went on for an hour or more. What I saw was akin to what an infidel would receive from a Muslim. I read posts of members patting each other on the back for their attacks and even congratulating Larry for his witty comments.

Yada wrote:
I'm not a fan of copying and pasting material written by others. Yahowah wants us to observe His teaching, think about it, understand it, respond to it, and then witness to it.

Yahowah spews plenty of vitriol as does Yahowsha', but at the proponents of religion, not at the victims of religion. And God seldom seeks a fight. But when the fight is brought to Him, His responses are such that most religious and pc individuals would see His replies as hateful - and perhaps they are and should be.

Gloating, if that is what occurred, isn't good. For example, I think I understand Islam pretty well and I've debated many Muslims, but I'm careful to suggest that I've actually won a debate. My opponents have lost them, however.

I'm also unwilling to write late at night. I have enough trouble functioning during the day. This is very complex material and the arguments are profound, so trying to communicate late at night is a really bad idea. Moreover, the written word is far more easily misunderstood, especially regarding attitude, than is the spoken word, so it's all too easy to irritate without intent.


When he finally got back around to me, he was vicious. I refused to take part and just watched in shock as he called me names and tried to goad me into an argument. When I left the group around three am, he was still going at it. Before I left for the night, I informed him of the email I had sent to you earlier in the night, as a notification of the vile and despicable way he represented your work, the name of Yahowah and the name of your radio show.


Yada wrote:
Again, I don't know what was written. I did not participate. And I have no association with any of these sites. I don't even engage in such things.

I'm sorry that it came to this. I'm sorry that a discussion of Yahowah's testimony deteriorated into personal attacks and personal defenses. It appears, at least based upon your observations, that everyone lost.



By morning I had been banned from the groups. I’m sure Larry scrubbed the posts, well aware of the email I had sent you.

Yada wrote:
That's not good either if this is so. I have never done such a thing. I've never scrubbed a discussion I've had with anyone. And the farthest I've ever gone is to ban two guys for one day from the YY Forum because their posts were personally vicious. And I've been doing this for 11 years. That's a lot of discussions.


My only concern for sending you the email was to make you aware of how your material was being used and possibly damaging your reputation or name. I couldn’t care less about Larry or your association with him. However, I will tell you this from first hand observations. Larry is not the same person on the radio as he is when he is with his groupies. I will continue to gleam knowledge from what you have provided, but I will do so alone, as I have always done. If you are concerned or just curious about your friend, make up a fictitious Facebook page, pose as a christian and join their group. You will see your friend has quite a short fuse and when lit, he explodes.

Yada wrote:
I do not copyright my material because I don't consider it mine. So I have no control over how it is used. All I can do is encourage people to read everything through before responding and then come to understand Yahowah before engaging.

My name and reputation have been dragged through the mud for a very long time. I have long since stopped caring about what people think and say about me. I consider myself irrelevant.

I do not know anything about the FB outreach. I've never visited any of the sites. So all I can do until proven otherwise is to hope that it is not as bad as you present. The Larry who has called into the show is informed, rational, and reasonable. I simply don't know the Larry you experienced.

I will never pose as a Christian. Pretending to be what one is not is the essence of Pauline doctrine. I was once a Christian, but I'm doing my best to scrub its stain from my soul and remove its influence on my thinking. I hate Christianity more now than I despise Islam.

I have a short fuse, too. But so does Yah. The key is to explode in the right way, place, and time.


As for me, this will be my last correspondence, there is no need to reply. Good luck, best wishes.

WT

Yada wrote:
WT, since you have taken the time to express your concerns I find myself unable to forgo responding. As is my custom, I respond to those who write to me.

While I'm pained by your letters in that I've come to like Larry, I'm appreciative that you have taken the time to express you observations and concerns. I hope that you stay in touch, and that you continue to read An Intro To God and Yada Yah. And I hope that you send me a note every now and again to discuss what you have learned. I especially enjoy constructive criticism. Since I still make plenty of mistakes, I love it when they are exposed. That way I can correct the record.

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  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:47:52 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
wrote:
Since YHWH knows the end the end from the beginning,( as you affirm in Yada Yah) it follows logicaly that YHWH knows who is wrtiten in His Book of Life. He wrote His prophecies from knowing the future (who the anit-christ is, {Paul the wolf in sheeps clothing} [and i agree] and many other things that YHWH knows which you affirm.
How then can you say know YHWH for salvation when Yah knows from foresite those whom YHWY already knows and rejects those whom ?YHWH doesnt know?


Yada wrote:
Knowing the future does not predestine it. Yah has been to our future and knows the choices we will make. But they are still our choices.

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
Guest  
#6 Posted : Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:37:40 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 98

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Dec 24 should have kept Larry out of it
Offline James  
#7 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 7:49:02 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
RS wrote:
Hi Yada I' m RS ,about a month ago I called into Shattering Myths from Texas.Yahwah ,has built a tremendous and exstordinary testimony through me . since 1996 here in Austin Texas.
But ,I'm am constantly being slander And many more attempts on my life.Throungh all this persecution I found you which has brought me to knowing the truth. And what Yahwah has for me to do.
Iwish so much if you could some how help me .Write a book .Call in and do a testimony I really Love you ,and your knowledge of Yahwah.I just want to grow and find another wife.
A few nights ago i went to HEB store and brought some juice ,after drinking it i felt a tingling like the ones you get when you go to church. The next day i had a very strong virus try to take over ,I got some meds. and rest .Now just last night i went and brought a sandwich & fries . The meat taste a bit spoiled ,a couple hours later i got a big cocaine rush the overdose. kind. This is not the first time on another I drove a van i was having a light chat with my passenger and mention where i was taking a class ,I'm not sure if it was next day ,but i went to the rest room and you know those air fresher dispensers some fragrance that smell like a women's Virginia very strong i took in a big wift,and went back to class while sitting there got a big cocaine rush.. I' ve been writing to different ministries asking if they would give The Yahwah and me to tell this testimony. One wrote back sometimes you have too die for Christ,another said something totally different from what i was asking. On your show you said you wanted help in exposing these murders since 1996 they have been trying to kill me. For being a child of Yah. and not bowing down to worship them. I am wishing that you dont turn your back on Yah Me, and all the people they have on there way too hell.

Please let me know
RS


Yada wrote:
RS,

The only way I know how to help someone is the way I've found to help myself. And that way is to study Yah's Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. The more you learn, the more you benefit and grow. The more you understand, the more you are able to help others. Your books and your witness will flow out of the answers Yahowah provides.

You cannot get these things from me or any ministry. You cannot find them in any store.

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  
#8 Posted : Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:50:50 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
This email is for Yada. Please forward if you are not Yada.


Dear Yada,

I wasn't going to write, but the time is urgent, and this contentious woman can't help dripping with Latter Rain. Twenty facebook accounts were shut down this week, some of them talk show hosts on GCN and RBN. How can I get my documents to you, while there is still time?

No scriptural evidence of latter day prophets? How many would you like me to name? Yahowah does nothing without revealing His secrets to His prophets. And without revelation, the people will perish. Period.

The narrow way? Are you claiming to prophesy His Way of Deliverance, without first proclaiming a prophet's office?

Be careful, Hananiah, that your beautiful vision of soaring away into the heavens with a "small t torah" isn't securing your death instead. (Jeremiah 28:15-17) For regardless of the "way" that you promote, heavy persecution is coming upon the whole land, and they will shoot you like a dog in the street as you go marveling after the Beast (as you are doing, even cheering him on in Israel, fulfilling the prophecy of how they will attempt to deceive even the elect). Soon myself, Jacob and the 12 Tribes will be signing an important document sealing up the collective sins that have prevented the science of Everlasting Life from being established on the earth, and established the Abomination in its stead. But do what you will--go chasing after the counterfeit and miss the whole thing, but know that you have rejected and forsaken His Fountain of Living Waters--the flint (white jasper) foundation writing now--to your everlasting disgrace. (Psalm 114:6, Isaiah 66:5, Jeremiah 17:13) In the End, His elect will prove to be those capable of receiving revelatory knowledge. They alone, in conjunction with me, will reveal the Way of Deliverance on the earth for all who seek that narrow Way.

He is calling you now to carry the Ark of Deliverance, the Unsealed Book that I am commissioned to write. (1st Chronicles 15:2)
The big question is, will you renounce the error of your "way" and sanctify yourself as He requires? (1st Chronicles 15:12)
Death is decreed for those who reject His Way of Life and promote their own "way" without consulting Him. (1st Chronicles 15:13)
Will you refuse the priestly garments that I, the Lamb's Wife, have tailored to fit you? (Proverbs 31:19,22-25)
Will you wear fine linen in the joyful procession, or walk naked, exposing your error before the world? (1st Chronicles 15:27)

Friend, how can He speak to you in the cloudy pillar when you close your dull ears? (Psalm 99:67) Do you know that He will take vengeance on your own inventions too (Psalm 99:8) -- your own human rules that condemn the Words of Life that I bring before you, simplyl because of the fact that they are being tentatively issued in corrupt Christian language? You have put me so far below you that I am not even worthy of engaging with--you prefer to judge without knowledge, and to hate without discernment, and to make presumptions rather than investigate. Yet I stand before you fulfilling the scripture that a true prophet is not accepted by her people, while all the false-prophet idiots out there amass their huge followings that will lead His people to their death just as surely as those led by Jim Jones or Applegate.

I implore you to stick to your gift of giving accurate translations, which will be a great blessing to the Way of Deliverance. As far as my gift of prophecy, if He can make an ass speak, He can open the mouth of this ass who is just beginning to learn proper translations from you. I implore you to olease stop short of making interpretations of prophecies, and seek partnership with me on such an undertaking. The Ark of Deliverance will go forth with or without you, but I exhort you to heed my Words of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9, for there is a reason why Yah calls His revelations "secrets." They are not meant for the Beast to see--he will only devour them and trample me to pieces, setting back the Way of Deliverance. If you hate the Revealed Knowledge that I am trying to put into your hands, and do not even wish to examine it because of your foolish short-sightedness (I refrain from calling it complete "blindness" yet), you will surely die for lack of knowledge. And the saddest part is that you will bring many righteous ones down with you, who have been drawn to you for this divine undertaking.

Write back to me through this email account if you must. Or on the forum, if you wish. I will try to raise the money to send a courier if you will simply say yes to receiving it, and provide a phone number and location for a courier to meet you.

In Yah's name,

Yerushalayim/Zion
The Daughter of God

My backwards phone number: (delete the letters) {omitted, but exactly what it says}


Yada wrote:
R,

I am content with Yahowah's Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. I see His Word as comprehensive and not in need of updating or augmenting - and He seems to agree. His existing testimony is more than sufficient and continues to be relevant according to Him - and I trust Him in this regard. Those who observe it and embrace it will not perish. Period. We have His promise on this. I'm sorry that you see it as small and incomplete, incapable, even out of date, but that is your choice.

If someone claims to be a prophet, the test is a tough one. I've never heard or read anything from anyone that meets His standard. I don't. Paul didn't. And based upon what I've read, Yahowah has already revealed everything important that will transpire over the next 1000 years.

But if you are convinced that Yahowah has revealed prophecy through you and others, then feel free to send it to me. If it is 100% in harmony with what He has revealed thus far, simply augmenting what He has already disclosed, I'll consider it. But if any part of your revelation is inconsistent with the existing Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, or if any of your predictions fail to materialize as presented, then I'll discard it.

Yahowsha' spoke of the narrow way. If you are in discord with His statement, take it up with Him. Yahowah said that His towrah - guidance could be relied upon for all time. If you disagree, this is an argument between you and Him and does not include me.

Your letter was penned in a style and tone that I'd normally reject without further consideration. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Prove that you are Yahowah's prophet and I will consider your "revelations" seriously.

I do not participate in any forum nor engage in facebook. But I do respond to most emails - at least once.

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  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:18:08 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
Yada, There are some issues I am struggling with that I would like to ask you about if I could. I would appreciate it if you would keep this confidential as it involves our Facebook group and many will be listening to the shows. Last weekend we had two men from the group stay with us. It was supposed to be a larger group, but several didn't show up. On Shabbat we went up to see Larry and his wife and one other couple. When at Sukah we had trouble with one man that was playing loud music in front of everyone, including children, that was riddled with the F word. When asked to stop he did not stop. Later he apologized and said he would be much better behaved in Florida. He is a heavy drinker, a heavy smoker and has a foul mouth. This man does not work much and lives off food stamps. He wanted to drive to Jacksonville himself so he could smoke on the way. He wanted to meet Larry to talk about Torah and to have Larry teach his brother about Torah as his brother was just learning. On the way we were bombarded with the F word and very loud music all the way up. When we got there he started telling filthy jokes and showing filthy videos. It was him, his brother and three couples. My wife was very offended and went outside and waited in the cold. Larry's wife was also very offended. There was never any discussion of Torah. My question is how do I react to people like this? Many in our group believe that any kind of behavior is acceptable as long as you shamar Torah. This man also eats unclean foods as others in the group do. He went out on Shabbat to the store to buy beer. I have been ridiculed in the group for suggesting that we should actually attempt to live in a Torah observant way. I totally get shamaring, but I don't get deliberately going against Torah so that you can say F. U. to anybody that questions it. If you have a car manuel and it says don't put sugar in the gas tank then you don't put sugar in the gas tank. If dad's manuel says don't put pork in my gas tank then I don't put pork in my tank. I love His Torah and I desire to learn(shamar) how to live by it. Deliberately breaking it as a badge of honor doesn't make any sense to me. Our group mostly believes that breaking Torah instructions means any kind of behavior is acceptable and honestly they claim to get that from your teachings. All we have to do is shamar Torah and we can do anything we want. That is no different than Christianity. It is OK to totally disrespect other people's wives and children and you must accept that because they shamar Torah? I don't believe that you intend that from your teachings, but I assure you that many have that attitude. The most respected people in the group are those that brag about drinking heavily, eat pork, and tell as many people as they can to go F themselves. The more you use the F word the more esteemed you are by the group. I just don't see you as that type of person. Why can't we shamar Torah and act like gentlemen while doing it and respect our wives and children? Is this really what Yah's family is like? Everybody go F yourself. Is it really cool to tell filthy jokes in front of my wife? I'm sure you are not aware of this as you are not on Facebook, but these people claim to represent you. I would love to see you do a show on the subject of how Yah's people should act. If you do please let me know so I am sure to listen to it. I would be glad to call in. Thanks, R


Yada wrote:
Wow, this is horrible, R.

I've not had contact with anyone this rude in many years. In the past, I just walked away from them. And so this would be the last person I'd invite to a meeting. If they come, everyone else will leave.

Obviously, this kind of behavior is unacceptable. I would tell him that based upon his behavior, his intoxication, language, and overt sexuality, that he is not welcome.

While we are afforded great liberty in our relationship with Yah, and while the Towrah isn't comprised of a bunch of laws we have to obey, Yah's guidance strongly discourages such behavior. If one's life is lived in direct contradiction to everything Yah teaches, then that person isn't listening. They aren't shamar towrah, but instead observing what the world has to offer.

Yada


R wrote:
Yada, I owe you a huge apology. When I shared this experience and my beliefs they thought I was accusing you of teaching this type of behavior. I was only saying that some people are misunderstanding your teaching. They see shamaring as a license to do anything they want. Others condone and even applaude their behavior. One man said he thinks it's funny when people are drunk. People in the group post posters with the F word in it on their Facebook page. I just don't want to represent Yah this way. One woman that stood up for me was told she is a b---- and she should go F herself. I was attacked in the group and kicked out of the group for standing up for righteousness. Later I was put back, but I decided to leave on my own. Most of the people in the group are wonderful. There are only a few that condone the disrespectful behavior, but they dominate the group. Two people told me in the group that they are afraid to speak up for fear of being kicked out. They finally kicked out the offender, but I still didn't stay because you are not free to ask questions or speak your piece there. I have the utmost respect for you. I think you are one of the most brilliant people I have known and I have learned so much from you sharing. I will continue to read YadaYah and listen to Shattering Myths.


Yada wrote:
R,

The fact that, like Dowd, we can behave badly and still remain in the covenant, doesn't by any standard make behaving badly good. While I have sworn, and do occasionally use coarse language, the occurrences are few and far between. I always feel bad about doing so, and I never do so in public. Speaking of, or showing sexual acts is never acceptable in public, especially around children. Those who find such things cute, endearing, or acceptable, are exercising very poor judgment.

I cannot take responsibility for nor control the behavior of others. I am disappointed, however, that such behavior is being condoned around people whose primary affinity is my books and shows on the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. But imagine how much damage would be done to the credibility of my books if I had personally participated in these events and was seen leading them.

I'd like to see you try to resolve this problem with Larry to see if he can rid the group of this person's caustic influence. This in a way reminds me of the YY Forum where twice now we have had to ask people to leave as a result of their attitudes.

And that my friend is the issue. The bad behavior and language displays a bad attitude - something that is wholly inconsistent with someone who has embraced the Covenant and follows Yah's Torah guidance.

This known, we ought not try to compel other people to obey rules that may be best benefited from if understood for their symbolic and instructive purposes. We don't become righteous by our behavior, but instead by our attitude toward Yah and our response to His offer.

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 Steve in PA  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:56:20 AM(UTC)
Steve in PA
Joined: 3/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: PA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I personally know the parties involved in this fiasco... My heart goes out to "R" ... there are no valid excuses for lame, rude behavior. Much of what was offensive was done in person during a visit. None of that kind of behavior is promoted and excepted in the group on FB. I sent a letter to Yada this morning to give some balance.

G’morning Yada...
I read the emails "R" sent you that James posted in the forum last night. I would just like to briefly give a little balance to his comments to you.
Yes, unfortunately a man, who is no longer a part of Larry’s group there, and his brother went and stayed with "R" and his wife for a few days. From what I have heard from both "R" and Larry this guy’s behavior was asinine and very rude. I’ve met this person and I see his posts on FB ... I have no doubt that he did the things said.
"R" was very hurt and upset by these incidents... understandably so. Yet, he ("R") transferred that onto many in the group with a broad brush unfairly. No one in the group promotes; getting drunk, eating unclean foods, dropping the F-bomb every other word, any kind of list of what can or cannot be done on the Sabbath, telling foul sexual type jokes and or any pornography... I am an admin there in that group, I would know.
Do some people drink alcohol on occasion, yes. Is that promoted as good and exceptable behavior and fine to do as long as you “observe Towrah”, no.
Do some people on occasion used colorful expletives, yes. Is it promoted as good and exceptable behavior and fine to do as long as you “observe Towrah”, no.
The thing I like about the group is that it is not “religious”... sure there are some people who are a little rough around the edges and show signs of immaturity at times, myself included... we’re all learning and growing in His Truths. Yah and His Word is promoted. I promise you Yada.. no one is taking the insight that it is most important to shamar the Towrah, where we come to understand and trust Yah where we can respond properly to His invitation... only to then act like a moron and say it’s okay.
Yah bless!
Steve
Offline Steve in PA  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:04:53 AM(UTC)
Steve in PA
Joined: 3/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: PA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I'll save James the trouble...

Steve,

Thanks for the review. This is as I suspected.

I'm at the far extreme of being anti religious, I enjoy the freedom Yah provides His children, and I remain flawed, not unlike Dowd, so it sounds like I'd be at home with most everyone in the group.

I'm glad the rude fellow was asked to leave, however.

Yada
Guest  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:20:12 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 98

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
It's also not appropriate for R to take out his frustrations and anger on other folk that weren't even there and knew nothing about the incident.
Offline FredSnell  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:22:20 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
^
Thanks, Steve. I'll remove my post now. And I agree, totally. My "rough around the edges," will be in the company of men, not women and children.
Offline Sheree  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:28:01 AM(UTC)
Sheree
Joined: 8/1/2012(UTC)
Posts: 63

Thanks: 69 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 14 post(s)
all of this has caused much discord among the facebook groups and is very unfortunant.I wish the offending party would have just apologized to those he offended and let this drop.I at first unfriended him and blocked him but I have decided to unblock and try to talk to the man and hopefully he can see his wrong and grow from all this.Is it better to drop a former friend or try to help them grow?I may regret this but I have been forgiven and helped by others and hope that if you all see me doing wrong you help me instead of deserting me..thank you,sheree
Offline cgb2  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:24:17 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Man, how tragic that some think that's whats being communicated.

Yes sometimes when Yada discovers things it appears to go overboard for a while until finding balance. For instance Dowd understanding that it was Yah saving him not his own works, because he turned around, changed direction...but yet still faced the awful consequences in his mortal life.
Another is "Yah not involved in every minutia" like xitians think, to the extreme of not at all....versus the balance of examples in the T/P/P where he did on occasions, but often years/decades in between and Yahowsha in Mat 6 about asking in private, but almost like a moot point since he knows what you want before you ask.
Offline James  
#16 Posted : Friday, January 4, 2013 5:55:47 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
JH wrote:
The Hebrew word ( shama )

Strong's # 8085 ( shama ) to hear

Once we hear and listen and understand Yah's instruction should we not DO them or Heed the instruction.

For an example, "circumcision"

do we just shama circumcision ?

Or

Do we shama, heed, do, obey, circumcision ?


Yada wrote:
You are extrapolating, which is okay, so long as you don't miss the fact that the Torah isn't law and there is no Hebrew word for obey. Shama' only means to listen. Similarly, shamar only means to observe. And towrah only means teaching.

Not recognizing the symbolism associated with placing Yahowah's teaching on one's hand and between one's eyes, religious Jews actually did this. There is much in the Torah that you cannot and should not do. But there is nothing in the Torah that you cannot learn from and respond appropriately to.

Your response to Yahowah's teaching should be based upon what you hear and what you learn. And in that regard, the best explanation of how to respond to Yah's Towrah - Teaching, how to best observe what God has to say, is presented in the 119th psalm. You find a review of it here... http://anintroductiontog...ching-%28Psalms%29.Torah .

I find that when 'asah is rendered "pursue, act upon, engage in, celebrate, and profit from" in conjunction with our Towrah observance, we are on solid footing. Yah wants us to know that we come to understand. He wants us to understand so that we respond to what He is offering.

If we do without understanding our effort is usually squandered.

Yada

Edited by user Friday, January 4, 2013 7:33:07 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
Guest  
#17 Posted : Friday, January 4, 2013 6:52:20 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 98

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
^That URL is broken; I've noticed that a lot in the replies in these "Letters" topics. You need to put a forward slash between the URL and the sentence's punctuation for it to work. Also, the first sentence of that chapter reads: "One Mizmowr / Song is devoted entirely to signing [sic] the Torah’s praises."
Offline James  
#18 Posted : Friday, January 4, 2013 7:34:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Guest wrote:
^That URL is broken; I've noticed that a lot in the replies in these "Letters" topics. You need to put a forward slash between the URL and the sentence's punctuation for it to work. Also, the first sentence of that chapter reads: "One Mizmowr / Song is devoted entirely to signing [sic] the Torah’s praises."

I fixed it. I just copy and paste the emails that Yada forwards me, so if no one lets me know that the links are down I don't know. So if a link don't work please let me know.
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  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:27:30 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
JC wrote:
Howdy Yada,
I'm a newbie who has only recently begun learning about Yahowah and searching for the truth. I've called in before on Shattering Myths as Jake from Idaho with a question regarding Buddhism. I am still reading ITG and listening to your show when I can and have just recently begun actually really digging into the Towrah myself.

It was Frank and Dianne who had first introduced my family to the truth concerning Yah and he along with your material have since been wonderful in helping us understand how to observe on our own.

I've thanked Yah for willing and able men such as you and Frank! Without His work through you guys I would still be in the dark about all of this.

Frank was afforded the opportunity to introduce me to Don here in Idaho via skype and we discussed his DSS website project. Don had set me to looking at Bare'shith 1:1 and examining 'elohym'. After our conversation I have since returned to "the beginning" in search of some more personal questions regarding my line of study.

I had said before on the radio program that I am a grad-student in architecture. Well I'm writing a thesis on some elements of the virtual universe and found myself having a hard time figuring out how to organize my thoughts on the subject. Then I recalled that the foremost architect I know of who has written an accessible work was none other than Yah! So having some limited background in the order of events in Bare'shith 1, I've begun laying out my thesis in as similar a manner as I can to Yah's record of creation. The results were staggering right off the bat! While I've only just begun writing and studying (just yesterday) already my thesis statement and introduction have come together more smoothly than I could have imagined. Yah really knows how to make stuff and the fact he shares his process is awesome!

Abridged biography aside, here is the actual meat of why I'm emailing you. I've grown up playing video games and they are in part why I'm studying what I am in school. I am intrigued by their design and the implications the technologies hold for education and exploration. While I do acknowledge that there is far too much corruption in video games regarding violence, sex and even religion, I am wondering what your opinions are concerning them. Rather, I would like to know what your experience and study have unearthed concerning the use of, and possible corruption of technologies. Is the participation by way of playing video games something Yah disapproves of?

From what I've heard and read you don't seem to be one who interacts with video games directly, but I'm hoping that you might have some insight into where I could begin to look in the Towrah concerning games. I guess this question is not limited to just video games, but actually all games in general from tabletop to crosswords. How does Yah view entertainment? Where in his instruction can I begin to look?

Thank you for you time and work,
- JC


Yada wrote:
Hello JC

Thanks for calling into the program and for sharing these thoughts and questions.

Frank and Dianne are amazing. I love them.

As I think I mentioned to you, as an architect you have an advantage when it comes to understanding the Towrah because its Author is an architect.

I'm not a video game player, but my sons are. With both, strategy games have been much better than shooting games. While He is silent on the topic, I can't imagine that Yah thinks that spending one's time playing war and shooting games is productive - but you already know that. So beyond the time it takes away from developing personal relationships, including the Covenant, the biggest issue would be the intent of the game. God rather likes it when we think, but not so much when our thoughts are directed at killing.

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
Guest  
#20 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:55:12 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 98

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Great stuff, you helped me out so much!

Your answer lifts the intelligence of the debate.

Edited by user Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:57:54 PM(UTC)  | Reason: typos, joined posts

Offline James  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:44:20 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
T wrote:
Yada,
I am a new listener who is just beginning my study of the Torah. I am/was a Christian of 22 years and honestly you are destroying my religion daily. Thank you. Anyhow, how important is it that we pronounce God's name correctly? I have friends that say Yahweh and friends that say Yehovah, etc...I noticed that you used to write Yahweh but have since changed to Yahowah and Yashuah to Yahowsha. I see where you explain why you currently pronounce them the way you do in Intro to God, but is there anywhere where you have already explained your why you used to use the name Yahweh and Yashuah and then changed? And how important is it that we pronounce His name just right? Will he have mercy on us if we have a speech impediment... :) I don't have a speech impediment, just curious for argument sake. I want to be able to share this with my friends when they come to visit me this weekend. They are driving 600 miles to talk to me about Yahowah and I want to be as prepared as I can be! Thanks!

Your Friend and new companion on the path of Yahowah,

T


Yada wrote:
T,

Your question is such a good one that I'd like to answer it this morning on the air at the beginning of the second hour. If you're comfortable doing so, please call in and we can discuss it further.

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  
#22 Posted : Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:00:37 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
J wrote:
Yada,

Friday's show brought out many points that are damning to the claim that the hadith collections are reliable.

However, regarding your claim that Muhammad was motivated by sex, power and money, I don't find your arguments persuasive:

If he was motivated by sex, why did he first marry a woman who was 40 years old when he was 25 years old, when he could've easily married a younger woman? Also, why did he marry so many widows who had been with other men? Then, with Aisha, if he was truly a pedophile, why didn't he marry or have sex with any other girls 9 years or younger?

If he was motivated by money, why did he continue to live in tiny huts with his wives, even after the Muslims accumulated lots of wealth, and why did Allah have to tell Muhammad's wives that if they desired the wealth of this world, Muhammad could divorce them and set them free handsomely (33:28-29)?

If he was motivated by sex, power and money as a whole, why did he not completely sell out and abandon all his revelations in exchange for sex, power and money when the Meccans offered them to him? If the Satanic Verses are legit, why didn't he sell out only around 100 followers for all those things instead of going back to his revelations?

J


Yada wrote:
J,

While all of your questions and statements are easy to answer, and I may do so on the show one day, I think you'd be well served to read Prophet of Doom.

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  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2013 3:57:11 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
T wrote:
Yada,
I was listening to one of your archives and you mentioned that Yahowah proved his existence and the trust-worthiness of His word through prophecies that have been fulfilled and are currently unfolding. Well, I was struck with a rare moment of inspiration. I don't get to call in much because of my work, but though you might find this interesting. I was wondering about how Yahowah was able to put in the prophecies without changing the outcome. You know the butterfly effect. When you change something small in the past, such as recording future events, it could possibly affect the outcome of the future events and thereby nullify the future event. However, it is then that I understood the nature of how few people will actually see and understand and come to know the truth. I suddenly realized that the reason He hid his prophecies behind a thin veil of understanding by scattering them throughout the Torah, Prophets and Psalms. And, that reason was so that only those who truly wanted to get to know him and actually invested their time, investing in the Relational Covenant, would find the answers. And, because the vast preponderance of the population is ignorant, deceived, or just apathetic, the effect of the butterfly affect upon the future fulfillment of the prophecies was minimal if not irrelevant. I am beginning to think as well that He put in as many clues as he could to give the most amount of people the best chance to come into His family within the limited time frame that he set, without violating our free will! What an amazing Father we have! Anyhow, I would love to hear your insight into this topic someday.

May Yah Bless You,

T


Yada wrote:
T,

Absolutely brilliant. I had though about this from a different perspective, that of enjoying the journey of discovery that comes from diligent observation, but I had not considered your rationale. But now that I have, I'll share it. I agree.

If you have the opportunity to call this into the show, rather than me reading it, that would be great. But either way, it adds to our understanding and needs to be shared.

Nicely done, T.

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  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:53:54 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
A wrote:
Hi Yada!
This is A which is actually my middle name. I emailed you several months back. I have a few more questions for you if you don't mind. I realize you are extremely busy so I will completely understand if you are unable to get back with me. First and foremost, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to your family regarding the illness of your mother-in-law. I can definitely empathize with what your wife is going through emotionally. For me, it was a continual pain that pierced my heart and an unsettling feeling in my mind when my father was near death back in 2006. Of course at that time I was claiming to be a christian, and repeatedly spoke to my father about "accepting Christ into his heart." Not knowing then what I know now, I was relieved back then after hearing from my mother that he finally "gave his heart to Jesus". Wow! It's a lot for me to swallow right now realizing that I will never see him again, and that I was one out of many who persuaded him to believe that he was going to Heaven by this path.....the broad path that lead to the destruction of his soul. I heard your recent Shabat show (February 8) on blog talk radio, and it saddened me to hear how your wife was grieving over her mother while struggling with those same feelings I dealt with myself of uncertainty. I did find comfort in knowing that he did not have to suffer or go to hell as Christianity teaches, although it saddens me just the same in knowing that his soul no longer exists. Also that I will never see him again.

Relative to death and what happens to one's soul, I have various questions that I thought you may be able to help answer since you have studied Yahowah's Word in depth in His Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms.

> If a person has read and understands Yahowah's Covenant, Terms and Conditions, and Invitations, agreeing and accepting His one and only Path; but this individual does not actually get to engage in any of the feasts because of death be it due to an illness or accidental: What happens to their soul?

> In other words, can we be in Yahowah's presence for eternity if we are unable to attend all of the feasts at least once (all seven that year). Ex: Say we engage in the first only, or two, or three feasts and then death occurs. I ask this because each feast is very significant and details very clearly what happens during each appointed meeting time.

> Also, what if we have engaged in all of the feast days and the following year or so we forget one of the appointed meetings or are unable to engage for some reason or other, are we then in trouble with Yahowah?

Yada wrote:
Yah does not say because He cannot answer this question without giving people an excuse not to answer His invitations. However, He does list the things which get us into trouble with Him and agreeing with Him and responding to Him isn't among them.


> While on this topic, out of curiosity and concern for those who take their own lives; what happens to those souls who commit suicide?

Yada wrote:
The means of death isn't germane to our relationship with Yahowah so this would be irrelevant.


> In addition, what about the souls of those who intentionally murder innocent victims?

Yada wrote:
We can be forgiven for murder. That is not an excuse to murder, but it is a forgivable sin.


> Or babies and children that die young?

Yada wrote:
The very young children of parents who are Covenant children themselves are adopted into the Covenant - but that is perhaps one in a million. Otherwise, they cease to exist.


I apologize for such questions, but they have bothered me to the point that I wanted to try and find an answer somehow. Additionally, I know that Yahowah doesn't want us to fear, but I must be honest and admit that I feel a little fear regarding the feast days.

Yada wrote:
Why would you fear a party with your Heavenly Father. The Miqra'ey are all celebrations of the Covenant family.


I have to babysit for my daughter's boys while she finishes the next seven months in nursing school. They are quite a handful and I get very concerned that I will not be able to participate the way Yah wants us to on these days.

Yada wrote:
It's more about your attitude, your understanding, and your response to what Yah is offering, not what you actually do that matters. Moreover, Yah enjoys the company of children.


I know you say its more our understanding than anything, but aren't we to be celebrating as in partying festively and reading /reciting aloud. Its hard enough trying to figure out how I'm gonna be able to enjoy my time with Yah when not only is my husband against it but my daughter doesn't want me confusing the grandkids either.

Yada wrote:
My wife doesn't participate and my younger son who does, does so a thousand miles away in his home. Very few of us have spouses and family who share the Covenant with us. Yah told us that it would be this way. So, do the best you can with the best attitude you can muster, and that will be good enough.


By the way, how are we to answer Yah's summons, by saying aloud that we are here to answer His summons for the feast? Need guidance to be sure on that.

Yada wrote:
You don't need to say anything out loud. You can think it, responding in your mind and heard. You can even read His Word quietly to yourself. On Passover, enjoy the lamb and unleavened bread, and stay with it for seven days. Each day let Him know that you are with Him, that you enjoy His company, and that you are appreciative of the relationship.


I have so many questions that I will have to address in later emails. I thank you for your time if you are able. If not, it's perfectly ok. May Yah bless your family.

A


Yada wrote:
A,

Yes, the lure of religion is death. That is why people are willing to cling to lies.

I've answered your questions after each question...

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  
#25 Posted : Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:45:24 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
B wrote:
Hi Yada. I know you are a busy man, but if you can squeeze this in it would really help me.
In Mattithyah 7:23 "...get away from me, you who practice iniquity". I know in the Greek it is anomia. I know nomos is law. I know Torah is not law. Am I correct in that
He is speaking of torahlessness? and if so, how do i make the link between anomia and torahlessness. This is a huge point to show people.
In the line of work I do, I have many opportunities to share Yahowah with people. I need to have this link.
thank you Yada for all you do.
Shabbat Shalom
B


Yada wrote:
B,

The fact that He spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, but all we have is corrupted Greek translations, is one of the unresolvable issues related to considering or trusting the Greek manuscripts. Christian scribes in Egypt, from which most all early manuscripts have been found, bought into Paul's notion and indeed the Jewish religious notion, that the Torah was law, so they replaced what Yahowsha' said with references to nomos.

For the most part, there is very little merit to the "Christian New Testament." The evidence proves that it simply cannot be trusted.

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  
#26 Posted : Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:47:36 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
CM wrote:
Yada,
Hope you are well. I listen to SM every day; I am usually several days behind the live broadcast; it is hard to call in live since I am at work during the day.
I do have a question about the meaning of our 'not doing the 'work' of the Messinger on the Sabbath'. Certainly Yahowsha performed His heaviest 'work' on the Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. He seemed to perform 'work' on the Sabbath at various times here on Earth. Was that a 'sign of the Ma'aseyah', and Israel was supposed to recognize this 'sign'? After all, we are still in the '6th Day'; God is still 'working'; He will rest on the '7th Day' which hasn't arrived yet??
Someone on the Logos forum asked:
"Does any one know where I can get a Hebrew vocabulary list (by frequency) that goes below 10 times? Van Pelt has a book with a list of Hebrew words, but only words that occur 10 or more times, but I want to find fewer than 10 times.
Trenchard has a list of all the Greek words, but is there one a complete one (beside a Lexicon) for Hebrew."

CM


Yada wrote:
CM,

Thank you for listening.

Yes, Yahowah via Yahowsha', consistently does His most important and difficult work of the Shabat, particularly on Matsah. And that is work we do not want to try to replicate, because it would require us being abandoned in She'owl.

And yes, while I haden't thought of it before, the fact that Yahowsha' did His most important work on the Shabat, it should have served as a Tsyown to everyone who observed the Towrah. Great point.

And yes, this all ties into the realization that we are still in the sixth day. That is another excellent point.

I use all of the lexicons that come with Logos and they all present words which are used as infrequently as one time, so I'm not sure I understand the problem.

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  
#27 Posted : Sunday, February 17, 2013 12:03:41 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
CC wrote:
Yada,

I know you are busy. This just came from my sister in Ohio from a friend who sends interesting articles. It ties to your observation skills of the Torah. Why you were able to see it in plain sight. With only 55 in 100 able to see the information here, it's not too hard to understand why most have not been able to read the Torah. Enjoy!

Charles Clayton
Shiloh, IL

Yes




Just to see how smart you all are to start the year.....

Wow! I've seen this with the letters out of order, but this is the first time I've seen it with numbers.

Good example of a Brain Study: If you can read this OUT LOUD you have a strong mind.

And better than that: Alzheimer?s is a long, long, ways down the road before it ever gets anywhere near you.
7H15 M3554G3
53RV35 7O PR0V3
H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N
D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5!
1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5!
1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG
17 WA5 H4RD BU7
N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3
Y0UR M1ND 1S
R34D1NG 17
4U70M471C4LLY
W17H 0U7 3V3N
7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17,
B3 PROUD! 0NLY
C3R741N P30PL3 C4N
R3AD 7H15.
PL3453 F0RW4RD 1F
U C4N R34D 7H15.

To my 'selected' strange-minded friends:
If you can read the following paragraph, forward it on to your friends and the person that sent it to you with 'yes' in the subject line. Only great minds can read this. This is weird, but interesting!

If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid, too.

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! If you can raed this forwrad it

FORWARD ONLY IF YOU CAN READ IT
Forward it & put 'YES' in the Subject Line

Even if you are not old, you will find this interesting...


Yada wrote:
After a matter of seconds, the code becomes easy to read. Our minds love to figure out puzzles by making connections - which is why the Towrah is written as it is.

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  
#28 Posted : Monday, February 18, 2013 3:08:08 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
CC wrote:

Yada,

I know you are very good at researching Hebrew words with interlinears. Prior to discovering your SM show on Genesis, I had read materials from an author who researched the name Satan. I have an idea for research that many guests may want to hear from your experience and understanding as it relates to the Torah and seven steps to Yahowah.

Have you considered, materials and research by Jim Brayshaw? He proposes the name of Satan is a myth developed after / during the Hebrews' Babylonian captivity. If I recall, some of Jim Brayshaw's writings talk about his discovery that scriptures were changed to bring an anti-God myth to have an anti-God when all along it was man's fallen nature and bad choices not to takes God's advice.

Here is a link to an abridged work he wrote recently. Jim Brayshaw claims that the Hebrew word sawtawn means adversary, not Satan. His work is very interesting, but I'm just cracking open interlinears and ITG (PDF file 3c, and feel inadequate to evaluate his work). Months ago, Jim Brayshaw offered a free PDF of his book in a radio show if listeners sent an e-mail. I risked spam forever and e-mailed him to get his book. Eventually, I lost interest in his long book and stopped reading after a few pages. Then, before discovering your work and the SM radio program, I deleted Jim Brayshaw's PDF book from my PC and only have the web reference below.
http://www.imaginenosata...om/Volume%202/vol-2.html

Perhaps you could review some of Mr. Brayshaw's book, relook at the Torah to determine from your resources/interlinears to provide a show on SM to address your findings on sawtawn vs. Satan and the impact on our soul and freewill.

Thanks for the show and materials.

Sincerely,

CC
http://www.imaginenosata...om/Volume%202/vol-2.html


Yada wrote:
CC

Satan's name is presented twice in Yasha'yahuw, the text of which is completely preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to 200 BCE. His name is Heylel ben Shachar. The ha satan reference is just a title meaning "the adversary." So I've got no idea what JB's problem is with any of this. And as for me, I'm content to trust Yahowah's testimony.

Being anti God isn't a myth - it is one of Yahowah's major themes. And there are no extant manuscripts of His testimony which predate the DSS. So JB is out on a limb from which there is no support. I'd ignore him.

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  
#29 Posted : Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:16:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
V wrote:
Hello Yada,

Trusting Yah all is going well with you and yours', your most recent loss notwithstanding.

Just a note to reiterate my appreciation of yours', among others in asher with you, taking the time to come to know and understand Yah as He exists and revealed Himself entirely in the Towrah/towrah (to include His manifestation as the Living Towrah/Ma'aseyah Yahowshah) to the exclusion of all else and then being useful in "offering a handrail" to the rest of us to come to know, or not, what Yah wants all (kol) to come and know and understand, and to then respond appropriately to the offer.

Thanks also for your flexiblity in continuing to share through both the Shabbat program and the weekly GCN Shattering Myths program...as I get deeper and deeper in my own personal walk with Yah as my Father, in His gift to me of be'ryth with Him, I also am more and more understanding at just how beguiling the entire cesspool/toilet/babylon everyone's born into the past 5820 years in which we're all, with so few exceptions, born facing the same way by default: away from Yah and His gift (chayah the default of value the Covenant)...

Finally, only out of personal curiosity - more than anything else, would I be in error in wanting to see religion, and thus followed with politics to advance religion, began with Qayin outside the Garden of Great Joy as can be extrapolated by way of the direction one of his great-great grandsons, Nimrod, took? And where as prior to Sha'uwl, and his blasphemous 2nd covenant wholly and totally at war with Yahowah/Towrah-towrah, that this babylonian sun-god religion of Qayin/Nimrod now has because of Sha'uwl now has a covenant?

Regardless of any answers, you're appreciated - as with those in close association with you to get this awesome message of Yah, His Towrah/towrah (focused on the be'ryth as it is) out to enjoy for those of us who have embraced Yah as He is, regardless of what the world of man chooses to hang their hat on...

Salowm,

V


Yada wrote:
Hi VB,

Thanks for the encouraging note. I enjoy doing both programs, and even editing all three books (I'm editing YY and QP now), but the most fun is translating the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms and then considering everything we can learn from Yah's message.

I suspect that Qayin / Cain was a major contributor to the advancement of religion in the birthplace of religion, which was outside of the Garden and between the two rivers. This is the time religion took hold, and the time that politics began to build civilizations based upon these things. So since the attitude, timing, and place we find with Qayin is consistent with the recorded history of these things, I agree with your conclusions.

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  
#30 Posted : Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:54:16 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
T wrote:
Yada,

Looking at Matthew 16:18 with an interlinear, Yahowsha seems to be saying:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my ekklhsian ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

With “ekklhsian” instead of “church,” the sentence doesn’t make sense.

How should we interpret this passage?

T


Yada wrote:
T,

Yahowsha' did not speak Greek. He was speaking to Shim'own (from shama' - to listen) in Hebrew, and thus said Miqra', which means "Invitation to be Called-Out and Meet with God, not ekklesia nor church. His statement was translated out of Hebrew using a compound of two common Greek words: ek - out and klesia - to call.

The "rock" is the recognition that Yahowsha' is the Ma'aseyah, which becomes obvious in context. And the purpose of Yahowsha's life was to enable the promised benefits of the first four Miqra'ey (plural of Miqra'), which becomes obvious when we recognize that He was the embodiment of the Towrah.

So Yahowsha' (which means Yahowah Saves) said, "You Listen (Shim'own), so upon this rock (symbolic of this sound, reliable, dependable, and enduring foundation and cornerstone (which is listening to Yahowah/Yahowsha'), I will establish and build My Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God (Miqra')."

Church is a pagan term used in sun-god worship. It is neither a translation nor transliteration of ekkelesia. God does not have nor want a "church."

Yahowah has a Covenant. The Miqra'ey enable our participation in this relationship and they facilitate our resulting salvation.

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  
#31 Posted : Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:40:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
V wrote:
Hi; I will continue to listen to your show, which I find extremely informative, but my kids work schedule is the problem, so a quick response would be greatly appreciated.

My wife and I are in a dilemma...we have the new moon at March 12th.

Therefore Pesach feast the evening of the 26th.

Now we see other website calendars (including NASA) showing the new moon on the 11th...

Where do you place it?

Once that issue is resolved, lets say the evening of the 26th is Pesach Feast....I then count (starting with the 27th) 7 days to the end of Matsah...that would mean no work/and feast on April 2nd.
Would you agree?

Thank you very much, V


Yada wrote:
V,

I use the information a friend collected for me at http://yadayahweh.com/Ya...o_Meet_God_Miqraey.YHWH. Using this data I'm going to start celebrating Pesach at sunset on Tuesday the 26th. It will be a full moon. But I have friends that will celebrate it a day earlier based upon their observations.

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  
#32 Posted : Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:52:24 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
MR wrote:
Yada,

What you are revealing is some of the most chocking things that I have heard both in concerns of islam & Christianity. I am a 51 year old Swedish citizen living in Thailand & working on an international basis in the oil & gas construction sector, currently in Mexico as QA Manager. A few years ago I started to mistrust religion of all kinds & only took my trust in Buddha. Religion from my understanding is only a way of control people & get your hands on their money.

The biggest forest owner in Sweden is the Swedish national church & I can imagine how they got all of that wealth. God forgives but at a cost, not to Yahweh but to the priests that collect the money! Then I started to study the Bible & not only listening to the priests but actually reading & listening to scholars like, Chuck Missler. This gave me another insight in what the Bible actually was saying. I am really happy that God gave this mission to you & I have asked to be given a mission on my own.

When I started to understand more of the Scripture I went on to study Islam & all of a sudden something just told me that it was all the devils deed. Last year for some unknown reason we stopped celebrating X-mass & I am not sure if it was an input from Yahweh because I told my wife that it was just a heathen holiday now taken over by business men to make money.

I would just like to ask you what you think about the Sumerian clay tablets, coming from a democratic society older than the Greek, actually describing the Old testament but telling us it was aliens from a planet called Nibiru that came to the earth to mine monolithic gold for their deteriorating atmosphere. They found some in the Ocean but it was very difficult to extract so they gave it up & started gold mining as we know it today.

But this was so hard work that took the Neanderthals & modified the genetically to be smart enough but not too smart, that’s why 90% of our brain is blocked. Also all primates have 48 chromosomes while we have 46, therefore we cannot be related to the primates. You can find a lot of information about this if you study Zechariah Stichens who managed to translate the clay tablest.

What do you think about the lost Israeli tribes? There has been found Rune stones in an are close to where I was born & no one have been able to understand what it says on the stones until someone said that maybe it’s another language & when they tried Aramaic (Biblical Hebrew) visit (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-93783/index.html). To me there is now doubt that the lost Israelites are the Western world.

Sincerely Yours,

MR


Yada wrote:
MR,

All religions are false. That is the only possible informed and rational conclusion. In this regard, Islam is as bad as Christianity.

Yahowah hates religion. All He wants is a relationship. If you would like to get to know Him and participate in the Covenant I'd encourage you to consider www.IntroToGod.org.

Bddha isn't trustworthy either. If you follow his advice your soul will cease to exist at the end of your life. Trust Yahowah and no one else.

Missler promotes Christianity, so he isn't trustworthy. Just because someone says some things which seem right, does not make them reliable on others.

I've read many books on the tablets from Sumer. There is no reference to aliens. It is actually impossible for the Earth to have been visited by a material being. Only energy can transverse these enormous distances.

All twelve tribes are lost today in the sense that no Yahuwdym knows what tribe he or she is from. But most who are racially linked to Ya'aqob, know that they are heirs. I suspect that about 45% live in Israel, 40% live in the US, and 15% are scattered around the world.

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  
#33 Posted : Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:06:37 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
W wrote:
Yada,

I just can’t understand how you come to claim Shavuot is to be observed over Feast of Weeks/Pentecost.

Shavuot seems to come from the religion of Judaism by counting 50 days from Bikurwym the second day of Unleavened Bread, not the scriptures. How do you come up with a Sabbath in the middle of the week? Feast of Weeks/Pentecost seems to be more scripturally accurate by counting seven Sabbaths plus one day.

I asked this question during a call to the radio show after the week of Unleavened Bread, but you never answered my question.


Yada wrote:
Shabuw'ah is Yahowah's name for the feast. Pentecost and Weeks are man's names.
The Towrah sets the timing, not Judaism.
So I don't understand your concern.
Yada




Yada wrote:
Have you ever looked into Lew White and his store?


W wrote:
Y

I just took a look at lew white’s store. So what?

I have also researched the history of Yada and his business dealings. So what?

I never trust a human in matters of spiritual growth or the truth. You may condemn Lew, who I do not know, nor care to. However, the information I posted is of the scriptures. If you care to debate the business character of Lew, I suggest you research the past business dealings of Yada, as I have done. Enough of that, ok?

As a student of your printed material and a disgruntled listener to your radio show. I gather knowledge and thresh the chaff. Listening closely to your show I have learned you are no different than the false apostle Paul, who you berate at any chance, which matters not to me. You stress the observance of the appointed meetings of Yahuah. Yet by your own admittance you do not observe the meeting times as described in the scriptures. When folks call the show you tell them it’s not what you do, it’s what you know. Which is contrary to Torah instructions. In my opinion this diminishes your credibility considerably.

I’ve also so noticed your hem and hawing while callers speak, as though only the word of Yada carries any weight.

I was a listener to your Friday evening Shabbat show on blog talk until I heard you joking with Larry about his “meany” status. This is a matter I brought to your attention in December of last year. Imagine my disappointment to hear you agree with such a vile person who uses his knowledge to control others, rather than teach.

On a last note. I notice you still can not defend your position of Bikurwym and Shavuot by the scriptures?

W


Yada wrote:
W

Your reply is offensive and inappropriate, mirroring the very attitude you falsely ascribe to me.
You made accusations against me by falsifying what I have said. You wrote:
"Yada, I just can’t understand how you come to claim Shavuot is to be observed over Feast of Weeks/Pentecost. Shavuot seems to come from the religion of Judaism by counting 50 days from Bikurwym the second day of Unleavened Bread, not the scriptures. How do you come up with a Sabbath in the middle of the week? Feast of Weeks/Pentecost seems to be more scripturally accurate by counting seven Sabbaths plus one day. I asked this question during a call to the radio show after the week of Unleavened Bread, but you never answered my question. W
None of that is true. I don't promote Shavuot, never have, but instead Shabuw'ah, using Yahowah's term. And yet you are promoting Pentecost in its place, which is the Christian term, the Sunday celebration associated with Easter and the birth of the Christian Church. Therefore you've positioned your criticism in such a way that you've attributed things to me I have not said while preferring something that is actually errant and religious. That isn't a very good start, W.

Shabuw'ah comes from the Torah, not Judaism. And I never say that Shabuw'ah is 50 days from Bikuwrym - never. It is seven sevens / sabbaths, or 49 days from FirstFruits. It is 50 days from the Shabat of Matsah. That is what the Towrah says.
There is no Scriptural support for Pentecost. And as for Weeks, that term is nothing more than one of many definitions of Shabuw'ah, including promise, promises, seven, sevens, shabat, and Sabbaths, or the promises associated with seven and the Sabbath. There is no correlation however between "Weeks/Pentecost." Pentecost is the Greek word for Fifty, not seven or sevens.

The Shabat of the Miqra'ey are delineated to encourage us to observe the special days of the Miqra'ey as if they were a Shabat. The Shabat of Matsah, for example, is the 15th day of the month, one day after Passover, so even using the ill-advised moon-phased week ideology, the Shabat of Matsah can never fall on the seventh day - ever. The only way for Matsah to fall on a Shabat, which is does on average every seven years, is for the days of the week to be independent of the moon phases. That alone should be sufficient to reveal to you and everyone that the Shabat of Matsah is an instruction to observe this day, the 15th day of the 1st month, as we would a Shabat - the 7th day of the week - resting and reflecting on Yahowah and His Covenant.
I answered your accusation, W, correcting your false statements, in my previous email, by writing:
Shabuw'ah is Yahowah's name for the feast. Pentecost and Weeks are man's names. The Towrah sets the timing, not Judaism. So I don't understand your concern.
But rather than acknowledging that your accusations against me were erroneous, rather than even trying to clarify and correct your argument, all you did was provide a link to Lew White's website. You were able to speak for yourself when accusing me of being wrong, religious, rabbinic, unscriptural, and unable to count, but then when I responded and revealed that I haven't done any of the things you've accused me of doing, you not only didn't apologize, you didn't even bother to supply a single retort. Just a link. Now that's being a jerk.

While my prior business dealings were honorable, I'm no longer in business, so it is not applicable to Lew White's situation. His store matters. Lew is currently selling pagan idols and drug paraphernalia in the store featured on the site on which he promotes his books.
I have read LW's Fosilized Customs. There are many things Lew has written which are true, but much is false. I've written him, trying to alert him to this reality.
However, there is little I find more inappropriate than what you have done. Even if LW was the patron saint of truth, providing a link to something he wrote to support your inaccurate characterization of my statements regarding Shabuw'ah is pathetic. I answered your acquisitions directly, why couldn't you do the same. Why provide a link without comment, without apology or response, to LW's site? Step up, if I'm wrong and you're right then prove it by citing Yahowah's testimony. But first, begin by accurately representing what I've said.

So then when I tell you why I'm not going to LW's website, why I don't trust him, you, the one who falsely accused me of promoting a Jewish religious corruption, attack me again, saying that you are the gentleman, the truth seeker.

Okay, sure, tell yourself that W. And then while your at it, why not indulge in a little more character assassination. Even if you have to lie, I suspect it will make you feel righteous. And please, continue to associate me with Paul. That's a good one, both truthful and gentlemanly.

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  
#34 Posted : Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:09:11 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
KA wrote:
Hi again Yada,
I had a question regarding one of the advertisement’s I’ve seen and heard on the radio website. I know you don’t endorse any of these.
This particular one pertains to stocking up on a surplus of foods. My question is: Is this good common sense to be prepared or not? My reason for this question is in relation to Yahowah’s Torah as He tells us to “trust and rely” only on Him. I didn’t want to appear as though I would be self-reliant rather than totally reliant on Yahowah, if you can understand my meaning.
Also, in Yahowsha’s statement where He tells us not to worry about what to wear, etc.; that Yahowah, the Father takes care of all these things. I know I am not quoting this accurately, but I know you understand the verses I’m speaking of. Therefore, I don’t want to be under the wrong assumption to do something that is wrong in opposition to Yahowah’s instruction. Does His Word say He takes care of us during those perilous times that are coming when there is no food, etc? Since He does not intervene in our lives because of freewill, I didn’t know what to think regarding my question. I know most things are regarded in a spiritual sense as far as Yahowah being concerned mostly with our soul.
Lastly, I don’t want to be a pest regarding my last email. What you replied helped a great deal, and I have found more insight into this in both of your websites. HOWEVER: I take Yahowah and His instruction very seriously as we all should and do. I know as you said in your reply that the bigger issues which are Yahowah’s Feast days and His Shabat are of most significance; so I just need a little more clarification on this matter please. Events such as weddings, births, graduations, and the various like: If these fall on ANY of the feast days or Shabat, or even roll over into them because of a time set prior to them: We are NOT to attend or should leave prior to twilight of one of them; is that correct? I have a lot of them coming up soon, and they fall on or close to these days. There are a lot of upsets regarding my boldness, and I am starting to get the impression that my family is looking at Yahowah in a bad way, which I DO NOT WANT!! My kids say that I am pushing them away. I want them to know Him the way He really is; and though they don’t want to hear it anyway: I also don’t want to be guilty in Yah’s perspective of causing that belief in them, causing them to be led away just because of the possibility that I am not fully understanding the limitations of what we can and cannot do on these particular days since we do have earthly families. I am also aware of Yahowsha’s statement which tells us that we are not to love our earthly families more than Yahowah, and I don’t, but am also aware that we have certain duties to our earthly families. (Confused is all, don’t want to take things out of their literal context) I definitely know for sure, NONE of the traditional pagan holidays are acceptable nor do I want any association with them, just didn’t know about such other events in our life that I stated in my question to you.
Most grateful for your continued help and guidance as always
KA


Yada wrote:
KA
I have not prepared for the Tribulation because I don't think I'll have to endure it. So I don't have a stash of food. I rather like relying on Yahowah.
The second portion of your letter goes to a place that I'm not comfortable going. I'm sort of like Dowd / David in this way, and thus at the far extreme of understanding over doing. I see most all of Yah's instructions as teaching, as things we should and can learn from. I don't see them so much as a list of do and do not. So I celebrate what I can learn from the Miqra'ey and the Shabat relative to the Covenant because I see Yah's Towrah as liberating, not confining or restricting. But that's my perspective. Your perspective on emphasizing doing and not doing may be equally or even more valid. So I'm not going to advise you against your approach. And I'm only sharing my perspective because you asked for it. I'm not saying that I'm necessarily right.
As for the little things, to be effective I don't think there is any possible way of opposing everything that isn't Towrah approved. We'd have to converse in Hebrew and limit our conversations to the Towrah. As it is, I'm already openly opposed to so many things that I've culled the perspective audience to a very small number.
Abraham and Dowd remained flawed regarding the little things of life and yet Yah loves them and sees them as perfect. They both came to understand and embraced the biggies - the prescriptions for living, the means to resolve disputes, and the terms and conditions of the Covenant. It was enough.
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  
#35 Posted : Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:20:42 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
TD wrote:
Yada,
I have been seeing many resources that promote God's name as Yahuwah or Yahuah rather than Yahowah as you have come to know him. Frankly I haven't had time to check every word in the hebrew lexicons, but the point they make is a good one in that consistently when a name ends in YHW we pronounce it as Yahuw or Yahoo as in Yasha Yahuw, Matith Yahuw, etc... So we can reasonably determine that this is how the three letters are pronounced at when they end as such. However my concern was then with your understanding that the Waw when proceeded by a consonant makes the "oh" sound. So my next thought was is there a difference when the was is proceeded by a vowel rather than a consonant. When you did your research into the hebrew words that contain the letter Waw, did you make note of the difference in pronunciation between these instances? Are there any common hebrew words where the Waw is in the middle of a word proceeded by a vowel where historically we pronounce it "oo" rather than "oh"? If you didn't note that difference in your study, than perhaps we should take a second look at it. I found a decent resource called http://www.2letterlookup.com/ where you can search just words that contain those two letters, but I haven't had time to go through it and really do a thorough analysis.

Regards,

TC


Yada wrote:
TD

My research of Yahowah's name is presented concisely in the Name section of www.IntroToGod.org. I would agree that the the only possible question is whether it is Yahowah or Yahoo/uwah. I provide ample evidence for ow, but acknowledge the possibility of uw. Virtually every word containing the w in its midst whereby the pronunciation is known with certainty today is like shalowm and towrah. The following another vowel potentiality is significantly discounted by the fact that there are many scores of names like Yowb and Yow'el, where the contraction of Yahowah features to ow sound. That is hard to ignore.

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  
#36 Posted : Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:18:49 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
TD wrote:
Yada,
I will go back and re-read your Name document. Do you at least concur that at the end of a word, it is almost always pronounced "oo" or "uw" as in Yahuw? I will take some time to do my own research on this subject later on specifically examing the *HW* pronunciation (reading from left to right.)

Best Regards,

TD


Yada wrote:
Most of the shortest contractions of YHW in names, many scores of them, are pronounced Yo as in Yowb / Job or Yow'el / Joel. And there is no YHW stand alone contraction. So the evidence does not support the theory - with the possible exception of names where YHW is an alternative spelling at the end of some names. But even here, the alternative pronunciation has gone so far out of favor, the kind of support for "uw" vs "ow" that is possible in many more common words and names isn't available for the alternative endings. It's mostly an academic exercise. And even if the ending theory is accurate, in Yahowah's name the W is in the middle.

This known, there is plenty of overall support for "oow" and "uw," and I accept this pronunciation as being reasonable is many words and names. But there is far more convincing evidence in favor of "ow," especially in the most well known words and names.

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  
#37 Posted : Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:34:30 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
T wrote:
Yada,

How can God be infinite and yet only be patient with His children for a short time? Is God in a hurry? Does He have a pressing engagement and a tight schedule?

In the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, how long did the shepherd and the woman look for their lost items? UNTIL THEY FOUND THEM. Yahowsha said*, “In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.” (Matt 18:14) If it is God’s will that none should perish, how can our little wills override God’s Will? I always imagined that if God willed something, it happened ... period.

You referred to a baseball game. The reason for an infinite number of tries is so that ALL God’s children can be saved. Yahowsha said*, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32) Doesn’t all mean all?

Eventually, all will be drawn to the truth and everyone will eventually see the light and make the right decision of their own free will.

Yada, would you be willing to euthanize your sons if they made choices you didn’t agree with? Wouldn’t you give them another chance? And another, and another ... knowing that eventually they would see things your way?

Are you the kind of father who would say to your children, “You’ve had enough chances. It’s too late. I’m tired of waiting and I don’t care any more, so now you must die. Luckily, I have some chloroform right here. Have a seat, son, and close your eyes while I stand behind you for just a moment. This won’t hurt a bit.”?

I’m sorry, Yada. I just don’t believe it. I’m sure you are a better father than that and God is a better father than any of us can even imagine. Something is desperately wrong here.

And if this were a baseball game, according to you, God would lose by a score of millions to one. Rather a poor showing, I’d say. If I saw that score on a scoreboard, I would think that one of the teams really sucked and were a bunch of losers. If it was a pro team, they should immediately replace the entire coaching staff. Is God such a big loser? How can God’s team be losing so badly? I can’t imagine it.


Item 2 - On a different topic ... In explaining to Nick why God wouldn’t save a child from being hit by a car you suggested that to do so He would have to go back in time and change the mindset of the engineer who designed the engine (or some such thing). That is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is positively juvenile. God wouldn’t have to turn the world on its head. All He would have to do is whisper in the driver’s ear, “Look out.”

I must tell you that I have reached the point where I just don’t believe this any more. I feel like I am being asked to squeeze myself into one of the kiddie cars at the amusement park. Something is wrong with this picture.

I enjoy your political commentary and will continue to listen to the show. Perhaps lightning will strike and something will make sense.

T


* Did Yahowsha not actually say these things?


Yada wrote:
You are taking inaccurately translated statements out of context and then applying your own opinions about God to them. Your letter reads like one of Paul's. For example, your initial point is proven invalid by hundreds if not thousands of statements where people were not saved, but instead died based upon their decisions. Read the 2nd of 10 statements for an assessment of mercy vs. corruption, or Yahowsha's sermon on the mount for few vs. many. And yes, Yahowah is on a strict schedule.

Y

I answered your second point on the show, and may address your first one at some time.
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  
#38 Posted : Friday, May 24, 2013 1:53:20 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
W from above wrote

W wrote:
Yada

Whew! I heard I got quite a ripping on the show. Thanks for proving my point. In discussions with some of your devoted followers. I was asked to call the show for clarification on our differing beliefs concerning First Fruits/Shavuot/Feast of Weeks/Pentecost, etc.... By the way, I noticed it’s ok for you to use these terms in your writings, but no one else? Anyway, I assured your devotees that calling the show would only lead to me being eviscerated on air and in public. Just as your once favored caller Nick, who has now been thrown asunder too. Little did I know that I would be treated the same over an email.

My reason for sending a link was not to promote Lew’s web site. The link was the laziest way of sending you the scriptures I wanted to present in opposition to your teachings. Knowing the rebuke you would offer I saw no sense in wasting my time copying/pasting or typing the scriptures out. As predicted, your reaction was what I expected.

I would like to make one final suggestion. Rather than relocate to New Zealand to protect your wealth. I believe there are still 3800 acres in Northwestern Guyana available. You and your people should fit right in.

W


Yada wrote:
Pretty amazing.
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  
#39 Posted : Thursday, June 6, 2013 4:18:39 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
S wrote:
Hi Yada,its S(aka ******) from BTR chat.I was wondering if you have the link to the sites you talked about this morning on SM with the free lexicons.thank you,and as always another great show .I appreciate all you do to get Yahowahs word out


Yada wrote:

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  
#40 Posted : Friday, July 5, 2013 1:26:47 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
Hi Yada,

There seems to be some confusion as to the correct translation of Elohym.
I have not, as of yet begun my own lexicon translation studies of the Hebrew scipts.
Some are saying that, "GOD is a heathen title, and it was the name of a heathen deity..that had roots in babylon as G-D the deity of fortune, that made its way thro history where the "CHURCH" got a hold of it and elevated it to a set apart status",
"and term GOD is one of a pagan /babylonian devil and its an abomination..." (a FB posting ).

I have understood God to be an attribute as supreme being of Father Yahowah as identified in Elohym. Further it is my understanding that elohym can be distinguished by the one and only true God verses false gods'. I have favored using a capital G for Yahowah versus a lower case g for the false ones.

Can you provide some insight, analysis into the question as to whether using God to represent Yahowah has wrong or right validity? I guess it falls on the best amplified analysis, understanding, interpretation of Elohym.

Thanks,
R


Yada wrote:
R,

There are lots of people who have an issue with the title god. I am not one of them. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a god named God. Even in Germany, Gott was a title, and it is the basis of the English word. And there is no instruction regarding the use of titles, only names. So we are free to use god as as a title - which is how I use it.

But there has been a god named 'El, in Canaan of all places, which is the Hebrew word for god, almighty, or mighty one, depending upon your preference. And Yahowah uses both 'el and 'elohym, the plural of 'el, to convey His title as well as to address false gods. So therefore, transliterating 'el or 'elohym would violate the standard being imposed by the anti god folks.

Also, since 'el and 'elohym are seldom used with the definite article, it would be inaccurate to write "the Almighty." Worse, since Yahowah typically uses 'elohym, to be accurate, it would be "Mighty Ones." So since there is no foolproof answer, since Yahowah uses 'el and 'elohym to reference false gods in addition to Himself, and since there is no instruction regarding the use of titles, why not communicate effectively?

So I use god and God as reasonable translations of 'el and 'elohym and lots of people have a conniption fit. It's genuinely a complete waste of time since there are so many important issues that are ignored by those fixated on this meaningless issue.

I suggest that you do your own study and form your own conclusions. But as for me, I use Yahowah's name and refer to Him also by his titles, God, Father, Savior.

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  
#41 Posted : Friday, July 5, 2013 1:31:35 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
A wrote:
A little bit about us, we came out of Mormonism after 30+ years. Then we switched to Christianity and only stayed in that for about 6 months before coming across too many contradictions between Yahowsha and Paul. I came across "Questioning Paul" and then started to read both Yada Yah and Introduction to God. I have a few questions that I am currently struggling with -

1.) In Leviticus 19 it says not to mar the beard. Is this translated correctly? Should Yah's sons grow their beards? Also, what about the instruction not to round the hair on the temples of the head?

2.) Yochannan the Immerser was mostly about baptism. Yahhowsha was baptized and the "Great Commission" is about baptizing. I don't see it in the Torah or part of the covenant so I am wondering what role it has? Is it necessary?

3.) I want to celebrate Pesach/Passover correctly, but we live in Utah and there are no sources for Kosher meat, let alone lamb. We live in an apartment and don't have the facilities to raise and butcher our own lamb. What do you suggest in situations like these? I am vegetarian, but from what I understand we need to eat the lamb to truly observe Pesach, is this correct?


Yada wrote:
Congratulations, A. It is a rare and fortunate individual who is able to think their way out of one religion, much less two.

The beard reference is to avoid emulating the appearance of pagan priests. So it's not applicable in our situation, other than to say we ought not grow beards to look religious like many Orthodox Christians and Muslims do today.

Baptism isn't germane to our relationship with Yahowah or to our salvation. It is nothing more than an outward expression of being cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit. Circumcision, however, for men is one of the five Covenant requirements.

Yahowah has nothing to do with Kosher. That's a rabbinical and thus religious thing. Buy some lamb chops, or other cut of lamb from your favorite market and grill 'em.

As for being a vegetarian, there is no reference to how much you have to eat. All of the instructions focus on the preparation. So, I see no reason for you do go beyond preparing the lamb by barbecuing it, and then tossing it out. It is what the lamb represents that is important.

With Yah, understanding what He is saying is vastly more important than trying to do lots of stuff. The Torah is a liberating document filled with teaching and guidance.

To observe it is to study it so that you understand it and can respond to Yahowah appropriately.

Yada


A wrote:
Thank you! You have set my mind at ease. I did have one more question. My husband and I have been safety pinning or hooking Tzit Tzits (Tassels from Numbers 15:38) to our pants each day. We have the ones with the cord of blue (unlike the Jewish ones that are all white). Is this something we should continue doing? Is this part of Torah observance for today? Thanks, A


Yada wrote:
A,

I'd recommend reading Part 3 of An Introduction to God (http://www.introtogod.org/An_Introduction_to_God-03-Volume_3-Part_3-Towrah-His_Teaching-%28Psalms%29.Torah). In it you will find Dowd / David's inspired advice on how to best observe the Towrah. And since I agree with him, I focus entirely on understanding the big issues, those related to the Covenant and to our salvation. I look at everything else as teaching to help us come to know Yahowah better.

So to answer your question, personally, I don't wear a Tzit Tzits. I don't wear a box filled with Towrah quotes between my eyes or on my hand either. I don't bring a live lamb into my home and slit its throat in front of my family for Passover. But I think I understand what Yahowah wanted us to learn by sharing these instructions. So I revel in the insights. And I look at the Towrah as being liberating, not restrictive. I'd rather observe than obey since Yahowah encourages the former often and doesn't even have a word to request the later.

But my advice to you in this regard is to study Yahowah's Word and decide what He is saying to you. You can never go wrong listening to Him.

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  
#42 Posted : Friday, July 5, 2013 1:33:09 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
VD wrote:
Yada,

I am just now listening to your Shattering Myths Show, August 9, 2012...listening to Annalise's (?) (Austrian lady from Canada) story;
and am deeply moved, almost driven to tears...her emotional release for having sought and fought so hard, and having finally found...ummmm....yup.........And you're neither irrelevant nor a "dunder-head"; Yada said, "all we're trying to do he here is convey what Yahowah actually said, and to help people understand it, have people come to know Him...and to be in a position where they can choose to embrace His Covenant....to the degree we do that effectively, then this is a useful program." I say, "You do it effectively, it is a useful program." And I would go a little further....you are fulfilling "Daniel" 12:3. (I know it's not 'Daniel', but I've forgotten, now, what the Hebraic meaning is) but I now know where to find the answer(s). Thanks.

VD


Yada wrote:
VD,

Wow, you are reaching deep into the archives. Thank you for listening. That was nearly a year ago. But fortunately the purpose of the program remains the same: all we're trying to do he here is convey what Yahowah actually said, and to help people understand it, have people come to know Him...and to be in a position where they can choose to embrace His Covenant....to the degree we do that effectively, then this is a useful program. Indeed, that is the essence of a useful life.

Being smart or dumb isn't an advantage or liability when we know where to turn for answers and are willing to embrace what Yahowah has to say. You and I are the same in this way.

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  
#43 Posted : Friday, July 5, 2013 1:35:30 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
RA wrote:
Shalum shalum a'hy/brother!

I am so thankful to YHUH for your thorough investigation and revelation of the truth about who YHUH is and what His true purpose is for humanity. So much of what you shared in your writings confirms everything He's revealed to me as I study and follow His Turah.

However, I do question why you use the term "god" when referring to The Most High. In all of your extensive research in the Hebrew language, please show where "god" is ever referred to as Alahym/Aluah/Al. "God" can never be used to identify who YHUH is or refer to Him as our Power. The only reference to the word that is even remotely close is the term/name 'Gad/Gawd' (son of Yashar'Al and also a pagan deity Ba'al Gad). The Phonetically 'god' and gawd' are pronounced exactly the same; one meaning that troop or swarm, and the other refers to the fortune deity of luck (as well as many other definitions).

Did any of YHUH's children address Him as 'god'? I whole-heartedly trust they did not.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I have a breakdown on the etymology and misapplication of the term from personal studies I'd like to share (if you're interested).

Praise the Most High for using you to bring forth such a poignant and thought-provoking work.

Shalum for now!
RA


Yada wrote:
RA,

Why is it that you are bothered by a title and yet are not comfortable writing Yahowah's name? Why have you researched one and not the other? What is your priority?

There are lots of people who have an issue with the title god. I am not one of them. There have been very few if any false gods actually named "God." And I never use "God" as a name - ever! Even in Germany, Gott was a title, and it is the basis of the English word. Further, there is no instruction from Yahowah regarding the use of titles, only names. So we are free to use "god" as as a title - which is how I use it and it is how Yahowah uses 'el, 'elohym, and 'elowah.

There has been a god named 'El, in Canaan of all places, which is the Hebrew word for "god, almighty, or mighty one," depending upon your preference, although neither of those choices is especially accurate. Even "Most High" isn't accurate. That would be "gabah gabah - most high," "'alyown 'alyown," or "ruwm ruwm," with the repetition of these words for "high" conveying the idea of "most."

Yahowah uses both 'el and 'elohym, the plural of 'el, to convey His title as well as to address false gods. So therefore, transliterating 'el or 'elohym would violate the standard being imposed by the anti "god" folks like yourself since it is used to describe false deities. The fact is that 'elohym is deployed thousands of times by Yahowah as one of His titles and also to describe false gods. It is consistently written: "Yahowah, your "'elohym - God," using the most equivalent English analog.

Also, since 'el and 'elohym are seldom used with the definite article, ha, it would be inaccurate to write "the Almighty" or "the Most High." Worse, since Yahowah typically uses 'elohym, to be accurate, it would be "Almighties." So since there is no foolproof answer, since Yahowah uses 'el and 'elohym to reference false gods in addition to Himself, and since there is no instruction regarding the use of titles, why not communicate effectively by deploying the English word that most adroitly conveys the concept expressed by 'elohym?

Yahowah asked His children to address Him as Yahowah. And Yahowah says that He is our God. So it appears to me that someone has confused you regarding the difference between a name and a title. Moreover, your interjection of the English word into your question is silly. It is like saying, tell me where you find the English word "Lord" in the Hebrew text. Since Yah's word is written in Hebrew, you will not find any English words therein.

So I use god and God as reasonable translations of 'el and 'elohym and lots of people have a conniption over this. And from what I know, it's genuinely a complete waste of time since there are so many important issues that are ignored by those fixated on this translation of a common word - such as the basis for pronouncing YHWH as Yahowah.

You have done your own study and you have formed your own conclusions. But as for me, I use Yahowah's name and refer to Him also by his titles, God, Father, Savior. That is what I learned from Him.

If you were to examine 'elohym, based upon 'elowah, in the original script Yahowah used to convey this title, you'd find the most complete definition of the word:

Aleph - Empowered and Capable Ram (male lamb) /
Lamed - Leading as a Shepherd, thus protecting, nurturing, and guiding (shepherd's staff) /
Wah - Securing and Enlarging His Family in His Home (tent peg) /
Hey - Assisting those who Reach Up to Him, who Walk with Him, who Observe Him (person standing, looking and reaching up) /
Yad - Extending His Hand to Lift them Up and Embrace them (arm reaching down and out with an open hand) /
Mem - Cleansing them and Giving them Life (waves on water).

That is how Yahowah defines the title 'elowhym. I suppose you could say and I could write all of this every time.

I am glad that you are focused upon Yahowah's Towrah. It is the right place to turn to know Yahowah, to understand what He is offering through His Covenant, and to learn how to respond to Him in a way that enables us to benefit from the Covenant's promises. But as for your translation of 'elohym, based upon the above it could use some refining, especially as it relates to being a common word and not a name - just as is "god." Also, since Yahowah asked us to call Him Yahowah, I'd encourage you to begin transliterating His name, even if you conclude that it's Yahuwah instead of Yahowah. Since Yah asked a man with poor diction to announce His name to the world, the distinction between uw and ow is unlikely to bother Him.

Yada


RA wrote:
Tudah for your response and commentary. I use and speak the transliteration of Yahuah's name. Though you have given your opinion on the term god, I simply disagree. There is no value in it as it relates to speaking about Abba. The expression of Aluah/Aluhym as broken down is more important for man to know and understand. Yahuah is not a god. Nonetheless, your work is sound and I pray many more will be led to Yahuah by what He has revealed to you.

Shalum


Yada wrote:
Brother,

Not that it's the end of the world, but it's 'ab, not 'abba. Abba' comes from Paul via a corruption of the Aramaic. It suggests that there are two families and two "gods" not one. 'Ab is the first word in the Hebrew language alphabetically. It is also Yahowah's favorite title. It combines the Ram's Head, speaking of Capability, Power, Influence, and Protection with Beyth - the Floorplan of a Home, speaking of Family and Household. Yahowah is the Father of His Covenant and we are His children.

Honestly and respectfully, I remain perplexed as to how good, properly directed, and thinking people such as yourself remain so concerned about the title 'elohym, are so adverse to it being translated into its closest analog in English, and seem so unwilling to process the evidence negating any concern when it is shared. Yahowah's uses of it alone should resolve any problems, because He associates it with Himself as a title and uses it to identify false gods. Neither use is a concern to Him.

I do not know who began to promote this as an issue, but we should all buy stock in their company because they have been very effective - eliciting passion, something Yah genuinely respects. I suspect that it grew out of the "g-d" nonsense of rabbinic Judaism in conjunction with their complete disrespect for Yahowah's name. Many of those who first began to pay attention to the Towrah as Yah's foundation were Messianics, steeped in a blend of Judaism and Christianity. So this could easily be an outgrowth of their blended religion. And then some well intentioned, but not properly prepared, individuals took that ball and ran with it, somehow turning "god" into a pagan name instead of a title.

Sparing that, someone got confused, and misinterpreted the request not to memorialize the names of false gods with the errant notion that we aren't supposed to use titles when they are associated with religious myths. But since Yahowah routinely uses "Ba'al - Lord" as Satan's title, even name, as an example, Yah would be disregarding His own advice when interpreted this way.

But, no matter where it came from, it is now a cause onto its own. More people are up in arms over this non issue than any other I confront. And there is no possible way to accommodate their concerns without either making stuff up or consistently conveying the fullness of what the letters that comprise the word mean: "Capable, Powerful, and Protective Lamb, the Shepherd who Leads, Guides, Nurtures, and Protects, Making us Secure while Enlarging His Home for those who Look and Reach Up to Him, who Engage and Walk to Him, who are Observant Regarding Him, Reaching Down and Extending His Hand to Lift us Up, Embracing Us so that He can Cleanse us and Give us Renewed Life. I rather like that, but I like Yahowah better.

As for being the only actual "'el - god," based upon the continual juxtaposition of His name and this title I am convinced that Yahowah begs to differ. But regardless, I'd encourage you to do what I'm trying to do, which is to focus on more vital issues. In particular, consider Dowd's / David's presentation on how to properly observe the Towrah as presented in the 119 Mizmowr / Psalm. While you can translate it on your own, I present it in Part 3 of the Towrah - Teaching Volume of www.IntroToGod.org: http://www.introtogod.or...hing-%28Psalms%29.Torah. Second only to the Towrah, I think the 119th Psalm is the most brilliant thing I've ever read.

I will not debate your conclusion that Aleph Lamed Wah Hey Yowd Mem could well be pronounced 'aluwahym, but based upon systematically evaluating every word in the Hebrew lexicon with a wah, especially those whose pronunciation is best known to us today, I suspect that the likelihood is 85% to 15% in favor of ow rather than uw. But since I have been where you currently are on this, and only recently evolved from uw to ow, I'm sympathetic. One day, I'll augment the evidence I present in the Name volume of the ITG, by adding all of the legacy English words with ow as part of their pronunciation. It's impressive.

Based upon what I've learned, the issues which really matter are: Yahowah's name, knowing that His Word is limited to the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, that the Covenant has not yet been renewed so there can be no New Testament, that Yahowsha' is Yahowah Saving Us, that Paul was a false prophet, knowing the terms and conditions of the Covenant, knowing that Towrah means teaching and guidance and that Yah's instructions are prescriptions for living not laws to be obeyed, knowing that the Seven Step Path to Yahowah beginning with Passover and concluding with Shelters provides the means to resolve our sin, and knowing that Yahowah's plan and timeline is based upon Six plus One = Seven. To that, if we are to be concerned about Yahowah's title, it is far better that we recognize that He is our "'ab - Father" and the Father of His Covenant Family.

Most of what Yahowah has revealed to me He has revealed to everyone who is willing to listen to Him. It's all written in the Towrah and Prophets. All we have to do is be receptive, be observant, and be willing to learn. Nothing is more fun or more rewarding. I especially enjoy the transition between knowing and understanding. So thank you for you kind and supportive conclusion. Many have become Yahowah's Covenant Children as a result of sharing Yahowah's testimony.

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  
#44 Posted : Friday, July 12, 2013 1:03:43 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
V wrote:
Yada,

I just wanted to pass this along to you. To borrow a phrase from you...for your thoughtful consideration. http://famguardian.org/S...undations_of_Freedom.pdf

Now, considering myself a member of the Covenant Family (I like to think so, anyway), I don't particularly give a hoot as to what the crooks are (or have been) up to. Neither do I care about the 'remedy' of the 'disenfranchised', as Yahowah is capable enough of taking care of it. He has promised to do so. I am not a "Freedom Fighter", conspiracy theorist, or anything of the sort. I take the facts and consider the opinions where I find them, and disregard the rest. I just thought this treatise explains a lot, at a core level. I cannot speak for its accuracy, but I do know a little bit about law, and much of what is said in this document is hard to refute. (there are others. "The Great IRS Hoax" (detailed explanation as to how we are compelled, illegally, into participating in Gov't Franchises) is fantastic, albeit lengthy; but worth the read) There is a lot of interesting information at the 'familyguardian' site, and its sister site 'sedm.org'. They profess to be a "Christian Ministry". It is completely evident by how they quote 'biblical' verses. That said, I rather think that these sites wear this designation for whatever legal protection it affords. Their foe is formidable. Just thought you might be interested in taking a look, if for no other reason than to demonstrate just how sick this 'society' has become, from a 'legal' perspective.

V


Yada wrote:
V,

I tried, but I can't read this. As you know, it is full of Christian lies and myths. I don't concur with much of their premise or choices. For example, Yahowah does not have laws. Most of those who initially came to America were seeking economic opportunity, and they weren't especially moral. God does not have a "church." So I don't know where this is going, but it begins on a pile of rubbish.

The IRS hoax to compel government participation in the currency is something we've discussed on SM. It is a clever ploy to be sure. So if that was the legal point you found most interesting, I concur.

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  
#45 Posted : Friday, July 12, 2013 1:08:20 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
P wrote:
thanks,
now the topic of salvation
we are taught that only through Jesus(wrong name) we receive salvation.
but in Psalms David knew salvation already.
he calls Him "God of my salvation".
what does the Scripture really says?


Yada wrote:
Yahowsha' = Yahowah Saves


P wrote:
thank you for talking to me.
one more question about James 2:10,
how do we interpret this verse?
if we fail in one we are guilty of all.


Yada wrote:
P, you are one of my favorite callers. I would have liked spending a full hour discussing the Towrah with you. And I hope that you call back in soon and often.

There is no pre Constantine manuscript for anything from Ya'aqob 1.18 to 2.19, so it may be a fool's folly to try to "interpret" something that isn't remotely reliable textually, but I'll give it a shot later today.

Yada


Yada wrote:
P, I promised to do my best with Ya'aqob 2.10, knowing full well that without a first to third-century manuscript we are treading into troubled waters.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding. And the entire purpose of Ya'aqob's letter is to expose and condemn Paul.

Ya'aqob 1 emphasizes knowing and understanding. It was written to contradict Paul's salvation through faith mantra. It speaks of not being duplicitous, and thus of rejecting Paul's letters what are consistently duplicitous. It references Yahowah's grass metaphor in Yasha'yah, where only the Word is reliable and enduring - another direct affront to Paul's "but I say...." It explains that Yah does not tempt us, also in contrast to Paul's letters, where Yah's Towrah is presented as a trap.

In opposition to Roman's 7, Ya'aqob cites the actual source of sin. He encourage us not to be deceived, recognizing that our Heavenly Father is the source of gifts, not Paul. It speaks of Yahowsha' being the Word of Truth brought forth by the Father, another line designed to oppose Paul who says that he, himself, cannot lie even when contradicting the Word of God.

In rebuttal to Paul's "pray without ceasing," and in harmony with Yahowah's "listen to Me," Ya'aqob tells us to be quick to hear and slow to speak. He even references the merits of FirstFruits - something that Paul rejects. He tells us to receive the Word of Yah to save our souls, and thus not the words of Paul. He then emphasizes "doing, and thus acting upon" the Word, which contradicts salvation by faith. In this he tells us to closely observe the Towrah, calling it perfect and liberating - all designed to undermine Pauline Doctrine.

The second chapter opens with a warning to avoid showing favoritism - once again an admonition not to favor Paul just because he claims status and authority. Ya'aqob states that Paul's motives are evil. Ya'aqob even attacks Paul's requests for money by referencing Yahowsha's approach.

This leads to Ya'aqob revealing that false apostles like Paul slander and insult the good name of Yahowah who has invited and called us out. (2.7)

Next, Ya'aqob refers to the Towrah as being "basilikos - our leader, bearing and befitting royal authority," suggesting that "if we complete and fulfill what is written there in, we will love our neighbor as our self, which is good to do." (2.8) But Paul wants Jews to hate Jews.

This leads to a very powerful statement:

"But if we are partial and show favoritism, treating one person as if they were above others (stated in the context of viewing Paul above Yahowah, Yahowsha', the Disciples because of his claims and letters), we miss the way, and our efforts are exposed and rebuked by the Towrah, becoming like someone who is passed by, who is neglected for overstepping and and turned away (parabates from parabaino (Strong's 3845))." (2.9) That is a slap to the face of Christians steeped in Paul's letters.

This then flows into verse 10, the one you questioned.

"For (gar - then because) whomever (hostis - anyone) wholly, completely, and entirely (holos - the unity) of the Towrah (ton nomon) may actively observe (tereo - might continuously examine, focusing upon), may stumble (ptaio - might fall, perhaps being errant and making a mistake) but then in one (de en eni - and then following this train of thought, by one unique individual (singular masculine and thus either addressing Paul's influence once again or the consequence of missing the way by showing partiality for Pauline Doctrine)) come to be (ginomai - exist as) totally (pas) answerable and entangled in the quarrel (enochos - ensnared in the argument and grudge; from enecho - to be entangled and ensnared as a result of a quarrel or grudge)." (2.10)

I could go on, because I like the adultery - murder example in the next statement, especially as it relates to the repeat of parabates, which speaks of "being neglected for overstepping, of being passed by and turned away." But I think your issue has been resolved. Sha'uwl attacked Ya'aqob and Ya'aqob responded.

This would be a good question for Monday's show. Please consider calling in to pose it.

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  
#46 Posted : Monday, July 29, 2013 9:13:28 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
Hi Yada,

Wanted to ask you which Mizmowr passage is it where Dowd proclaims to Yahowah that because he has observed
the Towrah that He would "have to" let him into heaven?

Great shows, great analysis on what is occurring on the planetary stage. Actually the best analysis.
I have indeed sent 2 messages to program coordinator at GCN, one about 6 months ago and on yesterday
to let them know of the appreciation of your shows content. All the family at UT agree, you have the best insights.
Of course we understand that as we grow with the Yah, the Towrah, Ruach Qodesh and use our natural skill of valid logical reasoning ones insight, judgements, discernment and understanding get better too.

Thank you brother,

R


Yada wrote:
R,

It is in the 119th Psalm and thus can be found in Part 3 of the Towrah Teaching chapter of www.IntroToGod.org. If memory serves, it's around two thirds of the way through. But if you haven't read this review of the Psalm, rather than go directly to it, read up to it from the beginning. The Psalm is brilliant.

I appreciate your kind words. J sent me a copy of the letter you had written to him on Friday. That was very generous of you.

Is UT the University of Texas, University of Tennessee, or...?

Logic is a wonderful tool. It's a shame that so few people use it these days.

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  
#47 Posted : Monday, July 29, 2013 9:16:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
AB wrote:
I have been reading Yada Yah, Intro to God and have been listening to Shattering Myths. I have a few questions that I was hoping you could clarify for me...

1.) Do people who are generally good, attend church and love their families have the exact same fate as those who purposely lie, cheat, steal and kill? Will those who abused and hurt people all their lives get to simply cease to exist after this life? What about blood crying out for vengeance?

2.) Is the idea of a "rapture" more Pauline than simply Torah based? I ready your Toruwah (Feast of Trumpets) chapter and I am still not sure that there is enough supporting evidence to show that this will be a physical event. There is some who say the Olivet Discourse was about the temple being destroyed and that it was already fulfilled. I WANT to believe that Yah will come and get me before the tribulation, but I don't see enough in the Torah for me to fully trust it, could you help me out with that?


Yada wrote:
AB,

Thank you for reading and for listing. Both of these questions would be good for the show. Please considering calling 877-300-7645 and asking them.

In your first question, there is no reason to think based upon what He has written that Yahowah sees contributing to the mission of a church as being different than deliberately lying, cheating, stealing, or killing. So He might ask you, what of the souls of those lost to religion crying out for vengeance?

Yahowah's job as judge is to reward those who embrace the Covenant and to incarcerate those who promote corruptions which lead souls away from Him. And He answers your question in the Second and Third of the Three Statements on the First of Two Tablets. Promoting religion corrupts our children and is thus unforgivable. We are asked not to make a habit of killing, lying, and stealing but they are forgivable.

Paul lied. As for a "physical" event, the Taruw'ah harvest is a spiritual homecoming, and thus not material. There are no bodies in heaven and there is no such thing as bodily resurrection in association with salvation. It is a harvest of the Covenant's children prior to the tribulation. But since only around one in a million receive Yah's mercy by walking to Him in love along the path He provided and by observing the terms and conditions of His Covenant, and since their bodies will remain, hardly anyone will notice. And if you want assurance that you will be one of them, come to know, understand, and accept the terms of the Covenant and walk to Yah along the path that He provided by answering His Seven Invitations.

The Temple is both Yahowsha's body, which soon would be destroyed on Passover, and thus would not be resurrected, and the building on the Mount which was destroyed 3 decades later and has not been rebuilt. Neither have anything to do with Taruw'ah. Also, both implications were prophetic at the time they were stated. But only one is relevant relative to our salvation.

Yada


Yada wrote:
AB,

Upon further reflection, I may have misspoken. Based upon what He has written, Yahowah will judge and condemn those who promote Christianity to their children to a much greater extent than those who lie, steal, and kill apart from His name. With one there are eternal ramifications which directly affect His Covenant and with the other, it's animals acting badly.
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  
#48 Posted : Monday, July 29, 2013 9:17:25 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
L wrote:
What is the word they means make a declaration that the religious scribes use to insert "worship "

L


Yada wrote:
L,

The word you are looking for is chawah - primary meaning: to show, explain, inform, tell, or declare. It is used in Zechariah / Zakaryah 14.16 and in 180 places where "bow down and worship" is found - .

Strong's 2324 / Dic or Biblical Languages 2555

This is hard to find because it is usually confused for Strong's 7812 shachah. But in the text, the sh is used to convey convey the hishtafel stem modifying the verb chawah, and not to create a different word. So all 170 times that shachah is presented to convey "bow down and worship," it is actually the hishtafel stem of chawah - show, tell, explain, inform and declare. The hishtafel is the reflexive form of the hithpael, where the subject of the verb acts upon or with regard to him or her self. And the hithpael, the reflexive pael, reveals that the object is being acted upon by the subject.

So "making an informed declaration" was changed to "bow down and worship" as a result of having the stem change chawah to shachah rather than modify chawah.

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  
#49 Posted : Monday, July 29, 2013 9:19:35 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
IQ wrote:
Dear All

If the American people do NOT REVOLT and throw out these despicable rascals in the news media, your Republic will be history within FIVE years


Very informative video

Please pass it on



IQ
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-lynching/


Yada wrote:
IQ I did several shows on this case, bringing out most all of these same facts and conclusions. However, to be fair, Bill Whittle did a better job in 10 minutes and 19 seconds than I did in 2.5 hours.

It does not matter the issue, Americans no longer think. It is why we continue to be plagued by Islam. Our tools, evidence and reason, no longer matter with the vast perponderance of religious and political individuals.

Yada


Yada wrote:
IQ,

This is the reason that I associated WWII with 9-11 this morning. If we cannot recognize our mistakes in the past, there is little chance that we will intelligently respond in the future. We continue to make the same immoral decisions while celebrating our stupidity.
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  
#50 Posted : Monday, July 29, 2013 9:22:00 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,508
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
DG wrote:
I was looking in Logos at Rev 13:18 and noticed at on all the versions of scripture I have to choose from ( Lexham, KJV, NKJ, ESV etc) they all show (surprise to me) that the number of the beast is 600. The 66 is grayed out in each version. Could it be the mark of the beast is only 600?

So I started digging deeper and I looked at Philip Comforts book on page 336 of the "Complete text of he earliest NT Manuscripts"(thanks for recommending that book !) and it has the number written out in the letters (or Greek numbers) you were talking about, that make it look like allah.

However, you would have to add the X in front of it and then also turn the letters around? In the Greek numbers, it does look like 666 so I wondered if you had more information on that.

If we mixed the Greek X meaning 600 and then the Arabic for allah then it would be 600 Allah? Looking at the words below... which way is the proper way to write allah? The top one or the yellow one in the middle?


allah.jpg
The name Allah in Arabic

666_summary.jpg

When placing the sword of Islam in front of Allah's name................it reads 666 in Greek.




Or could it be the Tau in Hebrew for the X then it would be the mark or sign of allah?

So lots of questions: why would they not have the 66 in all those other English versions?
If we don't look at the 66 as Greek numbers then, could that be why the translations highlight the 66 as missing when they spell out the Greek words in our English/Greek Translations?

Would you mind taking a look at this, when you get time, and let me know what you think? As you can tell, I see lots of possibilities but my ability to read the Greek or Arabic is nill. It bothers me that the translators are saying the 66 should not be in there but the put it in the english anyway. I know, I know, what else is new, LOL

Thanks Yada! Blessings to you and yours :)


DG


Yada wrote:
DG,

The three Greek letters represent 600 60 and 6, thus totally 666, with six being the number of man apart from God. This and other numbers are presented in the oldest Greek MSS using letters with a line over them, similar to the Divine Placeholders, albeit numbers are represented in lower case letters.

I and others have seem similarity between "in the name of Allah" in Arabic and the appearance of the numerical placeholder in the oldest MS of Revelation. So, recognizing that Yahowsha' didn't speak Greek, and that it is unlikely that Yahowchanan wrote the first copy of Revelation in Greek, we are left to wonder whether or not the mark of the beast is a number or a slogan. I lean toward the Islamic slogan, but I can't be sure.
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
5 Pages123>»
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.