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

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages123>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#1 Posted : Monday, December 10, 2012 4:14:43 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I apologize aforetime if there is no actual plot to this message, because I'm not exactly sure what I want to say. The more I run drafts in my head......the more jumbled my message....bothersome to me. I mostly want to thank you again for having done such an incredible job of providing this information. You have led me to doors that I did not know existed....you have kept the promise that you made in your "Introduction to God". It is almost "surreal" to me; the real having for so long been elusive; forever trying to sort through the lies. What brought me to this "place" was an a very odd, frustrating, and exhausting journey. And worth every mile. So, thank you. I am indeed in your debt.

Sincerely,
V


Yada wrote:
V,

You are not in my debt. You aren't even in Yah's debt. But all of the benefits you have received are from Him. All I have done is to make is to try to convey His testimony accurately.

Mostly, you should give yourself the credit. Most people aren't willing to invest the time to learn from Yahowah's teaching. And when they encounter it, His word is so different than their religion, they typically reject it and Him outright.

I share many of your responses. Yah's truth evaded me for most of my life. But finding Him has been the most amazing and rewarding journey I've ever undertaken.

Welcome home, V,

Yada

Edited by user Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:34:56 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 : Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:42:57 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
T wrote:
Yada,
Just thought you might like a progress report. I have made it into the part 3 of the teaching in ITG. Psalm 119 is truly amazing. Yah is amazing. Thank you for being a useful implement! Anyhow I also made some progress with my wife. Now she admits that there may be some errors in translations. But, she still thinks God is big enough to overlook and use those errors. She also now thinks that I am under demonic opression and that is why I won't pray to Jesus anymore. If discovering the truth is demonic, then please give me some more!

T


Yada wrote:
T,

So God uses errors. That is some special god your wife believes in. It is no wonder she prefers faith over knowing, belief over trusting. Since her god can't get it done the right way, he's gonna try it the wrong way and see how that works out. So what about Yahowah telling us that His Torah is perfect, lacking nothing, and that it is designed to restore our souls. Do you suppose that He was misinformed? Or was He simply lying? Or was He so prone to error that He is incompetent?

As for some errors, with the Christian NT half of it is rubbish with Paul, and there are more discrepancies between manuscripts than there are words in the rest of it. The only testimony that has a few errors is the Towrah and Prophets because the text has been much more carefully attested, but Jesus types don't like it because Paul told them in Romans that it was like being married to a dead husband.

So not praying to someone whose name you know is wrong, who told us not to pray to him, is demonic. That makes perfect sense.

Yes, to a Christian or a Muslim, truth is demonic because the truth destroys their faith.

I don't think she will ever know Yahowah because she is too in love with the mythical Jesus. Sort of reminds me of the Notre Dame football player with his imaginary girlfriend. Your only hope is with your children.

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  
#3 Posted : Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:55:53 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
A wrote:
Hello again Yada,
This is A. I emailed you about a month ago with questions. Thank you for your reply. To refresh your memory, I wrote to you about my husband who gives me grief over your site regarding the Torah. After emailing you, my life has become a downward spiral. (this has nothing to do with you or your site, mind you....just explaining my circumstances.) We have lost our home and are living in a home with no floors, bathrooms, kitchen, plumbing, etc. at the worst time of the year. It is cold and drafty due to poor windows. Its just an awful mess and I am very frustrated. And that isn't all of it, but I will spare you from having to listen to another's problems. We do have TV now and just got internet on again because the electricity actually works. apologize actually, guess I just needed to vent a little. I keep wondering over and over in my mind why all this is happening?
Anyway, that said, my husband continues to add to the stress regarding the validity of the Torah on your site. I don't have the answers for him, but that I know it is because it is so beautifully worded and makes absolute sense in that it is as if my eyes have been opened . His response is always that I "am being bamboozled and that you are not using the actual Torah" which to him is dangerous, claiming that there are a lot of fake ones on the internet. The funny thing is that I cannot get him to just read a small bit before attacking it. Also that "anything that contradicts the Holy Bible is wrong and that he is afraid that it is considered blasphemy." I remain as bold as I can be regarding the other issues like what I previously questioned you about before such as the pagan holidays, etc. I don.t know what else to do but feel so lost because I have no proof to refute him. I doubt he'd even listen anyway. Didn't know if you could help. Oh nevermind, I've just been told that he wants a divorce because I am against the things he wants to do such as church, bible, Jesus, pagan holidays, running soup kitchens titled "The Lord's Supper", you name it. I guess I should have expected it coming considering all the things which have repeatedly taken place recently. I just don't get it. Anyway, I'd still like any input you have just for the knowledge.

At wits end,
A


Yada wrote:
A,

I'm sorry for your loss. That is horrible.

Be careful not to put the blame for these circumstances on Yah. He very seldom interferes in our lives, especially in this way. So this has nothing to do with Him.

So the best he can come up with is that "it isn't the real Torah." That would mean that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text don't represent the real Torah. But if that were the case, then there is no Torah, because there are no older or more reliable witnesses to it. The only other option would be to use the Septuagint, but it's been hopelessly corrupted which is why virtually no one relies upon it.

The Torah is not only the first five books of his "holy bible," Yahowah's towrah - teaching fills the Prophets and Psalms. And if he is troubled by contradictions, then why isn't he bothered by Paul whose letters contradict most everything Yahowah revealed in His Torah?

A, I'm not in the marital advice arena, so I won't offer any. All I am equipped to do is to present what Yahowah revealed in His Torah, Prophet, and Psalms and then point out how that differs from Christianity and other religions.

But here's one from your husband: if he is so into Jesus, why doesn't he know His name and why does he ignore most everything He said and did? Since Yahowsha' was Torah observant, why isn't your husband?

As for reasoning with a religious person, that simply won't work. It never does. You can give a religious person irrefutable proof directly from God and they will reject it. You aren't going to change him.

There are two ways of knowing for certain that Yahowah inspired His Towrah. The first you mentioned, which is the beauty and power of the presentation. The second is prophecy. These things known, all that matters is observing what He shared with us so that we know it, thinking about it so that we understand it, and then responding to what Yahowah is offering.

I've attached An Introduction to God.

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  
#4 Posted : Monday, March 4, 2013 3:15:29 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

Thank you for replying. I hadn't checked my email in a few weeks, didn't realize you answered me back. I have emailed you several times at the yadayah address, but somehow wound up sending it to the other address. Here's an update on the situation since I wrote you. We did not get divorced, though at times I'm still threatened with it. The living conditions are somewhat the same but little by little it is coming along, and that is good enough for me. I have learned to adjust to it. I'm replying back because I felt the need to be honest concerning the possibility of you believing that my marriage had ended. Quite frankly, that may be what it results to as he continually battles against me for what I know to be true...Yahowah's Towrah. I do apologize. I was extremely upset at the time that I sent you the email because I was so frustrated that I could not throw the truth in his face, though with him, it still doesn't matter.

Yada wrote:
A,

While I'm always comfortable being blunt and bold regarding Yahowah's Towrah, I'm always timid when it comes to offering marital advice. I have no training in the subject and religious husbands typically have short fuses and are prone to irrational rage. So I have chosen to stay clear of this. I can answer questions regarding Yah's instructions in general, but not on your relationship in particular.


I wanted to clarify also that I by no means blame Yah whatsoever for my circumstances. I do realize this has nothing to do with Him. I would never blame Him for anything. Sometimes I am not as clear when I'm writing. Too many thoughts I'm trying to convey as I type. Anyway, I just try to consume as much of the material as I am able, but usually can't find the answers I'm looking for; therefore, that's when I resort to you only because you know Yahowah's Towrah better than I. I've only got several months of reading in. I only rely on Yahowah, and I hope there is no misinterpretation of me relying on man by emailing you when I have a hard time searching through the material for what I'm seeking answers to. Just need a little help from the tour guide every so often, that's all.

Yada wrote:
It takes a lifetime to learn and understand what Yah is teaching us. I'm learning every day. And there is no hurry, we have eternity.


Speaking of answers, I am reading the invitations section regarding Passover. Yah tells us how to prepare the lamb over an open flame. My question is if you don't possess a grill or have a firepit, fireplace, etc. that provides an open flame, are there other methods of open flame acceptable that I am not thinking of? Also, if all the meat is eaten, do we still have to burn the bone to ensure all meat is consumed?

Yada wrote:
Everything Yah shares with us in His Towrah is designed to teach us something. So look at the fire symbolically. Consider its light, its warmth, and that its smoke rises. Consider the fact that it consumes the undesirable fats and improves the taste of something that is nourishing. Recognize that incinerating the remains was designed to forestall the myth of Easter and bodily resurrection. His guidance is designed to help you understand so that you can respond appropriately to what He is offering.

Consider why He chose a male lamb. It became His symbol, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the first letter in the titles father and god. The horn became a trumpet for announcing messages and meetings. It is a powerful, yet peaceful animal. A lamb's milk nourishes children and its coat clothes us.

So don't fret about the doing, consider the offer and reply. (The only thing I wouldn't do is boil the lamb. Roast your lamb in your oven. Then throw away what you don't eat.)


My last question is regarding Matsah. As you already know, my husband will not remove any yeast items from our home. I would then still be accountable for the presence of yeast (sin) correct? And I would not be able to observe Matsah according to Yah's instructions?

Yada wrote:
Once again, think about why Yah asked us to remove the yeast not only from our bread, but also our homes. It is symbolic of Him removing yeast from our souls and from the Children of the Covenant. Embrace this offer. Accept His gift. He understands your situation, and all He really cares about is your attitude toward Him.


Also, in regards to Matsah, I read the forum conversations and one couple say they put all their yeast products in their garage in observance of pesach/matsah. But that is still on their property. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood the reading to say that it is to be removed from your whole property. Is that acceptable to Yah? Again I realize it is more our understanding, responding, and engaging with Him; but how can I engage according to His instruction if I cannot remove the yeast. I believe I remember reading that this is to be taken literally. I feel like I'm in a hopeless situation with many excuses, but I am being very serious here. I want this more than anything and I have all these barriers that frustrate me. I know I have only myself to blame.

Yada wrote:
It is good that you are thinking about these issues, because it means that you are thinking about your relationship with Yahowah and are trying to respond to everything that He is offering. But these are not commandments. He is not laying down the law. He is teaching you, and you are learning. Now, stop worrying and start celebrating. This is a party, not a dictatorial regime. Yah isn't expecting you to be perfect, just to be receptive and responsive. The gift of unleavened bread is to make the flawed appear perfect. So it is not about what you do, but instead about what He has done for you.


My goodness, I have literally talked in circles here. I know why the term babel is what it is.....CONFUSION!!!!!!! I apologize, I certainly hope you can make heads or tails out of what I am asking here because I certainly can't.
For me one question just doesn't provide me with the specific kind of answers I'm seeking. And yes, I have been reading and continue to do so...I love Yah and His Towrah!! I'm just sorry I am not that educated with my understanding of this. I feel just awful bothering you.

Thank you.

A

Yada wrote:
Relax, take a deep breath, look up, reach up, and smile. Your Father wants you to let Him lift you up so that you can stand right next to Him. He loves you and wants you to love Him in return. And He is glad that you are listening to Him and that you are receptive and responsive. You are right where He wants you to be. Now, curl up in His arms and let Him be Dad.

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  
#5 Posted : Monday, March 4, 2013 5:43:31 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 96

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I have been fighting this battle for over 25 years. All I
hear is "where was God in Viet Nam?". Then anger for
days. Have given up. Divorce may be close. Obama's
actions are not helping things. Keep trusting Yahowah,
It is all you can do. Glad you asked about the lamb. I've
been wondering the same things myself. It's hard when
you're alone. Don't give up.
Offline James  
#6 Posted : Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:34:03 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
S wrote:
Hello.

I would have a few comments about your books. For now I read half of the book Intorduction to God and a few chapters of your other books.

First thing is ancient Hebrew alphabet. I almost do not know anything about that. But I think that there is a problem with different interpretations of the letters because every letter can have many different meanings. You can see in your book the name YHWH as a “hand which lifts people up to God and connects them in the family”, but some other people can see this name as “behold hand behold nail”, which represent the crucifiction of our Savior (let us just leave out the cross or stauros issue).

Yada wrote:
S,

Behold is a reasonable, albeit incomplete, interpretation of the Heh. More than that the two Heh represent two people standing up and reaching up to Yahowah. And the Wah was not a nail in the sense of something driven into wood nor as a symbol of crucifixion (which hadn't been invented). The implement used to fasten Yahowsha' to the upright pole is only relevant as it relates to piercing Him and thus fulfilling prophecy. The Wah was a tent peg, and the wa in Hebrew speaks of adding to and increasing, just as a tent home was increased in size by using the tent peg.



Further, some people can see the ancient letter “Waw” (tent peg) as a nail and ancient letter “Taw” (mark) as a cross.

Yada wrote:
But there was no cross, so that isn't relevant or accurate. Moreover, the letter which signified a mark or signature isn't in Yahowah's name or Yahowsha's name. So this is not a rational interpretation of the letters in His name.



So for you the Torah represent teaching and instructions, but for some people represent “to a cross is nailed the highest, it is revealed”.


Yada wrote:
Why promote a myth. There was no cross. There is no concept of cross anywhere in Yahowah's Word.

And Towrah does not just mean teaching to me, that is the meaning of the word, along with the related concepts of guidance, direction, and instruction. So if Towrah means something different to someone else, then they don't understand the word Yahowah selected. You cannot change the meaning of words Yahowah selected and be truthful or accurate.

It is interesting based upon your representation here that you know that towrah is written TWRH in Hebrew but yet letter in your letter you can't seem to deal with how the W or H are pronounced when these letters appear in Yahowah's and Yahowsha's name. Perhaps you ought to give this a little more thought.



I am trying to say that these things can quickly become misleading, some people could then see nails or/and crosses in every word which contains a “Waw” or/and “Taw”.

Yada wrote:
The shapes of the letters reveal additional insights into the meanings of many of the words and names Yahowah selected. The more we know, the more we understand. Further, we should never refrain from sharing what we know and understand just because someone may choose to corrupt those insights. Yahowah knew that religious men and women would corrupt His Word and yet He shared it with us anyway.




Similar thing is with words “chrestus” and “christos”. Can I as a Christian according to you really become a “drugged victim” instead of “useful tool” just because of this terminology? Or is this issue just a coincidence?

Yada wrote:
Christos is not Yahowsha's title and it means drugged. Chrestus isn't Yahowsha's title either, but it is a bit more accurate translation of the meaning of Ma'aseyah. I shared these things to reveal the fact that Christ and Christian are both errant and undesirable and should not be used. Religion is a drug. Christians are not useful tools. Terminology is the means of communication and the tool to advance knowing and understanding.



I would say this dilemma has mostly something to do with my character and not with the fact that I am called a Christian (you can call me a horse or a king, but my character will remain the same, because I am what I am). With such thinking and analogy can even Mr. Obama quickly become Irish (O' Bama).

Yada wrote:
If you are a Christian, then you are not a member of Yahowah's Covenant family. However, if you are called a Christian by someone who does not know you, when in fact you have embraced the terms of the Covenant and accepted Yah's Invitations, then what others call you is misleading. I'm called lots of things I'm not.

Scriptural names are important. It is good to be Yisra'el or Yahuwdah. It is not good to be Christian.



Another thing is the name Yah. It is true that many names of people contains this word in the Bible and that their names have a “hidden” meaning.

Yada wrote:
I am not aware of any hidden meaning among the names which incorporate Yah other than by way of errant transliterations and translations. Every name with Yah in it is easily translated, especially Yahowsha'.



But on the other hand the most famous and great names of the Bible, like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon … do not contain the word Yah.

Yada wrote:
Yah is a name, not a word. There is no "bible." That is the name of a Egyptian sun goddess. And to make your point, you conveniently left out the over two hundred names, like Yahuwdah, Yasha'yah, and Zakaryah which include Yah.

Adam's, "Noah's," Abraham's, "Moses's," and "David's" names were all chosen by Yahowah based upon their meaning. Names can communicate important things to us even when they don't include Yahowah's name, like "man," "guide," "merciful father," "to be drawn out," and "love."



Moses, for example, was the messenger of God so he came in the name of YHWH (Yah).

Yada wrote:
Actually, Yahowah called Moseh to draw His children out of Mitsraym. Yah's messengers are spiritual mal'ak, not men.

Moseh is based upon masah, meaning "to draw out." It is a perfect name. The Towrah's purpose is to draw us away from the religious and political conditions experienced in Mitsraym so that we can approach and live with Yahowah.




So it is not necessary that someone's name have to contain the word Yah to be able to represent YHWH. So for me the true names of God and his only begoten Son are Yahweh and Yeshua. But for you they are Yahowah and Yahowsha or Yahweh and Yahshua (in the past).

Yada wrote:
The basis of your proposition isn't rational. No one said that every name has to include Yah.

It was only after years of studying Hebrew, and the sounds conveyed by its 22 characters, that I realized that YHWH cannot be Yahweh. His Towrah taught me that. But I was never fooled into believing that the diminished manifestation of Yahowah was or is Yeshua. His name is presented over 200 times in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, and never once as Yeshua. I strongly suspect that Yahowah knows how to spell and pronounce His name.

I have often been wrong, but never purposefully. And when I discover that I have been wrong, I correct my mistakes. Such is the benefit of learning. I would encourage you to do the same. But if not, then I'd discourage you from promoting myths.

When all of the information Yahowah has provided is considered, and every word and name containing the Y, H, and W are evaluated, it is hard to make a rational case for anything other than Yahowah and Yahowsha'. But should someone provide one, I'll consider it and correct my mistake if I've made another. And should that happen, we'll have to start pronouncing most Hebrew words and names differently - especially all of those containing the vowels Y, H, and W.



About the followers of your writings and books I am afraid that some of them have misunderstood the main idea.

Yada wrote:
I don't have followers. I am a follower of Yahowah's guidance, myself. I am not an example. I strongly disavow all such labels.

My only goal is to observe, consider, evaluate, understand, embrace, and then present Yahowah's Word as completely and accurately as possible and then share thoughts regarding the guidance and teaching He has provided. The ITG, like Yada Yah, is a tool that can be used to better know Yahowah and understand what He is offering by equipping readers to study Yah's Word on their own.

The "main idea" of the ITG is to equip readers with the tools to know Yahowah and to understand what He is offering so that more people can respond to Him appropriately. It's hard to imagine someone who has read the ITG or YY misunderstanding that idea. And while you seem to have done so, you have excluded yourself from "the followers."

I don't understand why you have written any of this. You have yet to make a valid point, to demonstrate that I've erred, or to support a different interpretation of Yahowah's testimony. And while you will do so with your next point, your preamble is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. Moreover, you don't evidence your point, suggesting that it is nothing more than your opinion, making it irrelevant.



I see them like people (I can compare them with people) who believe that someone can be saved just by grace and that they even do not have to cease sinning to be saved. I am talking about the people who call upon the name Yah but at the same time they treat their neighbours as trash. By doing that they do not meet the standards of our Savior Yeshua (his person, teachings and work) because they fail to fulfill the second most important (great) commandment of our Savior which is “love your neighbour as yourself” (or the Golden Rule, if you like).

Yada wrote:
So your point is be good and you can be saved and be bad and you cannot be saved. Dowd / David must not be saved then. So I wonder why Yahowah called him tsadaq - righteous and vindicated?"

If I'm reading this correctly, it does not matter to you who you know or on what you rely. If that were so, there would be no need for the seven Invitations, for Passover or Unleavened Bread. Yahowsha' suffered for nothing. He could have just led a good life and set the example for others to follow Him into niceness. It appears that you believe that you are your own savior. Good luck with that.

If you listen to Yahowsha', you'll find that He routinely spoke to His neighbors as if they were trash. He was not nice to many if not most of those with whom He interacted, not only because they were wrong, but because like you they were misleading others.

Your summary of "them" as being those who do nothing but call upon the name of Yahowah is ignorant in the extreme. There is much that we must do to receive Yah's mercy, including coming to know, understand, and act upon the terms of the Covenant and Invitations.

Yahowah is our Savior. Yahowsha' is a diminished manifestation of Yahowah set apart from Him.

There are no "commandments." Yahowah etched three summary statements on the first tablet and seven instructions on the second tablet. Yahowsha' summarized their intent.



Some of them (the ones who disregard this second commandment) even think and act that they are already accepted in the family of Yah, but in my opinion they are far from that, just like the people who think that only believing in the name Jesus will save them with doing nothing else (no magic word can save you, including Yah). They are making some plans, they “observe” Torah and Renewed Covenant but they are forgetting that in the time of Noah, Lot and Moses there was no Torah and no Renewed Covenant (they did not exist). Noah and Lot were saved because they were righteous men and Moses delivered the people of Israel from Egypt based only on promise and believing (faith) in YHWH.

Yada wrote:
Since there is no "them" and no "second commandment," your attempt at making a point is based upon invalid data and thus is a straw man. And your argument doesn't get any better as you progress through ignorance of Yahowah's Towrah to faith. It is almost as if you are parroting Paul.

There is no "Renewed Covenant." The one and only Covenant will be renewed, but that has not happened yet. You obviously have either read very little of the ITG, or you simply don't understand Yahowah, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to the Renewed Covenant in this way. The proof that you are mistaken in this regard is presented early and often.

Besmirching the power of Yahowah's name is a very bad idea. It's one thing to get it wrong, and another to belittle it.

Actually, Yahowah guided Noah and He expressly stated that He provided His Towrah to Abraham - at least that is what Yahowah said in His Towrah if you want to trust Him. Furthermore, to include Moseh in the list of those without the Towrah is foolish in the extreme.

Moseh met with Yahowah. No faith was shown or required. And Moseh wasn't a righteous man or even a nice man. He was a murderer. Yahowah didn't choose Moseh because he was a good person or a qualified messenger, either.

The Scriptural concept of "righteous" comes from tsadaq, which means "upright and vindicated." The first concept addresses our attitude relative to Yahowah and the other is the byproduct of Yah's work on our behalf.

The Covenant that served to benefit Noah, was the same one that served Abraham and Moseh. There is only one Covenant. It has not changed. And there will never be a new one.

But by expressing yourself in this way, you are presenting your misleading position (in that it is contrary to Yahowah's Towrah) as if being nice was the means to righteousness. It is little wonder that someone dressed you down in a forum devoted to expressing the teachings of Yahowah. It was the right and godly response to your errant opinions.



So in conclusion I would not (completely) agree with you that faith and believing are irrelevant and that only knowledge and understanding matters. I believe that our primary goal should be to follow righteousness and mercy (compassion), with balanced knowledge and faith … to follow the person, teachings and work of our Savior Yeshua ... and to be the faithful servants of our heavenly father Yahweh and his only begotten Son, Yeshua.

Regards.

S
Yada wrote:
No one but you cares what you believe or that you have faith. I only care what Yahowah taught. His instructions, not yours are valid.

But as for me, I don't believe. I don't have faith. I know and so I trust. I understand so I rely. These things come from Yahowah's Towrah - as do the lone trustworthy and reliable source of righteousness and mercy. In fact, according to Yahowah and Yahowsha' it is impossible to be righteous and receive mercy without being Towrah observant.

Our mission isn't to be merciful. That is Yahowah's mission. And there is nothing more compassionate a person can do than accurately convey the guidance Yahowah provided in His Towrah regarding tsadaq - vindication and chesed - mercy.

Those who know have no use for faith. Yahowah provided us with sufficient instructions to understand, making belief unnecessary.

And speaking of having no use for something, how is it that you don't know that Yahowsha' means "Yahowah Saves" and that "Yeshua" is never presented as a name. It isn't associated with Yahowah and it conveys the idea of "crying out," not of saving.

S, I suspect that I have wasted my time responding to you, because you are enamored with the faith that you have placed in your opinions, just has you have wasted your time sharing your beliefs with me.



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  
#7 Posted : Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:17:34 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
S wrote:
Hello.

Thank you for your answer. I do not know almost anything about Hebrew language and I am not a native English speaker. I am not sure if you understood my message. Also my mother language does not have such big problems with certain Bible titles like English language (title like Lord, for example).

I agree with you that any further conversation between me (a trash) and you (yada) and the people which are already members of the Royal Family is a waste of time. I have noticed that all of you have certain similarities in your personalities which I am trying to avoid in general. Yeshua called such people gnat strainers and camel swallowers. Maybe I am getting the wrong impression, but what can I do (if I am wrong I apologize).

Yeshua said that on the judgement day we will have to give an account to YHWH for every idle word that we speak. Also my knowledge of English is limited for further debate.

You have a lot of knowledge, that is sure. But remember Adam and Eve. They prefered to eat from the tree of knowledge rather than from the tree of life. In fact, they did not ate from the tree of life at all, according to the Bible. I wonder why?

S


Yada wrote:
S,

I find it interesting, S, that you were motivated to write me about your personal beliefs regarding salvation through being nice and condemnation for being intolerant because an unidentified individual whom you have erroneously assumed is speaking for me, or at least for a collective us, "trashed" your errant and unsupported notions. And when I thoughtfully and meticulously responded to every single every point you raised in your letter, issue by issue one at a time, you resorted to name calling and labeling. And yet you fail to see the hypocrisy in your responce.

Yahowsha' and Yahowah are overtly and overwhelmingly intolerant of all public disclosures which are counter to their instructions. That is merciful, and yet you don't seem to understand why that is the only compassionate approach. Those who accept, respect, and tolerate deceptive, destructive, deadly, and damning pontifications and institutions are merciless to those openly seeking Yahowah and His teaching. Being nice isn't the means to salvation. The Invitations are.

Even though I provided you with the evidence from the twrh needed to recognize that yhwh is pronounced Yahowah, you've ignored it. Even though I provided you with the evidence needed to recognize that the Ma'aseyah's name according to Yahowah is Yahowsha', and that it is written over 200 times that way, you continued to promote a corruption that is completely unsupported. Then you applied a label Yahowsha' used to describe those who were deceiving others by contradicting Yahowah's Towrah to someone who was witnessing on behalf of His Towrah. And even then, you did not make the connection or understand what He was doing, what was done to you, and what you were doing in response.

I suspect, S, that the issue isn't language, but instead attitude. I suspect that you are what you dislike in others. I suspect that you don't like the real Yahowah or Yahowsha' so you've created your own version that is more in accord with your perspective. I suspect that you don't agree with Yahowah's Towrah, so you've come up with your own means to save and condemn.

But then again, just as I only know Yahowah and Yahowsha' by their words, I only know you by yours.

Yada

Edited by user Friday, March 22, 2013 7:42:56 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  
#8 Posted : Friday, April 19, 2013 3:05:54 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
T wrote:
Yada,
I know that you use the name Yahweh as a communications tool to reach certain people who may be searching under that name on the internet. As you may remember, my wife has been extremely opposed to me pursuing Yahowah and Yahowsha. In one of our recent discussions, she mentioned that she is softening her stance slightly due to the fact that she has been studying Psalm 119 and she has some friends that are quite comfortable using Yahweh and Yeshua as "Hebrew" names of God and his Son. She said that she is willing to refer to God as Yahweh and his son as Yeshua for the sake of being able to communicate with me. I see this as a partial breakthrough and it gives me hope that she will eventually come to know and understand Yahowah as she begins to study Hebrew with me at a greater level. She is not ready to give up Jesus Christ yet, because she still thinks that he has many names and she is english not hebrew. Since I know the truth, is it wrong for me to communicate with her using the name Yahweh until she is ready for more? What is Yah's opinion on using this as a gateway for her to come closer to the truth?

Best Regards,

T


Yada wrote:
T,

While I'm just an ordinary fellow and therefore not qualified to provide Yahowah's opinion, I strongly suspect that He would be in support of you using Yahweh en route to Yahowah over time and using Yahshua en route to Yahowsha' over time as your wife gradually opens up to what is true and rational and what is not.

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, June 25, 2013 9:09:15 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
D wrote:
Hi Yada, I was wondering if you could help me.
I was doing a study on Psalms (forgive the English please) 138:2 and from and all I can find on this definition is bowing down and prostrating oneself??So wondered, since they say this is the root, why then are we not suppose to do this? Gesenius is no help either, he supports the bowing down.

I agree with you that a father does not want his childern to bow down to him, but I have to square it with the Hebrew and I need some help.


Strong's H7812 - shachah 172 times
99 times worship/bow down 18 / fall down 3/ stoop 1/ crouch 1 / obeisance 9

שָׁחָה

1. to bow down 18 times
a. (Qal) to bow down
b. (Hiphil) to depress (fig)
c. (Hithpael)
1. to bow down, prostrate oneself 1c
d. before superior in homage 1c
e. before God in worship 1c
f. before false gods 1c
g. before angel

Thanks so much :)

D


Yada wrote:
The answer to your question is to question Strong's. Never rely on it. I use Strong's, but only in conjunction with other lexicons. It is often wrong.

While I use many, my favorite Hebrew lexicon is the Dictionary of Biblical Languages. Consider their primary definition of hawah (chawah):

Yada

2555 I. חָוָה (ḥā∙wā(h)): v.; ≡ Str 2331; TWOT 618—LN 33.189-33.217 (piel) tell, explain, announce, verbally show, display with words, i.e., inform and announce with speech (Job 15:17; 32:6, 10, 17; 36:2; Ps 19:3[EB 2]+)
2556 II. חָוָה (ḥā∙wā(h)): v.; ≡ Str 2331; TWOT 618—1. LN 17.21-17.22 (hishtph) bow down, prostrate oneself, i.e., take a stance of bowing low in an act. of respect or honor, but not necessarily worship of deity (Ge 43:28); 2. LN 53.53-53.64 (hishtph) bow in worship, prostrate oneself, i.e., make a low stance as a sign of honor, worship, and homage of deity, with an associative meaning of allegiance to that deity (Ex 4:31), note: some give the alt. parsing as 8817
v. verb
Str Strong’s Lexicon
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
LN Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon
piel Piʾel
EB English Bible versification
+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.
act. active voice
alt. alternate
Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. DBLH 2555-2556, #2

To be fair, however, using Logos for Psalm 138.2, Strong's links to 2324, which they define as:

2324 חֲוָה [chava’ /khav·aw/] v. Corresponding to 2331; TWOT 2722; GK 10252; 14 occurrences; AV translates as “show” 14 times. 1 to show, interpret, explain, inform, tell, declare. 1a (Pael) to show, interpret. 1b (Aphel) to show.
v v: verb
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. H2324

This is from The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon:

I חוה: MHb.2; Arm. lw. Wagner 91; Pehl. EgArm. (DISO 84) BArm. JArm. CPArm. Sam. Syr. Mnd. (MdD 134a) pa. and (h)af. to show, Arb. waḥāy give to understand: → I חמה.
pi: impf. אֲ/יְחַוֶּה, אֲחַוְּכָ/וֶֽךָּ, inf. חַוֹּת: —1. to make known, to declare Ps 193 Jb 326.10.17 Sir 1625 4219 cj. Hab 32 (rd. יְחַוֵּהוּ), Ps 5211 and Jb 1317 (rd. וַאֲחַוֶּה); —2. to inform someone Jb 1517 362. †
Der. אַחֲוָה.
MHb. Middle Hebrew; → Introduction to HAL (first fascicle) §d; Kutscher, Fschr. Baumgartner 158ff
Arm. lw. Aramaic loan word; usu. with following numeral, → Wagner Aramaismen
EgArm. Egyptian Aramaic; cf. Cowley Arm. Pap.; Driver Arm. Docs.; Grelot Doc. Arm.; Kraeling Arm. Pap.; Leander Äg. Arm.; Rosenthal Arm. Forsch.; Sachau Arm. Pap.; Ungnad Arm. Pap.
DISO → Jean-H. Dictionnaire
BArm. Biblical Aramaic; → Bauer-L. Arm.; KBL Foreword
JArm. Jewish Aramaic; JArm.b Jewish Aramaic of the Babylonian tradition; JArm.g ~ Galilean tradition; JArm.t ~ Targumic tradition; → HAL Introduction; Kutscher Fschr. Baumgartner 158ff
CPArm. Christian Palestinian Aramaic; → Schulthess Gramm.
Sam. Samaritan Pentateuch; → HAL Foreword; Würthwein Text 47ff (fourth ed.); Murtonen Vocab.; Ben-Hayyim
Syr. Syriac
Mnd. Mandaean
MdD → Drower-M. Dictionary
af. afʿel conjugation
Arb. Arabic; → Lane Lexicon; Lisān; Tāj ʿAr.; Wehr Wörterbuch; WKAS
→ see further
impf. imperfect
inf. infinitive
cj. conjectural reading
rd. to be read as
† every Biblical reference quoted
Koehler, Ludwig ; Baumgartner, Walter ; Richardson, M.E.J ; Stamm, Johann Jakob: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Leiden; New York : E.J. Brill, 1999, c1994-1996, S. 295

I hope this helps. And if not, send me another note.

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  
#10 Posted : Friday, July 5, 2013 1:25:15 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
CS wrote:
I have been reading your books online. Only recently (6 mo. ago) I realized what so called "christianity" really is although it had been a long time coming. I began about 5 yrs. ago denouncing pagan holidays and recognizing the Sabbath. Searching for a like minded group of believers with whom to associate has proved totally futile. Please pray for me to find a like minded friend with whom to fellowship. Can you recommend a good Bible for me to purchase? All I have are KJV and I don't know Hebrew or Greek or any other language for that matter, but at least would like a Bible that uses the correct name YHWH and Yeshua instead of Jesus. Could you make a recommendation? Thank you for all of the work that you have done in bringing the truth to many of us in these last days. Blessings.


Yada wrote:
CS,

Welcome. Few things are better than leaving a false religion.

There is a forum filled with people who share a similar past and future associated with www.YadaYah.com. It's free, anonymous, and designed for fellowship. You'll find the link on the homepage.

There is no translation that I can recommend. They vary from bad to worse. But if you'll read www.IntroToGod.org, you'll find the tools you'll need to translate Yahowah's Word on your own.

Also, every Friday at 7.30 Eastern Time, on YadaYahweh radio many listeners from around the world participate in the chatroom and by calling into the show.

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  
#11 Posted : Thursday, August 8, 2013 10:16:30 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
MS wrote:
Have just listened to your discussion with Roy Masters.

I understand Roy very well and I could, can, understand
all that you've said very well.

Roy is funny, hung up in his own, very particular ways,
and makes a lot to do about what he thinks and believes
in terms of the words, phrases and concepts that Roy
has chosen. Expecting you or being use to people
becoming so familiar with what he says and 'how he says it'
caused a discrepancy between his emphasis on the 'wordless word'
and your ability to pick up the fact that he means 'understanding';
above, beyond and supremely valuable relative to dry knowledge.

This is worth pointing out about Roy: Roy is one of the, if not the, most well informed
person who is able to share and describe much
about our inner workings, relationship dynamics,
and bring deeper, broader, wider and higher understanding
of the male/female, 'man/woman is but a beast', conditions which determine
the social, family, fabric of society inside each and every individual
more importantly, more distinctly and, for me, relevant;
being applicable to the personal relationships God gives us;
primarily including the insights that are relevant to our own understanding
about life.

Viewing, seeing, people through the eyes of understanding that reveal to us
that
"all that is in the world is the pride of life, the lust/wantonness of eyes and lust of flesh"
as an identity formed in us, first, in and of the world, from which God saves us
is a perspective most unpopular in any Sunday/Saturday sermon, thereby, leading, resulting,
in mass blindness. .... and fewer on the God-chosen road of salvation which requires
an "enduring to the end" - therefore minus any institution that could ever offer, give
or be the source of any such truth.


Ok, I had come back to this point and added the above paragraph. I best call it
quits here or you will be inundated
with a book;
called a single, inspired, writing, session.

Anyway, just to share a bit to speak of the wordless word of understanding
that was easy for me to ascertain in, what appears to be, a nearly first conversation.

I especially appreciated your point on the the truth of God's nature, the nature of God's
word, truth, love and spiritually alive word; the Is, Was and Will Be truth of God.
As I would share, all of God's truth is true continually and operating in, determining,
everyone's life all the time right now, always - now, before and tomorrow.

I am most sure that we can have, will have, a fruitful conversation with
tell tale truth signs of words that speak to a most fruitful relationship.

You may call me anytime.

MS
***-***-**** is the home number.

Best anytime after 2 pm EST and up till 10 pm.

My time is given to what people call 'full time' in an engagement,
ongoing growth, of/in/for/about/through
what God's love, truth, light and purpose are.
For the purpose of engaging, having and receiving a true life
which brings about the faith of 'walking out unto/into God's good works'
for the servicing sake of love, truth and life in the lives of others.
Those whom God would have me
aid, adding seed and water, as God see fit, as God determines;
giving my life minus any expectations that would rob us of life;
believing and having faith that God's word, love, truth and light
never go out in vain.

This has been true, generally, off and on,
my entire life. This searching, this distinctively revealing revelation
outside of organized, institutional, indoctrinating, evil, religion.
The 'full time' focus, listening, writing, contemplating, thinking, reflecting,
all day. But, with single hearted focus approximately 5-12 hours a day without
exception. This started in and around, 2002; becoming more steadily.
Certainly this is
the case after 2004, solidly a fact since 2005.

As God gives, increasing life, that which light, love and truth are
we find ourselves among fewer and fewer people
who are able to tolerate, receive, have interest, understand
and more of what a working, close, relationship calls upon us
to be.

I had to get up and out of bed, laying down, listening for the past few hours
to write something to you sooner than, tomorrow, later; making sure that I searched out
your name and website so that it would be in front of me for
further reading/review - looking for common ground in understanding - for what we might
address and/or open up to each other. Understanding of the time before Christ is understood
to be essential, invaluably confirming.

Do you know of Andrew Jukes - and his understanding of type and shadow?

There are few people in this world with whom I can speak and share openly with a
good sense of understanding. There are just a few to whom i can listen, read and converse.

I do not speak much - if any - concerning politics or social dynamics once concluding that evil
directs the world during my early, political, social, studies and political interests in my late teens
well before and while at college as a Political Science major, even - for lack of any other
focus of collegiate offer or interest. Religion/philosophy the same which had included
taking a year off after my junior year for a "purpose of life study" purchasing significant, thorough,
and esoteric books on the world's religions/philosophies (Ok, this is me going on, not quitting as mentioned above)
Isn't that something about Mohammed? -- geesh.

Hope all is well.

Your brother in and of The Christ,

MS

-- you see it's 3:41 am, once i got up to write any sense
of tiredness of thought of time tends to cease.

ah, light!


Yada wrote:
MS

You are correct, by the "wordless word" Roy means "understanding," something that is the result of processing actual words rationally. So he is encouraging people to meditate on understanding while I'm trying to get people to understand. And that is why I turned to the Hebrew words "shamar - closely examine and carefully consider" and "nesamah - exercise good judgment." If we had more time, Roy would have seen the common denominator between these things, something I suspect he already appreciates but still wanted to reinforce his terminology.

That said, it was a wonderful discussion. Roy is very bright and his conclusions are sound.

I'm glad that you enjoyed the revelation that Hebrew words are not stuck in time, and thus not only represent Yahowah, but are also eternally true. I also wanted to share how this corresponds to light, but Roy has an issue with Einstein.

I do not know Jukes. And I do not use "Christ," even as a title. It is not valid. God's one and only name is Yahowah. We are best served when we use it.

Yada


MS wrote:
At the age of 12 it became apparent to me that the
idea of 'hell' - eternal suffering for resurrected flesh
that had been enabled to experience pain with no redeeming value
forever had to be a great misnomer at the least.

Let alone being a lie and evil.

This mentioned as a precursor to the same impossibility
that there was a trinity, three Gods in one.
Therefore JC is not God but a man who is the
"only-begotten son of God; his Father"

This shared for the purpose of asking you
if you believe that

The timelessness topic was mentioned in respect to
a focus in understanding given by Yahowah in me
----- that speaks
to a growing degree of clarity and application of the
timeless truth of Yahowah's revelation of true life.
Understanding that God's truth, God's revelation,
supported by God's word, Yahowah's tool of giving and furthering
understanding, is timeless and always applicable at all times.

Significance being, more so, now, for those who are
given to see and understand with ears to hear and understand.

Coming up to the question, as well as i can put if for you.

1) -- Do you believe that Yahowah had
a son who is 'the messiah' prophesied? - or whatever Hebrew words
that you would like to use
which have added, aided, in who you have become -- your beliefs,
your understandings?

Really, on this point i would have to say, share.
That one's understanding about what Love is, what Truth is, who God is,
and the Light God gives can all be given by God with or without ever, personally,
only knowing, the use and meaning of hebrew words specifically. This is not
to dismiss, in any way, the fact that the knowledge and understanding of
Hebrew words were not a part of someone's understanding which resulted
in impacting another's understanding.

as to not dismiss anything of, by, through, Yahowah

Yet, to be overly dismissive of where God has a person, by Yahowah's spiritual means,
would appear to be a gross lack of faith in Yahowah's will for what is, what was and
what will be for whom God chooses, for whom and when God wills.

There can be, is, a time and a person with whom God/Yahowah has worked, judged,
and transformed to be with eyes that see and ears that hear that which is true, loving
and of Yahowah's light.

One might be exceedingly patient with the, a, gift of meeting, hosting, entertaining,
hospitably being visited by
"angels/messengers unaware"?

2) whatcha believe, think, bout that?
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  
#12 Posted : Monday, August 26, 2013 5:32:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

just need some quick advice. I'm starting to study Logos and I understand that you use the Scholar's Platinum Edition. However, there are a lot of "extra" stuff under Platinum like the Greek New Testament, writings of scholars, etc.

For someone who would like to focus on the Hebrew Towrah and only that, would it suffice to get cheaper editions like Gold/Silver/Bronze/Starter? Would these editions be sufficient for an in-depth study of Yah's Word? Or is Platinum the minimum to gain sufficient understanding of the Word?

Thank you for your advice. Much appreciated.

JN


Yada wrote:
JN,

They have changed the offerings so many times with Logos that the last time I tried to help in this regard I was left wondering what to recommend. Most of Logos at any level is junk, so you are correct. I only use interlinears and lexicons / dictionaries and mostly Hebrew. So long as an edition has two or more Hebrew interlinears and 10 or more Hebrew dictionaries / lexicons, then you'll be set. I prefer the DSS bible in hardback. And so I'd recommend Bronze Logos. It's 630 bucks.

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  
#13 Posted : Monday, September 2, 2013 1:38:19 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
D wrote:
Hi Yada,
In exploring the issue of Yahusha being just an manifestation of Yah and not a separate entity that will be with us in the end times, I have considered these passages. I have not amplified them, so please keep that in mind as do I.

One would have to address the issue of what becomes of matter that is part Yahuah and part mortal? It can not cease to exist or Passover/Unleaved Bread and First Fruits would not have accomplished anything for us, as the ability to resurrect from the penalty of death is the point here. Obviously there are masses about of Scripture in the Eye Witness accounts one could point to about Yahusha speaking of returning, but I hesitate to use them due to the reliability of these manuscripts, to base anything on at this point.

However, if First Fruits is first born cleansed of sin, it should constitute that this creature (Yahusha) having accomplished this task of opening the doorway, He would at least be allowed eternal life. Being that this creature-Yahusha, is wholly unique in the universe, as He is both of Yah and human, I don't see in Scripture where He, Yahusha, being this new type of matter or energy was simply reabsorbed back into Yah. I do see Him working in concert with Yah ( being His tool of Righteousness) bringing about Salvation and Judgment in the Tanakh. I agree that Yah is the one that conceived of the path to Salvation so He is our Salvation and the notion that it is only Yahusha that saves is baggage from Christianity.

I have been working on YahshaYahu 51 since June, doing an amp on it and Vs 6 speaks I think of Yahusha. I do want to thank you for introducing the act of amping the Scriptures. It is the most fun I have ever had although the most time consuming and frustrating as well lol.


Tehillim Chaper 2.. specifically verses 6 and 12. I do not think Yah is speaking of Daud.
Tehillim Chapter 110 interesting.. in the fact that I think that Yahusha does have a future.

Yahshayahu 7:14.. Though I think "name" should be reputation not pronoun
1st Chronicles 17:13-14 ( I do not think He was speaking of Solomon)
Yahshayahu 49 is interesting - I think it speaks of the co-workings of both.

Just food for thought.... Thanks!




D


Yada wrote:
I think that so long as you know that Yahowsha' means "Yahowah Saves" and that Yahowsha' is the diminished manifestation of Yahowah set apart from Him to serve us much of this no longer matters. As part of Yahowah, Yahowsha' cannot be born or die. And any time that Yahowah wishes to diminish some of His light to become corporeal, Yahowsha' emerges. Further, it is therefore appropriate to refer to Yahowsha' as Yahowah.

Y
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  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:08:43 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

Here is a somewhat delicate and personal question, but it is hindering my progress. I am in my late fifties and recently became absorbed in the wonderful insights shared by introtogod.org and yadayah.com. Being circumcised does not guarantee a relationship with Yahowah, but being uncircumcised definitely precludes one. I do not believe I have been circumcised. I even asked my urologist about it once, and after an almost comical examination (imagine tugging and pulling and the discomfort with all that) he basically told me, "I'm not sure" (because although there is no obvious scar, there is also not a lot of skin).

I am trusting Yahowah to lead me to an answer, but in the process I shied away from observing the Miqra'eys. Perhaps someone knows of a medical resource that might be of help with adult circumcision?

Thanks.

JK


Yada wrote:
JK,

A scar is seldom evident. And there is no indication how much foreskin is to be removed. But on something this essential, if I were you I wouldn't take any chances.

I've read a score of letters from men in their fifties to seventies from as far south as New Zealand and as far north as Denmark who chose to be circumcised late in life as a result of Yahowah's Towrah Teaching. All have reported that the operation was simple, that there was no discomfort, and that they were back on their feet and engaged in their normal activities within a day. The cost they reported as being between one and five thousand US$.

Rabbis who do this for adult men only do so when converting to Judaism. I am personally unaware of someone who is otherwise trained in ascertaining the degree or existence of circumcision in the case of judgment calls, but if you'd like, I'll share this letter in the Yada Yah Forum in hopes that one of those who has had this done relatively late in life can provide some help.

Yada


JK wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I came to the realization that this community and forum, which I was led to, is the obvious place to find similar experiences and answers. Perhaps others have faced the same dilemma. It's important enough, excuse me, it 's of the utmost importance to get this right. Yes, please share this with the Yada Yah Forum. Thank you again for sharing your passion and joy with all of us.

JK
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 MadDog  
#15 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:37:53 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 156
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

When I got circumcised I had to ask the Doc also if I had actually gotten a full circumcision. He said yes. The reason I asked was because I had thought circumcision would remove all of the foreskin all around the head. The Doc only removed enough at the bottom and that is considered a full circumcision. Also Yah doesn't really say how much to circumcise and in one case he asked for the males to be circumcised a second time. If you were circumcised as an infant, the skin will grow naturally and as you may already realize as you get older the skin starts to sag and wrinkle.

If your parents are still around, they'll know if you were circumcised as an infant. If all else fails, I would ask for a partial circumcision just to be sure.

SS
Offline James  
#16 Posted : Monday, October 21, 2013 3:06:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

This man, Dr Ray Hagins-Stolen Story http://ow.ly/pOXYP
And this
The Council That Created Jesus Christ,Ray Hagins PhD – The 1st Creed of Nicea 325_AD.mp4 - http://ow.ly/pOY39
In my attempt, the only thing I could establish is that the
Great Pyramid of Giza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza was Built 481 ft in 2560 BCE while
The Tower of Babel 300ft in 610 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

This being the case, I wondered, WHO would have been the first to try and "Reach God"? WHO should "God" have been more concerned about?
How come there is NO TRACE of the Tower of Babel which is more recent compared to the Pyramid of Giza which is close to 2000 years older!

This has gone beyond my current depth of knowledge – maybe you can help.

M


Yada wrote:
Why do you care about the tower of babel? Yah predicted and history affirms that Babylon was completely destroyed. Moreover, we have discovered foundations and carvings in Babylon that are appropriate for and that resemble such a tower. They built many such buildings.

Babel in Hebrew means "confusion." Mankind has been advocating confusion for thousands of years and continues to do so, especially with words promoted in the name of religion and politics. So I have always viewed the tower of babel as a metaphor for religious and political institutions that tower over mankind for the purpose of misleading the masses.

yada


M wrote:
What are your comments on,

Stolen Story http://ow.ly/pOXYP
And this
The Council That Created Jesus Christ,Ray Hagins PhD – The 1st Creed of Nicea 325_AD.mp4 - http://ow.ly/pOY39
What do you think the tower of babel metaphor was based on?

IF that Was a metaphor, was Nimrod – a metaphor too?


Yada wrote:
While there is evidence of many religiously inspired towers in early Babylon, the story uses man's propensity to create religious edifices to convey the motive, method, and consequence of corrupting words.

Most everything serves as a metaphor, whether real or symbolic. So it does not actually matter if Nimrod lived or is representative of the marriage of politics, religion, and military aggression. The name means "son" and became symbolic of the sun of the sun being conceived on Easter and born on Christmas. He became the basis of Lent and of the Easter ham. His wife / mother became the basis of the Trinity, the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God. Therefore, the symbolic meaning is essential while the actual person is irrelevant. The same is true with the tower. As with most everything, understanding is vastly more important than knowing. Knowing requires careful observation and understanding occurs by making connections, asking the right questions, and knowing where to look for answers.

I have not read it, but based solely on your questions, perhaps the book which is troubling you is lost in a forest of information that is not presented in a way that can be properly understood. And based upon the research I've done, the primary purpose of the Nicean Council was to eliminate Arian thought, and thus a proper understanding of Yahowsha' as the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah. A different individual based upon the Babylonian religion with a different name thus became the god of Christianity. The rest of what occurred was windowdressing.

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  
#17 Posted : Monday, November 11, 2013 4:14:28 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I am wondering what happened to the forums on the Yadayah website. I would also like to ask a question in regards to the last shabat scripture study episode a man named Don mentioned a website he produced that has the dead sea scrolls available for translation. I would like to know what website this is.

Thanks.


Yada wrote:
JW,

We have had horrible problems with denial of service attacks which is why the forum is down.

Don's site is: http://www.yhwh-qra.com/.

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  
#18 Posted : Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:18:31 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

You're close, my friend.... his name is YAHUAH and his Son is Yahushua... :)

http://www.youtube.com/messengerofthename


Yada wrote:
GT,

While the "u" sound is possible, it is not likely based upon the overwhelming preponderance of Hebrew words featuring a W like Towrah and Yow'el, and thousands of others. The vast majority of the time, the Hebrew vowel W is pronounced like an "o" in English. You can affirm this for yourself by examining a Hebrew dictionary. And the most well-known and commonly spoken Hebrew word, Shalowm, like Towrah, Gowym, and 'Elowah, all serve to prove this point.

Also, in your suggested transliteration, it is inconsistent to show both of the H's but then eliminate the W. Just as the H is a vowel, conveying "a," the W is a vowel conveying "o." So it would be more accurate to either write Iaoa, simply replicating the sounds of the four vowels, or Yahowah, thereby revealing the source of the sounds. Personally, I prefer to show the basis of the pronunciation so that it can be verified and understood.

In the Towrah and Prophets, we find Yahowsha' written 220 times and Yahowshua' written twice. The former means Yahowah Saves. The latter means Yahowah Cries Out. So, those are the facts. And in the Towrah, which is the foundation, the name is written Yahowsha'.

This information and much more is presented for your review in the Names Volume of www.IntroToGod.org. And while I don't claim to be right, the evidence is overwhelming.

Yada


GT wrote:
That's the point though... it's close, but not right... i'm trying to show you why I say this....

It's not YAHO-anything either...

The names are Yahuah.... As in Yah-WHOUH..... Yahwho-shoo-uh.....

YAHWEH has only been around for 50 years or so and it's an idol in the VATICAN!!!!!! :(

See segment 4 of "The Seal of Yahuah or the Mark of the Beast" after you watch the rest of the stuff...

You're dealing with MIDDLE Hebrew, not PALEO-HEBREW...... :(

A totally different dialect... :(

http://www.youtube.com/messageofthename


Yada wrote:
The evidence from the Towrah is overwhelmingly in favor of Yahowah and Yahowsha'. That's good enough for me. And other source of evidence is vastly less credible.


GT wrote:
You're close.... so close.. Look in Rev. 2-3... even the KJV mentions Judah, which is YAHUDAH....

:(


Yada wrote:
Revelation is written in Greek. Yahowah and Yahowsha' are Hebrew names.


GT wrote:
http://vimeo.com/79264620


Yada wrote:
GT, I'm not going to websites. I go to the Towrah. If you can prove from the Towrah that my conclusions are wrong, I'm interested. If not, I'm not.

Yahowah introduces Himself and His one and only name to us in His Towrah. It explains how to pronounce His name and what it means.

Yada


GT wrote:
Which is why nobody gets what i'm trying to tell them... these names have been BLOTTED OUT of the Torah, yet you think everything's fine! It's NOT!!!!!! :( You're IN SPIRITUAL DANGER!!!!!!!


Yada wrote:
Run away from whoever told you that Yahowah's or Yahowsha's names have been blotted out of the Towrah. That is factually inaccurate. They have only been removed from translations. You can read Yahowah in every DSS MSS of the Towrah and Prophets. And even in the Masoretic Text, YHWH is still found beneath 'adony.

Lucky for you that no one gets what you are trying to say.

If you are interested in how I came to realize that the vowels YHWH are pronounced Yahowah, just as TWRH is pronounced Towrah, after examining every single word in the Towrah, then read the Names Volume of www.IntroToGod.org. If not, then please, keep your opinions and spiritual warnings to yourself.

If you study the evidence presented from the Towrah in the Names volume and find a flaw in my research, evidence, analysis, or conclusions, then write me again and present your case based upon the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet as they are deployed in the Towrah.

Yada


GT wrote:
Yod Hey UAU HEY... YAHUAH

Yod - hey - uau- hey- shin, uau- ayin.... Yahushua..

The oldest manuscripts are stuck in jars in various locations throughout the ME, which you'd see if you'd watch... :(


Yada wrote:
GT

This means that the Dead Sea Scrolls are still in the jars they were found in according to your source. We must then have access to them through hocus pocus I suppose. The pictures of them are a giant conspiracy. And the Great Isaiah Scroll that is on display is nothing more than a clever trick. Must be, because you have been led to believe that Yahowah's name has been "blotted out" of His Towrah when the Qumran Scrolls reveal that YHWH is written 7000 times in the Torah and Prophets.

Without any proof, you believe that the Hebrew Wah is pronounced "uau" - even though it is transliterated "o" in the overwhelming majority of the words found in the lexicons defining the vocabulary throughout the Hebrew text - even though the Wah is never vocalized "uau" in any word or name found in the Towrah. I suppose by that "logic," TWRH would be t-uau-ra, not Torah, SHLWM would be shaluaum, not shalom, 'LWH would be 'eluaua, not 'eloah, and rather than GWYM being goym, it would be guauym. And lest I forget, then YHWH would be Y-a-uau-a, rather than Yahowah. Using your standard, YHWSHW' would be Y-a-uau-sh-a. Perhaps He was Hawaiian. They love vowels.

Moreover, after presenting this departure from reality, you want me to watch a video produced by someone promoting these same myths. Thanks anyway, but I'll pass.

I'm glad that someone has awakened you to the fact that the Almighty / 'elowah has a name. I'm glad that you know that it can be and should be pronounced. And I'm glad that your pronunciation is close, at least with regard to Yahowah's name. I am glad that you are aware that the two Heys must be pronounced "ah" and that the Wah is a vowel. This is all important, relevant, and accurate. And I'm especially glad that you have prioritized knowing Yahowah's name. I am also pleased that you know that "Jesus" is wrong, and that Yahowsha's name is based upon Yahowah's name.

But beyond this, most of the information you have shared is inaccurate or irrelevant. So my advice to you is to read the entirety of www.IntroToGod.org. There you will be introduced to the oldest extant manuscripts and to the alphabet used to write them. You will be provided an introduction to Hebrew grammar, to Hebrew lexicons, and to Hebrew English interlinears. And with those tools, you will be able to do your own research, studying the Towrah on your own. As a result, you will no longer believe those who make spurious claims.

Yada


GT wrote:
Those names are close, but they're not THE names... The NAMES are YAHUAH and YAHUSHUA!!!!! :( I've been trying to show / tell you that I CAN prove it!!!!!


Yada wrote:
While you can't prove that the ow transliteration is absolutely wrong based upon towrah, since you believe otherwise, using the only reliable evidence, prove your point by citing the oldest extant copies of the Towrah in Hebrew, citing the most relevant Hebrew words properly transliterated, using the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus far, you've demonstrated that you don't know Hebrew and that you are unaware of what is written in the oldest copies of the Towrah. I'm not going to visit another website, or consider any evidence other than the Towrah in Hebrew since Yahowah introduces Himself to us and reveals His name in it using that alphabet.

I don't care about idols, the king james, the RCC, or Greek. I don't care to know who has misled you regarding the myth that Yahowah's name has been blotted out of His towrah, especially in the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts. It is a Hebrew name, so stick to the oldest, most reliable, Hebrew texts where the name is introduced and then explain the evidence therein for your claim that the W can only be accurately pronounced u and not o. And then explain why Yahowsha' is written 220 times and Yahowshua' 2 times, as well as why one means Yahowah cries and the other Yahowah saves.


GT wrote:
This is not your fault or mine...

Unscrupulous people that are not you, or me, took those names out of every manuscript imaginable... i'm trying to, lovingly tell you, WE have been sold a bill of goods, doc...

http://www.followersofyah.com

and yes it is a salvation issue, because, WE have to be MORE REGHTEOUS than the Scribes, Pharisees and SADUCEES COMBINED, or we are not gonna make it... :(

Do you have a copy of the ISR Scriptures?


Yada wrote:
GT

Yahowah's name has been removed from translations, but only from translation, not from any of the oldest manuscripts. It can be found on every page of the Qumran scrolls for example. It is even in the oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic. Whoever told you otherwise is ignorant and dishonest.

You have also been misled as to the means Yahowah has provided to save His Covenant Children. We are not capable of being righteous. This is the benefit of Matsah which is allocated to those who have embraced the terms and conditions of the Covenant and who answer Yahowah's invitations to meet with Him seven times each year. You have a lot to learn, and would gain enormously by studying before you preach.

I have two copies of the ISR's "Scriptures." I don't refer to them because it is a flawed translation - not materially better than any other. Its only benefit is its presentation of names - many of which are closer but still inaccurate. And since they are unaware of the fact that Paul was a false prophet, by including his letters, their "Scriptures" does more harm than good. ISR's most meaningful contribution to learning is their publication of Come Out of Her My People, which reveals the corrupt nature of Christianity.

Greg, while your intentions may well be good, you lack knowledge and understanding. Observe the Towrah and then share what it teaches with others.

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  
#19 Posted : Saturday, November 30, 2013 7:19:53 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

GT wrote:
Yada,

You don't understand that our creator's name is Yahuah and not Yahweh, yet?! Oh, man... :( How big is your congregation?

Yahushua guide you all....

GT


Yada wrote:
Wake up, GT. I'm not saying that it is Yahweh. I'm not even saying that the Almighty's name cannot be YaHuWaH. I'm saying that the internal evidence in the ToWRaH demonstrates that the most informed, likely, and reasonable pronunciation of YHWH is Yahowah. Not only is the evidence overwhelming, based upon HaYaH and ToWRaH, it is all presented for you in An Introduction to God.

Thus far, most everything you have submitted has been inaccurate, irrelevant, or misleading. You cannot direct people to the truth with a concoction of lies.
Since you asked, each week 30,000 to 40,000 people listen to the Shattering Myths and Yada Yah radio programs and considerably more than that read Questioning Paul, Yada Yah, An Introduction to God, and Prophet of Doom, all 7,000 pages of which are free online.
I am not a Christian. I am not religious. I do not have a church, much less a congregation.
Currently, Greg, you are conducting an errant argument with yourself using false information, a straw man, and non sequitur. You have been unable to counter any of my corrections to your testimony. You are wasting your time and now mine.

If you want to know and communicate the truth in an informed and rational way, read these books on the Towrah and Prophets and conduct an honest debate on the evidence. If not, I'd strongly suggest that you refrain from promoting your opinions and that you invest your time learning by observing Yahowah's Towrah. Yah wants us to prepare before we share. And you have a lot to unlearn and much to learn.
If you read QP, the ITG, or YY, you'll be vastly better prepared and more effective as a witness.
Unless it is a reply to a question regarding something you have read in the ITG, YY, or QP, this will be my last response.

Yada

Edited by user Monday, December 2, 2013 10:19:39 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 Steve in PA  
#20 Posted : Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:36:09 AM(UTC)
Steve in PA
Joined: 3/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: PA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
"Perhaps He was Hawaiian. They love vowels."

Hahahaa!!!!!!!

shalom82  
#21 Posted : Monday, December 2, 2013 7:43:23 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 96

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
my opinion on the matter is that YHWH is absolute in some ways and relative in others. When it pertains to knowing and using His name, YHWH is absolute. He is very specific...He demands it....end of story...bye bye...see you later. But on pronunciation...I think that he is somewhat relative. Should we strive to get it right, most definitely...but we are imperfect, we try and we make concerted efforts and everybody has their reasons for believing this or that pronunciation. And often enough they are not out in left field. Yes, it is a stupid debate that we shouldn't have to have it...nothing should be more certain....But languages evolve and if you take a word or a name out of circulation (as the Yahudim did with YHWH in Babylon)...then questions and uncertainties abound. So what do we do. At the end of the day does YHWH care that whether it is an o or a u or an ah or an eh....I am sure ultimately He does very much. There will be a day when there will be no uncertainty. So for the time being....let me be presumptuous and take a guess that I think Sincerity is more important than pronunciation (within reason). If you are honestly seeking and making an attempt to get it right...and sometimes you just throw up your hands and say....well Yah....at least we got that down....then I would guess He tolerates a few foibles of pronuncation...He may wince or grimace...but at the end of the day He knows you are family. I wouldn't throw my little girl or boy out of my family because they can't pronounce my name perfectly. But I would like to know that the intention is there to know me and love me. If they ask me my name and I tell them it is Jacob...and they say...well...I don't like that name....I think I am gonna call you a**hole....then I would start to feel a little bit dubious about their love and commitment to a familial relationship. So perhaps this isn't the best thing to get sidetracked on...and this is not Yada...its about Greg.
Offline James  
#22 Posted : Monday, December 2, 2013 10:19:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Agreed Shalom, and Yada even said as much in his first email, but also explained why he choose the pronunciation he did. The bigger issue, at least in my opinion, is GT's claim that Yah's name has been blotted out of the oldest manuscripts. If he want's to pronounce it as Yahuwah, that is fine, I happen to think it is less accurate then Yahowah, but hey we will find out soon enough, but to say that Yah's name is not extant in the oldest manuscripts is just an outright lie.
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  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:25:20 AM(UTC)
Guest
Joined: 6/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 96

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Yahowah's name is written in stone-- dss stone.
blot that out


http://www.oneforisrael....azing-dead-sea-discovery

http://www.bib-arch.org/...icleID=16&extraID=14

http://www.sdscrolls.org...ead-sea-scroll-main.html

Edited by user Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:12:14 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline James  
#24 Posted : Monday, December 9, 2013 1:50:38 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I am very troubled. Can you please give me guidance?

My eleven-year-old grandson is autistic. He was never circumcised as a baby because he was born prematurely at 26.5 weeks and spent 13.5 weeks in the NICU in an incubator on life support and a feeding tube.

Now, at 11, I share with him the Torah teachings. He loves Yahweh and talks about going to heaven everyday. He knows that males are required to be circumcised to go to heaven. There in lies the painful dilemma for him and me. We are both so worried that he won't be taken out when Yahweh removes his own before the 2026.

We have scheduled a circumcision that will require general anesthesia with many risks to an autistic child with potential mitochondrial dysfunction.

I am very worried about the procedure and his going under a general. We wanted a local, but the surgeon is worried about my grandson being uncomfortable.

Oh, Yada, I want to cancel the operation for Thursday, the 12th, because of the potential harm the anesthesia may do to my autistic grandson, yet he and I are so worried that he'll be left behind if Yahweh comes back to get us before my grandson is old enough to be circumcised with local anesthesia.

What does the Torah teach on this?

I wonder if we can wait until he is 16 or 17 when (perhaps) he could receive local anesthesia to be circumcised.

My grandson and I study the Torah together. He asks me each night to "read me the Torah, Grandma" because it comforts him. We have much turmoil and strife in our lives living among those that would tear us apart because of our love of Yahweh and His Torah. My husband is very critical of you/us and Yahweh's Torah teachings and my grandson's need to be circumcised.

Your guidance would greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
JS


Yada wrote:
JS,
A 26 week boy seldom survives, so you have already enjoyed the medical miracle of life.

There is no teaching on this that I'm aware of. Yah would not want you to put your grandson's life in jeopardy. But there is no stated provision for not doing circumcision for medical reasons. Local anesthesia is normally used and it is normally safe. It is extremely rare that there would be a complication on the eighth day, but as you say, that may not be the case with his autism and age.
Yah does, however, have a provision for the young children of parents who are participants in the Covenant. So, while your grandson is a generation removed from you, and while it is grandparent singular, not plural, since he is autistic Yah may look at him as being under your care even when he will be in his twenties at the harvest. Also, Yah never specifies how much must be cut. So a minimal cut under a local numbing agent may be an option for you. My vasectomy was performed that way. I've even had arthroscopic surgery done under local anesthesia.

So while you and I are both qualified to know for absolute certain that it is pleasing to Yah that you and your grandson are studying the Towrah together, and especially that your grandson loves the Towrah and Yahowah, I'm not even remotely qualified to address the issues you have raised with a reliable answer. I know my place, and this is waaaaaay above my qualifications.
I'm sorry that your husband is critical of Yahowah's Towrah teachings. Considering God's credentials, considering what He is offering, considering the merit of His testimony, it's amazing that so many people are adverse to what He has to say.
I am deeply touched by your grandson's interest in going to heaven. It is as if trapped in his autistic mind, he rightly envisions being a perfect child, able to communicate fluently, in his Heavenly Father's arms. Wow! That is worth celebrating.

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  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:23:49 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

JS wrote:
Yada,

Thank you for taking the time to answer our concerns about circumcision. I can't imagine how much time email must take from you and your family. Your response and guidance is greatly valued. All that you've given on gcnlive and in your free books and broadcasts have been our light to the truth of the Towrah and to falling in love with Yahweh, leaving Christianity behind.

After researching the dangers of anesthesia on autistic children, I have concluded that if the urologist won't agree to do a local, then, we need to cancel the Thursday surgery. We'll seek another urologist who'll agree to do a local, or we'll wait until my grandson is old enough that the urologist feels comfortable with a local.

Wisdom dictates no general anesthesia because of the risks.

Thank you again for your response. May Yah bless you and yours richly.

Deeply grateful,

JS


Yada wrote:
JS,

As a parent, your approach seems prudent to me. And first and foremost, Yahowah is our Father, so it is reasonable to conclude that His view and ours are in sync when we seek to do what is best for our children. So based upon the information you have shared, as a parent I suspect I would have made the same decision.

That said, based upon what you have revealed about your grandson, I have no doubt that he's more capable of handling the procedure under a local anesthesia than the vast preponderance of adults. It sounds like he has made a thoughtful decision and that he knows what he wants. And remember, while autism influences a child's ability to communicate, it does not cloud the child's ability to think.

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 : Monday, December 16, 2013 9:00:41 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I've come to suspect something and ask that please kick it around in your mind to see if it has any merit.

Is it conceivable that Yah's set-apart spirit, the manifestation of the maternal aspects of Yah once set-apart from Yah, is Yah's Towrah? Since Yahowsha' is the manifestation of Yah in the material realm and he is twice set-apart from Yah, isn't Yahowsha', in word and deed, the first material and tangible result of responding to Yah's teaching, guidance and direction? Isn't Yahowsha' the result of the union between Yah's sovereign and willfully expressed words and Yah's desired response to His words?

Then isn't it also true that a thought conceived in the mind, when willfully converted into words for the purpose of communicating, become (through and as a result of conversion -- as in giving birth) separate from the mind (i.e. of the mind but not the fullness of the mind)? Aren't these words, having been spoken or written (which requires the sovereignly and willfully directed expenditure or release of energy) further diminished and in fact twice separated from the mind that conceived them?

As Yah spoke the universe and everything in it into existence, and His words are the sovereignly and willfully expressed manifestation of directed energy, doesn't the outward flow of Yah's words serve as the energetic plane, the ripple in still water, the manifest realm of spirit and energy set-apart from Yah but not the entirety of Yah? If so, then "She" must be that flow, that energetic living water. She must be Yah's Towrah -- the manifest flow of Yah's teaching, guidance, and instruction -- and the Towrah must be the living, energy infused water and enveloping light flowing from Yah that we, through the expression of our individual sovereign and willful choice and response, have chosen to immerse ourselves in, to wear and embrace for the sole purpose of approaching, relating to, and existing (hayah) with Yah. Have I missed something?


I will stand with Yah,

DB.

PS. I suspect Dowd is not the only one to compose songs to the Towrah. Here is an example written for our time by Robert Hunter, a lyricist for the band the Grateful Dead. I can't help but see Yah as the speaker and I think you, more than anyone, can appreciate the line "It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken". Here is "Ripple":

If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung
Would you hear my voice come through the music?
Would you hold them near as if they were your own?

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken
Perhaps they're better left unsung
I don't know, don't really care
Let there be songs to fill the air

Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty
If your cup is full, may it be again
Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man

There is a road, no simple highway
Between the dawn and the dark of night
And if you go, no one may follow
That path is for your steps alone

Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow

You who choose to lead must follow
But if you fall, you fall alone
If you should stand, then who's to guide you?
When you know the way, I will take you home


Yada wrote:
DB,

Yes, the Towrah, the Word, Yahowsha', and the Set-Apart Spirit are all part of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us. Therefore, I concur with your initial thoughts in this regard. Well stated.

I rather like the song and its lyrics, but I don't see it as being inspired in the since of the Psalms.

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

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#27 Posted : Friday, December 27, 2013 5:48:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

Was it you who shared with me concerns of accuracy of new testament (beyond Paul)

Someone mentioned it to me months ago when I was not ready for the thought ... now I am trying to track them down


Shabbat Shalom

M


[quite=Yada]M,

There is an evaluation of the "NT" at the beginning of www.IntroToGod.org. Yahowsha's words are inaccurately translated twice over and are poorly maintained, and that's as good as it gets. There are more known discrepancies than words.

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 : Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:52:56 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

Have you translated this text?
Looks like Yah likes the smell of a barbeque.
But how does that work being spirit?

F

Gen: 8: 15 Then Elohim spoke to Noah, 16 “Come out of the ship with your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives. 17 Bring out every animal that’s with you: birds, domestic animals, and every creature that crawls on the earth. Be fertile, increase in number, and spread over the earth.”

18 So Noah came out with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives. 19 Every animal, crawling creature, and bird—everything that moves on the earth—came out of the ship, one kind after another.

20 Noah built an altar to Yahweh. On it he made a burnt offering of each type of clean[a] animal and clean bird. 21 Yahweh smelled the soothing aroma. Yahweh said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of humans, even though from birth their hearts are set on nothing but evil. I will never again kill every living creature as I have just done.


Yada wrote:
F

The words rendered "smelled" and "smoothing aroma' are both from ryah, and it also means "to accept and to receive so that we can approach and be near." In other words: Yahowah received and accepted it so that we could approach and be near.

I suspect He does like the aroma of BBQ, however.

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, January 21, 2014 3:00:54 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

If have not seen this video, you should, as it will blow you away! Further achelogical evidence that Yahowah exist and His Towrah is something to treasure!

http://m.facebook.com/l....5bEubQRK3o8De4DC6JEAjRb8
Yah Bless,

W


Yada wrote:
William,

I watched this, but it was hard, because so many of the quotes are Christian stupidity, and I know that these guys didn't, themselves, find Mt. Horeb. Solomon was the first to mark the location. Then, back in the 70s, the fellow who found Noah's Ark, who found Sodom, who found the crossing location of the Red Sea, who found Mt. Horeb, who found the Ark of the Covenant, was Ron Wyatt. These guys are full of themselves. Ron's proof is overwhelming and irrefutable.

I've read and viewed everything Ron produced and wrote.I've been to Ron's museum. I've met with Ron's widow. These guys are claiming for themselves what has been known and published for many decades.

I'd encourage you to consider Ron's witness. He too was a Christian, but nonetheless, he found all of these things decades before these fellows followed in his footsteps, except they were wrong on the crossing. They are right about Horeb being in Arabia, but Ron found it not these self-serving religious liars.

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, January 22, 2014 5:17:23 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

William wrote:
Yada,


Wow! I thought Ron only found Noah's Ark. Thank you for the information, I will visit Ron's website.

The reason I forwarded this to you was to point out, that once again, Yah's Word is proven with archaeological evidence, like the top of the mountain being charred, the split rock, ect. Really profound because so many seem to think the Towrah is myth.

I too was bother by their Christian gibberish, but extremely excited to see this mountain! I never knew of this find. :-)


Thanks,

William


Yada wrote:
William,

Be careful and discriminating. The guy who runs Ron's website is a Christian who is promoting his own books and agenda. Only buy the stuff written and filmed by Ron Wyatt before his death. And keep in mind that Ron was also a Christian. But with Ron there is no flash, no Hollywood, no drama, just the evidence laid out for us to examine. And his evidence is overwhelming.

After I studied Ron's findings, I used Google earth to view the Mount Horeb site and the Newiba Aqaba crossing. It's all right there, obvious, and affirmed. And since that time I have seen four or five guys like these retrace some of Ron's steps and then claim the discovery for themselves. Ron's widow had a lot to say about guys like those in the film, and it was all pretty disgusting. So while it is important to have Yah's testimony affirmed archeologically, I found these messengers so dishonest it was hard for me to watch the film. And of course, they were not only immoral, they were irrational. If the story of Yahowah providing the Towrah and freeing His people is true, then Christianity is false.

Yada


William wrote:
Yada,

Indeed I will be on guard. I've learn something very important in this journey to learn Yah's Truth. I will listen and pay close attention to everything being said, no matter whom is saying it. Of course, Yahowah ask that we do so when it pertains to His Word but I find this applicable and beneficial in every aspect of life. Quite frankly I can't imagine ever coming to knowYah's Truth, if one does not engage in this manner. In essence, carefully considering, listening, and paying close attention are characteristics of the open minded, which then leads to proper discernment.

Please, I would like for you to do something for me. Give your lovely bride a huge hug on behalf of my family and I. Tell her we said thank you for being such an amazing wife! We love you brother!

Yah Bless,
William


Yada wrote:
Thank you William.

The more we know, the closer we look, the more we understand, the more we come to love Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Covenant. And sometimes we can learn from those who do not know him, as is the case with the Mt. Horeb affirmations. We just have to be careful, and use our nesamah to filter out the bad so that we are left with the good. I think that comes naturally for you.

Under normal circumstances I would have processed the film you sent that same way, turning a deaf ear to the religion and and blind eye to the glitz. But because I'd studied Ron Wyatt's material from 30 or more years ago, I knew that these guys were lying through their teeth about their discovery. That said, all of those who have filmed the Horeb site affirm what happened there.

Yah Bless,

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 : Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:52:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
J wrote:
Notes and one minor typo in Introduction to God:

If you have and ear for Yah, and if you love His Towrah, you are in for a treat. (change 'and' ear to 'an' ear)

The name Yahowah appears exactly 7,000 times in His Covenant Scriptures. Perhaps this corresponds to 7000 years of time before a new heaven and earth are to be created in 3033 CE.

We definitely should leave religion. But as for politics, if we leave it, under what law would our nation be governed? Would no one hold elected office? What would stop a culture from becoming a free for all?

Why isn't Germany doing worse after persecuting Yah's people?


Yada wrote:
Thank you.

Yes, that is one of the many important 7 connections. Politics should not matter to us. We should not promote what we think is the lessor of evils. But with our words we can and should hold politicians accountable, exposing and condemning their immoral acts. That is more useful than voting.

Germany was completely destroyed. We bombed every city to rubble. The Russians raped more than a million German women. Germans men were enslaved in the USSR for decades. More Germans committed suicide than any time in human history. And the recovery took 35 years. Also, keep in mind, the Russians and the Poles were equally anti-Semitic.

This site does a marvelous job of presenting the new, much longer, version of Questioning Paul...http://www.blessyahowah.com/qp/qp.html.


J wrote:
This guy put a lot of time and thought into critiquing your site.


Yada wrote:
Yes. R and I differ widely on economics, and he is a feisty fellow, but he loves Yahowah. I only know him via email exchanges, and we've had more than our share of arguments, but he's committed to the truth which makes us allies.

He was a big help in the editing of QP. He is very active on the YY Forum.

I've only viewed portions of R's site, but I like his intro to QP and his homepage. Fact is, I like R.

The other sites which mirror www.YadaYah.com, www.IntroToGod.org, and www.QuestioningPaul.com are: www.yhwh-qra.com and www.poweronhigh.com. Don, a 70 year old ex Marine built the former with audio and Frank, a former Christian marriage counselor, built the latter. There is also a Facebook site devoted to Yahowah using these books by Larry Hendricks, the fellow who was on with you last week: https://www.facebook.com/larry.hendricks1.

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 : Monday, February 10, 2014 3:28:54 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I am sure you have been asked this question many times, but I cannot find a solid answer to John 20:27 and Luke 24:39 where physical resurrection (flesh and bones, touch wounds on hands and side) is strongly communicated. On the other hand He did just "appear" in their midst.

I know my christian family and friends will hammer me on this question. If Christianity does not have physical resurrection there is no Christianity.

Thank you for help on this and maybe include this question on SM someday.

B


Yada wrote:
B, you have answered their question. He moved through the wall and traveled 50 miles (coming from Emmaus) in no time. Both preclude a physical body. Moreover, He wasn't recognizable initially in that situation, meaning that He wasn't using His previous body.

Spiritual energy can be diminished to become matter. It is how the universe was formed. It is what E=mc2 means. So Yahowsha' made the transition once He was inside the room. It is the transition Yahowah had to make to become Yahowsha' in the first place.

Since all four meetings with family, disciples, and friends have only one common denominator, the failure to recognize someone they knew intimately, the only rational conclusion is that upon the release of His soul from She'owl on Firstborn Children, and the reunion with Yahowah's Spirit, He became what we will become - a spiritual being, which is to be greatly empowered with greater capabilities.

Since the basis of Christianity is their god being killed (some god) and then like the pagan gods of mythology being resurrected bodily, the religion is destroyed by the fact all three historical portraits bluntly state that those who knew Him best did not recognize Him. That is game over for a rational person.

Yada


B wrote:
Yada. Thank you for your quick reply....On a different subject, there are a multitude of variations in the return to the Torah movement...... www.spiritandtorah is one of them. How can people be so close to the truth and yet miss it? They definitely are seeking, but come up with so different conclusions. Scary.
B


Yada wrote:
Yes, B, there are lots of folks sniffing all around the truth, yet most seem to be mixing Rabbinical Judaism with Pauline Christianity. I suspect it is because they want to be inclusive, and to augment what they believe as opposed to admitting that everything they believe is a lie. That's hard for most to do.

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 : Monday, February 24, 2014 6:33:44 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
K wrote:
Yada, one must be a member of Yah's family in order to be granted eternal life, is that not correct? So just attending a Passover dinner and not understanding the five requirements, that person would not become eternal correct? So if someone was not circumcised it seems they would not be a member of the family and so would not get eternal life, correct? What am I missing here?

Thank you.

K


Yada wrote:
K,

I appreciate your calls into SM. I've received a number of letters from listeners who enjoy your contribution.

Eternal life is only one of five elements of our perfection/vindication/salvation, and it can be granted to those who do not benefit from the other four. But that's a bad situation, because it means that such a soul become eternally separated from Yahowah.

To be saved a person must also benefit from Matsah, which is where we are perfected and vindicated, and Bikuwrym, where we are adopted. And to observe the first three Miqra'ey correctly, a person will have to embrace the first three conditions of the Covenant as they are connected. Moreover, the fourth condition of the Covenant and the fourth Miqra' are directly related.

To be perfected, we need the benefits of the first four Miqra'ey as a result of having accepted all five conditions of the Covenant.

Yada


K wrote:
our last sentence is really my questions, since we need the benefits of the first four Miqra'ey as a result of having accepted all five conditions of the Covenant, and since you cannot accept the condition of circumcision unless you are circumcised, how can you receive the benefits? Is this clear?

K


Yada wrote:
K,

Eternal life isn't a benefit apart from the covenant. It is a liability.

Yada


K wrote:
I understand that, my question or what I am asking clarification on, is that if a person attended a Passover dinner what exactly would they need to know or understand, if anything in order to receive eternal life?


Yada wrote:
If they are circumcised as a male, answer the invitation, understand what was being being offered, accept and rely exclusively on Yahowah to supply it, then their soul would become immortal, albeit eternally separated from Yahowah, and thus destined to She'owl, if they do not also respond to the conditions of the Covenant and answer the other six Invitations.

This would be the worst possible option available to us. Eternal life apart from the other five benefits of the Covenant is a liability.
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 : Monday, February 24, 2014 6:35:26 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

Because I live on the west coast, I normally listen to the archives of SM and BTR. So I don't have the opportunity to call in with a question.

As I was listening to Friday's BTR, a random question popped into my brain and I hope you will address it.

I know that churches and temples are pagan and are never mentioned or sanctioned by Yahowah.

So what's the deal with synagogues in Yahowsha's day? I think I read that Sabbath keepers had a weekly routine of specific torah and prophet readings that they would (still do?) cycle through in the synagogues each sabbath.That sounds like a good thing.

The eyewitness accounts portray Yahowsha as visiting these synagogues and participating in the readings.

I wonder how the buildings were paid for and who did the upkeep and maintenance on the buildings - the pharisees? Did they collect donations like church tithes today? I don't know the history behind these buildings.

If I argue with someone that Yahowah never sanctioned buildings or assembly meetings outside of his miqra, someone could conceivably argue back that synagogues existed and Yahowsha visited them on a regular basis.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Sincerely,
AE

PS I'm hoping our beloved dogs get to heaven too!


Yada wrote:
AE,

Synagogue is actually a Greek term, not Hebrew. This isn't a Hebrew or Scriptural concept.

Yahowsha's only connection with the building was that there were scrolls of the Torah and Prophets there to read and people interested in listening to them. It does not go beyond that. There is no sanction for the buildings or the institution.

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, March 4, 2014 6:05:09 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Originally Posted by: B& Go to Quoted Post
Dear Yada,

We are long term listeners and readers of your progmam and books. We really appreciate all you have done and continue to do. To say that we have benefited is not to fully express our gratitude for the many ways we have been blessed.

The Hebrew language is a challenging study and you have introduced us to the idea. To more fully understand the language would open us up to a more full appreciation of what Yah is showing us. Do you have a suggestion as to the best source to help learn Hebrew?

Thanks,

B&N


Yada wrote:
B&N,

Your encouragement means a great deal to me. Thank you. We have all been blessed by what Yahowah has revealed and accomplished for us.

I am not able to recommend a resource, but I can tell you the way I came to learn how Hebrew accurately and completely expresses the mind of Yah. The more closely I examined and the more carefully I considered His words, contemplating every possible meaning, their stems, conjugations, and moods, the better I understood. For me it was just about desire, focus, and prioritization. It's about going on the journey of discovery with an open mind, receptive to what the Words and Spirit have to say.

I use Logos because the interlinears are electronically linked to the lexicons and because the stems, moods, and conjugations are readily identified. But all Logos does is make my search a bit more efficient. I have hardback books that provide the same information and there are scores of internet sites that provide all of this for free.

I don't recommend Logos software anymore because it aggressively promotes Christianity. But if you are willing to block all of that stuff out and just use the translation tools, it can make your search more efficient.

I don't think speaking Hebrew helps in this regard, but should you want to do so, Rosetta Stone is the best option.

So the answer is: shamar wa shama - observe and listen, yada' wa byn - come to know and understand.

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 : Monday, March 31, 2014 4:22:06 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
I am wondering about the celebration of Passover, Matzah and Bikurim. I am beginning this path along with my sister who has been on the path for some time. We are planning a Passover Seder, however due to the extreme seriousness of your description concerning the soul becoming immortal and no more separation from Yehowah (Matzah), we need to know about having members of our family present who will only be there to observe Passover with us. They will not being taking part in Matzah. Is this unwise? I would think that observing and hearing this would be a positive thing for them on each of their own personal journeys, however you state that if you observe Passover and not Matzah it would be the worse thing possible! Obviously I cannot have people I love put into such a situation and wonder if you could provide anything at all regarding this situation. Thanks for your time.

R


Yada wrote:
R,

Passover, Matsah, and Bikuwrym are integrated and inseparable. The unified name for the celebration is Matsah. The seven day celebration of Matsah begins on Passover and continues during Bikuwrym. And it is presented this way because eternal life is a bad thing for those who are estranged from the Covenant and for those who are not perfected by way of Matsah. So I wouldn't invite anyone to participate in Passover unless they were also going to participate in Matsah and Bikuwrym. That said, so long as the others are just observers, not participants, sharing the meaning behind the seven day celebration of life, of salvation, of adoption into the Covenant, would be a very good thing for anyone. Then when the accept the term of the Covenant and when they know, understand, and desire the benefits of the Miqra'ey, they can engage themselves.

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 : Monday, March 31, 2014 4:25:36 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
R wrote:
I listened to your broadcast about Melchizedec and found it very enriching!!!

During the broadcast, you spoke about how the bread and wine were symbols of Passover and that you wouldn't be surprised if the events from Genesis occurred on Passover; that is the 14th day of the 1st month. As you were saying these things, I immediately noticed that this story is in the 1st book of the Torah in the 14th chapter. I know there are no chapters and verses in the original scrolls but thought I would share.

Also, I believe that the book of Hebrews' premise is that Yahowsha is not from Levi, thus another priesthood, Melchizedec, was in needed. However, I have read that Mary's lineage was both Judah and Levi because her cousin or aunt, Elizabeth, was a Levite. Mary's mother was either Elizabeth's sister or neice, which would make her a Levite. The article I read went on to say that Yahowsha would carry the full DNA of both Judah and Levi making Him our High Priest and King. Have you read any of this and do you have any comments?

I have read your Intro to God and Questioning Paul. I appreciate the incredible amount of time you have devoted to your translations. They are a breath of fresh air! However, I will admit getting through Questioning Paul was a form of torture--not because of content, it was the subject matter.

Thanks again, R



Sent from Samsung tablet

RM wrote:
Hello, Roberta.

You have mistaken me for someone else. It happens from time to time. The gentleman who wrote "An Introduction to God" and "Questioning Paul", and whose voice you hear in the broadcast about Malaki-Zedek, is Yada. I am a faceless personality who has created The Bless Yahowah Web Site and, along with my own writings, I provide among other things copies of Yada's works and audio sharing sessions.

I am copying Yada on this reply so that he may address your email.

Thank you for visiting my web site and for taking the time to contact me.

Yahowah bless you.

RM


Yada wrote:
RM, thank you for forwarding this to me. And R, I concur with you and therefore I am opposed to the Hebrews accounting. It makes perfect sense to conclude that Yahowsha' from Mary side via the connection with Elizabeth would have been both Yahuwd and Lowy. This makes sense because He in addition to being the sacrifice, played the role of the Lowy/Priest during Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym. It's a small detail, but it's a thought provoking one because it ties things together and because it is consistent with Yahowah's overall accounting of the role of the Lowy Priests during the Miqra'ey.

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  
#38 Posted : Monday, March 31, 2014 4:29:39 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Originally Posted by: B& Go to Quoted Post
Dear Yada,
I hate to bother you with such a question as we have. We have been enjoying the Feasts of Yah for untold years, but always learning. We want to get the leavening out of our house for the upcoming feast and we need your opinion or insight regarding this. We have many items around the house such as baking soda, salad dressings, beer, wine, vinegar,etc. We use baking soda and vinegar for cleaning, laundry, and so forth and try to plan ahead with quantity purchasing and long term planning as well.
Some of these are open and some are not. We definitely want to do what is right in Yah's sight without compromise, but we are still uncertain as to what the protocol is for goyum in these current times. Work is slow these days so we don't want to discard these items unnecessarily.
Will you please enlighten us with some guidance as to today's protocol.

Thank you for your time.

B&N


Yada wrote:
B&N,

You may have noticed that I'm using Un-Yeasted Bread as the name for Matsah, because yeast is the fungus Yah wants us to remove from bread. Baking Soda produces similar results in cakes but isn't yeast, so it does not have to be taken out of the house for the week. And since Yahowsha' drank wine on Passover, the first day of UYB, the residual yeast in wine isn't an issue either. And if beer were banned, people in towns and cities would have died throughout the ages.

I'm a label reader on UYB when it comes to the bread I consume and I avoid cookies and cakes during this time because I enjoy making UYB a special week. But with all of this, I'm only sharing how I interpret the intent and purpose of P, M, and B.

Yada


Originally Posted by: B& Go to Quoted Post
Thank you for getting back to us. This was very helpful, I just wonder if you would comment on the vinegar issue as I know you have said it is souring corrupting.

B&N


Yada wrote:
B&N,

Since vinegar isn't bread, but is soured wine, I don't see any problem with it. Bread is symbolic of our souls and yeast is symbolic of sin, and that suggests that all Yah wants us to remove to commemorate what He has removed is yeast from bread. I think that is enough. For example, if it were not for my wife, I'd have no issue with baking soda. But eating it while avoiding yeast would cause her to think that I'm cutting corners and being a bit hypocritical. So my no baking soda thing is for her, not Yah. I suspect that all He wants us to do is remove yeast intended for baking bread from our homes while abstaining from eating yeast in bread for 7 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 Mike  
#39 Posted : Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:21:47 AM(UTC)
Mike
Joined: 10/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 516
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 9 post(s)
I sighted the new moon sliver last night (sundown March 31, 2014) so according to my calculations Pesach starts at sundown on April 13, 2014. So then the first day of Matsah is sundown April 14, 2014.

Other people reported seeing the new moon sliver here:

http://www.truthofyahweh.org/moon.htm


Shalom,
Mike
Offline James  
#40 Posted : Friday, April 4, 2014 2:53:04 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Originally Posted by: B& Go to Quoted Post
Hello again,

We are near the Passover season and have one more comment and one question. Concerning the counting of 7 days for the days of Unyeasted Bread, I can see that it could be saying the seven includes Passover day, but it is not specific.It seems like that it would be equally valid to say that it is 7 days in addition to Passover day. How were you able to choose one option over the other? Leviticus does not seem to offer assistance.

The question Nancy and I have involves the description of Matsah in Leviticus 23:6-8. The verse 8 says that we should not do any customary work on the 7th day of the feast, yet you don't seem to say that both the 1st and 7th days are to be treated the same, much like a weekly Sabbath, where we don't do customary work.

We would appreciate your comments, as our question involves several families, all of whom want to learn and be joyful and confident in the Season.

B&N


Yada wrote:
B&N,

Yah has a thing for seven, and lesser so for eight. Passover is specific about Un-yeasted bread. The celebration of the three Miqra'ey is sometimes called by the one name, Matsah. Pesach without Matsah is the worst possible outcome. So in the absence of a conclusion, I've chosen the most consistent path.


That said, these are interpretations and yours are as valid as mine.

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 Bubsy  
#41 Posted : Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:50:54 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 69
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Yada wrote:
Since vinegar isn't bread, but is soured wine, I don't see any problem with it. Bread is symbolic of our souls and yeast is symbolic of sin, and that suggests that all Yah wants us to remove to commemorate what He has removed is yeast from bread. I think that is enough. For example, if it were not for my wife, I'd have no issue with baking soda. But eating it while avoiding yeast would cause her to think that I'm cutting corners and being a bit hypocritical. So my no baking soda thing is for her, not Yah. I suspect that all He wants us to do is remove yeast intended for baking bread from our homes while abstaining from eating yeast in bread for 7 days.


That would be simple enough, and a relief to know that's all we need to watch out for during Unyeasted Bread - just don't symbolically add sin to your soul by consuming bread that contains yeast, the symbol of sin and corruption. The bolder and braver ones could go ahead and indulge in Betty Crocker blueberry muffins or cinnamon streusel muffins leavened with sodium aluminum phosphate, or doughnuts, or even cookies and cakes as long as there's no yeast in the recipe, while the more cautious would probably not take those chances during the week.

(I could just picture the reaction of the ancient Israelites if Yahowah had said that anyone who consumes bread containing yeast or sodium aluminum phosphate during Unyeasted Bread would be cut off: "So-dee-whaaaaaat???" Laugh )
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
Offline James  
#42 Posted : Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:43:39 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I had a strange question for you. Yahowsha redeemed us with his separation from Yah on Matsah. Does the agony of crucifixion play a part in that redemption? Or is that just the people acting badly by making the slaughter of the Pesach lamb painful?

Thanks,
DC


Yada wrote:
DC

Yahowsha's body served as the Passover lamb. This makes us immortal. His soul served to fulfill Matsah. This makes us perfect. His reunion, soul and Spirit, served to demonstrate the promise of Bikuwrym. This makes us Yahowah's children. It all matters.


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 : Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:58:29 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

I shouldn’t have been so brief in my question. I agree with your answer as to Yahowsha’s role in fulfilling the Miqre. I was focusing on the manner of death that Yahowsha endured. I suspect that the Christian view is that both the physical torture and death is the payment for their sins. I understand that Matsah is where we are perfected, which is fulfilled by Yahowsha enduring the pain of separation from Yah in Sheol on Matsah after the death of his body, redeeming us. But in celebrating Pesach, we slaughter the lamb, presumably without torturing it. So, could Yahowsha have fulfilled Pesach without being tortured?

Maybe this is a chicken and egg thing, and I’m looking at this from a “backwards” point of view. Instead of wishing that this was a better world, that when Yahowsha was required to die, couldn’t we have at least made it as comfortable as possible for him, I need to realize that this world is ugly in many ways, and that Yah’s Path is in response to that ugliness, creating beauty despite it.

DC


Yada wrote:
Yes, He could have - so long as He was weakened in another way. Yahowah does what He must do, but He does so within the framework of freewill. Man chose to whip Him. There was no reason for Yah to intervene because it served to reveal human animosity, political and religious, toward God. And if He hadn't been beaten to the point of death, the suffering on the pole would have lasted several days - invalidating the timeline.

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, April 11, 2014 1:08:27 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
K wrote:
I am trying to print the book Introduction to God and can't. Is there a link for where I can buy it, or a pdf form of it so that I can print it out?


Yada wrote:
We are currently working to present the book in HTML, PDF, and Word. That should occur within a couple of months. It will be free.


K wrote:
I am wanting to buy a Hebrew and English lexicon, as well as the Torah. I am overwhelmed by all of my options on Amazon! Which ones would you recommend in regards to accuracy?


Yada wrote:
K,

I'd recommend using several of the many lexicons and interlinears available free online first. You'll need at least 3 or 4 Hebrew English dictionaries. Just Google "free online hebrew english interlinear" and "free online hebrew english dictionary" and you'll find a score of sites that offer both. Then after you've used them a while, either purchase your favorites
or acquire software that integrates them. I list the ones I use in the Word volume of www.IntroToGod.org.

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 : Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:17:27 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
CY wrote:
Was discussing pictures of Pesach in the scriptures:

Abraham, Issac, & the Lamb
Yisra’el & Egypt
Yahowsha’s sacrifice

Would you include Yah’s slaughtering of an animal to cover Adam?
Would you include the future picture on all non family members being instantly disintegrated while those in the covenant going untouched?

My first Pesach with family. Fantastic! Hope you had a great week.

CY


Yada wrote:
CY,

Well done.

All five on your list are certain. There is a Covenant lesson associated with annihilating those in conflict with the Covenant, as well as one directly associated with Passover. If we reject the doorway to life, we will cease to exist.

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 : Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:18:00 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
P wrote:
Jewish sources claim Pesach starts tonight and full day tomorrow.
you said it started yesterday at sundown.
why the difference?


Yada wrote:
You'll have to ask them. Everything I know is based upon what Yahowah said. You'll find my presentation of His Miqra'ey at: http://yadayahweh.com/Ya...s_to_Meet_God_Qara.YHWH.
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 : Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:25:40 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Originally Posted by: M& Go to Quoted Post
Dear brother Yada,

Glory HalleluYah on this Hag of Wonders. Today again we celebrate the perfection of the redeemed of Israel, and we find joy in knowing that you are in our Family, and indeed out front loudly proclaiming Father's Feasts and instructions. Thank you, brother for your servitude and fortitude.

I know you probably don't like hearing too much praise, but from our perspective...which is one including twelve years of Torah walking and searching and learning, as well as watching and wondering where in the world there could be found anybody else keeping the Covenant. What a breath of set-apart wind you have been in our wilderness journey, filling in shallow spots in our understanding with the work you've done amplifying and stemming the Words for us. Truly, your's is a priceless contribution.

In the course of looking for Family members over these years, we have seen every fellowship turned poisonous, for lack of a better word, by leadership's tendency to make departures from, or additions to Torah. They thereby form (even in the smallest sense) a new denomination, literally de-numbering Yahowah's nation. It is usually started by some well meaning, zealous but uninformed individual(s) who don't realize that they are wasting time and treasure by departing from the narrow path of God's design. I just don't get it some times...we trade perfect simplicity for the burdens and missed opportunities of religion.

We, the under-signed have listened to most of your hours two and three archives, as well as read much of your various writings. It is inspiring to see that you were off on a few things earlier on, yet you allowed Wisdom to overcome your lack of knowledge, and you were able to correct course. Again, we've been watching, and this type of behavior is extremely rare and non-religious. Just saying. Great job on that massive body of work, and we all really look forward to the remainder of your selfless labors.

It is in our hopes that you will continue to write and broadcast until Massiyah calls, and that He continues to bless and empower you. We are also hoping that you remain supple and receptive to course changes as understanding and knowledge and revelation continue to surface. Like right now, on Matza. We have only a few points of difference with what you present, and only because we see them as small departures from what proceeded from the mouth of Yah. Let us reason together and find out which of us is in need of understanding, and then patiently assist one another.

This first point of concern is actually not a doctrinal issue, but a public relations suggestion. We feel you should address a certain attitude that surfaces on some of your broadcasts, as it is certainly driving off some of your would-be-family-members from hearing the word of truth. You have a frequent guest on Shabbat evenings who tends to diminish the atmosphere of respectful sharing that we've come to enjoy. There is much over-talking and bluster, some angry complaining, and a bit of ugly name-calling, that comes across as superior and condemning. He is usually describing how he interacts with religious victims who have challenged him. Now, I agree with most of what your friend says, but the way he says it should probably be toned downward somehow...if just to make joining the Covenant and walking away from everything they've ever known a bit more welcoming and loving for the walking dead of Israel. Those of us with some years on the playing field, need to remember how difficult it was (is) to walk away. The community Yah is building must constantly uphold the Torah, but we mustn't besmirch those who don't get it...at least not "on the air". It makes the family sound sort of hateful.

Secondly, we will again ask you to examine the way you set the beginning of the year, and therefor fix the timing of the Miqrae. Our understanding of how Yahowah instructed us to find these days, is different than yours. And so one of us (or neither of us) is keeping the Feast at the exact time that Yahowah is. Being in "perfect" time with Yah, when he raises the baton to conduct his yearly concert of salvation, seems very important to us, and it also seems obvious that Yah would concentrate his attention on these fantastic moments in time. So, for 12 years we have looked at the Torah, and we've watched the sky to pinpoint the times to begin. You say close enough is good enough, and that there is not enough information in Torah to know for sure. As a result, I fear you have followed the path of the rabbis and are practicing the Talmudic (pagan) observation of crescents while ignoring the Torah's simple instruction and the Creator's perfect signs.

I challenged you on this last year, when you observed Pesach, and therefor all of the Miqrae, a full month earlier than us. This is due to your practice of choosing the new moon closest to the equinox, rather than waiting for the year to finish itself before starting anew. The two equinoxes are clearly the signs that Yahowah put in the sun and moon to denote summer/winter. Every culture ever known has used the sun to fix these dates. They are always the same exact times on the exact same days. Day and night are equal, time resets, the seasons change, the year turns (tekufa). When you start your new year before the old one is finished, you have pre-empted the first of Yah's signs, which he uses the sun for. The sun says "this is the new year". The new moon says "It starts right now."

Last time I shared this with you, you said this had the appearance of wisdom, but you set it aside and kept the same timing as the rabbis...holding Firstfruits before the barley was Abib. I would request that you examine where you get the idea that closest to the equinox is in Torah, as opposed to the very moment of season change being the tekufa (observable by all on Earth the same day) a clear sign of time and season as instructed in Torah.

Then there's the moon. We listened to you last week as well as last year's lead-up-to-the-feasts programs. They are so chock full of beautiful explanations and careful translations. Really, thank you Yada. But when it comes to the instructions about the new moon which starts the new year, you present "the light returning" upon the face of the moon as if this were part of Torah. You also seem to be gravitating towards the idea that Pesach is always on a full moon. However, our torah studies have found no mention of Passover full moons, nor lighted crescent new moons. The full moon must have been a powerful blessing during the Egyptian exodus, but it's fullness merits no mention in Kara.

The full moon, however, is a constant and perfect timekeeper in the heavens, doing what it does always directly opposite the new moon. For times and signs. One who watches the moon in its perfect rhythm will notice the way the two crescents perfectly bracket and witness to the new moon, directly opposite the full moon. The moon is a perfect clock, but not when you start counting at 1 o'clock. Crescent observation is a babylonian art form controlled by rabbis and imams. I don't think it's for us, given the perfection of the dark moon/ quarter moon/ full moon cycle. Please reconsider, so that we all can unify around the perfect timing of Yah.

Thirdly, we find a disconnect between Torah and what you proclaim regarding Bakurim. By placing Bakurim on the 16th, rather than the day after the weekly Sabbath, you change the instructed day for the Feast of Weeks, which always falls on the first day of the week. The instruction is for 7 Sabbaths, and then on the day after the 7th sabbath to hold the Feast. Always on a First day (Sunday). One cannot observe 50 days from Wednesday and end up on a Sunday. Same goes for Monday thru Friday. Therefor Firstfruits must be observed on the Sunday after Matza begins. And if you wait until after the sun crosses the equator and turns the year to start the new season...the barley is ALWAYS Abib. Not so in March last year. I recall it was snowing in Israel during your Bakurim last year. I know you will carefully consider what Yahowah says and what the Earth witnesses regarding these glorious Days.

Speaking of days, we are troubled by the disparity we see between Yahosha's statement that he would give the sign of Jonah by being in the belly of the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights, and what you teach by mashing it into 1 day and 2 nights. I used to hear that in church, and I'm pretty sure it's a Catholic legend. Why don't you simply count backwards from Saturday evening (when He re-appears) and find yourself at Wednesday evening after Pesach, such as was the case on March 22 30 CE. Is it because you are married to 33 CE, or your Bakurim on the 16th idea? If it is I who sees unclearly, please feel free to show me the witness or explain this discrepancy.

Again, this is not a personal attack. You must know that we listen often and are thrilled to hear your voice and your message(s). Our motivation is for being as synced-up with Yahowah and his covenant people as possible. We look to you as a reluctant leader with the best of intentions and the best of resources and the courage to share what you know. Do please continue your good work and be encouraged. We are with you, and if you ever need any help, there are people everywhere (or at least right here) who would respond to the call.

M&S, E&L, S


Yada wrote:
M&S, E&L, S,

I appreciate your kind words, but as you know, at the very most all I've done is to share Yahowah's Word. It's Yah's testimony that has enriched you.

This is the first negative letter I have received regarding Larry in a very long time. Most are now overwhelmingly positive. I enjoy Larry's participation because He is always prepared. His only response to the religious is to cite Yahowah's Word. He always seems to have the right passage ready to quote at the right time. I respect him for those things. This is a divisive topic. Most are in opposition to Yahowah's Towrah. Few have the courage to go against the misled masses. So I'm a huge proponent of Larry. He was once a little too harsh, and while he resorts to name-calling when religious advocates won't listen, his experiences always provide an opportunity for enlightened discussions on a topic that is among the most important to our listeners: how do we witness to Christians. I receive more letters on this than anything else.

Your interpretations of the year's beginning, and therefore what 'Abyb means, of what begins a new month, and thus what chadash means, and of the timing of the first three Miqra'ey and what I have come to understand from studying Yahowah's Towrah are very different, as is the notion that Yahowah provided the means to obtain perfect timing. I read your letter and I simply don't agree.

That said, I'm not going to argue with you on the timing. You and I are free to embrace different conclusions. You and I are free to celebrate on different dates. The very fact that you are striving to know and understand, to respond appropriately and share, Yah's Invitations based upon what you are reading in the Towrah, means that you are doing the right thing relative to the most important thing: being towrah observant.

But we humans are all flawed. Here, two well intentioned students of the Towrah, observing the same words, report seeing the same thing happen, but on different days. I'm comfortable sharing what I've witnessed. You are comfortable sharing what you have seen. Fortunately, we have seen the same God and same Covenant, but at different times.

Thank you for sharing.

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  
#48 Posted : Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:05:28 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
M of M&S, E&L, S responded

M wrote:
Y,

Thanks for your reply. Last Friday I heard you say that you would spend "countless hours" working through issues with anyone who had legitimate concerns and wanted to learn. What happened to that? All we're looking for is the truth and family to share it with. Before you hit "delete" please read to the end of this letter. We are seeking after the same truth, from the same God as you!

As to Larry, it's your show, and if you don't want honest feedback, then we won't give it anymore. We agree about Larry's readiness and knowledge, but disagree about his improvement in the harshness area. You are a friend of his, so perhaps you are too close too hear his tone of voice.

As to timing and interpretations: Your interpretation is that Yahowah doesn't care when we observe His days, and mine is that Yah observes His days at very specific times, and that when we find that timing, we will be in perfect time with Him and others. With the phenomena of equinox and lunar conjunctions at perfect moments providing clear signs globally...well it just makes more sense than your interpretations. But, you are calling this arguing, thereby eliminating any chance for either of us to learn from one another. Perhaps you are beyond learning from an "outsider"? You have told us not to trust you, and so we don't, always checking everything you say against Yah's instructions. This has resulted in our concerns and questions to you. As family, shouldn't we dialogue and find the truth together working through disagreements and concerns? Engaging with those who have opposing views/conclusions can be tremendously rewarding, reveal amazing truths and create rock solid friendships.

You didn't answer us about your 16th day Bakurim and what that does to 7 Sabbaths and 50 days to the day after the 7th Sabbath. That seems like a pretty clear departure from Torah. I hope you see that we just look forward to getting this right for the benefit of the whole family. When we see things at different times, that is disturbing to me. And I would love to be set straight, rather than dismissed. That smacks of Christian grace and a leader who won't brook a challenge or concern. We have been dismissed by all kinds of religious leaders because of our concerns and questions, we never expected that from you.

Now, you just taught, on the air, that all feasts fall on a full moon. You clearly teach that months start on a crescent moon. We are prepared to be wrong, and would appreciate you showing us where you get these instructions. You are responding as though you have complete knowledge, so please share with us. One of us is incorrect, and if that is not reason enough to either help us change or change yourself, then you are being religious. And I know you don't want that any more than we want religion for ourselves.

Respectfully,

M


Yada wrote:
M,

I wish you had just left this alone, agreeing to disagree on the timing - especially since you didn't provide any evidence from the Torah for your dating concepts that we could debate, only personal criticisms of my conclusions. There was nothing I could have done other than to copy and paste what I've already written in Yada Yah about these topics into a personal reply. But considering the condescending tone of the section of your last letter devoted to promoting your positions relative to timing, there was no reasonable likelihood that such a restatement would have done any good. It's also obvious that my concluding comments, supporting you, were squandered. But at least I tried.

The transitional paragraph in your last letter insinuates that I have added to and/or departed from the Torah, creating a new denomination, thereby diminishing Yahowah's family - trading simplicity for religion. That's not very nice. You then spoke of me making corrections, insinuating that I needed to make another by accepting your positions on timing. This conclusion becomes obvious with your statement that "we have some points of difference relative to Matsah based upon what comes out of Yahowah's mouth."

But then, not only do you neglect to share a single statement from Yahowah, you immediately besmirch Larry, which has nothing whatsoever to do with being in conflict with Yahowah's witness, since his primary contribution is to accurately cite Yahowah's testimony. This portion of your letter is especially hypocritical, with you besmirching my friend and brother while claiming that we ought not besmirch others. Why would you do that?

This leads to the purpose of your letter, which was to ask me reexamine the way I set the beginning of the year. You stated that your understanding was different than mine. Worse, you wrote: "As a result, I fear you have followed the path of the rabbis and are practicing the Talmudic (pagan) observation of crescents while ignoring the Torah's simple instruction and the Creator's perfect signs." That's not asking to learn. That's not an invitation to engage in a discussion. That's making a very harsh accusation. But I chose to be nice, and ignore the insult.

You then criticized my choosing of a new moon nearest the spring equinox, inferring that it's pagan, but then pretend that the equinox is a perfect sign from God. And yet you don't reveal where Yah made such a statement, because He didn't. And hypocritically, you failed to acknowledge that the most important Babylonian festivals were based upon the spring equinox.

Your notion of allowing the year to end isn't part of Yahowah's testimony. Where did you come up with that idea? Yahowah speaks of seven months, but He's fully aware of the 360 days in a lunar year of 12 months vs. the 362.25 days in a solar year. He uses both calendars. And an 'Abyb beginning keeps them in sync, adding a thirteenth month every few years while the barley begins to ripen. God's plan makes perfect sense to me, especially considering the imprecise tools at our disposal.

Next, you say that there is no basis for using the renewing light on the moon's surface to start a new month. But then why did Yahowah base his term for a new month on chadash, which means "to renew?" How could it be any more obvious? But instead, you choose a full moon, which while no more or less precise relative to timing, is when the light begins to decease, which is the opposite of renew. Moreover, you didn't cite any statement from the Torah to validate your position, simply calling my conclusion based upon the terminology Yahowah selected pagan. That is not useful, beneficial, or appropriate.

From this point, you want me to believe that two Miqra'ey are based upon the days of the week as opposed to the days of the month. That isn't what the Torah says. And perhaps that is why you didn't provide any citation from the Torah to support your opinion. Associating the Miqra'ey with days of the week would require us to ignore the difference between Shabat and Shabatown. The latter only appears in conjunction with the Miqra'ey.

I've written an entire chapter of Yada Yah revealing the meaning behind the sign of Yownah. You are free to disagree with the citations and reasoning.

Therefore, to answer what can only be interpreted as an demeaning proposition: I've done my homework. I've invested countless hours working through the issues of timing and shared my conclusions and all of the reasons behind them in writing. The study of the Torah and Prophets that I have written and published in Yada Yah is inconsistent with your positions. You know that. So what value is there in my restating what I've already written? And what am I to debate? You didn't provide anything from Yah to consider. So while I may well be wrong, if you want me to consider a different conclusion, provide a valid reason to do so, justifying your position through Yahowah's Word.

As you know, I've investigated your alternatives and others, and did not find support for any of them in the Torah. That situation remains unchanged because you didn't provide anything new or compelling for your propositions on timing. There wasn't a single citation from the Torah in your letter.

You were not asking how I came to my conclusions but instead, you were criticizing, even demeaning the results of my studies relative to timing while promoting yours. Your theme was that you were right and I was wrong. You weren't seeking to learn, but instead to teach or to influence. So your "what happened to that" comment is both misguided and rude. I may not be right, and I've admitted that many times, but I don't understand why you are convinced that I am wrong or why you are so sure you are right.

You have thereby given me every reason not to read your positions beyond this point. What's the purpose, especially since you insinuated that I was being Babylonian and Rabbinic in your previous letter? If you had cited and translated the Torah to show where I might be wrong or to demonstrate that you might be right, and had done so from the beginning, then I would have engaged, discussing the options regarding definitions and interpretations. But you did not do either.

Unfortunately, I read a little further. And akin to the attitude displayed in the opening paragraph, you call your opinion of Larry "honest feedback," which is to infer that my evaluation of him is invalid. That's not nice either.

Your next proposition is deplorable, demeaning my conclusions by misquoting me. That is why I'm so disappointed. What's gotten into you? Why would you write such inappropriate comments or deploy a straw man? I never said "Yahowah doesn't care when we observe his Miqra'ey." I've simply stated the obvious, that He did not provide sufficient instructions to know for certain on what day a new month or new year begins. Your letters affirm that conclusion.

That acknowledged, He provides a great clue with chadash - meaning "to renew." Similarly, the 'Abyb clue is compelling regarding the first month of the year. But there are no instructions on the method of observation or calculation, nor the criterion we are to deploy articulated in the Torah beyond these generalities. I'm sure He's perfect, but He doesn't expect us to be. He didn't even provide the tools we would need to deploy to approach perfection in determining the beginning of a year or month.

So I've concluded that Yah is more interested in us understanding what He is offering than He is in us knowing the date with absolute certainty. I simply do not have a reasonable or consistent alternative explanation. One is possible to comprehend from His Testimony and the other is not. So why are you ignoring the purpose of the Miqra'ey while claiming certainty on the dates? Why start an argument over something that cannot be known for certain based upon the Torah? I have no interest in debating with you over opinions. That is a waste of time. Yah's statements matter. His words matter. That's all that matters. Prove your points using His Word or don't assert them.

Sadly, your straw man approach was more than enough for me. I stopped reading at that point, scanning some of the rest. What I saw appeared similarly hypocritical, revisionist, mean spirited, inaccurate, and sometimes irrational and insulting - not to mention contradictory. It reminds me of letters I received as a young man that began by telling me how much the writer cared for me, only to denounce me and what I stood for, before ending by expressing love. So, other than to start an argument on conflicting conclusions without any evidence, or to get me to believe as you do or run the risk of being called religious, I don't know what you sought to gain by any of this.

I could have spent this afternoon translating Dany'el, but instead I find myself doing the thing I dislike most - individually defending conclusions I've already supported in writing to fend off unfounded accusations.

Believe what you want. Do what you want. Celebrate when you want. But if you want me to change so that I'm doing what you are doing, you'll have to show that I've mistranslated Yahowah's words and misinterpreted Yahowah's teaching or that I've failed to consider other testimony from His Torah which contradicts either my translations or conclusions. This happens from time to time, but not in this case.

I suspect that you mean well, but you sure didn't do a very good job of communicating that intent. So while you may not care to hear my suggestions, if you want to learn what Yahowah revealed, if you want to disagree on what He had to say, please show where the translations are errant, reveal how to correct them, add additional citations that are relevant, and then show why your conclusions based upon these differences and additions are more reasonable. Leave out all of the rest of it.

I am convinced that determining the precise timing isn't possible, and more import, that it isn't among the most important things for us to know or understand. If I'm wrong, provide proof from Yahowah's Word.

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 : Friday, April 18, 2014 3:06:17 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

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

Have I made a mistake this first Passover? Observed the Passover at sun down of the 13th, did not work the next day 14th, however on the 15th went to work doing little due to a total rain out, but I did not refrain from work, today 16th I worked the entire day. Have I made a deadly mistake? I wanted to observe this Passover, as I did not want to wait an entire year. I have been sorting out the truth for the last 4 years, in November of 2013 I decided to walk away from Babylon one of the hardest things I have ever done, the backlash is not over to this day. I figure after this coming Easter (not attending) and into the summer months my entire circle of family and friends will become informed.

Today I was listening to the archive of SM the last broadcast of the "Yahowah's Spring Feasts" episode, when you mentioned not to do the Passover wrong. I am hoping I have not doomed my soul, for lack of knowledge.

DT


Yada wrote:
DT,

There are two ways to interpret the length of the three day celebration and the timing of the Shabatowns. I consider the first day of Matsah to be Pesach because we are instructed to observe it with Matsah. So since it began by my calculation on Sunday at sunset, you were correct in taking Monday off work. The second Shabatown associated with Matsah will be on Sunday.

But there are many who disassociate Pesach and Matsah relative to timing, and they view Matsah apart from Pesach as lasting seven days. For them, Tuesday would have been as Shabatown along with next Monday.

I cannot say for certain that my interpretation is correct, but it is the one that makes the most sense to me. Moreover, Yahowah isn't expecting perfection from us, because making us perfect is His job.

The purpose of these days is to celebrate with Yahowah as part of His family. So long as you are engaged in His Covenant, and so long as you respond to His Invitations, you have nothing to worry about.

The only point I was trying to make regarding Pesach alone, is that Yahowah's instruction on Passover is to always do it with Matsah. And that is what leads me to think that the first day of Matsah is Pesach.

Yada


DT wrote:
Yada,

Thanks for the reply, I have been reading, absorbing each feast day and making the connections. I was not a big Facebook fan until I followed Larry down the rabbit hole, where there is all manner of error and plain religious insanity.
A fellow who is a Hebrew Roots devotee, basically told me I was (you were) wrongly interpreting scripture and I had condemned myself to She'owl if I kicked the bucket before next Passover. Going back I reread the entire of Matsah and Bikuwrym, but still did not understand how I made a mistake. I hope I did not come off like some loon, now after listening to a SM archive you are not a big fan of Hebrew Roots. I think I agree the same fellow sent me a post showing Paul was only condemning the Talmud, time to un-friend a few people.


DT


Yada wrote:
DT,

Paul never once condemned the Talmud. He consistently condemned the Torah. It is so obvious, I'm flabbergasted that the HR devotees claim otherwise. Simply stated, Hebrew Roots is a blend of two lies, Rabbinic Judaism with Pauline Christianity. It's a mess.

Trust Yahowah and no one else. Come to know Him and come to understand what He is offering by way of His Covenant. Engage in His family and answer His Invitations. It is really pretty simple. It is a plan designed for flawed and imperfect souls like you and me.

You have asked a very reasonable question regarding Pesach and Matsah. And since informed and rational people can support the decision to include Passover as the first day of Unyeasted Bread, or decide to exclude Passover from the seven day observance, I've shared the basis of both options, along with my conclusions, so that you can make an informed decision. And truthfully, DT, thinking about what Yahowah said and then deciding what you think He is asking is a joyful and rewarding way to invest your time.

Whatever you decide Yahowah is telling you in His Towrah Guidance in this regard will be acceptable to Him so long as you have observed what He has to say and have listened to His Instructions. And you've done that already.

Relax and enjoy Yah's family.

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  
#50 Posted : Monday, April 21, 2014 8:56:24 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
W wrote:
Yada,
After hearing last night's Shabat Study, I decided to dig into this a little bit. I am in agreement with you on this; here's my comprehension of these wonderful Set-Apart Days we are currently celebrating. According to this passage below we are to celebrate for 7 days, starting on the 14th day, which is Pesach. Could it be that the feast of Unleavened Bread was simply to recognize what already commenced on the 14th day? In other words, the actual Chag began on the 15th day of Abib. which commemorates what Yah did/does for us during the 14th of Abib through the 15th of Abib, as after the Passover Yisrael was freed from the crucibles of Egypt? I hope I'm making sense here?
“In the first (ri’shown – foremost) month (hodes – time of renewal), on the fourteenth day at (ba) sundown (‘ereb – in the evening starting at sunset), you are to eat (‘akal) bread without yeast (matsah – unleavened bread) until (‘ad) sunset (‘ereb) on the twenty-first day of the month.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:18)
In Shemoth 12:16, there is no reference of an 8th day. However in my opinion, Shemoth 12:18 really ends all debates about this, as only 7 days are referenced which commenced on Pesach.
“On (ba – in and during) the first (ri’shown – foremost) day (yowm – beginning and ending at sunset) there is (hayah) a set-apart (qodesh – separated and dedicated, purifying and cleansing) Invitation to Meet and be Called-Out (Miqra’ – a summons to gather for the purpose of being welcomed, for reading and reciting) and on (ba – in and during) the seventh (shaby’y) day (yowm) there is the set-apart (qodesh – separated and dedicated, purifying and cleansing) Invitation to be Called-Out (miqra’ – a summons to meet and to gather for the purpose of being welcomed, for reading and reciting) for (la) you. Do not (lo’) do (‘asah – perform or assign) any (kol) of the service of the 14 heavenly representative (mala’kah – from mal’ak, duties of God’s messenger) during (ba – in and on) them (hem).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:16)
Again, here in Shemoth 12:19 we see 7 days being reference, not 8 days. It is my opinion that Yah would've clarified 8 days if that was His was intent.
“Seven (sheba’ – based upon saba’, a sworn oath to affirm the truth and promise to do something) days (yowm) there shall be no (lo’) leavening yeast (sa’ar – nothing remaining or left behind) found (matsa’ – uncovered or discovered) in your homes (beyth – households and dwelling places). Indeed (ky), any (kol) soul (nepesh) who consumes (‘akal – who devours or is consumed and destroyed by) anything leavened (mahmeset / hametz – that which embitters, grieves, and oppresses) shall be cut off and banished (karat – shall be severed from the source of life, be taken away and be permitted to perish, be destroyed, eliminated and separated) from the community of (‘edah – assembly of witnesses who testify together with) Yisra’el (‘ysh sarah ‘el – individuals who strive, struggle, persist, endure, and persevere with and are empowered by God), including (ba – along with) foreigners (ger – temporary inhabitants and newcomers without inherited rights, people from different races, 16 cultures, and places) and natives (‘ezrach – those rising out) of the Land (‘erets).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:19)
Over and over again we see in Shemoth the referencing of 7 days. Therefore, the first day of Unleavened Bread had to occur during Pesach. Am I understanding this correctly my friend?
So (wa) engage in and act upon (‘abad – perform) these (ze’h) duties (‘abodah – services) in this month (chodesh – time of renewal). Seven (shaba’ – from shaba’, oath and promise) days (yowm) you shall consume (‘akal) unleavened bread (Matsah – food without yeast). And on (ba) the seventh (shaby’y) day (yowm) celebrate a festival feast (chag) to (la – according to and concerning) Yahowah ().” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 13:5-6)
“Unleavened Bread (Matsah – bread without yeast) shall be consumed (‘akal – eaten) for (‘eth) seven (sheba’ – meaning sworn oath or promise) days (yowm). And there shall not (lo’) be seen (ra’ah) among (la) you any yeasted 25 food (hames – leaven, that which sours, irritates, embitters, grieves, or oppresses). Yeast (hames) shall not (lo’) be found (ra’ah) in any part of (kol) your territory (gebuwl).”
Shemowth / Names / Exodus 13:7)

Yah Bless,

W


Yada wrote:
W, it's true. Over and over again. It's seven days beginning on the 14th day, which is the first day of Matsah. Thanks for sharing this.

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

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Users browsing this topic
3 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.