Banned on ATS Forum- Thought I would come hang out among my brothers and sisters in Christ for a cha

[SelectThis!]

Honestly, I am weary. I need to come rest for some time. 18 years of traveling the web witnessing, and I think it's time to exit Egypt for a break.

Now don't get the idea that I was banned for argument Ad Hominem or for insulting anyone. I was banned twice in five years. The first time , they asked me to come back. The second time...well, they haven't told me yet. I have spent time (Since 1996) hanging out in message forums across the net. I first started on ICQ, using it as witnessing tool to deny ignorance and open eyes. Most of the ignorance was my own in the early days. I found something out very quickly. The world does not want to hear truth. Not only does truth cut the hands of the one that wields the sWord, but it also has the power to cut a sinner's pride to the quick. What you eventually find is that we are all sinners, equally in need of God's Strong House of Grace and Mercy. I have learned many lessons over the years. Many of these lessons have prepared me to now return to a safer ground to assist others in the task of spreading the good news. This is what I hope to achieve here in this place. God has shown me some things that you may have never heard before. I have found keys to scripture that have transformed my own faith and theology. I now have opened eyes so to speak. The baskets of grain I have collected are ready to share with those who are hungry for some good food. I am always hungry.

Why did I spend so long hanging out in places like ATS and Dawkins.net? Very simple: the only way to clarify my own faith is to allow it to be challenged at every point. If I give a good word here, the members are likely to embrace me with open arms. If I share a good word in the roads taverns of the Internet, I am challenged with every minute point. The choice to take the road of toil was worth every step. I come to you weary and worn, but a much stronger person for having endured the abuse.

While I am here, I'll share with you what I have learned over the last 17 years of witnessing. Most of it is utterly amazing, as you can only expect from an Amazing God. Since we are sharing, let me give you the very best pearl I can hand you as I get started. God has shown me many amazing things from the depths and locked rooms of His Word. This pearl I cast to you is the best of the best. Nothing God has shown me means more to me than this seed of truth emerging from the very first scoop of soil in Creation.

Father, Mother and Son

Abraham would have spoken Phoenician. Early Hebrew has roots in this language. Each letter of Hebrew has a pictograph from Phoenician that represents what the letter means. Here is something amazing. A good website on this topic is www.ancient-hebrew.org.

Aleph (Strength) Bet (House) is the word Father in Hebrew. Son is Bet (house) Nun (Seed). The Alphabet writes the Word (John 1). Father writes the Word of the Son, which is the House of Seed. Truth is simple and this particular truth gets better. To combine letters of DNA into Proteins in nature, there must be a catalyst. What is the Catalyst? Water. Mother is Aleph (Strength) Mem (Water). Letters are baptized into the waters of life for one reason: So that we can rise to new life. Baptism is the key to knowing how the Aleph Bet writes the Word into existence through the mind-blowing mechanism of a created universe.

Well, that's a bit of digital information about me. Hope to learn a great deal while I am here. I'll try not to get banned. I have miles and miles of text that can add more to this from my studies in the Ancient Hebrew Lexicons and Hebrew commentaries. God Bless and I look forward to a bit of rest here in this oasis of milk and honey.


.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

We get miles and miles of lengthy posts from one time dumpsters who drop by here

You will fit right in

 

[SelectThis!]

We get miles and miles of lengthy posts from one time dumpsters who drop by here

You will fit right in

I have a tendency to hang in one place for a long time. I see dumping sacks and sacks of grain as a good thing. Bread can be made with grain.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I have a tendency to hang in one place for a long time. I see dumping sacks and sacks of grain as a good thing. Bread can be made with grain.

Too much grain can be a bad thing

So I use the ... "ignore the grain software" .... we have here

It save miles and miles of endless scrolling

You however have it much easier

You can copy and paste your miles of stuff from the places you were banned

Want a suggestion ????

Just say a few things in your own words that make sense and I (we) will listen

If you have to post miles and miles of stuff it makes you look weak and insecure

As though you hardly believe the stuff yourself

So you try to bamboozle others to see if they will buy your theory

As though that will bolster your faith or something

It is a common practice amongst folks like you.

welcome aboard

 

[SelectThis!]

Want a suggestion ????

Just say a few things in your own words that make sense and I (we) will listen

I type every post fresh. I do this for a reason. Much of what I say is said again to help me open my own ears (Grain), but what I say is refined to a better version each time I plant one of those seeds. Here is a good example: Post I just made on free will...

As for this post I link, it's as fresh as it comes. The Guardian topic I have been working on for the last few days comes from the culmination of years of seeking. I have been doing this recent work on Grain and the symbolism it points to in scripture. Why would a person suffer the hoe to plant grain? Who reaps that harvest when it grows? Everyone, even Ruth when she gleans behind the Sons working. She might be the last to eat, but she is the most honored and her eyes are opened more than anyone else.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

A good website on this topic is www.ancient-hebrew.org.

Caveat emptor. Here is an Amazon.com review for a book authored by this website owner.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DNQ6FGTJ81Z0/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt/181-2552243-7327764#R3DNQ6FGTJ81Z0

An unfortunate result of non-scholarship,
May 10, 2008


By
Paul Stevenson "Linguist"


(Location: Duhok, Iraq) This review is from: The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible (Hardcover)

I had started to write a much harsher review of this book when I decided to find out what I could about the author. It turns out that he is an engineer who became fascinated with Hebrew. I have now been moved by pity more than outrage to write a general statement about this book and others of its ilk.

Mr. Benner states on his website that he has no formal training in Hebrew, though lots of self study. I must recognize that his motives in preparing his many books on the subject are sincere, but his utter lack of familiarity with the scholarly literature and sound research methodology leaves him unprepared for writing even the most basic sort of book on Hebrew.

The example cited by another reviewer of *bara'* "create" is a perfect case in point. Consultation of the standard Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon shows that the root refers to "shaping by cutting," for example, cutting a reed to shape it for a particular use. It looks like Mr. Benner took a lone use of a homophonous root in a reflexive form in 1 Samuel 2:29 (meaning "to fatten oneself") and tried to generalize this to all uses of the root. This is hardly a legitimate procedure unless he can prove, by investigation of cognates in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopic and other Semitic languages that there is evidence of a shared cognate with these two widely divergent uses, and that neither use of this cognate in fact derives from a loan from another language, such as Sumerian, from which Semitic languages borrowed many words. In fact, BDB cites cognates of *br'* "create, shape by cutting" from Arabic, Phoenician, Akkadian, Sabean and Aramaic. For the homophonous *br'* meaning "be fat," BDB refers the reader to the root *mr'* (b and m are both bilabial and variation between them in cognate languages is not unusual, a fact that a person with adequate linguistic training would recognize). We learn that this root is the usual form of the root meaning "be fat," as attested by cognates in Akkadian and Arabic. Hebrew has a number of words derived from it, such as *mri'* "fatling". Thus, we see that Mr. Benner has used a superficial correspondence, inadequately researched, to devise a creative but entirely unwarranted bogus etymology. He has served his readers very poorly.

However, self-taught amateurs such as Mr. Benner are rarely aware of the necessity for such careful research, nor do they tend to have the reference works necessary for such in-depth research.

Aside from the example of this one word, statements such as "This is the first Biblical Hebrew lexicon that defines each Hebrew word within its original Ancient Hebrew cultural meaning" make Mr. Benner's ignorance of the relevant literature glaringly obvious. If he had bothered to become familiar with the standard scholarly lexicons and the vast scholarly literature, he would see that a great deal has in fact been done to help us understand Hebrew words in the context of Hebrew culture. It is a shame that he has invested so much work in such an ill-informed effort. If he were to undertake serious studies at the graduate level, his considerable zeal and interest could be channeled into truly useful works for the interested public. As is, he is producing a string of very poorly informed books that simply add to the great pile of low-quality popular literature on Hebrew which propounds a great deal more myth than fact. It grieves me to see many people interested in this area so ill served by so many well-intentioned but utterly unprepared authors.

P.S. I just discovered the image of p. 54 of this dictionary, which is displayed on this site. Having looked it over, I am appalled! This is far worse than the BARA entry. Mr. Benner gives the pictographic Proto-Canaanite forms of letters used to write Hebrew and then tries to link the pictures to general semantic concepts associated with roots. This is just ludicrous. It shows abject ignorance of the nature of alphabetic writing systems, to say nothing of the fact that speech came to exist millennia before writing systems. It looks as if Mr. Benner could have borrowed some of the wilder ideas of Athanasius Kircher (a 17th century Jesuit scholar and very creative interpreter of Egyptian hieroglyphs), but Mr. Benner's scholarship is so shallow that I would be astonished to learn that he had done enough research to have even come across Kircher's name. No, I suspect that Mr. Benner has simply re-invented this particular wheel of ignorance bordering on superstition.

For those interested in real Hebrew dictionaries, I recommend the most recent standard scholarly dictionary, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, or the older, less expensive and still good Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Smaller but still useful is A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I type every post fresh. I do this for a reason. Much of what I say is said again to help me open my own ears (Grain), but what I say is refined to a better version each time I plant one of those seeds. Here is a good example: Post I just made on free will...

As for this post I link, it's as fresh as it comes. The Guardian topic I have been working on for the last few days comes from the culmination of years of seeking. I have been doing this recent work on Grain and the symbolism it points to in scripture. Why would a person suffer the hoe to plant grain? Who reaps that harvest when it grows? Everyone, even Ruth when she gleans behind the Sons working. She might be the last to eat, but she is the most honored and her eyes are opened more than anyone else.

For what purpose ???

If the whole message of the bible were to be summed up it could be done in one sentence such as we find in John 3:16

What purpose does it serve to take the whole bible and then add huge amounts of mechanical interpretation as to how it works .... right down to bringing grain into the act.

What does it accomplish ? ... it takes a huge amount of time and it does not add to salvation

neither does it give anyone any special privileges or extra salvation

And the theory may not even be true in the first place.

So what do we gain ??

Explain that first .... and then maybe you get some interest and readership.

 

[SelectThis!]

Nothing about the Lexicon is at odds with the other 100 Hebrew books on my shelf. My Pirkei Avos and even my Book of Letters by Lawrence Kushner agree with the meaning of the letters. I have read the review before and it is incorrect. It is Argument Ad Hominem to the core (heart).

Nothing stated in that review changes the FACT that the Hebrew letter Aleph is the Ox (Strength). The Bet is the tent opening (or House). This is common knowledge and listed here in Wikipedia. I can also show you these from the earliest inscriptions of proto-Canaanite found, not just in Israel, but all over the world.

Scroll down the link here. Read the meaning of the letters. Find 1000 books written by Rabbis and Hebrew scholars saying the same thing. The meaning of each Hebrew letter has been known and matches the pictographs of the Phoenician to the letter.

Let me give you an example of this. TRUTH in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav.

Aleph is Strength. The first letter of the Aleph bet is the strength of God.
Mem is Water
Tav is the pictograph of two crossed sticks. The last letter of the Aleph bet is the Cross.

Does Christ say He is the Alpha and Omega? Who is the Mem?

Revelation 1


“Look, he is coming with the clouds,”[b]
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”[c]
So shall it be! Amen.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come,the Almighty.”

Who is Christ? The Aleph and Tav. In the middle, we have the MEM (Water). This is baptism. Who is living in the last days to see Christ return? Those who pierced Him. How? You must be born again.

Why am I showing you this? Aleph Mem is the word Mother in Hebrew. Who is the womb of the Lamb of God?

In Hebrew, AMN is our word AMEN. It means TURE.

AMN in Latin and Greek is Lamb. From this point, keep an Eye on the AMN as the fruit falls off the Hebrew branch it grew from.

AMNi is River (Jordan)
AMNio is a bowl catching the sacrifice of the Lamb in Ancient Roman Culture
Amnion is the sac in the mother's womb
Amniotic Fluid is the water (baptism) of theLamb
Amnesia is when we forget (Veil)
Amnesty is when God forgets
dAMNation is when the lamb is taken away.

There is uniformity to the Hebrew that then expands as WORD (Seed) across the entire scope of the Aleph Bet. Each language represents this fruit that drops from the Hebrew branch. The Benner Lexicon is true to the Ancient Proto-Canaanite. As for his scholarship, I am more confident, not less, that he is not a member of Academia. It's a plus for his faith.

I would recommend the book. I found mine for $12 used.

1 Corinthians 1

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

No reason to be frustrated.

For what purpose ???

If the whole message of the bible were to be summed up it could be done in one sentence such as we find in John 3:16

What purpose does it serve to take the whole bible and then add huge amounts of mechanical interpretation as to how it works .... right down to bringing grain into the act.

What does it accomplish ? ... it takes a huge amount of time and it does not add to salvation

neither does it give anyone any special privileges or extra salvation

And the theory may not even be true in the first place.

So what do we gain ??

Explain that first .... and then maybe you get some interest and readership.

?1) I explained the purpose to you. Do you realize that many people struggle in their faith and cannot believe on simple faith alone. As John 6:64 states clearly, "65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
[SIZE=.75em]66 [/SIZE]From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Context is the key to all scripture. What is the chapter about? Did you read my link on the grain and Guardian? The chapter is about feeding the multitudes bread. It's our job as Christians. He then crossed the water by walking on it. Baptism is our immersion into the waters of life. You must be born gain. I will eventually get to this in a thread.

?2) Not quite. Yes, Christ died for us all, but we must know who he is. Can I show you? Will your ears (Grain) open if I do?

Job 19


[SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]I know that my redeemer[SIZE=.65em][c][/SIZE] lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.[SIZE=.65em][d][/SIZE]
[SIZE=.75em]26 [/SIZE]And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet[SIZE=.65em][e][/SIZE] in[SIZE=.65em][f][/SIZE] my flesh I will see God;
[SIZE=.75em]27 [/SIZE]I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!


[SIZE=.75em]28 [/SIZE]“If you say, ‘How we will hound him,
since the root of the trouble lies in him,[SIZE=.65em][g][/SIZE]’
[SIZE=.75em]29 [/SIZE]you should fear the sword yourselves;
for wrath will bring punishment by the sword,
and then you will know that there is judgment.[SIZE=.65em][h][/SIZE]”

Two things should pop out at you here. First, Job knew he would live again. Second, the root of the trouble is the subject of the commentary from Job. Who is the topic of conversation? The Redeemer. Who is the Redeemer. ADAM!

1 Corinthians 15

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [SIZE=.75em]45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f][/SIZE]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. [SIZE=.75em]46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g][/SIZE] bear the image of the heavenly man.

Did yo catch it? Jesus is the First Adam and the Last. Why? You must be born again. to be fully man, so must He. As Job stated, the root of the trouble is in Him, but DO NOT hound him about it.

Is Jesus the firstfruits of those to rise again in resurrection? What is resurrection? Baptism.

?3 Do you mean, why search and seek to find the answer to why we are here and what it all means? Do you know already? Based on what I have shown you already, are you sure?

?4 "What does it accomplish ? ... it takes a huge amount of time and it does not add to salvation..."

The present is the gift my friend. Use your time wisely. Seek and knock. For me, I cannot rest until I have filled my basket with grain. Seed is what you use to grown a new crop.

Your last question: What do we gain?

What do you shed as a sheep following a Shepherd in the wilderness? Wool. What does the Shepherd do with that wool. He washes it white as snow. What do you get in return for the labor for others (Grain / Fruit)? Bread. What is the body of Christ? The bread you share and the cup you bear. What do you get in return? A new Robe (body) and Crown (Mind). The robe is made of the wool. That's your coat to bear now.

Revelation 6

[SIZE=.75em]9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slainbecause of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters,[e][/SIZE] were killed just as they had been.

No time for rest. We are working for a King that has given us a task.

 

[Levi]

What is the ATS forum?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Nothing about the Lexicon is at odds with the other 100 Hebrew books on my shelf. My Pirkei Avos and even my Book of Letters by Lawrence Kushner agree with the meaning of the letters. I have read the review before and it is incorrect. It is Argument Ad Hominem to the core (heart).

The guy who wrote the review is a professional linguist who has studied languages and linguistics for 40 years. He knows his stuff. The guy who wrote the lexicon you are promoting is a nuclear engineer. It's amazing to read the 5 pages of followup comments to witness the denial that some people have about this linguist's testimony because they believe in something so strongly.

Some followup comments by Mr Stevenson:

Mr. Strub, the issue at question with regard to Benner's work is, does it have a foundation in Hebrew cultural and linguistic reality or not? The answer is no, not even a little bit. He has devoted a great deal of energy to spinning fantasies. Apparently some people find some devotional value in these fantasies, as I commented in a previous post. However, this does not mean that these fantasies have any basis in the Hebrew language and culture. I explain this rather thoroughly in my original review.

Many people seem to be intimidated when faced with the amount of work it would take them to gain a real understanding of the ancient Hebrew language and culture. Along comes someone like Benner who offers them a shortcut. They think his fantasies sound cool, fun, edifying, or whatever. He saves them the trouble of having to learn anything themselves. Then scholars like me come along and our eyes bug out at the ignorance displayed in such books, and the brashness with which this ignorance is presented as truth. We state our opinions and offer sound reasons for them. Some people appreciate this (this review is the one that has gotten by far the most "likes" of all the ones I have posted on Amazon). Other people feel threatened or they think I am trying to throw cold water on the wonderful fire that warms them, and that I'm doing this just because I'm jealous or mean or something. As long as what I am writing is accurate, though, I have done my duty.

You will see that I have not impugned Mr. Benner's motives or character. His ignorance I do impugn, however, and that without a qualm. If you want to learn something about the reality of the ancient Hebrew language and culture, consult some books and articles that deal in facts, not fantasies. I posted a link to one list of such materials in an earlier message, in response to one complaint about my approach.

More comments from Mr Stevenson regarding Mr Brenner's lexicon:

Of course the ancestors of the letters used to write Hebrew had their origin as pictographic symbols. The relation of the pictures to the symbols was one of sound, though, not of meaning. An oxhead was used as the symbol for the glottal stop because the Phoenician word for "ox" was 'alep, which began with a glottal stop. This did not mean that every word with a glottal stop had some semantic connection with oxen. An eye was used as the symbol for the voiced pharyngeal fricative because the word for "eye" was `ayin, which began with a voiced pharyngeal fricative. Again, this did not mean that every word with this phoneme had a semantic connection with the eye, or with springs of water, which is another meaning of `ayin. Similar statements could be made for all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

There are two ways in which meanings have traditionally been associated with letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The simple way is as a means of writing numbers. Aleph = 1, Beth = 2, and so forth. The second and more complex way is the figurative meanings associated with the letters in Kabbalah. The numeric values play an important role in the Kabbalistic interpretation words. However, Mr. Benner has pulled semantic associations with the letters right out of his own head, in the way that Athanasius Kircher (to whom I refer in my review) did for Egyptian hieroglyphs in the 17th century. Kircher was a man of effervescent intellect, but he was working in a time when no one could read the hieroglyphs, and he came up with quite fantastical interpretations of them. Now his efforts are merely an amusing historical footnote. Jean-François Champollion did the hard work of actually figuring out how to read them many years after the death of Kircher.

In the case of Biblical Hebrew, there have been people who have known how to read it ever since the first day it was written down. There has been a living tradition of interpretation since the time of Ezra, at least. In the modern period (roughly the last 300 years), many scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have developed a vast field of scholarly research in theology, linguistics, archeology and other fields, which makes possible a far greater understanding of the languages and cultures of the ancient Hebrews and their neighbors than was ever available before. Yet Mr. Benner has the presumption to suppose that he can outdo all these erudite people, from East and West, using a loose system of semantic associations that he concocted and that he manipulates at will, drawing the target around the arrow after it has already hit. Mr. Benner is indeed good at using plain English. I suppose that is why he has loyal admirers. But nonsense in plain English is still nonsense. Mr. Benner is well-intentioned but ill-prepared. This is why I wrote in my review, "I must recognize that his motives in preparing his many books on the subject are sincere," but went on to say, "but his utter lack of familiarity with the scholarly literature and sound research methodology leaves him unprepared for writing even the most basic sort of book on Hebrew."

 

[SelectThis!]

The guy who wrote the review is a professional linguist who has studied languages and linguistics for 40 years. He knows his stuff. The guy who wrote the lexicon you are promoting is a nuclear engineer. It's amazing to read the 5 pages of followup comments to witness the denial that some people have about this linguist's testimony because they believe in something so strongly.

Some followup comments:

Mr. Strub, the issue at question with regard to Benner's work is, does it have a foundation in Hebrew cultural and linguistic reality or not? The answer is no, not even a little bit. He has devoted a great deal of energy to spinning fantasies. Apparently some people find some devotional value in these fantasies, as I commented in a previous post. However, this does not mean that these fantasies have any basis in the Hebrew language and culture. I explain this rather thoroughly in my original review.

Many people seem to be intimidated when faced with the amount of work it would take them to gain a real understanding of the ancient Hebrew language and culture. Along comes someone like Benner who offers them a shortcut. They think his fantasies sound cool, fun, edifying, or whatever. He saves them the trouble of having to learn anything themselves. Then scholars like me come along and our eyes bug out at the ignorance displayed in such books, and the brashness with which this ignorance is presented as truth. We state our opinions and offer sound reasons for them. Some people appreciate this (this review is the one that has gotten by far the most "likes" of all the ones I have posted on Amazon). Other people feel threatened or they think I am trying to throw cold water on the wonderful fire that warms them, and that I'm doing this just because I'm jealous or mean or something. As long as what I am writing is accurate, though, I have done my duty.

You will see that I have not impugned Mr. Benner's motives or character. His ignorance I do impugn, however, and that without a qualm. If you want to learn something about the reality of the ancient Hebrew language and culture, consult some books and articles that deal in facts, not fantasies. I posted a link to one list of such materials in an earlier message, in response to one complaint about my approach.

Yes. I did reference a link to the Benner Lexicon, but the Aleph is the Ox in Hebrew and Phoenician. Do you deny this? The Bet is the House / Tent opening in Hebrew and Phoenician. Do you deny this? Nun is the seed in both Hebrew and Phoenician. Do you deny this? Is the chart on Wikipedia wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

Forget the Benner Lexicon for one moment? Is the word Father in Hebrew ABBA, or AB, or Aleph Bet? Does the Bible place a great deal of emphasis on the 22 letters? Is DNA the basis for the seed of life? Is it comprised of an Aleph Bet? Is Christ the Word? Is the word Son in Hebrew Bet Nun?

Please answer these questions regarding the original post. The rest is your argument Ad Hominem concerning me and Jeff Benner. Are you deflecting the meaning of my original post in favor of the fallacy I just outlined?

You have yet to address the subject of the post and the pearl I cast here in this place.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Todd Murphy says:

As a trained Semitic Linguist, (I hold a BA in Biblical Studies and a Masters degree in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages) I can wholeheartedly confirm everything that Paul Stevenson says here. Reading through introductory front matter I was also "appalled" at what I found. The premise that the Hebrews could only think in "concrete" thought is a sophomoric mistake. What he tries to do suggesting that the word halal is not conceptual (as if the Hebrews were incapable of conceptual thought) is absolutely absurd. he tries to import meanings from Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite pictograms and comes up with what we could call a sort of Frankenstien definition for Halal. It is a combination of multiple linguistic fallacies such as aggregation of meaning, totality transfer, and etymological fallacy.

Further You do not need to read a reference work cover to cover to uncover methodological error which will pervade every page. Thankfully, Mr Benner exposes the faultiness of his thought and lack of knowledge of the subject matter in the first two pages of his introduction.

I too applaud Mr. Benner's enthusiasm. But his lack of training is not helping himself or anyone. Those who are untrained who end up with one of his books in his/her hands are being lead into gross linguistic and perhaps also doctrinal error.

Paul Stevenson says:

If Jeff Benner took the trouble to learn how real linguists, anthropologists, archeologists, and so forth actually learn about the meaning of Hebrew words, he could perhaps make a significant contribution. He has chosen not to, though, so his work remains as just one of the many little freakish sideshows around the edifice of the serious study of the Hebrew Bible. It is sad to see the brainpower of Mr. Benner and so many other authors of marginal approaches wasted as they chase down strange little rabbit trails created by their own imaginations.

 

[SelectThis!]

For every emerald extracted from the mine, there are a thousand critics stuck in the mud.

Did you have something to say regarding my main point of the Alephbet writing the Word of John 1? Did you know that the root Nun also means fish? When you compare the significance of the sperm cell swimming to deliver its message, there is again more information encoded into the symbolism. If you then connect this to being fishers of men and the sign of Jonah, even more awareness opens the flower of scripture. Either your grain is stuck in the mud, or it grows in good soil. Benner is the personification of this verse.

1 Corinthians 1

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

I will admit that many of his conclusions about scripture miss the mark of what his discoveries of the letters suggest. This is true. We all have a theological box we call God. God is trying to take us out of that box. The Living Word is the light. No other image of this light is the light. Images merely point us back to the source.

Where did Jesus continually point us? To the Father. Where, then, do we look? To the Aleph Bet. The symbols / words in the written image only emerge when we translate the letters they are written with. The root to this is the original Phoenician. Benner is one piece of this puzzle. Etymologist should ALL forget their own pride and see that Benner stumbled onto a field of pegmatite. Where are the emeralds found and what hands dig them out?

PtahHotep, 5th Dynasty Egypt

“Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite.”

You can continue to speak against the objects and avoid the subject. I will keep showing you how the verse in 1 Corinthians is fulfilled. God uses the salves and not the masters.

 

[Christabel]

For what purpose ???

If the whole message of the bible were to be summed up it could be done in one sentence such as we find in John 3:16

What purpose does it serve to take the whole bible and then add huge amounts of mechanical interpretation as to how it works .... right down to bringing grain into the act.

What does it accomplish ? ... it takes a huge amount of time and it does not add to salvation

neither does it give anyone any special privileges or extra salvation

And the theory may not even be true in the first place.

So what do we gain ??

Explain that first .... and then maybe you get some interest and readership.

Is there a reason we can't just let people talk in here about God without all the enuendos made that there's something wrong with what they're saying? I've visited a few sites now and this is all I've seen so far; people perching on these supposed Christian sites tearing down other Christians. It's ugly and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ. In my humble opinion, Christian chat groups are the best way to drive people away from Christ. That's all I ever see happening on these sights. I came in here for the first time today, and after reading through these catty attacks, for the final time, I'm fully convinced of what I just said. As a result, this will be the last time I come in here. I will faithfully avoid all so-called Christian chat and forum sites on the net from here on out. Our relationship is with Christ alone. Period. If we have that relationship, our fruits will be good. In other words, we will be kind and compassionate. If our fruits are bad, we are not Christ's. Out unkindness proves who we do not belong to and who we do belong to. Goodbye.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Is there a reason we can't just let people talk in here about God without all the enuendos made that there's something wrong with what they're saying? I've visited a few sites now and this is all I've seen so far; people perching on these supposed Christian sites tearing down other Christians. It's ugly and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ. In my humble opinion, Christian chat groups are the best way to drive people away from Christ. That's all I ever see happening on these sights. I came in here for the first time today, and after reading through these catty attacks, for the final time, I'm fully convinced of what I just said. As a result, this will be the last time I come in here. I will faithfully avoid all so-called Christian chat and forum sites on the net from here on out. Our relationship is with Christ alone. Period. If we have that relationship, our fruits will be good. In other words, we will be kind and compassionate. If our fruits are bad, we are not Christ's. Out unkindness proves who we do not belong to and who we do belong to. Goodbye.

Please tell us one thing in SelectThis opening post that has any value or credibility for Christians

Then read the other 100+ posts by Selectthis and you will see even worse

I plead guilty for pouncing on such nonsense .... we get a lot of it here from one time posters who dump miles of copy and paste and then disappear. Most of them have been kicked off other forums after they caused years of controversy .... all I was trying to do was save ourselves from a lot of anguish ... I can smell those guys a mile away .... sorry.

Anyone can post anything they want here ..... be it nonsense or valid

Like I said .... if you want nonsense then go and read all posts by SelectThis .... eat your heart out ..... waste your time .... go ahead .... be my guest ... it dont matter to me .....

 

[horsecamp]

There is rules here ! no streaking naked across the computer screen please.


only iam aloud to do that ..