Why do we use Hebrew words
-
Originally posted by breytonhartge:and if the website you posted on is to be believed, then why do you still tithe? for that matter, almost all churches today are doing the wrong thing by tithing and collecting the tithe... so we should abolish tithing altogether and see how many people give of their own free will to support the church.
your assumption is that: I tithe? I don't!
See here's where you are too emotionally involved. I never said I agreed with this website. You assume I agree with this website. I only want to point out that there are people with views contrary to Brad Scott, and allow the readers to have a look at these views.Originally posted by breytonhartge:also by this same website, then churches like FCBC, NCC, Calvary Charismatic for that matter some of the Roman Catholic Churches and churches like Wesley Methodist... all condemned. They speak in tongues, the tithe... and NCC is pro israel... so all the believers going to these churches also have no hope.
and also... you are doing the wrong thing by allowing your children to watch harry potter, believing in christmas, easter and watching Narnia... because these are fables and the watching or promotion of fables is against the bible and against God according to this seekgod website.
I form my own opinion of what I or my family can do. I also do not necessary agree with the way my church or my denomination handles doctrine. Neither do I necessarily agree with opinions found in websites that I link. However, what I do not do is to VEHEMENTLY DEMAND THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS OF A DEEPER TRUTH.
When I place a link here in forums, I do it maturely by asking readers to be discerning when going into such sites. I have also stated very clearly that this seekgod website is not free from detractors.
Why then do you have a problem with views that does not agree with you? Are you now saying that your way is the only correct way? That you do not have any room for opposite opinions?
The question that you need to answer for yourself is: Why did you react the way you did? -
You want to know why? It's the way the letter "J" sounds in English versus what this letter sounds in other languages.Originally posted by breytonhartge:the other point being that why in some 108 different languages, when the name of Yeshua is translated it still sounds very similar to Yeshua, but english is the only language that is so far off?
English: "J" is pronounced as Jay
Spanish/Portugese etc: "J" is pronounced as "Hay" or something with the "H" sound.
Another example: Wanda Miss Joaquim, the national flower of Singapore. Many folks here pronounces the last word as JOE KIM, whereas the correction pronounciation is HUA KIM, with the emphasis of "H" in Hua.
Want another one? Actor Joaquin Phoenix.... the correct pronounciation is HUA KIN FEE NIX.
Therefore the correct pronounciation of Jesus is HAY-ZU. Phonetically not different from Ye1 Su1.
Realistically how far off is Jesus (Gee zus) from Yeshua? If you ask me, the Greek version is even more far off: IESOUS! -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:You want to know why? It's the way the letter "J" sounds in English verses what this letter sounds in other languages.
English: "J" is pronounced as Jay
Spanish/Portugese etc: "J" is pronounced as "Hay" or something with the "H" sound.
Another example: Wanda Miss Joaquim, the national flower of Singapore. Many folks here pronounces the last word as JOE KIM, whereas the correction pronounciation is HUA KIM, with the emphasis of "H" in Hua.
There to correct pronounciation of Jesus is HAY-ZU. Phonetically not different from Ye1 Su1.
Realistically how far off is Jesus (Gee zus) from Yeshua? If you ask me, the Greek version is even more far off: IESOUS! -
deleted. pressed wrong button
-
Perhaps you would like to argue with historians? Its a well known fact that the first language was in sanskrit and the oldest religion was Hinduism.Originally posted by breytonhartge:really?
why would you say that? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
hey... did I demand that my understanding is of a deeper truth? you were the one that suggested that i start my own forum... so why are you harassing me in my own forum? How did I react any different? did I insult you? did I deride you? no, i just took your advice because I thought it might be best... at least I don't stay there an antagonise you... not my intention. The point of all of this is that whenever I post in EH, i get blasted, so to move away and cause you less angst... I start my own forum, afterall it was your idea... so you blame me for your suggestion? I am also offering another point of view, it is up to you whether you want to accept it or not. If you do fine, if you don't it is also up to you... did I say you have to do the things I did? no. you ASSUMED.
See here's where you are too emotionally involved. I never said I agreed with this website. You assume I agree with this website. I only want to point out that there are people with views contrary to Brad Scott, and allow the readers to have a look at these views.
I form my own opinion of what I or my family can do. I also do not necessary agree with the way my church or my denomination handles doctrine. Neither do I necessarily agree with opinions found in websites that I link. However, what I do not do is to [b]VEHEMENTLY DEMAND THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS OF A DEEPER TRUTH.
When I place a link here in forums, I do it maturely by asking readers to be discerning when going into such sites. I have also stated very clearly that this seekgod website is not free from detractors.
Why then do you have a problem with views that does not agree with you? Are you now saying that your way is the only correct way? That you do not have any room for opposite opinions?
The question that you need to answer for yourself is: Why did you react the way you did?[/b]
I do not have a problem with views that I do not agree with, it seems like you have more of a problem with what I write than what EH pushes... I believe in all that you believe in... I am saved by faith through grace, I speak in tongues, I tithe. I believe in Yeshua for my salvation... it seems to me that you are more irked by me that I am by all of you... I use terms that I feel are right. It is my call right? but you guys just name call... did I call you any names in all of this? even if I did I apologised, at least I had the courtesy to... I get called a judiazer, I get called a heretic... and worse... but is there an apology coming from any of the members of EH? so much for the courtesy campaign in singapore...
I post another point of view and you say I am insistent that my way is right when you push your ways as hard as I do mine? At the end of it all it is another point of view... if you keep your mind open, you might learn something... if you want to stay where you are also your perogative.
BTW, i think that you too get emotionally involved... all I did was just point out a few facts about your website... so is that very wrong? you did it... and it is ok... but when I do it, I am seen to be reacting too emotionally??? Where is the logic in that? -
First and foremost, I have NEVER EVER called you any names. Not judaizers, not heretic. Don't take that out on me. You have a problem with the other folks, I have nothing to do with it.Originally posted by breytonhartge:I post another point of view and you say I am insistent that my way is right when you push your ways as hard as I do mine? At the end of it all it is another point of view... if you keep your mind open, you might learn something... if you want to stay where you are also your perogative.
BTW, i think that you too get emotionally involved... all I did was just point out a few facts about your website... so is that very wrong? you did it... and it is ok... but when I do it, I am seen to be reacting too emotionally??? Where is the logic in that?
Yes you did point out a few facts about my link (not my website), you also said that I am using cheap shots. You ignored the fact that I had written disclaimers and that I adviced discernment and that I do not necessary agree with all that is posted.
So how would you have a visitor at Deeper Truth behave? I see a quotation from a link, I dug a bit more, I offered an alternative POV. Did I call you names, and harassed you? My exact words were: Another view of Wildbranch Ministry's Brad Scott. Is this harassment? When did I harassment you? It obviously that you were put off because I made that post! But exactly which part of that reference had been less than polite?! Did I even say that Brad Scott is wrong and my link is right?! -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
if that was the case, then I apologise for saying you took cheap shots...
First and foremost, I have NEVER EVER called you any names. Not judaizers, not heretic. Don't take that out on me. You have a problem with the other folks, I have nothing to do with it.
Yes you did point out a few facts about my link (not my website), [b]you also said that I am using cheap shots. You ignored the fact that I had written disclaimers and that I adviced discernment and that I do not necessary agree with all that is posted.
So how would you have a visitor at Deeper Truth behave? I see a quotation from a link, I dug a bit more, I offered an alternative POV. Did I call you names, and harassed you? My exact words were: Another view of Wildbranch Ministry's Brad Scott. Is this harassment? When did I harassment you? It obviously that you were put off because I made that post! But exactly which part of that reference had been less than polite?! Did I even say that Brad Scott is wrong and my link is right?![/b]
So explain the emotional part and overreacting to me? -
petty squabbling...why u all take things so personally?
-
faith is personal...Originally posted by Hellraiza:petty squabbling...why u all take things so personally? -
The fact that you don't check the date stamps or the total context of my post?Originally posted by breytonhartge:So explain the emotional part and overreacting to me? -
I read the context of your post, I did check the date stamps, but where I thought it was a cheap shot was because you posted from a website which was even less credible than the wildbranch site, one that did not even agree with your own theology. But since you have clarified that part, i let it go and apologised. If I were that emotional or overracting, I would not have done so.Originally posted by Chin Eng:The fact that you don't check the date stamps or the total context of my post?
Shalom! -
I am referring to the post I'd made BEFORE you apologised, the one regarding POV, the one where my note at 6.44 pm was "of course.... you are the only person allowed to present an alternative POV! Other people doing this same thing as you are will be accused of throwing cheap shots......" where your reply to me was.Originally posted by breytonhartge:I read the context of your post, I did check the date stamps, but where I thought it was a cheap shot was because you posted from a website which was even less credible than the wildbranch site, one that did not even agree with your own theology. But since you have clarified that part, i let it go and apologised. If I were that emotional or overracting, I would not have done so.
Shalom!
"who is emotional now??? hey I already apologised...face it CE, you are just as emotional as I am... you jump just as fast... yet you deny... funny." at 11.28 pm.
your apology "if that was the case, then I apologise for saying you took cheap shots... " was clocked at 8.49 pm -
and? I don't follow you... really...Originally posted by Chin Eng:I am referring to the post I'd made BEFORE you apologised, the one regarding POV, the one where my note at 6.44 pm was "of course.... you are the only person allowed to present an alternative POV! Other people doing this same thing as you are will be accused of throwing cheap shots......" where your reply to me was.
"who is emotional now??? hey I already apologised...face it CE, you are just as emotional as I am... you jump just as fast... yet you deny... funny." at 11.28 pm.
your apology "if that was the case, then I apologise for saying you took cheap shots... " was clocked at 8.49 pm
CE excuse me for saying this and I do not mean to be rude... but you are so particular about all these things like date stamps and times and context, yet when it comes to how Yahweh would have wanted things to be done, you seem almost non-chalant and careless. I just don't get it. Yahweh is really specific and when He spoke to the Israelites He was very specific in giving instructions and not just the general principle... and if Malachi 3:6 is to be believed, then He does not change. So why would He change anything with us christians today??
-
hmm..i still dont get it..!! could u pls put it in simple form for a simple minded person like me ^^
btw..this is wat i think
y is it so important to know the true spelling/pronouncation of "jesus"
if it is base on "misintepretation" of text ...then i would agree ^^
i used to beleive and always believe tht , whtever name we call, if our hearts are towards god...god will know...
i also beleive tht....it is the heart tht matters.. -
well, let's start from the beginning.....Originally posted by breytonhartge:and? I don't follow you... really...
CE excuse me for saying this and I do not mean to be rude... but you are so particular about all these things like date stamps and times and context, yet when it comes to how Yahweh would have wanted things to be done, you seem almost non-chalant and careless. I just don't get it. Yahweh is really specific and when He spoke to the Israelites He was very specific in giving instructions and not just the general principle... and if Malachi 3:6 is to be believed, then He does not change. So why would He change anything with us christians today??
I posted a link that is contrary to your belief. You call it a cheap shot.
In the mean time, I read some of the other posts in your forum, where in one, I commented that no one else is entitled to their POV except you....
Then you apologised.
After which you posted a second post "who is emotional now??? hey I already apologised...face it CE, you are just as emotional as I am... you jump just as fast... yet you deny... funny"
Fact is my post on the POV was written way before your apology. Your second post was totally unnecessary. I DID NOT POST ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ISSUE AFTER your apology.
If you still don't understand all these... it's ok.... no need to worry about it anymore.
Am I flippant over what God said? No! Here's the crux, God spoke to the ISRAELITES. God did not speak to the Gentiles. You go on and on about the issue that they are the same thing, NT shows otherwise. It is very clear in the NT that Jews and Gentiles are different folks. Plus there is nothing even remotely implicative that Gentiles are to follow the Hebrew culture.
You keep insisting that you accept other POV, but doesn't your statement shows otherwise, that you know what God, YHWH, says and I don't!
If you accept other POV, why such insistence? Regardless of how you deny it, this insistence is VERY VERY STRONG. That is probably why your posts are irking some folks here, as well as in EH. I am sure some folks may have already PMed you on this.
While you are at it, why not come out and state clearly that your theology is correct and everyone else is wrong, careless and nonchalant! -
Hi new_b, welcome to deeper truths...Originally posted by new_b:hmm..i still dont get it..!! could u pls put it in simple form for a simple minded person like me ^^
btw..this is wat i think
y is it so important to know the true spelling/pronouncation of "jesus"
if it is base on "misintepretation" of text ...then i would agree ^^
i used to beleive and always believe tht , whtever name we call, if our hearts are towards god...god will know...
i also beleive tht....it is the heart tht matters..
initially that is what it may be, but we are all required to grow in Yahweh, and to delve deeper and deeper into the truth.
Many have said that Jesus or Yeshua no difference. But if your name is say new_b and I call you new_d, does it make a difference to you? of course. Likewise, Yeshua is the name of our saviour. Yeshua means salvation, but Jesus has no meaning other than it was a wrong translation from the greek bible.
Some may argue that the new testament was written in greek and never hebrew, but there is now evidence that the new testament was written in hebrew. If you read the topic on Jesus or Yeshua, you will understand clearer how this mistake occured.
Thank you for stopping by and shalom to you! -
sometimes when we study the Bible (OT especially), often when we come across some names mentioned, its good to know their original wording/names, the reason being the name in some/most of the case speaks of their character (example: The names of God mentioned normally is also refering to His characters), or the plan that God had for them. So, using the actual names is good/useful especially when it comes to character studies to know that person better.Originally posted by new_b:hmm..i still dont get it..!! could u pls put it in simple form for a simple minded person like me ^^
btw..this is wat i think
y is it so important to know the true spelling/pronouncation of "jesus"
if it is base on "misintepretation" of text ...then i would agree ^^
i used to beleive and always believe tht , whtever name we call, if our hearts are towards god...god will know...
i also beleive tht....it is the heart tht matters..
-
not if I use pinyin niu1 bi1....Originally posted by breytonhartge:Many have said that Jesus or Yeshua no difference. But if your name is say new_b and I call you new_d, does it make a difference to you? of course. Likewise, Yeshua is the name of our saviour. Yeshua means salvation, but Jesus has no meaning other than it was a wrong translation from the greek bible.
or how about President Bush.... bu1 shi1 zhong2 tong3....
are they the same?
as I had said, Jesus is pronounced as "hay zu" -
All throughout history, it has always been that there was a way for the gentiles to be saved, and that was intergration into the nation of Israel. Eg ruth... she took naomi's God to be her God, and naomi's people to be her people. And if for so long Yahweh did it this way, then why would He change things just for the gentiles today? The only thing that has been "changed" is the way by which we gain our citizenship, it is through faith in Yeshua. This is the grace that we have.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Am I flippant over what God said? No! Here's the crux, God spoke to the ISRAELITES. God did not speak to the Gentiles. You go on and on about the issue that they are the same thing, NT shows otherwise. It is very clear in the NT that Jews and Gentiles are different folks. Plus there is nothing even remotely implicative that Gentiles are to follow the Hebrew culture.
You keep insisting that you accept other POV, but doesn't your statement shows otherwise, that you know what God, YHWH, says and I don't!
If you accept other POV, why such insistence? Regardless of how you deny it, this insistence is VERY VERY STRONG. That is probably why your posts are irking some folks here, as well as in EH. I am sure some folks may have already PMed you on this.
While you are at it, why not come out and state clearly that your theology is correct and everyone else is wrong, careless and nonchalant!
We are told in the new testament that we have become partakers of the promise of avraham through faith in Yeshua and that we are part of the commomwealth of ISRAEL and fellow citizens (Eph2) together with the saints and of the same household, that was built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.
Now if you are a citizen of a particular country whose laws and guidelines do you have to obey and uphold?
It is stated clearly in Eph2 that we ARE citizens of the commonwealth of ISRAEL, if Yahweh wanted it to be any different, He would have said commonwealth of believers or something else... and to make things clear as to what we are to be like or to follow, Shaul clarifies this point by saying that this citizenship that we have is built upon the foundation of not just the apostles, but the prophets. Implying that it is built upon the new and the old testaments... the new is a progression of the old, you cannot have the new alone because then there would be no proper foundation and the new would just be a cult.
If Yahweh had really meant any different, why do we have in revelations John writing about a new Jerusalem and whose names are written on the gates of the new city? none other than the names of the twelve tribes of ISRAEL. -
The problem like it is stated in my posts on Jesus or Yeshua, is that the greek took if from hebrew, but did not have certain phonetic sounds that the hewbrew language uses, but in english we do, so hence the transliteration of Yeshua.Originally posted by Chin Eng:not if I use pinyin niu1 bi1....
or how about President Bush.... bu1 shi1 zhong2 tong3....
are they the same?
as I had said, Jesus is pronounced as "hay zu"
But still in mandrin the name for Yeshua is Ye Shu. -
Strange that you accept the mandarin name which too is phonetically incomplete, but not Jesus.Originally posted by breytonhartge:The problem like it is stated in my posts on Jesus or Yeshua, is that the greek took if from hebrew, but did not have certain phonetic sounds that the hewbrew language uses, but in english we do, so hence the transliteration of Yeshua.
But still in mandrin the name for Yeshua is Ye Shu.
Why not Ye1 Su1 Er2? -
but you have to agree that it is much closer to Yeshua than Jesus. Even the spelling of Jesus is totally different from Yeshua.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Strange that you accept the mandarin name which too is phonetically incomplete, but not Jesus.
Why not Ye1 Su1 Er2? -
Is closeness the question or is exactness the question? Is it close enough and who determines if it is close enough?Originally posted by breytonhartge:but you have to agree that it is much closer to Yeshua than Jesus. Even the spelling of Jesus is totally different from Yeshua. -
if you want to take exactness then none are exact. would you call me arrogant for saying this?Originally posted by Chin Eng:Is closeness the question or is exactness the question? Is it close enough and who determines if it is close enough?
In translation, the normal course of things is to get it as close to the original as possible. In english we could have gotten it very close to the original, yet we did not. How come?