There is no concept of "sin" in the Bible

I consider this post as far reaching, questioning the very foundations of didactics of salvation of religions claiming to be based on the Bible.

1. There is no way for you to argue against the grammar. So that whenever the Bible disagrees with your doctrines, you willy-nilly invent an exception to suit your pre-determined doctrine. Which would mean, the Bible is meaningless to you - since you will deliberately and willfully make grammatical exceptions anytime you wish to cherrypickingly construct your doctrine to fraudulently claim your doctrine aligns with the Bible. Backpedal and then reinventing and finetune your translation until you get it to agree with your cart-before-the-horse doctrine.
   
   
2. {חטא} is the nearly the only Hebrew word translated as {sin}, the only Hebrew word used as the evidence of concept of {sin}. An evidence that is hanging by a thin thread. Here, I demolish that evidence.
   
3. In Genesis 3, after humans ate the FoToKoGaE, Almighty did not even bother to use any sin word. There goes the ideology of "original sin" down the drain.

There is no such concept as "sin" when you read the Bible in the original Hebrew. More precisely, "sin" is as much a concept as "walk" is a concept. In English and Greek, "sin" is an evil concept. But in the Hebrew of the Bible, {חטא = sin} is as neutral as the word "walk". You can {חטא sin} for G'd or {חטא sin} against G'd. Just as you can walk for G'd or walk against G'd,

Because {חטא} simply means {separation or gap}. Just as {שטן = satan} is a neutral word, so is {חטא}. Because the word {חטא} is used in the Hebrew of the Bible,

• positively (separation-consecration for G'd)
• negatively (separation-gap, deviation from G'd)
• neutrally (separating items)

And since there is no word for "sin" in the Hebrew of the Bible, then there crumbles the paganistic concept of "original sin". Don't be mistaken - Yes, in the Hebrew of the Bible there are words for {transgression, violation, violence, wicked, evil, bad}, but there is no word of "sin".

{Sin} is a concept found in ancient cultures all over the world, especially those pagan cultures surrounding ancient Israel and yet the concept of "sin" is not found in the Hebrew of the Bible. You may proceed to invent your scholarly excuses. The action of inventing a context and then applying that invented context, that context will return to bite your doctrine in the tail.

Let us begin ...

• Let us for a moment pretend to accept that the word {חטא} = {sin}.
• Then, grammatically, {יתחטא} is the 3rdP reflexive of {חטא}
• Specifically, {יתחטא} is the 3rdP reflexive masculine singular cohortative-subjunctive of {חטא}
• That is to say, without dispute that, grammatically {יתחטא} is an exhortation {shall sin against oneself}. There is no way for anyone to dispute against this because verily verily I say unto you, grammatically {יתחטא} would mean {shall sin against self}.

Then now, look at the book of Numbers, and apply {יתחטא = shall sin against self} and {חטא =  sin} to those verses, compared to the actual meaning of {חטא = consecrate, separate, gap}

Hebrew	Misaligned meaning due to {חטא = sin}	Actual meaning {חטא = consecrate, separate, gap}
8:9
וכה תעשה להם		then thus shall you do to them
לטהרם הזה עליהם		to cleanse such upon them
מי חטאת	water of sin	water of consecration/separation
etc, etc
19:9
etc, etc
והיתה לעדת בני ישראל		then be the witnesses of sons of Israel
למשמרת		to safeguard
למי נדה חטאת הוא	the water of excretion sinning it is	the water of excretion separation it is
19:12
הוא יתחטא בו ביום השלִישי	he shall sin against himself on the 3rd day	he shall consecrate/separate himself on the 3rd day
וביום השביעי יטהר		and on the 7th day he then becomes clean
ואם לא יתחטא ביום השלִישי	and if does not sin against self on 3rd day	and if does not consecrate/separate self on 3rd day
וביום השביעי לא יטהר		and on the 7th day he is then not clean
19:13
כל הנגע במת בנפש האדם אשר ימות		All contaminated in/by death in/of life of the man who dies
ולא יתחטא	and does not sin against self	and do not consecrate/separate self
את משכן יי טמא		contaminate housing of Hashem
etc, etc
19:17
ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת	and he shall take contaminant from burnt ashes of the sinning	and he shall take contaminant from burnt ashes of the consecration
ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלִי		and add/give upon it fresh/living water into a container.
19:19
והזה הטהר על הטמא ביום השלִישי וביום השביעי		and sprinkle the clean on the contaminant on the 3rd day and 7th day
וחטאו ביום השביעי	and he should sin him on the 7th day	and should he consecrate him on the 7th day
וכבס בגדיו ורחץ במים וטהר בערב		and he rinses his garments and washes in water and he is clean in the evening
19:20
ואיש אשר יטמא		And a man who is unclean
ולא יתחטא	and does not sin against self	and does not consecrate/separate self
ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מתוך הקהל		and be cutoff the life of his from amongst the assembly
etc, etc
31:23
כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש		Everything which is bringable into fire shall you pass it in fire
וטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא	and but-still cleansed in water of discharge of sinning against self	and but-still cleansed in water of discharge of self-consecration/separation
וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים		and all which is not bringable into fire shall you pass it in water

Also let's look at the to-infinitive {לחטאת}

Hebrew	Misaligned meaning due to {חטא = sin}	Actual accepted meaning
15 occurrences in Leviticus 4, 5, 9, 12, 16, 23	for-sinning	for consecration
13 occurrences in Numbers 7 {שעיר עזים לחטאת}	hairy-goat for-sinning	hairy-goat for consecration

And yet the same word {לחטאת} obviously means {to sin}:

• 1 Kings 8:34, 8:36, 12:30, 13:34
• 2 Chron 6:25, 6:27, 29:21
• Prov 10:16
• Ezek 43:19, 43:22
• Zech 13:1

And {חטאם} meaning {sinning} instead of {consecrating} in many occurrences, like in Leviticus 20:20
ואיש אשר ישכב את דדתו ערות דדו גלה חטאם ישאו ערירים ימתו

How is it possible that the same (and ONLY) Hebrew word used to mean {sin} also means {consecration}? Unless {חטא} actually means {separation/consecration}. Separation for G'd or separation from G'd.

In the Hebrew of the Bible, there is transgression, wickedness, evil but not the concept of {sin}. Biblical Hebrew is a primitive language, devoid of abstract concepts like "sin".

"Sin" is a concept from philosophically abstract cultures and languages of Chinese, Indians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians but not of the primitiveness of ancient Hebrew.

Note:

There is no umbrella word for the concept of “sin” in the ancient Hebrew text of the Bible. Almighty deliberately refused to allow any umbrella word for the concept of “sin” in biblical Hebrew. of the ancient Hebrew text.


The opposite of {חטא} is {קרב}.

{קורבן qurvan} is verbal-noun of {קרב}.
{קורבן qurvan} is a category of offerings made to G'd in the Bible.
{קרב} means "close proximity" and is used in the Bible to mean close proximity in intimacy or in battle or internally-embedded.

As Jacob fought in close proximity with G'd, and then became intimate with G'd, so therefore {קרב} is the actions we take to {חטא = consecrate, separate} ourselves for G'd to close our {חטא = separation, gap} from G'd.

Note:
The koine greek word in christian scriptures translated as {sin} is {αμαρτια amartia}.

{αμαρτια amartia} is derived from martial skills and sports of archery and javelin = not on the mark. i.e. when the spear or arrow is not on the target.

Also the Greek word for "sin" does not include the meaning of {consecration}. Therefore, the Christian concept of "sin" is totally misaligned with the meaning of {חטא}. Especially that the Christian origin of "sin" is due to a pagan war god.

Aleinu {עלינו}

עָלֵינוּ לְשַׁבֵּחַ לַאֲדוֹן הַכֹּל	It is upon us to acknowledge-superiority of Master of all
לָתֵת גְּדֻלָּה לְיוֹצֵר בְּרֵאשִׁית	to assign greatness to Originator of the beginning
שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂנוּ כְּגוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת	Who did not make us like nations of the earth
וְלֹא שָׂמָנוּ כְּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאֲדָמָה	and not place us like families of the earth
שֶׁלֹּא שָׂם חֶלְקֵנוּ כָּהֶם	Who did not apportion us like them
וְגוֹרָלֵנוּ כְּכָל הֲמוֹנָם‎	or destine us like all the kinds/multitudes
שֶׁהֵם מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לְהֶבֶל וָרִיק	whereas those prostrate to transients and emptiness
וּמִתְפַּלְּלִים אֶל אֵל לֹא יוֹשִׁיעַ	and humble-themselves to a god without salvation
וַאֲנַחְנוּ כֹּרעִים ומִשְׁתַּחֲוִים ומוֹדים	and we are to bow and prostrate and thank
לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים‎	before King of kings of the kingships
הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא	The Holy-One blessed is He
שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם וְיֹסֵד אָרֶץ	Who spread heavens and foundationed earth
וּמוֹשַׁב יְקָרוֹ בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל	and His magnificent seat up on heavens
וּשְׁכִינַת עֻזּוֹ בְּגָבְהֵי מְרוֹמִים	and Whose powerful Presence in lofty heights
הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֵין עוֹד	He is our Elohim there is none other
אֱמֶת מַלְכֵּנוּ אֶפֶס זוּלָתוֹ	truly our King there is void/none besides Him
כַּכָּתוּב בְּתּוֹרָתוֹ	as written in His Torah/laws
וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶךָ	and you shall know this day and repeating to your heart
כִּי יי הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים‎	that Hashem is the Elohim
בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל‎	upon Heavens
וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת	and upon the earth below
אֵין עוֹד‎	there is none other

קדיש

יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא	His great Name shall be magnified and shall be sanctified
בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא כִרְעוּתֵהּ	in world which He created by His guidance/shepherding/accordance
וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ	and He shall rule His kingdom
וְיַצְמַח פֻּרְקָנֵהּ וִיקָרֵב(קיץ) מְשִׁיחֵהּ	and shall His liberation flourish and His messiah be (gradually) nearer
בְּחַיֵּיכוֹן וּבְיוֹמֵיכוֹן	in your lives/lifetime and in your days
וּבְחַיֵּי דְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל	and in the lives/lifetime of all of house of Israel
בַּעֲגָלָא וּבִזְמַן קָרִיב	in-swiftness/as-a-heifer and in a nearing era
וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן	thus shall we say amen
יְהֵא שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא מְבָרַךְ	His great Name shall be (giving-of-)blessing
לְעָלַם וּלְעָלְמֵי עָלְמַיָּא	to infinity and to infinities of infinities
יִתְבָּרַךְ וְיִשְׁתַּבַּח וְיִתְפָּאַר וְיִתְרוֹמַם	shall spontaneous blessing, spontaneously praise-worthy, spontaneous splendour,  spontaneously majestic
וְיִתְנַשֵּׂא וְיִתְהַדָּר וְיִתְעַלֶּה וְיִתְהַלָּל	spontaneously exalted, spontaneously honoured, spontaneously elevated, spontaneously commended
שְׁמֵהּ דְקֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא	be His Name of holiness, (source-of-)blessings is He
לְעֵלָּא (לְעֵלָּא מִכָּל) מִן כָּל בִּרְכָתָא	above (above over all) from/than all /any blessing
וְשִׁירָתָא תֻּשְׁבְּחָתָא וְנֶחֱמָתָא	and songs sung in praise and of comforting
דַּאֲמִירָן בְּעָלְמָא	which are uttered in world
וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן	thus shall we say amen
תִּתְקַבַּל צְלוֹתְהוֹן וּבָעוּתְהוֹן	Acceptable-shall-be your prayers your submission(-in-fear)
דְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל	which all house of Israel
קֳדָם אֲבוּהוֹן דִּי בִשְׁמַיָּא	forwarded your Father in heaven
וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן	thus let us say amen
עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל רַבָּנָן וְעַל תַּלְמִידֵיהוֹן	upon Israel and upon your great-teachers and upon their students
וְעַל כָּל תַּלְמִידֵי תַלְמִידֵיהוֹן	and upon all students of their students
וְעַל כָּל מָאן דְּעָסְקִין בְּאוֹרַיְתָא	and upon all who-so busy-conduct-themselves in Torah
דִּי בְאַתְרָא [קַדִישָא] הָדֵין	in present place (of holiness)
וְדִי בְּכָל אֲתַר וַאֲתַר	and in any/all places and place
יְהֵא לְהוֹן וּלְכוֹן שְׁלָמָא רַבָּא	to you shall come great peace
חִנָּא וְחִסְדָּא וְרַחֲמֵי וְחַיֵּי אֲרִיכֵי	grace and kindness and mercy and length of life
וּמְזוֹנֵי רְוִיחֵי וּפוְּרְקָנָא	and spacious/extensive sustenance and liberation
מִן קֳדָם אֲבוּהוּן דְבִשְׁמַיָּא [וְאַרְעָא]	forwarded from their Father in heaven and earth
וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן	thus let us say amen
יְהֵא שְׁלָמָה רַבָּא מִן שְׁמַיָּא	Shall be great peace from heaven
[וְ]חַיִּים [טוֹבִים]	(and good) life
וְשָֹבָע וִישׁוּעָה וְנֶחָמָה וְשֵׁיזָבָה	and fulfillment and salvation and compassion and refuge
וּרְפוּאָה וּגְאֻלָּה וּסְלִיחָה וְכַפָּרָה	and healing and redemption and forgiveness and atonement
וְרֵוַח וְהַצָּלָה	and be-relaxed/have-spaciousness and rescued
לָנוּ וּלְכָל עַמּוֹ [עׇלֵינוּ וְעַל כׇּל] יִשְֹרָאֵל	to us and to all His people (upon us and upon all) Israel
וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן	thus let us say amen
עוֹשֶֹה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו	Maker of peace in His loftiness
הוּא [בְּרַחֲמָיו] יַעֲשֶֹה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ	He shall so make peace upon us
וְעַל כָּל [עַמּוֹ] יִשְֹרָאֵל	and upon all (His people) Israel
וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן	thus let us say amen

תהילים 23

מזמור לדוד יי רעי לא אחסר בנאות דשא ירביצני על מי מנחות ינהלני נפשי ישובב

ינחני במעגלי צדק למען שמו גם כי אלך בגיא צלמות לא אירא רע כי אתה עמדי שבטך ומשענתך המה ינחמני

תערך לפני שלחן נגד צררי דשנת בשמן ראשי כוסי רויה אך טוב וחסד ירדפוני כל ימי חיי ושבתי בבית יי לארך ימים

Psalm of David Hashem my Companion/Chaperone I shall not lack In grassy-vegetative meadows He sets me down Upon calming waters He ushers me My soul/breath He restores

He leads me into encirclement of righteousness due to His Name Even as I traverse in valley of shadow of death I fear not evil for You stand with me Your tribe and Your support they console-comfort me

You concierge a table before me affronting my enemies luxuriating my head with oil My cup overspills But yet goodness and mercy pursues/hunts me all the days of my life and I should stay in the house of Hashem for prolonged days

Who is Damascus?

Damascus is named after the butler of Abraham.

[משק] (MShQ) = a proxy, possibly someone who puts on the sackcloth apron to do the menial work for you.

[שק] (ShQ) = sackcloth, rough fabric.

[ד] is an aramaic vestigial prefix rarely used in Hebrew, but its prefixial usage is found in Persian and even as far as Malay/Indonesian (which is a language primarily creolized from Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic).

[ד] prefix imbues co-location on its target.

[דמשק] (DMSQ) = damshiq = the arabic/aramaic/hebrew name for damascus.

"Damascus" is the chain of Greek-Latin-English corruption of the word "damshiq".

As the usual mistranslation is so rampant in the European/English language translations of the Bible, you will not be able to see the deeper end of the story. Unless you read it in the original Hebrew.

In Genesis 15:2, the Hebrew says that aka-Abram says,

• I am heirless, and the son of [משק] steward of my house is [דמשק] placed in stewardship eliezer.

Is eliezer the name of the steward, or was Abraham simply interjecting "so help me G'd!"
Because [אלי עזר] eliezer in Hebrew means "my G'd help".

Therefore, in Genesis 15:2, Abraham whines that he is heirless, and the son of his current steward will be placed in stewardship of his possessions, effectively inheriting all of Abraham's riches. And Abraham then whines "O-M-G".

As usual of course, the septuagint and consequently the  KJV misses all this background story, happily-go-luckily mistranslates the whole verse.

The meaning of "messiah" [משח]

The Hebrew ideograph "messiah" [משח] is quite a peculiar word.

The root word is  [שח].. You can form [משח] by applying the Hifil on [שח].

First take the word [שח] ShaX,

• which means to bend a target, or to hunch a target.
• idiomatically, to anoint someone by having someone bowed and subjugated.

And then inflecting [שח] with a hifil causative on which then becomes

[משיח] MaShiX and MaShiaX

would mean "cause to bow/hunch", subjugate, "cause to submit", which idiomatically carries the implication of  causing a target into submission, or in humiliation, to vanquish.

In Exodus 12:23 the agent of Almighty is called the-Vanquisher {המשחית / Ha-MaShXit}.

And then make it one of the gerunds
[משחת] MeSheXeT / MiShXeT

which means the event when

• target is caused to bow, or hunch,
• vanquishing, humiliating or subjugating the target.

The hufal passive [מושיח]  MoShiaX would mean

• being caused to bow, or hunch
• being vanquished, subjugated, humiliated
• idiomatically, to be anointed by being subjugated.

However, there is not a single occurrence of the word [מושיח]  MoShiaX in the Hebrew text of the Bible. Zero.

It is interesting to note that the word translated as "worship" is the reflexive hitpaal  {משתח / MiShTeaX} and in the exhortative/jussive {משתחו / MiShTaXaV}

• having oneself bowed down, to subjugate oneself in submission. 

Maimonides aka RaMbaM was a bible fundamentalist. He required comprehending bibllical texts thro logic and proper comprehension of the Hebrew words. He was rather critical of religious "authorities" who would willy-nilly draw meanings from Hebrew words without proper and consistent analysis. He even went so far as writing having understanding of Mathematics was essential to the understanding the Hebrew biblical texts.

The English translations have trouble and are confused and confusing. This word [משחת] is found all over the Bible.

They are unable to demonstrate the criteria of when and whether to decide to translate the word as

• the act of anointing
• or the act of subjugating/humiliating.
• or the act of vanquishing.

Psalm 103 speaks of king David declaring the LORD will deliver him from [משחת]. Did king David declare that the LORD will free him from being "vanquished" or from being "anointed"?

Exodus 12:13

וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָכֶם נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית בְּהַכֹּתִי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃

• then shall not be with you plague to vanquish/devastate with which I would strike in the land of Egypt. 

Or, does Exodus 12:13 say, 

• then shall not be with you plague to anoint with which I would strike in the land of Egypt. 

??

As Maimonides required, you cannot be illogical and willy-nilly define the meanings of words just to suit an idea.

Isaiah 52 and 53, speaks of a person going thro a life-time in [משחת]. Not just a weekend of [משחת] as depicted in a 2000 year old pagan story, but a life-time of rejection, humiliation and deformity.

THE BIG question is

• Why is there no occurrence of passive causative word "anointed"  [מושיח]  MoShiaX.
• Such that even Isaiah 45:1 uses the active causative [משיח]  MShiaX, which means "Vanquisher", "anointor". Not the passive "anointed".

There is no "hell" in the Bible

Chronologically between the books of Genesis to Malakhi, when read in Hebrew, there is no "hades".

Hades/hell is a pagan concept inherited from Greek and Persian religions.

There is a she-ol [שאול].

[שאול] is the passive participle/gerund/verbal-noun of sha-al [שאל].
[שאל] sha-al means question, to ask.

Therefore, she-ol, the passive verbal-noun means the "unknown". What Job and King David said was not hell/hades, but

• into the "darkness of the unknown", 
• where "no human I've ever met will meet me again."

Even the name of Saul in Hebrew Shaul, is the same spelling as she-ol, but different inflection. Saul's name means "being asked".

There is no gehenna between the books of Genesis to Malakhi, except the gai hinnom [גיע הינום], the valley of Hinnom, the place where people sacrificed their children to their gods, praying to their dead children to intercede on their behalf to mitigate for their transgressions against their gods.


Daniel 12: 2 says

ורבים מישני אדמת עפר	Then many from sleep of soil of ground
יקיצו אלה לחיי עולם	shall arise those to life eternal
ואלה לחרפות לדראון עולם	and those to be condemned to eternal contempt-oblivion

those who are spited to eternal contempted-oblivion will never arise. They will be forgotten in shame. There is no eternal damnation.

Daniel 12:2 is mistranslated by people who try to force the verse to say some will arise to suffer eternal damnation.


Eccl 9: 5 says

כי החיים יודעים שימתו	as the living know that they will die
והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה	and the dead they know not anything
ואין עוד להם שכר	and no more to them recompense/wages
כי נשכח זכרם	because forgotten is their memory

Eccl 9:5 says the dead will never be punished or rewarded.

So, there is no such thing as hell. Those who resurrect shall live forever. The rest will not suffer in eternal hell, but forgotten in shame.

Genesis 2: There are no "Angels" in the Bible

Genesis 2 verses 1 & 2 do not say G'd finished the heavens and earth.
These two verses merely states that He enabled a purpose for the Universe. A commission.

ויכל השמים והארץ וכל צבאם	And He completes the heavens and earth and all  their forces/vectors
ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה* וישבת ביום השביעי מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה	And G'd completes on the 7th day His task-commitment which He did and rested/ceased on the 7th day from all His task-commitment which He did

Here is the meaning of the Hebrew:

לאך	LAK	a task
מלאך	MLAKh	piel intensive-participative = to perform a task, to be committed to a task. A person committed to task.
מלאכת	MLAKheT	the participial of מלאך/MLAKh. The consequence of being a מלאך/MLAKh.
מלאכי	MLAKhI	The gerundive act of fulfilling commitment to a task. Also chronologically the last book of my Bible which I read in Hebrew.

צבא	TsVA	force
צבאם	TsVAiM	masc plural - forces. Or gerund of being a force.
צבאות	TsVAOT	fem plural - forces. Or verbal-noun - entities that are forces.

In Genesis 2, we read in Hebrew that on the 7th/fulfillment day, G'd completes

• the heavens and earth 
• and all the vectors/forces therein
• and His {מלאכת / MLAKheT} , i.e., His commitment to His task.

Of note is the word I translated as complete is {יכל / YKhoL} - meaning having all. So, G'd had completed all that He had to put into Universe, but that does not mean the Universe was finished. (Qabalah notes that humans have taken over the role of completing the Universe which is biblically accurate to the Hebrew text of Genesis 2).

When the shipmates frightened by the storm asked Jonah, most English translations say that they asked him "what is it that you do? What is your work?"

But if you read the Bible in Hebrew, his shipmates were actually asking him,
"What is your  {מלאכת = MLAKheT = commission}? What is your purpose (of your trip on the ship)?"

When Jacob returned from Lavan, he sent his henchmen {מלאכים MLAKhIM} to meet his brother Esav.


The issue here is with the word {מלאך/MLAKh} which in Hebrew means being committed to a task or someone that is committed to a task.

It is not even "messenger". This is one concept which I disagree even with certain Jewish biblical authorities. I am unable to find  evidence for the word [לאכ] that would mean "transmit message", to allow us to prefix a causative inflection to produce the word "transmitter of message". Perhaps, someone could produce archaeological evidence for this word in Phoenician or Aramaic. If {מלאך/MLAKh} did mean "messenger", then does that mean that G'd was merely a "messenger" in Genesis 2 ???

Rabbinic authority does realise that [לאכ] means "task", not "message", But out of bad habit, rabbis simply ignore the pagan significance, and persist on using the word "angel" when teaching in English, for the sake of being understood by non-Jews, or Jews contaminated by Christian pagan lingo.

But in the meantime, we cannot ignore the meaning and occurrences of word {מלאכת MLAKheT} all over the Bible, especially in Genesis where G'd is attributed to have performed {מלאכת MLAKheT} . Unless we reinterpret the meaning of {מלאכת MLAKheT} , so that G'd did not do any creation "work" - I urge Jews and especially rabbis to stop using the pagan term "angels".

Therefore, {מלאך MLAKh}(erroneously "angel") actually means someone commissioned towards His fulfilling-task.  {מלאך MLAKh} grammatically would be "participating in fulfilling a task".

So then, why do English translations translate {מלאך/MLAKh}  as "angel", Why do Greek translations have מלאך as "anggelos" ?

Angels are of pagan origins

"Angel", Greek {anggelos  ἄγγελος} is actually from Greeko-Persian paganism - horse mounted messenger demigods. "Angels" are of pagan origin. There are no "angels" in he Hebrew text of rhe Bible, but "persons committed to tasks" of G'd.

Therefore, what is erroneously translated as the pagan messengers. should be translated as "commissioners" of G'd. There were more suitable Greek words to translate "task commissioner", but why did the Greek translators deliberately used a pagan term to sneak in the pagan concept of messenger demigods?


Malakhi is the last chronological book of the Bible
It is accepted the Malakhi was not the actual name of the writer of the book, who was probably Ezra. Rather, {מלאכי MLAKhI} is actually the subject title of the book. Malakhi is the summary of the promises and warnings of the Bible. {מלאכי MLAKhI} means "commissioned with tasks". In Hebrew, gerundization into participles and collective verbal-nouns is performed on the plural. The commissionings are assigned, and here is the summary of the Bible, go forth and fulfill them.

If it were not assigned then it would have to be in the incomplete/exhortative/predictive state {ילאכים YLAKhIM} = commissionings that shall be assigned.


[מלאך MLAKh] being Human agents
All across the Bible (the Hebrew Bible where the last chronological book is Malakhi), {מלאך MLAKh} and its plural {מלאכים MLAKhIM} are also applied to human agents.

For example, the English hopelessly mistranslates Haggai 1:13 due to succumbing to the Hellenistic and ancient Persian pagan roles of  "anggelos" as "messengers".

The actual meaning of Haggai 1:13 is

ויאמר חגי	So says Hagai
מלאך יי	a commissioned agent of the LORD
במלאכות יי	in commission of the LORD
לעם לאמר	to people to say
אני אתכם	I Am with you.
נאם יי	declares the LORD

So, Haggai was the commissioned agent of the LORD. But in your English translation, you would have to say that Haggai was an "angel" of the LORD. But of course, you people twist the Hebrew, to say that Haggai says that an "angel" of the LORD says - but the simplicity of the Hebrew does not say that. You people twist the translation of the Hebrew, to squeeze out the doctrine you want the Bible to exude.

Qabalistic Note:

• When you place Hebrew elements together (albeit using Aramaic char set), the side effects are just as significant.
  
  {מלא ך} = {מלאך} = your fulfilment. The person tasked with the commission is expected to be the fulfillment of you the assigner. {מלאך MLAKh} = {מלא ך MLE Kha} = Your commissioned agents are also Your fulfilment.
  
  
• Note that if you remove the alif [א] from [מלאך] malakh,
  you would get [מלך] (melekh) king.
  
  That is, if you remove the purpose from the commissioned agent, you get a king.
  
  The messiah cannot be a king. A messiah who is a king has no purpose but to destroy. 1 Samuel 8 says that, G'd was displeased with Israel for wanting an anointed king, like the rest of the nations around them. G'd warned them through Samuel that a king would oppress the people and ultimately destroy Israel.
  
  The kingdom of G'd does not require a human king. The kingdom of G'd is meant to follow Jethro's (father-in-law of Moses) enunciation of representative democracy. Reading the Hebrew text of Exodus 18:20-21, Jethro actually told Moses, "warn the people of the judgments and laws in whatever they do, and expect from them righteous representatives." The English/Greek translations may say "Jethro asked Moses to appoint representatives", but the actual Hebrew says Jethro told Moses to take steps towards expecting the people to properly choose their representatives.
  
  The kingdom of G'd, according to Jethro, is a representative democracy. Actually it is not a "kingdom", but an administration or government.
  

Faith [אמונה] (emunah)

There is no such thing as good vs evil. One religion's good is another religion's evil.

Good too has been defined by Islamic terrorists and Christian Inquisitionists is "true" good.

Who defines right vs wrong?

There is no humanly way possible to define "true" good and evil. Because I don't believe in Jesus, or Buddha or Krishna, and therefore, neither Jesus, Mohammed, Hare Krishna, Gandhi nor Stalin is qualified to define good or evil for me. They may offer some helpful suggestions, but they are way way not qualified.

The only possible explanation, is purity vs impurity, desirable vs undesirable, alignment vs misalignment.

Purity is also a hard to define term, unless we define the qualities that we want. Such that in a mixture, if we want lead, and gold is considered impurity, then we will melt and refine a piece of rock to get rid of all the gold to get the lead.

Our life is a centrifugal purifier. Life in the Universe is a percolator, to evolutionarily percolate the best to the top, to be separated from the slag.

But then who is qualified to define what is purity and what is slag? We ourselves the human race is qualified to define "truth", "righteousness", "good", etc.

Let me illustrate it with Hebrew, since I am familiar with Hebrew. I am sure other primeval languages like Chinese or Sanskrit would have similar predispositions. We can't depend on English, Greek or Latin because they are abstract languages that have lost all their connections to primitive humans.

[אב] = father
[א]head of [ב]enclosure/house

[אם] = [אמ] = mother
[א]head of [מ]flow of water

[אם] = [אמ] = possibility, what-if, discovery
[אמת] (emet) = truth
[אמן] = [אמנ] (amein) = agreement to a communal truth
[אמונה] emunah = trust, faith.
passive participle of [אמן].
having a communal agreement between the parties involved.

Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew draws from the same Phoenician roots. That means the primitive peoples of the middle-east already honestly accept that "truth" is due to the collective agreement of a community.

That is what Evolution is about. Evolution is about the ability of a group to formulate a unifying framework. The framework that is able to unite a larger group will defeat the groups whose ideologies have low unification tendencies.

Islamist groups are like the Ebola virus. It kills its own carriers. Islamism, the Crusaders, the Inquisitionists, anti-gay proponents are like Ebola virus. They turn on their own. They kill their own carriers, and creating a huge empty crater devoid of life.

Evolution is said to be the survival of the fittest. That is not an adequate definition. Evolution is the survival of the most liberally diverse group that is able to put aside our disagreement and help one another to survive the percolation and centrifugation taking place in the universe. Diversity in unity is strength because it will ensure survival of a group when an enemy attacks one subgroup, the rest of the main group survives.

In this way, according to the primeval origins of Hebrew, "TRUTH" is defined by the largest and most liberally diverse group.

So this Universe is merely a self-defining baking oven to bake a multi-flavoured pie, and those ideologies who refuse to cooperate in the survival of the human race will be burnt to a crisp.

This is the ingenuity of G'd the Creator. The self-defining human race.


[אמונה] (emunah) is the word translated in English as "faith".
It is from the word [אמן] (amen), which means agree.
Emunah means trust and confidence.

In engineering, we build confidence by deploying doubt. Doubt is the scaffold of quality confidence.

But the English word "faith" is not so much as meaningless but is an aliased word.

Aliasing is a term in signal engineering to describe a situation where a message masquerades other messages by imitating their characteristic shadow.

People use the word "faith" liberally in ways that do not reflect the actual Hebrew meaning.

In engineering, we do not place that kind of faith. We build confidence. In the financial and business realms, we do not place faith. We build relationships and confidence in those relationships.

You cannot have confidence unless you have a relationship. You cannot have a relationship unless you have spent time building that relationship.

Like a stranger would come to a woman and says "trust me, marry me now so that we have a relationship." You cannot simply say a silly prayer of confession of sins and then claim to have a relationship due to faith.

You and the other party must actively build that relationship from the time both of you accept the relationship. Without works there is no faith. Faith alone cannot save you.

Confidence will save you. Confidence = faith + work.

Emunah/Confidence is a two-way street. You have as much trust in G'd as G'd trusts in you. Does G'd trust you?

In order to have emunah-faith confidence, you need to have a relationship. In order to have a relationship, you need to build that relationship. You cannot have emunah-faith unless you work at building that relationship.

Therefore, "faith" without works is meaningless. It's like getting a electricity bill without using the electricity. You cannot be "saved" by "faith" alone, because it is meaningless.

"Truth" emet in Hebrew is an agreement, a collective amen.

So when you invoke the word "truth" it sounds empty. Because unless I am in agreement with you, "truth" is an empty meaningless word.

Therefore, Romans and Pauline concepts are totally out of alignment with the Hebrew scriptures and Hebrew grammar concerning the word Emunah.

Zechariah 12 - Example of subjunctive vav

In biblical Hebrew there isn't any past or present tense.

Rather it is

• completed action, or
• non-finite state

There are a few theories about the vav-inversion aka vav-conversion when a verb is prefixed with a vav-adjunct.

In the prevalent theory, prefixing a verb with a vav would invert its state. So that

•  a non-finite would be inverted to become grounded as completed-action
•  a completed-action would be freed from its commitment to become non-finite.

But that theory is on shaky foundations, because they are trying to squeeze Hebrew into a Romance language mold. Biblical Hebrew is primeval language where you make inferences thro the primeval elements and events of the surroundings rather than trying to fit it into an abstract Latin mold.

There is a minority theory which I subscribe to, where the vav-adjunct actually converts the verb to subjunctive or propositional, dependent on the original state of the verb. So that

• a vav-adjuncted completed action is actually a subjunctive.
• a vav-adjuncted non-finite is a propositional or propositional-imperative.

Let us use Zechariah 12v10 as example.

ושפכתי על בית דויד	and I would pour on house of david
ועל יושב ירושלם	and upon those residing jerusalem
רוח חן ותחנונים	spirit of favour and request-for-favour
והביטו אלי	And they would look towards me
את אשר דקרו	at whom they stab
וספדו עליו	and would mourn over him
כמספד על היחיד	like as mourning over an only begotten
והמר עליו	and shall be embittered over him
כהמר על הבכור	like as embittered over a firstborn

The phrase does not say,

And they would look towards me	והביטו אלי
whom they stab	אשר דקרו

But the phrase says

And they would look towards me	והביטו אלי
at whom they stab	את אשר דקרו

[הביטו] piel completed action of 3rd person plural.

roughly,
Qal = active root. Piel = active participative. Hifil = active causative.

[והביטו] completed action with vav adjunct = subjunctive.

A subjunctive is an action that is dependant on another event. (In modern languages subjunctive also includes what-if you could travel back in time, or what-if you could be someone you are not).

Therefore, a day will come. And dependent on that event, such an such would happen.

[דקרו] (stabbed) simple completed action. Without vav adjunct.

The contention here would be should I have translated it as

- presume vav-adjunct: They would look towards me at whom they would stab
or - simple completed action: They would look towards me at whom they had stabbed

If the speaker had meant subjunctive, there would be no way to put a vav-adjunct on "stab", because biblical Hebrew does not have a systematic paradigm like greek to freely assign subjunctive to a verb.

The action of the vav in biblical Hebrew is more like ...
> My daughter wants to be a lawyer. And so this is what would happen. And-scored well in her SAT. And-graduated she from college. Propositional:and-has-she a boyfriend, and-shall-propose-we her that idea. The day will come and-graduated-she from law school whose exams passed-she.

Notice that I cannot write
>from law school whose exams and-passed-she, because it does not make logical sense to have conjunction there.

Avinu Malkeinu

Our Father our King hear our cries	אבינו מלכנו שמע קולנו
Our Father our King our sins before you literally: our short-comings are in front of you	אבינו מלכנו חטאנו לפניך
Our Father our King let mercy be upon us and upon all begotten of us  and of our children	אבינו מלכנו חמול עלינו ועל עוללנו וטפינו
Our Father our King terminate plague and sword/famine חרב (noun=sword, verb=being arid) and hunger from among us	אבינו מלכנו כלה דבר וחרב ורעב מעלינו
Our Father our King terminate all oppression and persecution from us צר literally = strait/narrow idiomatically means oppression	אבינו מלכנו כלה כל צר ומשטין מעלינו
Our Father our King let us be inscribed in the book of good life	אבינו מלכנו כותבנו בספר חיים טובים
Our Father our King renew upon us a good change/year	אבינו מלכנו חדש עלינו שנה טובה
Our Father our King pardon us and answer us	אבינו מלכנו חננו ועננו
For we are not accomplished in any of our deeds	כי אין בנו מעשים
Perform upon us	עשה עמנו
charity and kindness	צדקה וחסד
and cause us to be saved	והושענו

קדיש (Qadish) - Jewish prayer of resurrection

Ancient/medieval Aramaic Jewish liturgy.

1	Magnified and sanctified is His great name	Yitgaddal veyitqaddash shmeh rabba	יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא.
2	In the Universe which He incarnated to His will	Beʻalma di vra khir'uteh	בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא כִרְעוּתֵהּ
3	As He establishes His kingdom	veyamlikh malkhuteh	וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ
4	As His salvation blossoms and nigh is His anointed	[veyatzmaX purqaneh viqarev (qetz) meshiXeh]	וְיַצְמַח פֻּרְקָנֵהּ וִיקָרֵב(קיץ) מְשִׁיחֵהּ
5	During your lifetime and during your days	beXayekhon uvyomekhon	בְּחַיֵּיכוֹן וּבְיוֹמֵיכוֹן
6	and during the lifetimes of all the House of Israel	uvXaye dekhol bet yisrael	וּבְחַיֵּי דְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל
7	expeditiously and time nigh.	beʻagala uvizman qariv	בַּעֲגָלָא וּבִזְמַן קָרִיב.
	And we agree	v'ʼimru amen	וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן
8	His great name to be blessed	yehe shmeh rabba mevarakh	יְהֵא שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא מְבָרַךְ
9	forever, and to all eternity	leʻalam ulʻalme ʻalmaya	לְעָלַם וּלְעָלְמֵי עָלְמַיָּא
10	Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted,	Yitbarakh veyishtabbaX veyitpaar veyitromam	יִתְבָּרַךְ וְיִשְׁתַּבַּח וְיִתְפָּאַר וְיִתְרוֹמַם
11	extolled and honoured, adored and lauded	veyitnasse veyithaddar veyitʻalleh veyithallal	וְיִתְנַשֵּׂא וְיִתְהַדָּר וְיִתְעַלֶּה וְיִתְהַלָּל
12	the Name of the Holy One, blessed is He	shmeh dequdsha berikh hu.	שְׁמֵהּ דְקֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא.
13	above and beyond all the blessings,	leʻella (lʻella mikkol) min kol birkhata	לְעֵלָּא (לְעֵלָּא מִכָּל) מִן כָּל בִּרְכָתָא
14	hymns, praises and consolations	veshirata tushbeXata veneXemata	וְשִׁירָתָא תֻּשְׁבְּחָתָא וְנֶחֱמָתָא
15	that are uttered in the world.	daamiran beʻalma	דַּאֲמִירָן בְּעָלְמָא.
	So say Amen	v'ʼimru amen	וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן
16	It shall be the prayers and supplications	Titqabbal tzelotehon uvaʻutehon	תִּתְקַבַּל צְלוֹתְהוֹן וּבָעוּתְהוֹן
17	of all Israel	d'khol bet yisrael	דְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל
18	accepted by their Father in Heaven.	qodam avuhon di bishmayya	קֳדָם אֲבוּהוֹן דִּי בִשְׁמַיָּא
	So say Amen	v'ʼimru amen	וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן
19	To Israel, to the Rabbis and their disciples	ʻal yisrael veʻal rabbanan veʻal talmidehon	עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל רַבָּנָן וְעַל תַּלְמִידֵיהוֹן
20	to the disciples of their disciples,	v'ʻal kol talmidey talmidehon	וְעַל כָּל תַּלְמִידֵי תַלְמִידֵיהוֹן.
21	and to all those who engage in thestudy of the Torah	veʻal kol man deʻos'qin b'orayta	וְעַל כָּל מָאן דְּעָסְקִין בְּאוֹרַיְתָא.
22	in this [holy] place	di b'atra [qadisha] haden	דִּי בְאַתְרָא [קַדִישָא] הָדֵין
23	or in any other place,	vedi bekhol atar v'atar	וְדִי בְּכָל אֲתַר וַאֲתַר.
24	may there come abundant peace,	y'he lehon ul'khon sh'lama rabba	יְהֵא לְהוֹן וּלְכוֹן שְׁלָמָא רַבָּא
25	grace, loving-kindness and compassion, long life	Xinna v'Xisda v'raXamey v'Xayye arikhe	חִנָּא וְחִסְדָּא וְרַחֲמֵי וְחַיֵּי אֲרִיכֵי
26	ample sustenance and salvation	um'zone r'viXe ufurqana	וּמְזוֹנֵי רְוִיחֵי וּפוְּרְקָנָא
27	from the Father who is in heaven (and earth).	min qodam avuhon di vishmayya [v'ʼarʻa]	מִן קֳדָם אֲבוּהוּן דְבִשְׁמַיָּא [וְאַרְעָא]
	So say Amen	v'ʼimru amen	וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן
28	There shall be abundant peace from heaven,	Yehe shelama rabba min shemayya	יְהֵא שְׁלָמָה רַבָּא מִן שְׁמַיָּא,
29	[and] [good] life	[ve]Xayyim [tovim]	[וְ]חַיִּים [טוֹבִים]
30	satisfaction, help, comfort, refuge,	vesava vishuʻa veneXama veshezava	וְשָֹבָע וִישׁוּעָה וְנֶחָמָה וְשֵׁיזָבָה
31	healing, redemption, forgiveness,atonement,	urfuʼa ugʼulla usliXa v'khappara	וּרְפוּאָה וּגְאֻלָּה וּסְלִיחָה וְכַפָּרָה,
32	relief and salvation	verevaX vehatzala	וְרֵוַח וְהַצָּלָה
33	for us and for all his people [upon us and upon all] Israel.	lanu ulkhol ʻammo [ʻalainu v'al kol] yisrael v'ʼimru amen	לָנוּ וּלְכָל עַמּוֹ [עׇלֵינוּ וְעַל כׇּל] יִשְֹרָאֵל.
	So say Amen	v'ʼimru amen	וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן
34	He makes peace in His high places	ʻoseh shalom bimromav	עוֹשֶֹה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו,
35	who [in his mercy] shall make peace upon us	hu [beraXamav] yaʻase shalom ʻalenu	הוּא [בְּרַחֲמָיו] יַעֲשֶֹה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ,
36	and upon all [his nation] Israel.	v'ʻal kol [ammo] yisra'el.	וְעַל כָּל [עַמּוֹ] יִשְֹרָאֵל.
	So say Amen	v'ʼimru amen	וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

Satan does not exist

The pervasiveness of "the satan"

• Satan does not exist as a distinct person in the Hebrew text of the Bible.
• In Numbers 22:22 satan was good divine agent.
• [שטן = satan] is a Hebrew verb/gerund that means obstruct, obstruction.

1.  [השטן / ha-satan]
   
   Every occurrence of "satan" in the book of Job is ha-satan [השטן]. The definite article in Hebrew is more focused than in English.
• "Ha-yom" [היום] does not mean "the day", but it means "this day". This particular day, today among other days.
• "Ha-melekh" [המלך] the-this king, among other kings.
• Therefore "ha-satan" = this particular impediment/hindrance, among other hindrances.
• If ha-satan is the name of a person, then every time the Bible mentions ha-melekh that would mean all the kings mentioned in the Bible is actually the same person !! ? Or when the Bible says ha-yom, it would actually mean the name of a special day ???
• You can't willy nilly adjust the grammar of the Hebrew to concoct your demonology doctrine.
2. Zechariah 3:1
   The same ha-satan occurs in this verse. Joshua the high priest was a satan/hindrance to the agent of Hashem. And then Hashem reproofs the high priest for becoming a hindrance to the agent of Hashem, asking him "you who chose Jerusalem, don't you realise this is a brand salvaged from the fire.
   
   Then Hashem orders the high priest be rid of his dirty garments. And then the agent testifies to the high priest that Hashem says "that if you walk in my ways ..." Obviously the high priest was not behaving appropriately and got rebuked a few times. Telling him of the corners stone the establishment had rejected, the branch that will come forth.
   
   I mean if you twist and turn the sentence construction to translate in a way to include a Satan, rather than Joshua being the satan/hindrance, it would sound really odd.
• ויראני את־יהושע הכהן הגדול עמד לפני מלאך יי והשטן עמד על־ימינו לשטנו
  And he then-shows me of Joshua the high priest standing before the agent of Hashem and the-this satan/hinderer stood upon his right to hinder him.
• ויאמר יי אל־השטן יגער יהוה בך השטן ויגער יהוה בך הבחר בירושלם הלוא זה אוד מצל מאש
  And then says Hashem to the-this satan/hinderer,
  Hashem reproofs in you the-this satan/hinderer.
  Hashem reproofs in you the chooser of Jerusalem
  Is this not a brand salvage from the fire.
3. Numbers 22, agent of G'd became satan
   In Numbers 22 in Hebrew, when Balaam acquiesced to the bribes and threats of the god-king Balak to accuse the chosen people, you would read that the Hebrew text of the Bible says,
   
   

   and he inflamed the anger of G’d because he went then positions himself agent of the LORD in his way to be satan to him and those riding on the donkey his two boys with him

   ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא ויתיצב מלאך יי בדרך לשטן לו והוא רכב על אתנו ושני נעריו עמו

   Hey believers of the existence of the demon Satan, why then in Numbers 22:22 is a good person?
   
   Did you want to say that there was a good satan who fell? But, doesn't your doctrine also says a demon satan fell before the time of Adam, whereas Numbers is during the time of Moses.
4. Occurrences of [שטן] satan not translated as satan
   There are 5 cases in the Hebrew text of the Bible where [שטן](satan) is not prefixed with the definite article. Four of which, even the Christian translations agree in translating those occurrences to describe humans or situations being hindrance/impediment.
• 1 Kings 5:4 (Jewish enum 5:18) - Solomon writes to Hiram that there is no [שטן satan impediment] against him to build the temple.
• 1 Kings 11:14 - The LORD placed Hadad as [שטן satan impediment] for Solomon and general Yoav to destroy.
• 1 Kings 11:23, 25 - G'd placed Rzon ben Elada as [שטן satan impediment] against Israel.
5. WILLY-NILLY Demonology Doctrine
   
   So the believers of the existence of the demon satan WILLY-NILLY decide when the word "satan" means impediment and when it refers to a superdemon?
• Oh, they use their christian testament to justify?
• But their christian testament is on trial here. There is a circular dependency - you can't use an accused burglar's testimony to testify to his on innocence in a burglary.
6. 1Chron 21 = 2 Samuel 24
   There is no reference to a demon or anyone named "satan" in 1Chron 21. NONE.
   
   One case of the 5 cases of unprefixed-satan which is translated into English as "satan", is 1Chron 21.
   
   But that is a wrong translation, because it should have been translated as "hindrance/obstruction".

• and then stood a hindrance upon Israel and then inducing David to account of Israel.

  ויעמד שטן על ישראל ויסת את דויד למנות את ישראל

7. 2 Samuel mirrors 1Chron .
   
   The exact same story is told in 2 Samuel 24, but why is there no reference to "satan" in 2Samuel 24?
   
   Why is a person "satan" not being referenced in 2 Samuel 24? That is because the concept {hindrance} was reflected equivalenty without needing using the word {satan, hindrance}.
   
   Because 1Chron uses satan/hindrance whereas 2Sam uses anger for the same concept..
   
   

   then increased anger of the LORD to inflame in/at Israel and inducing David in/at them saying go account of Israel and Judah

   ויסף אף יי לחרות בישראל ויסת את דוד בהם לאמר לך מנה את ישראל ואת יהודה

• Census-tax theory:
  the census-tax stood upon Israel a “hindrance/satan/שטן” and then incitement/rebellion broke out towards David’s census-tax of Israel. There is a law in Exodus 30, that when you take a census, you have to collect a tax. That tax became a hindrance/satan to Israel. And that was why Israel became incited/rebellious against David.
• Almighty G'd became satan/hindrance - this is the theory I believe in. Since 1 Chron 21 and 2 Sam 24 are mirrors - and because 1 Chro 21 the inducer is "satan", whereas the inducer in 2 Sam 24 is Almighty Himself.

The word used in these two passages is {מנה = apportion, ration} which idiomatically derives the meanings of {count, account for}.

A rebellion broke out among Israel when David wanted to apportion/account-on Israel.

Then we read a couple verses later, his General Yoav questioned why would David persist to criminalize Israel for resisting - be satisfied with what the LORD had given already.

This is the narrative of the story: biblical Hebrew is a simplistic primeval language. What the passages intend to say is:
"This is how Almighty became angry with Israel/Judah. Almighty became a satan to induce David to take accounting-taxation of Israel, becoming a satan?hindrance to Israel/Judah. And a rebellion ensued. And then David begged Almighty for forgiveness for Israel's rebellion because he had deviated from his task."

Demons and spirits?

You know, Hellenistic Jews that ultimately became Christianity, they imported all sorts of pagan ideologies in their Greek translations, that they could not find in the Hebrew text of the Bible. Like the "spirit of god" as an person.

So grammatically, is "anger of god" also another person. A {רוח / ruaX} of Hashem means His presence or influence breezing by. Otherwise, there would be so many more "persons of god" could be derived and squeezed out of the Hebrew text of the Bible.

What fucking "holy spirit"?

Similarly in 1Sam 16:14.

And the presence/influence of Hashem left Shaul, and a bad presence/influence FROM Hashem came upon him. Hashem inflicted Shaul with psychopathic disease. There are instances where Hashem performs {רע / bad} upon {רע / bad} people. {רוח רע } means bad presence/influence.

I DON'T CARE what those Christian documents say, Christians who have tormented Jews and twisted our texts for 2000 years. You have to read the Hebrew text as-is, uninfluenced by pagan demonology, uninfluenced by the spirit/influence of Hellenistic ideologies.


Baal?

Baal in Hebrew means master. In fact in traditional Jewish homes, a wife addresses her husband as Baal. In fact, in Hosea 2, a verse says that the LORD says

and it will be in that day declares the LORD you will call me my husband (ishi) and not call me any more my master (baali)

והיה ביום ההוא נאם יי תקראי אישי ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי

Adversary?
"Adversary" is a theological projection from the effects of being an "impediment". Like a linebacker or quarterback being an adverse impediment, is the ultimate adversary faced by the opposing team. He is the "satan". Like a good quality control engineer, who is often referred to as "the satan" and perceived as "adversary" to irresponsible production folks.

What king of god ???
"Kingdom of god" is a wicked pagan concept, says 1Sam 8.

While Yoav the righteous loyal general dissuades David. For all the righteous impediments that Yoav to prevent David from destroying himself, the rascal king David upon his death bed having forgotten his promise to his wife BatSheva, but also in wickedness ordered Solomon murder Yoav. And that began the downfall of the Israeli empire.

That is why in 1Sam 8, Almighty consoles Samuel because Israel wanted a king like other nations, to reject Almighty's system of govt - saying such a govt due to a king would be brutal and would bring the downfall of Israel.

There is no "kingdom of god" in the Hebrew text of the Bible, but there is the system of govt of G'd.

Yithro, father-in-law of Moses, introduced representative democracy which is the system of govt of G'd. The messiah is not a king, but would introduce the world back to Yithro's representative

Bible translators’ penchant for disparaging humankind

I do not understand why Bible translators feel the need to dumb down the Hebrew of the Bible when translating the Bible. They are gripped with a motivation to ensure humans are not portrayed in Bible as worthy to be like G'd, so they corrupt the translation to hide the actual Hebrew words of the Bible.

The following are examples where I show the plain and simple Hebrew. But, compare them to the English translations and you will notice translators dumbing down the status of humankind.

Psalm 17v15 when read as normal Hebrew says ...

I in righteousness of grasping your face I fulfill in the edge of your likeness

אני בצדק אחזה פניך אשבעה בהקיץ תמונתך

If the psalmist had wanted to say "behold" he could have used [רואה] or any of other words that meant looking, seeing or beholding. But the psalmist chose to use a physically intense word that meant grabbing and grasping.

[שבע] = seven = implies perfection or fulfillment
Therefore,
[אשבעה] = I perfect/fulfill

[הקיץ] actually means = "bring to the edge of"
which could idiomatically mean being placed within the vicinity so as to be aware of
or could plainly, simply and literally mean being at the edge of
For this verse, would you choose the idiomatic or the literal meaning ?

---

In my other postings in this blog, you will find the same deliberate dumbing down of the innate worthiness of humankind or the dumbing down of intensity of actual Hebrew words by Bible translators.

---

Psalm 23 v6: http://rameneutics.blogspot.com/2014/02/psalm-23-precise-translation.html
actually says,

but goodness and mercy will pursue/harass me

אך טוב וחסד ירדפוני

Psalm 8: http://rameneutics.blogspot.com/2014/03/psalm-8-mistranslation.html

Who is humankind that we are in your mind and the son of adam/man that you empower us? You lessen him a little from G'd and adorned him with glory and honour.

מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו ותחסרהו מעט מאלֹהים וכבוד והדר תעטרהו

Nazirite vs Nazarene

I am regurgitating a well-known offensive question Jews place on Christians. It is not offensive as in vulgar-offensive, but offensive as in a (American) football player playing offensive positions. This offensive is even documented in Wikipedia about the town of Nazareth.

OK, you cute bumbling KJV lovers, let me quote Numbers 6 in the KJV:
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the LORD …

In the Hebrew of the Bible the word translated as Nazarite is [נזיר](NZIR) intonated as nazir, an active intensive of the root word [נזר](NZR). [נזר](NZR) is used as a verb over various parts of Numbers 6, to instruct the means in fulfilling the [נזיר](NZIR).

[נזר](NZR) means consecrated-dedicated, separated from the rest. Rather than as Nazarite, it should have been translated as Nazirite. Especially with the presence of yod, would have compelled translators to transliterate it as NaZIR not NaZaR.

Perhaps if they had transliterated it as NaZIR, then they would lose the link they try to make with the town of Nazareth.

But the problem is the town of Nazareth is spelled in Hebrew as [נצרת](NTsRT) NaTseReT. They may sound nearly the same but linguistically, there is a gulf of difference between a Zayin and a Tsadi.

In Hebrew, Christians are called [נצרי](NTsRI), but Christianity had been deceptively trying to pass this 1st century error as [נזרי](NZRI), in their European language bibles. Deceptively trying to pass [נצר](NTsR) as the [נזיר](NZIR) in Judg 13:5.

Amos 5:24 - Let justice roll as a mighty stream?

Martin Luther King was influenced by the imprecisely translated Amos 5:24 in the KJV.

There are more modern translations that now translate the verse more accurately. Let me present more modern and acceptable translation of this verse.

Note that I interpret the vav conversive as subjunctive.

In Amos 5:24, the Hebrew says
ויגל כמים משפט וצדקה כנחל איתן

ויגל	should roll (as in waves)
כמים	like water
משפט	sentencing-judgment
וצדקה	and righteousness
כנחל	like a river/stream
איתן	steadfast

Therefore,
Judgment sentencing should roll like waves of water, and righteousness like a steadfast steady river.

This verse, in Hebrew says that,
Why does it mean that Judgment should be sentenced like rolling waves?

It might take a mighty force, or it might take a small still voice in the face of impeding adversity, to be a steady flowing river or stream.

What might interest you are the words [משפט] and [צדקה].

[משפט] actually means a linguistic sentence, or verbalisation.
This is another of the English words that had been influenced by the Hebrew of the Bible. To sentence a legal judgment, is to verbalize the judgment in succinct comprehensive language.

[צדקה](tsedakah) being righteousness, is also often used to imbue charity to the poor. Therefore, our tax dollars used for helping the poor in sustenance and furnishing them with education is a commanded righteousness.

Sedakah in Arabic, which has the same meaning as in Hebrew, also uses the word righteousness in similar manner. When you move among Arabs or Muslims, you would also often find them using the word sedakah sloganeering for contributions to the impoverished. Apparently therefore, Jews, Arabs and Muslims share the same concept on righteousness.

You might also take note that [איתן](eithan) is the origin of the English name Ethan - steadfast.

Hebrew name of the messiah

I had dedicated this blog to expounding the Hebrew in the Jewish Bible. This post is not worthy of this blog because it infringes on the grounds on another religion.

But then there are videos deceptively alleging that a Qabalah rabbi had confessed that he had dreamed about the messiah having the name [יהושוע] Yehoshua. So here goes …

1. First, how many Jews have the name יהושוע (Yehoshua) and who were in Israel at the time of the rabbi's observation? How many Yehoshuas were there at that time?
   
   Christians who criticize Jewish Qabalah as satanic and the Talmud as evil, but yet I am trying to understand why the same people would often extract Qabalah and Talmud sources to say how Jewish traditions support their concept of salvation. Two-headed snakes.
   
2. The Hebrew name of Jesus had always been [ישוע] (Y'shua). And all of a sudden now, his name was Yehoshua?
   
3. The root word is [ישע] = [help, rescue, salvage]
   
   The pual (with collective-intensity passive) conjugate is [ישוע] Y'shua. Which means, participating in needing help. Needing to be rescued. Needing intervention.
   
   The term for this state of salvation is [ישועה] Y'shuah - the case of collective needing help, needing rescue.
   
   
4. As accounted in the book of Numbers, Moses had renamed Joshua from [הושע] (Hosea) to  [יהושע] (Yehoshua).
   
   [הושע] (Hosea) is hufal - effective intensity perfected conjugate of the root word [ישע].
   Hufal is the passive counterpart of hifil conjugate [השיע](Hishia).
   
   The hifil form [השיע](Hishia) is active intensive but never used in the Bible.
   The hifil would refer to the subject as effective in providing collective help.
   
   The hufal [הושע] (Hosea) would refer to the subject effecting/coordinating the collective receiving of help.
   
   So Joshua was initially a coordinator/effector in receiving help, but Moses renamed him to [יהושע] - The LORD Coordinator/Provider to collective receiving of help.
   
   
5. In either case, Salvation is people being in the need of help.
   
   The case of Jesus' name yshua - being in the collective of needing of help.
   
   The case of Joshua's names - someone providing/effecting work and effort towards solving the collective state of needing help.
   
   That is why Pauline theology says of humans needing help but cannot do anything about it. All you could do is to have faith hoping that something would drop out of the sky.
   
   But the theology behind Joshua's names is - that we realising being in the state of needing help, someone effectively coordinating the receiving of help, and subsequently G'd providing for that collective need of help/rescue.
   
   Having faith is not enough to participate in salvation.
   
   There is no such thing as personal salvation, otherwise the personal nifal passive form would have been used for salvation.
   
   Regardless that he is not the messiah spoken in the Bible, even the name of Jesus connotates a collective in need of help, not an individual needing help.


6. Jesus' name tells you how helpless you are collectively, but doesn't tell you what to do.
   
   Joshua's names OTOH, tells you that you have a collective part to play in salvation and that G'd will provide for that collective need.
   
   Therefore, the Hebrew semantics of the word reveals that, even though G'd does provide for the help needed, Salvation does not originate from G'd. It originates from those of us needing help. You do not receive salvation. You participate in salvation. You are part of the solution in effecting salvation.
   
   
7. The difference is
• are you participating in Yehoshua's coordinating the receiving of help 
• or participating in Yshua's hapless helpless needing help?

Micah 5:1,2,3 ... messianism or warning to worshippers of a false god?

Micah 5:1,2 (Jewish enumeration)

ואתה בית לחם אפרתה צעיר להיות באלפי יהודה ממך לי יצא להיות מושל בישראל ומוצאתיו מקדם מימי עולם ב לכן יתנם עד עת יולדה ילדה ויתר אחיו ישובון על בני ישראל

Phrase literal translation:

ואתה	and you
בית לחם	BeT L'χeM
אפרתה צעיר	Efratah minor
להיות באלפי יהודה	to-be in thousands of Judah
ממך	from/than you
לי יצא	my exiting /going forth
להיות מושל בישראל	to-be governor in Israel
ומוצאתיו	and his exiting / exile / expedition
מקדם	from old/early/enlightened-ones
מימי עולם	of/from days eternal/infinite/

 

---

1. and you BeT L'χeM, Efratah minor, to-be among thousands of Judah, from you I who will exit, to be governor in Israel. and his ancient exit from days eternal.
   
   
2. and you BeT L'χeM, Efratah minor, to-be among thousands of Judah, from you I who will exit, to-be governor in Israel. and his early exit since days eternal.
   
   
3. and you House of god Lakhamu of Efratah minor, to-be among thousands of Judah, from you I who will exit, to be governor in Israel. and his ancient exile from days eternal.
   
   
4. and you House of minor god Lakhamu of Efratah to-be among thousands of Judah, (rather) than you (it is) I who will go to-be governor in Israel. and his exile early from days eternal.
   
   
5. and you House of minor god Lakhamu of Efratah to-be among thousands of Judah, (rather) than you (it is) I who will go to-be governor in Israel. and his exile from enlightened-ones of days of eternity.
   
   

---

My take:
The speaker is using comparative sarcasm here, playing on the word [יצא] - While you go forth to be exiled, I go-forth to govern. You deceptive puny little god of Efratah.

Whereas you House of minor god Lakhamu of Efratah to-be among thousands in Judah from you. My expedition to-be governor in Israel. While his expedition to-be exiled earlier-on from days of eternity.

---

The verse that follows goes on:
לכן יתנם עד עת יולדה ילדה ויתר אחיו ישובון על בני ישראל

Thus I shall put-them-aside until when an expectant mother gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to the children of Israel.

Alternatively:
Thus I shall put-them-aside until the era of pangs of birth and the rest of his brothers return to the children of Israel.


Is this actually the Bible predicting the exiling/rejection of the mythical false god Jesus? And those who converted to worshipping this false god will return to the children of Israel, at the era of the pangs of rebirth of nation of Israel.

---

Still, if you do not agree with the Lakhamu god theory, your best bet is either #1 or #2.

This is a very unusual construct:
ממך לי יצא

• from you, I who exit
• rather than you, I who exit

---

If you choose to twist the grammar to make it a prophecy of Jesus, than you would also be able to prove that Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov prophesied about Barack Obama and GW Bush.

Isaiah 9:6,7 messianism or rhetoric pep talk?

Isaiah 9:6,7

כי ילד ילד לנו בן נתן לנו ותהי המשרה על שכמו ויקרא שמו פלא יועץ אל גבור אביעד שר שלום

Christian Bible translators had decided to interpret the preposition [אל] (el =toward) as the short form of addressing G'd.

The following is the phrase literal translation
....

כי ילד	that a child
ילד לנו	shall be born to us
בן נתן לנו	a son given to us
ותהי המשרה	the government would be
על שכמו	upon his shoulder
ויקרא שמו	his name would be called
פלא יועץ	wonder(ful) who be in counsel
אל	to
גבור	a hero/warrior of
אבי עד	eternal father
שר שלום	authority/prince of peace

 

Let me reproduce my interpretation and translation which I had posted elsewhere.

I compare this to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. This passage has to be read together with the surrounding text, not just picked out awkwardly by itself.

Let's say a politician or orator gives the following speech in an extremely poor black neighbourhood in the 1980s ...

---

I have a vision.
Despite all the adversity we face.
Despite all the poverty.
Despite the low rates of high school graduation.
A son will be born.
He will have an education.
He will excel in school.
He will be an engineer, a doctor, a scientist.
He will be the President.
He will be a hero blessed by G'd

---

Which is simply a rhetoric about a singular envisioned child as the example of any other child having a good education and becoming a respected member of society and even becoming the President.

I'm afraid that one day, in a thousand years', someone would pick up MLK's speech and turn it into a prophetic declaration about a pair of black and white kids who grew up together being the prophesied saviours of the world.

---

We Jews are oppressed.
We constantly lose our battles.
It seems we are not fit to have our own govt.
But people now in darkness see a light at the end of the tunnel.
That a child would be born.
A son given to us
He will have the respect and honour.
Heck, he would even be the gov'nor
And rub shoulders with a warrior of the Eternal Father.
And would be admired to bring peace.

---

The biblical orator of this passage believed that Jewish children would one day be heroes again, exemplified by a singular case - as in MLK's speech.

It is said that Hebrew does not have subjunctive mood. I dispute that. We should revisit that. I believe the conversive vav should actually be called a subjunctive vav, the writers of the Bible had used for setting the subjunctive mood.

http://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/recvavcons.pdf

Psalm 8 mistranslation

Disclaimer: if you are a ufonut, please don't press on the stale issue of elohim being plural.

There is a mysterious preference of translation of a certain portion of Psalm 8.
In Hebrew:

מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו ותחסרהו מעט מאלֹהים וכבוד והדר תעטרהו

Let me transliterate the literal translation:

מה אנוש	who/what is humankind
כי תזכרנו	that You think about us
ובן אדם	and son of adam/man
כי תפקדנו	that You empower us
ותחסרהו מעט	You lessen him a little
מאלֹהים	than/from G'd
וכבוד והדר	and glory and honour
תעטרהו	you adorn him

Let me give you the direct translation uncontaminated by doctrinal bias:

Who is humankind that we are in your mind and the son of adam/man that you empower us?
You have him a little lesser than G'd and adorned him with glory and honour.

That is the way the American Standard Version translated it.

But many bibles translate that certain portion with

That you have him a little lesser than angels.

where they translate

מאלֹהים

as angels, rather than from G'd.

Let me tell you two reasons why the American Standard Version is the correct one.

1. Let's presume
   מאלֹהים
   should be translated as angels.Then the passage should be
   
   you have him as little angels.
   Without the preposition than/from.
   
   
2. All other places in the Bible, מאלֹהים is translated as
   from G'd.

Compare with Hosea 2

והיה ביום ההוא נאם יי	And is on that day declares Hashem
תקראי אישי ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי	shall you call me my-husband-peer and no longer call me my-husband-master

Exegesis:

1. The Hebrew word translated as sacrifice in the Bible is קורבן (QURVaN), from the root word קרב, which means be-near/in-proximity. קורב (QURVaN) is the pual conjugation of the word, which is passive - to be brought close/near. And then in Hebrew, we would turn a verb into participle/noun, by suffixes. In this case, we suffix the word with a feminine plural 3rd person - thus  קורבן (QURVaN).[1]
2. Any occurrence of the word  קורבן (QURVaN) found in the Bible mistranslated as sacrifice, should be replaced with the meaning of Evolution towards being like G'd, that such so-called "sacrifice" are meant to illustrate our gradual evolution towards being nearly like G'd, that we would have the authority to either recklessly torture, punish or forgive the animals beneath us.
3. Do you think G'd really needs us to burn up those animals for Him. For the two previous temples destroyed one after another, because we had failed to understand the actual implication of  קורבן (QURVaN), which is to remind us to continuously take steps in our billion years journey to become nearly like G'd. So that one day, in 10 billion years' time, humankind would evolve to become a matching eternal collective spouse of G'd.  קורבן (QURVaN) being a collective 3rd person Feminine.
4. In the new temple of Ezekiel which we are to build, we would have the  קורבן (QURVaN) of a red heifer. We all know there is no such thing in nature as a red heifer. But we will be able to use bio-genetic engineering to produce one. We will have a red heifer for  קורבן (QURVaN).[2]
   Numbers 19:2 did not command us to sacrifice a red heifer.
5. When the new temple of Ezekiel is built, we would present ourselves as yet having taken another step towards our Evolutionary journey towards being nearly like G'd. We would have successfully genetically engineered a red heifer. We will present this red heifer, take a sample of her blood, and prove that her DNA is genuinely artificial. We will also demonstrate our being more godlike by forgiving the heifer by setting her free. That would demonstrate that we have taken yet another step to fulfill Psalm 8.
6. People believe that  קורבן (QURVaN) necessitates the killing of humans and animals to appease our G'd, as a substitute for our punishment have a completely screwed-up relationship with G'd.

[1]Please don't use Google translate to look up this word, because modern colloquial Hebrew has totally screwed up the meaning and sacredness of this word. Another example how Jews allowed Hebrew to be screwed up by acquiescing to Christian mistranslation and misconception of biblical words.
[2]Christian sources tell us that the red heifer is actually a common brown cow. That's pure BS, pun intended. Red heifers do not exist in nature, currently. It can only be produced through biogenetic engineering.