| Author |
 Topic  |
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 17:27:33
|
I found an interesting page in an old journal of mine:
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/72foldName.gif
The Qaballists seem to be saying the proper vowel sounds are essentially part of the Name.
I remember something about Yod, He, Vaw, He, Daleth too. But I am a little sketchy about the details. I think I heard that from Monte Judah in about 1998. Significance of Daleth on the end.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Dec 2004 17:48:50 |
 |
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 08:45:17
|
oneisraelite, I would not try to discourage your efforts or challenge your methods. I consider you the best etymological researcher on these boards.
Something is missing in the picture you presented. adam and edom both have vowel pointings to provide pronunciation for interpretation of the words. Looking at 2Kings 3:22 we find (0122 Mda) adom and (01818 Md) dam. The original has no vowel pointings so the case of the alef (a) representing a vowel holds. Upon further research we find Strong's Concordance has followed the Babylonian (Talmudic or wherever) procedure adding the vowel points. In this case Strong's reference adds a "quamets" under the alef and a "holem" over the dalet to make the adm into short vowel 'a' sound and long 'o' sound for the word red [H122 - 'adom] and the dm gets a "quamets" under the the dalet and a "sureq" (long u-sound like oe in shoe) to the left of the dalet to make blood:[H1818 - dam] (funny, why the sound is dam instead of dome like the vowel points indicate?).
Actually it is not funny, just ignorance. The words contain the same Hebrew root -dm- but now I must interpret the verse. Let yourself drift back to the mid 17th century and become the translating scribe for a moment as the scribe is getting ready to translate this verse... The interpretation causes me a problem; If I interpret it in light of all that the Hebrew sages have said about the alef-bet and TaNaK, I will have to study that dang Jewish stuff (you know they killed my Jesus, rotten creatures) and that will take much too much time. It also will not please King James not to mention the bishop who hired me on the King's commission. The church doctrine is that man is made of dirt, red dirt, so no problem. The adam means red just like the church translated over there in genesis and the dam is blood and mayim is water so I've interpreted to fit church doctrine nicely and haven't destroyed the context or subject matter of the text ... on to the next verse.
(Unfortunately), all of the text will be translated in light of church doctrine and forbid we translate any of the text in light of anything printed by someone even remotely holding a pro-Semitic stance. Besides what does it matter, Latin is the holy mother language, not Hebrew or Greek ...
Kind of sarcastic but you might see my point of view now.
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 20:15:50
|
| This is just my interpretation but it was the Herodian Guard selling franchises on contracting the Drachma who had Jesus put to death for interfering with business (overturning the moneychanger's tables). The Jews were not so fanatical about a king in Israel to kill a man over it. Once I adopted this perspective, a lot of the Gospel accounts made much more sense. |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 15:33:11
|
I am pleased to see that you offered an intepretation rather than saying it was as you say.
Blessings on YHWH's words of inspiration not being tainted with the interpretations of men that do not believe in them.
Focus on the story of money "Salvation Island" by Louis Even in the Link above and the reader will grasp the intent of the pharisee's and why they were so upset at being flogged out of the temple. Usury was condemnable in the time of Yeshua. I will not quote the many scriptures that say so but after viewing the link and reading the pictographed story you will know why.
Blessings upon all in Love and prayers for those without it.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 12:05:43
|
Grant No Man the Authority to Make You His Slave
From:
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/126a.php
by Peter Ragnar
Are there any among us who would not decry the repugnancy of slavery? I am assuming, of course, that you have reached a higher station in your moral evolution than members of the common mob. Yet, isn’t it likely that the lowest serf, imprisoned as a nameless unit of the proletariat, abhors his forced servitude? Like a prisoner gazing beyond his bars, does not the indentured servant, in his most hopeful of moments, dream of freedom? I grant you it is possible some mindless automatons with lobotomized souls would equate their slavery with fate. Such people lack enough vitality in their being to even protest a perfunctory “I wish I were free,” and they are certainly not endowed with a single drop of originality in seeking it.
I salute you - the self-owned, the self-reliant, the independent heroes of freedom! You have refused to submit and surrender to the iron boots of slavery. You eschew tyranny and refuse to sanction the officious, pigheaded, bureaucratic assaults and intrusions upon your life. To you these assaults are as impotent as rag dolls. Yet they continue each day, fed by the mentality of the mindless mob granting what they have no right to grant, sanctioning what no one can sanction, and legitimizing what no one can make legitimate.
If it were not for a swarm of obedient servants, myriads mired in the morass of the mob mentality, even a Caesar or a Napoleon would be reduced to flaccid, vagrant nobodies. For whom is a Caesar, a Napoleon, or an Alexander the Great without their armies, their hordes of servants, and the greedy solicitous masses humbly beseeching them for perks?
Just imagine a Napoleon in his threadbare uniform, standing on a box in the city square and shouting political slogans, much like an itinerant evangelist seeking converts by wildly proselytizing like a madman. The local citizenry give him a wide berth, as one would sensibly do to anyone so afflicted. Such a clown could hardly be taken seriously, let alone obeyed. You would not grant such a one respect, nor approve of his desire to impose his will. Nor would you, as the case is today, sanction the will of the larger mob over the individual who does not wish to be enslaved. Grant no man the authority to make you his slave! Appoint no one your guardian. Accept no handouts from those distributing stolen property. Commit no criminal acts by accepting monies extorted from others.
When a government is installed by the voting majority it imposes a tribute upon all, known as taxation. Confiscations of property and imprisonment await those who refuse to pay voluntarily. Taxation, administered in this manner, is clearly theft. Morally, you have no right to be a co-conspirator in the aggressing and extorting of monies, or properties, or in the forced conscription of your own or your neighbor’s children being compulsorily sent to “school.” If you vote to sanction the unsanctionable, to legitimize the illegitimate, you criminalize yourself. And does your vote really matter (except as evidence that you accept the governmental system)? You only exchange one candidate for another, while the tyrant (the institution of government) remains the same!
Oh yes, you may agree that you have been burdened by government, and so seek solace by voting for change. You may feel that you are choosing the lesser of two evils. Here I implore you to bear in mind that the lesser of two evils is still evil! To endorse a little evil is similar to accepting a little carcinoma. Evil is still evil! This is more than the simple sin of looking in the other direction as a co-worker steals from his employer. This is your sanction of murder and theft! This is your approval of extortion! This is your endorsement of slavery! Can you cast a vote in good conscience that will result in the oppression and enslavement of others? When you vote for a candidate, you are in fact saying it is perfectly right for him to force your neighbor to submit to your desires -- desires which can be enforced at the point of a gun. Except in distancing yourself from the crime, is there really any difference between hiring someone to rob your neighbor and committing the act yourself? Even more serious is the fact that, by voting, you have essentially hired a hit man to kill the “others” with whom you disagree. Of course, if you hired the Mafia to do the dirty work, you’d go to prison if you were caught. You escape responsibility by voting and having government agents act on your behalf. The crimes are identical. The only difference is that the first method is “politically” approved and legal, and the second is not.
Bear in mind, laws of convention made and enforced by the collective are not like the laws of nature, which, when violated, extract perfect retribution. Therefore, in the furtherance of my own evolution, I can only say “NO” to ALL the candidates. So you see, in a sense I am casting a “NO” vote against all of them. My choice is simply “None of the Above!” One candidate may steal from me more or less than the other, but that’s not the point. The basic premise, for honest conscious minds, is that stealing cannot be legitimized. Your integrity should never allow you to cast a vote. Do not sanction your own enslavement. Grant no man the authority to make you his slave. Grant no man the power to enslave your neighbor, grant no man the sanction to steal or murder in your name, lest you cause yourself irreparable moral damage. When asked how one could be a free man and yet a slave, the ancient Athenian sage, Diogenes, answered, “Simply, by the number of times you say master.” Diogenes, who recognized no master, always embraced a NO vote. He argued that Athenians, who voted by casting various-colored beans into a receptacle,
should “Abstain from beans.”
Once, while sunbathing by the river, Diogenes was approached by Alexander the Great. Alexander’s shadow loomed over the reclining, naked Diogenes. “Do you know who I am?” asked Alexander. “That’s not the question you should be asking,” retorted Diogenes. “You should be asking if you know who you are.” Alexander, like all avaricious, unctuous politicians, was asking the same banal and prosaic question, namely: Do you recognize my authority to control you? Do you acknowledge my power over you? Diogenes’ refusal to kowtow to Alexander simply meant Diogenes recognized no authority except “the primacy of his own right judgment.” Freedom, in Diogenes’ view, was the “absolute dominion over his own will. This was the inner realm over which no outside force, not even an Alexander and all his soldiers, had any power, whatsoever.”
Regaining his composure, Alexander boasted, “I’m Alexander the Great!” Unimpressed, Diogenes, in a dismissive tone replied, “So, be Alexander the Great!” No one had ever spoken to Alexander with such self-assured authority before. In fact, no one could, except the individual who knows that no person can truly control another. Now feeling more like the average solicitous bureaucrat, Alexander adopted a more servile attitude, offering, “Is there anything I can do for you?” Casually waving his hand, Diogenes replied, “Move over. You’re blocking my sunlight.”
So what are you waiting for? You should dismiss these pompous pinheads with a wave of your hands, instead of using them to pull the lever in the voting booth.
You were born free and you should remain free. You need no one to speak for you. You require no guardians. You have no need for an elder brother watching over your shoulder. You will learn from your own mistakes and grow strong by them. You require no handouts. For it is only by your own hand, and by voluntarily trading with others, that you can honestly obtain all the fruitage for the greater life. You may fail or you may succeed, but only so long as you grant no man the authority to make you his slave may you pursue your quest for a more bountiful life.
|
Edited by - Manuel on 17 Dec 2005 12:10:54 |
|
|
|
Jay Scott
Advanced Member
uSA
181 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 13:50:07
|
Maybe the ALLCAPS NAME (or any variation appearing on a public document) is not your name. What evidence do you have that it's your name? Idem sonans?
If people call me McDonald, do I own all the restaurants with that name on it? Of course not. Just because there's a paper called "Birth Certificate" with what sounds like what people call me, what makes that my name? And if it's not my name, what's the problem?
The NAME GAME Explained (download RTF, link found on this page).
I don't know. Food for thought.
Be blessed.
Jay Scott. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Changing Christians into LEGAL FICTIONS
