BLUF: Words have meaning, and while that meaning can change over time, we need to take the time to understand. This means looking at words in context, at the time they were written, while still using a modern eye to examine them.

A number of years ago, I was attending a local church service, and the pastor alluded to the idea that shepherds were dirty social outcasts who everyone thought poorly of. His proof for this was that, when Samuel called David in from the sheepfold, he was filthy when he arrived, that David was, “just a shepherd.” I was a bit taken aback by this, because that’s not what history (or Biblical literature, btw) teaches us. I first learned about this from a Jewish scholar named Joel Hoffman, author of And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning. I went to a talk he was having at a local synagogue, and the history of shepherds was the first thing he talked about.

Shepherds were tasked with protecting their flocks of sheep, out in the wilderness at the edge of the farmland surrounding their cities and towns. So you had a social center, a city or town, and outside that was farmland, and outside that was grazing for the sheep. Out there, shepherds had to contend with wolves, panthers, hyenas, feral pigs, foxes, jackals, and lions. Today, when we face up to those kinds of odds, we go armed with an AR-15 or other firearm. They had, and I kid you not, a stick (shepherd’s staff) and a sling with whatever rocks they could find (and the shepherd’s staff became the king’s scepter, and the rocks became the orb, later in history). That was it. Shepherds were, to say the least, bad ass.

In Biblical times, shepherds were seen as a form of superhero. They were the combat veterans, the first line of defense in case of an attack (by animal or human enemy). They had to defend their sheep with their lives, because those sheep were literally their livelihood. They were, indeed, dirty fellows because they lived out in the fields with greasy and filthy sheep. They slept in the open. They didn’t bathe often. So yes, when Samuel called David in to proclaim him the new leader of Israel, he was probably stinky and dirty. When the High Priest of your people summons you, you don’t stop long enough to grab a shower and a change of clothes; you hightail it to his presence, at all speed. No one thought David was stupid or idiotic. He was just young, the youngest of all his brothers, with a lot less life experience.

The implication by the pastor above was that David was amazing because he had JUST been a shepherd and now he was King, and therefore anyone could become king. This extremely subtle twist on the meaning of the word “shepherd” (from the modern perspective) changed the story dramatically. Originally, we had a young but capable and trustworthy person from a good family, working at a hard job that was dangerous and probably terrifying at times. That young man, devout and well brought up despite the dirt on him, was chosen to be King. There are lots of reasons to choose him as king, as evidenced in the rest of that particular chapter of the Old Testament. The pastor’s twist on the meaning of the word shepherd changed the story. In the new version, we have a boy (not a young man) who is dragged away from a job that is implied to be less challenging than burger flipping, utterly unprepared and thrust into the presence of a high official. He’s then told he’s going to become king.

In the original story, David’s protestations are because he has older brothers, likely more experienced and certainly with more rank than he had, as the youngest son. It had nothing to do with his abilities. In the pastor’s version, David’s just a nobody, a dirty person who sits and watches peaceful fluffy animals all day, suddenly catapulted into stardom. Look, anyone can lift themselves up with the help of God!

Those subtle changes in understanding can cause real problems. This might look like something minor, but when you observe how words have been twisted over the centuries, you can see how one small tweak becomes a minor misunderstanding, and that morphs into an error, which ends up being just plain wrong.

Words have meanings, but those meanings sometimes get lost over time. “Union,” for instance, was once a word that was synonymous with helping workers get necessary gains, such as weekends, no child labor, limits to the number of hours one might be forced to work in a row, and mandatory fire exits. It embraced the idea of “coming together” and “working together.” Today, it’s almost a swear word on the right, and on the left it’s more of a praise word, devoid of any actual meaning. All because the word stuck, but the subject changed.

Worse yet, sometimes words are forced into new meanings. Look at the mess today over the word “woman” or the over-use of the prefix “cis.” People are banging square words into round holes, and consequences be damned. It’s a big problem, because many of us are still using the words in their original meaning, while young people are changing those meanings and pulling the proverbial rug out from under us. Word meanings can organically shift, but this artificial forcing causes havoc.

There are other words that we debate. “We the People,” is one such phrase. Who are “we the people,” anyhow? Some people say that “we the people” are the citizens of America, but I beg to differ. These words first appear in the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. At the time the Preamble was written, the United States were a thought, a hope, a prayer, and perhaps a paper declaration. They were not a reality, however. But the Preamble points to the power of this country: we the people. Not we, the government of these United States. Not we, the representatives of the thirteen states. We the people. Since at that time, those people were still legally citizens of the British Empire, it could not mean legal citizens of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence states, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In growing as a people and as a country, we’ve expanded our understanding of these words. We know that “men” refers to both women and men. We know that “men” doesn’t exclude someone based on the color of their skin, or their religion or lack thereof. These understandings have happened organically, over time, as we’ve become better and more understanding people. I believe, very strongly, that it’s what the Founders intended.

who prefers most things to be organic

Spread the love

By hagar

14 thoughts on “Words Have Meaning”
  1. the world has been severely polluted with political correctness.. many twist words to suit thier personal agenda.The constant dividing pushed by the ignorant is a Yuge factor. the “elite” want to remain elite and belittle those they deem beneath them.
    some religious leaders suffer from personal agendas and use the words to enable thier personal agenda. We the People are smarter than they think we are.

  2. minor nitpick, When the Preamble to the Constitution was written, the nation was under the articles of the confederacy, not British rule, thus the phrase “in order to form a more perfect union”; they were looking to fix the issues that were becoming evident with the Confederate States of America. However, you are correct that those people were not citizens of the United States of America, as that legal governmental entity had not yet been established.

  3. I’ve had my own exposure to Bible translation and how the original meaning of the original language can be obscured. That can be simply because a distinction the original language can express isn’t found in the translation’s language.
    Case in point, a plot element I helped Rolf Nelson with for his novel “Heretics of St. Possenti”. It’s about “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”. That has, at times, been used as support for the notion that Jesus opposed armed self defense. And in English perhaps you could make that claim (though the particular translation I quoted doesn’t really do so). But the original Greek makes a grammatical distinction between “you do x all the time” and “you did x (perhaps only once)”. And the statement about the sword uses the former and not the latter syntax.
    Another example I read about some time ago (but can’t verify myself because I don’t know Hebrew): the Commandment “thou shalt not kill” is not a correct translation; the correct translation is “thou shalt not murder”. Needless to say, there’s a world of difference between those two renderings.

    1. RE: Bible translations – I’ve read the same about the “thou shalt not kill” vs. “thou shalt not murder”. In context, the Law is multiple books in the Old Testament. Contextually, the Commandment cannot simply be “thou shalt not kill”, because further on there are dozens of laws for which the prescribed penalty for violations is to be put to death! How does that reconcile with “thou shalt not kill”?
      Plus, the book of Joshua is a book of military conquest. Whole nations were killed in the battles and raids. And it was all sanctioned — nay, commanded — by the Lord through His angels. Again, how does that reconcile with “thou shalt not kill”?
      If the Commandment is more correctly translated as “thou shalt not murder” — IOW, you shall not kill unlawfully — then the execution of criminals and slayings in battle are legal killings, not murders.

      1. Another example is, if I understand right, from the Talmud — the Jewish commentaries on the Bible. I think I saved this quote from one of the writings of Dovid Bendory, spiritual advisor of the JPFO.
        “If he come to slay thee, forestall by slaying him.” — Sanhedrin, folio 72a.

  4. Re Sheppard, there is also the obvious symbolism of the Sheppard cares for the flock as the king cares for his people.
    Re words and changing meaning, south park explained how it works best IMO in the “F-Word” episode.

  5. When reading a writing from history, one must get out of their reader’s chair and do the research necessary to sit in the writer’s chair. It is not just a matter of grammatical context, but also of the character, societal, and religious elements of the environment in which the writer’s chair existed.
    For instance, fair and commonsense points are made concerning the OT character David in the days of his youth in the profession of a shepherd. A Jewish Shepherd had to be trained in all things sheep, which first and foremost was manage their feeding progress–not allow them to eat the grass to the sweet roots where parasites existed, and to counter the tactics of predators, which was derived from “Dress and Keep” both words taken from the farming and military realm in the days of Moses who wrote Genesis under the command of Jehovah.
    The third and what most Jews would emphasize as most important, was that sheep were needed for temple practices in the worship of Jehovah God. The best of the best had to be cared for in strict disciplines for Passover. Specifically, the Spring Lambs had to be preserved perfectly for this most holy day.
    Therefore, when having been commissioned to appear before Samuel, he did what he was most familiar with already, he purified himself through the requirements of the law and prepared himself spiritually and physically to be perfectly clean for his summons before the High Priest. This process was achieved in the morning and in the evening. he was travelling to Samuel, ready to offer the respect due the High Priest.
    To understand a Jew, one must become a Jew, and for a gentile in American in 2024, this is not quickly achieved–it took David less than a half day to become prepared, but it would far more time for a person today to become “prepared’ to understand the exact meaning of the OT text. And without doubt, knowing the language of the time of the writing and the cultural and religious customs is essential to arriving at the writer’s intentions for the reader at any time in human history to understand.
    Moving on to the founding documents, “We the People”, when it was written meant, all people who defied British rule and endeavored to be a part of the foundation of a new nation under God. And it was penned within the context of the various formations of people, both in social, ethical, and spiritual realms shared by those in agreement, unified under a common existence–the many birthing’s of a people’s new nation. Each geographical area proclaimed they were “The People” included within “We”—My Scottish American Clans raised an American Flag to signal solidarity, as did all the other ethnic peoples across the geographical landscape who fought everything to take up land here in this great land.
    But when we read “We the People” today we no longer have that same writer’s chair familiar to us. But the closest thought that addresses even remotely what the writer’s experienced and conveyed when they did write the founding documents, was similar to what we say today, we are Citizens of the USA. Therefore, “We the People” is synonymous to and grammatically correct with, “Citizens”.
    As to the Declaration of Independence, it strictly refers only to those “We the People” who endeavored to create a new nation because they were at the very least equal with Britian as viewed by the Creator Himself. Therefore, Britian held no power over Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, i.e. to be “We the People” and no longer subject of the crown.
    Yes, words have meanings, and the erosion of language is most volatile through the expansion and reordering of the historical meanings. For if one cannot learn from history as in the day the historical recorded was penned, he will be doomed to repeat the lessons without having access to the truth which those lessons yielded.
    In the Bible the word “Conversation” is used many times and never is it pointing to an actual event of the exchange of words verbally. Instead, it always refers to ‘One’s manner of life as others perceive it to be’, in other words there’s a sense of common accountability, willing worked at for the benefit of all around you, where you live. We refer to it as a Moral Compass a Moral Standing within the community.
    We the People is a designation signifying the identity of a person’s conversation. In the Bible the conversation pointed toward the Creator The God of Israel, in the early days of the formation of the USA “We the People” referred to the conversation of each new legal ethnic settlement across America.

  6. Great Post!
    Ah, shepherds! If you ever look at the Heliand, the Saxon-language gloss on the Bible prepared by missionaries in the 800s-900s, you will find that the angels announced the birth of Jesus in Bethlehmburg hill fort. They announce it to horse herders, who were out watching the horses by night.


    Because in the Saxon society of the time, slaves watched the sheep. The sons of nobles took care of the horses. A king’s birth would never, ever have been told to slaves first, but to the people who mattered and who would later form part of his war band. (Yes, Jesus has a war band in the Heliand. Because he was a king, and kings have war bands.)

    Cultural differences matter. The trouble is when modern people try to impose what they think culture should be on other times, places, and words. From “all men” to “all men and women” to “all people” to “all creatures” (because non-human animals are people too!) to “all presences” (because rivers are beings and should have legal standing along with the fish and critters in the water.)*

    *I kid you not. Look at some of the law suits recently about the legal rights of fish in rivers and their priority in water-rights cases.

    1. Re “all men” to “all men and women” — the reason I object to that sort of language-mangling is that it’s unnecessary. In English as in many other languages it has always been the case that the masculine words are used in two ways: (1) when speaking of a subject known to be male, (2) when speaking generally, with the gender either not known or not significant. The people inflicting “they” as a singular pronoun on us are deliberately ignoring (2) and mangling syntax to fit their misunderstanding (or misrepresentation).
      Come to think of it, some time ago AOC claimed that a certain Constitutional limitation didn’t apply to women because it spoke of “man”. That was of course a lie. It didn’t help that the actual text uses the word “person”. 🙂

      1. Paul said: “The people inflicting “they” as a singular pronoun on us are deliberately ignoring (2) and mangling syntax to fit their misunderstanding (or misrepresentation).”
        Well… yes and no. From a *strictly* grammatical standpoint, the use of the word “they” really isn’t wrong. There are many instances where we instinctively use “they” because “he” would be misconstrued. As an example, I used this one the other day: “The mail came. They dropped it off on the porch.” The term “they” was used in reference to whomever dropped off the mail, not the mail service as a whole. English speakers do this unconsciously quite a bit. The word “they” comes down to us from the Scandinavians, I believe, with one of the earliest references to it in the 1200s or thereabout. The definition at that time was “the last person or thing being talked about.”
        All that said, the use of the word “they” is very itchy in my brain. I dislike it. I use it because if someone can go to the trouble of using my middle name instead of my first (as I do in the real world), then I can do my best to remember to call them “they”. (Note, “them” there… because the subject wasn’t defined as male or female, and could have been one, the other, or both, “they” and “them” are grammatically correct.)
        To step back to the subject above, however, to the Framers the word “man” was often inclusive to women… but not always. Otherwise, women would have voted from day one, and we did not. We were excluded, and one (though not necessarily the only) reason was because of that pesky word: man. I understand that, when I read the Preamble, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, that all of those words apply equally to men and to women, to black and to white, to gay, straight, and everything else. At the time it was written, it meant “people” rather than specifically “human beings with outward plumbing.” That’s obvious not only in the texts mentioned, but in other writings by the Framers, at and around the time.

  7. Words no longer have prescribed meanings. Now they mean whatever is politically expedient and useful.
    And whoever controls those ever shifting meanings also controls society.

  8. An attempt to refute the Xtian bible abomination

    Profile photo for Mark Japan



    Moshe Kerr: Mark your pie in the sky noise new testament, it fails to prove a mitzva from the Torah – specifically the mitzva of Moshiach. Torah common law stands upon Torah precedents. The counterfeit Roman gospels did not discern the fundamental differences which separate Common Law, in Hebrew: משנה תורה, from Statute Law, the legal system practiced by Ceasar and the Roman Senate.

    The agent Provocateur, commonly known by his alias – apostle Paul, failed throughout his multiple letters to differentiate between T’NaCH/Talmudic Common Law from Roman Statute Law. Some 2000+ years after the fact, no Xtian “scholar” (Try not to laugh, made a funny on that term vis a vis Xtianity.), has to date ever made this fundamental legal distinction. In Hebrew the key term which defines shabbat observance הבדלה.

    The logical language employed throughout the Talmudic 20 volumes of Common law, known as “inferences”/דיוקים. Oral Torah logic, (A concept which the Church has denied for 2000+ years. This denial equally matched by the Jewish denial of the false messiah Roman counterfeit – JeZeus – as Moshiach.), as a basic minimum requires making logical inferences upon Talmumic halachic rulings. In his commentary to the Chumash (5 Books of the Written Torah. Chamesh translated as 5.), the RambaN described throughout kabbalah as making logical inferences mystically referred to as “Black Fire on White Fire”.

    The art of Chinese silk screen wisdom, takes the negative of a photograph to separate shades of colors easily distinguished in the black & white negative, to make multi-color images imprinted upon canvasses. This wisdom, prior to development of photo-copy technology, T-shirt companies often employed, to imprint colored photographs upon T-shirts.

    Because the Church during the tyranny of Constantine banned the ancient Greek writings which predated Xtianity by multiple Centuries, approximately the same year which Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina sealed the Talmud Bavli, based upon the precedent that Rabbi Yechuda sealed the Mishna in 210ce, based upon an even earlier precedent, that the Men of the Great Assembly – lead by Ezra – sealed the T’NaCH. Shortly after Cyrus the Great permitted Jewish refugee populations permission to leave Babylonian captivity and return & re-establish the 2nd Jewish Republic of Judea.

    The leaders of Xtianity have denied the validity that the Talmud qualifies as a codification of the Oral Torah, based upon the argument that the Talmud rabbinic sages codified in about 450ce. Hence by their flawed reasoning, impossible that the revelation of the Oral Torah occurred at Sinai. The Talmud codified multiple Centuries AFTER the T’NaCH the sages sealed the T’NaCH. But their reasoning, only a one hand clapping propaganda. Because their so called new testament which their corrupt bible translations attempt to shatter the sealed T’NaCH, with their old and new testament, coupled with their perversion of Jewish common law which fails to separate it from Roman statute law.

    Rabbi Yechuda who codified the Mishna common law (Case/Rule legal system of the common law Sanhedrin courtroom rulings), based his “Mishna” upon the 5th Book of the Torah which goes by the name משנה תורה, transliterated as Mishna Torah. This closing Book of the Torah stands unique in its repetition of contents clearly stated within the other 4 Books of the Written Torah.

    Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna makes a Case/Rule Organization study of lateral Sanhedrin common law legal rulings, based upon how the משנה תורה makes a measure for measure – translated from the Hebrew מידה כנגד מידה – comparison of sugya “precedents” – in Hebrew בנין אב; the transliteration of סוגיא as sugya understood as: sub-chapters.

    How editors edit books significantly determines what the books they edit communicate. The 6 “Orders” of the Mishna for example. The Mishna, like the Torah – both highly polished and edited. For example: The Talmud seems to contradict the language of the Chumash in the matter of the so-called 10 Commandments. It “edits” out the so-called Ten Commandments!

    Just as Moshe commanded Israel not to collect the manna on shabbat so too Moshe commanded Israel not to approach their wives, no less than 3 days before the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. In both this and that case analysis, Israel rebelled and did whatever they thought benefitted them the most at that time. This happened 10 times. The last being the revolt lead by the spies sent to Canaan, to enter and conquer the oath sworn lands.

    The new testament counterfeit abomination perverts the Order of Sugyot in the Chumash unto Chapters and Verses. Something like changing the order of the letters GOD to DOG. This church editing of their bibles perverted the T’NaCH on the order of homosexual relationships contrasted by marriage, based upon the first Torah commandment in the Book of בראשית, the commandment to have children “fruitful and multiply”. Homosexual perverts cannot produce children.

    The church editing of chapters and verses uprooted the Torah Order of פ and ס which define the structured Order of the Torah; together with the clearly defined and distinguished separation of sugyot in the NaCH, again replaced with Chapters and verses. This church editing of the T’NaCH, it compares to a man raping a woman! On par with the attempt to equivalize the Old Testament subsumed by the authority of the New Testament. Churl church “Replacement Theology” likewise minimizes the Old Testament and makes Xtians into the “New Israel”.

    These types of distinctions, subtle to the untrained eye. But as the saying goes: “The Devil’s in the details”. The language repeatedly asked throughout the 20 volumes of Talmudic common law: מאי נפקא מינא? Which asks: “what’s the difference between two similar Cases. Frequently the language of the Mishna brings two different Cases in one Mishnaic ruling. The Gemara asks: מאי נפקא מינא between the first and second Case? Talmud instructs its students how to perceive subtle distinctions as expressed through legal languages.

    The Gemara, written and codified by later Amoraim scholars, learns the earlier Sanhedrin common law rulings as codified in the language employed by Mishnaot (it makes a legal codification of earlier Tannaim scholars). The Oral Torah logic of common law stands upon comparing & discerning similar Cases, one from others. Hence the Mishnaot often compare two similar Cases contained in one Mishna in order to train expert legal eyes.

    In like and similar fashion, the Torah likewise edited. The classic example being the so-called repetition of the 10 Commandments located in the Books of שמות ודברים (Exodus and Deuteronomy in English translations). Tohor and Tuma the root foundation upon which stands all avodat HaShem within the T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Based upon the Torah commandment: Justice Justice pursue.

    The precedent/בנין אב for this commandment located in the 5th Book of דברים, learns from the precedent: the oppression exercised by the Courts of Par’o. When that king withheld straw, yet ordered the overseers to continue to brutally beat the Hebrew slaves, despite withholding the necessary straw required to make the imposed quota of bricks. Guilty for their refusal to meet their required quota of bricks.

    A second precedent, Yitro – Moshe’s father-in-law saw that he sat alone to adjudicate court judicial rulings – he then rebuked Moshe telling him that he could not do Judicial justice by himself alone. Hence Moshe established the lateral common law Sanhedrin court system as recorded in the Written Torah. The 5th Book of the Torah commands the pursuit of judicial justice (Fair compensation of damages inflicted by an Israel upon another Israel – a eye for an eye Torah judicial metaphor.), Justice Justice pursue, teaches and defines the “Faith” of keeping and obeying the Torah.

    The tumah new testament concept of “Faith”, Day & Night contrast from the Torah obligation to pursue judicial courtroom justice. Avoda zarah, understood as “strange worship”, as defined by its efforts to dictate what a person MUST believe in this or that or some other Gods. Torah common law rejects this speculation theology on the nature of the Gods. Torah faith as a practical eye. Judicial justice imposed upon Israel by courtroom justices! The false notion: Word of God vs Word of Man, defines Xtian abomination-theology.

    This Av tumah abomination, false narrative box-thinking, the Torah compares it to the case of a Judge accepting a bribe. A judge who tries a Case before his court, holding a prejudice of personal beliefs on the matter, directly resembles the corruption of a judge accepting a bribe.

    The Catholic courts of Inquisition, or the British vertical Star courts which justified British naval impressment of American sailors on the High Seas, serves as prime examples of this gross vertical judicial corruption, where the State pays the salaries of the judges and prosecuting attorneys. Comparable to Par’o ordering the beatings of Hebrew slaves for their failure to meet a statute law government decree quota of brick production by despised slaves.

    Returning to the so-called imaginary biblical 10 Commandments, which compares to the similar case of an imaginary Harry Potter false messiah: The Talmud teaches that following the revelation of the 2nd Sinai commandment that all Israel, because they rebelled and approached their wives, feared death if they heard another commandment from HaShem at Sinai. They therefore demanded that Moshe rise up and accept the rest of the Torah. After 40 Days, Israel made the “Sin of the Golden Calf” metaphor; the Torah speaks in the language of Man. Never existed not 10 commandments nor the false messiah of JeZeus.

    This 2nd Commandment – avoda zarah – likewise not actually a literal “Golden Calf” commandment. The דיוק language employed throughout the Torah, known as משל\נמשל or Dream & interpretation of that said Dream. The story of Yosef and his brothers, and Yosef before Par’o. The Book of Daniel where that mystic interpreted the meaning of the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s, dream.

    The Torah defines: avoda zarah, differently than does the Xtian perverted abomination. Avoda zarah understood as Israelite assimilation to the cultures and customs & practices of foreign nations, combined with inter-marriage with these alien people who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The mitzva to remember Amalek, serves as a precedent for avoda zarah. For example, never once in either the noise new-testament or the fart koran, the Name revealed in the First Sinai commandment. Translating רוח הקודש, as “Divine Presence Spirit-Name”. Stands separate and totally apart from the Nicene Creed statute law decree of 325 ce. Which made the “Holy Spirit” by means of block-headed dogmatism, part of the Triune Trinity God mystery, statute law decree imposed by the Church upon pain of death.

    Translating this Divine Spirit Name to words, this error defines the avoda zarah of both the noise new-testament and the fart koran avoda zarah abominations. The 30 years war fought during the European Reformation period resulted in the deaths which compares to the casualty figures of WWI when Western Europe’s population existed about 1/3rd the number of Europeans living during WWI! Both Protestant and Catholic ignoramuses mistranslated avoda zarah as “idolatry”. Millions slaughtered over the “idolatry” of the image of a man hanging from a Roman torture tree!

    By their fruits you shall know them, this new-testament declaration sums up Xtian barbarity which culminated in the Shoah. The systematic murder of 75% of European Jewry in less than three years in the 20th Century.

    The Torah has a Father/offspring relationship which describes the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The noise new-testament abomination of avoda zarah perverted this into a Father/Son belief system of God. The gulf of separation between the two completely different concepts of faith, simply mind boggling.

    The first Book of the Torah בראשית, tells the stories of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov together with the stories of their children. Hence it introduces the Father/offspring relationship which defines the whole of the Torah revelation at Sinai, as expressed through tohor time oriented-commandments. This Torah revelation all generations of Goyim have forever never known and rejected. The tumah hypocrisy of their missionizing to others, demanding that they believe “the Good News”, equal to the perversion of Joseph Goebbels Nazi propaganda.

    Torah common law time-oriented – Father/offspring relationship – centers around tohor time-oriented commandments ie Father; to positive & negative commandments ie offspring! The Talmud teaches that Israel only received the first two Commandments before their dread of death caused them to compel Moshe to receive the rest of the Torah commandments. The 10 commandments teach mussar not history. The Torah commands Israel to remember the plagues that culminated in Freedom. The new testament & koran abominations both teach revisionist history not prophetic mussar.

    Not till after the so-called Sin of the Golden Calf, did Moshe come down from the Mount and teach the rest of the Torah to Israel. Hence in like manner the opening first two Sinai commandments qualify as the Father commandments. While all the rest of the commandments which Moshe revealed to Israel AFTER the so-called sin of the Golden Calf, exist as offspring Torah commandments.

    How many of these “offspring” Torah commandments apply to the generations of Israel throughout the Ages? The Torah of בראשית commands the Father commandments, known as tohor time-oriented commandments. Fruitful and multiply, circumcision, removal of the sciatic nerve – examples of time-oriented commandments, dedicated during a life/death threat crisis. The sons of Yaacov slaughtered the village of Sh’Cem on the 3rd day following their circumcision.

    Post Shoah Europe compares to Avimelech king of Gerar – Europe has a negative population growth rate that has reached crisis proportions. The same with the ‘one child policy’ statute law decree by Mao. Circumcision fundamentally culturally separates Jewish identity from Goyim. Jews continually tempted to assimilate to the culture and customs practiced by these talking serpents. Jews a very tiny metaphor drop of water, in the much larger Goyim populations barrel of water. Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim, it defines the tumah Torah 2nd commandment, known as avoda zarah. The NaCH story of king Shlomo marrying foreign wives serves as a בנין אב precedent.

    Removal of the sciatic nerve remembers the burnt toast crisis which confronted Yaacov when he greeted his brother Esau. The Targum Uziel (the top student of Hillel the Elder) teaches that Esau greeted Yaacov with an Army having 400 Officers! This life/death crisis compares to the Akedah of Yitzak bound to the altar by Avraham!

    All three commandment cases define “time oriented-father-commandments. This father commandment requires k’vanna. The offspring commandments located in the next 3 Books of the Written Torah, they function as toldot/offspring commandments, which do not require k’vanna.

    This term כוונה/k’vanna twice introduced in the previous paragraph, means the dedication of tohor Spirit middot. The language of בראשית א:כז –

    ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו, בצלם אלהים ברא אתו: זכר ונקבה

    This verse employs the metaphor of the Creation of Man in the “image of God”. This Torah vision compares to a dream which requires its necessary interpretation. Like reading an opened letter received in the mail. Following the so-called Sin of the Golden calf “metaphor”, interpreted as translating the Spirit Divine Presence Name, to simple word translations: like Lord or Allah, Jehovah, YHVH etc. The Divine Presence Spirit Name passed before Moshe at Horev, 40 days after this Golden Calf translation/perversion: ‘ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו. Why the necessity to repeat the שם השם twice?

    The Torah commands to never say the שם השם in vain. But here, what does the repetition of the שם השם accomplish? This Torah contradiction demands an interpretation of its משל mussar rebuke. Answer: the repetition of the שם השם Spirit Divine Presence Name teaches through its repetition: “image of God” interpretation; just as the שם השם Spirits so too — the Divine attributes of mercy likewise Divine Presence Spirits! These Spirits NOT words, that silly fools can translate to other languages.

    These Divine Presence Spirits serve as the foundation upon which stands the revelation of Oral Torah logic as later explained through rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system. The lights of Hannuka reject the ancient Greek logic formats developed by Plato and Aristotle. A deep kabbalah whose explanation falls outside the scope of this introduction to father time-oriented\off spring positive and negative commandments, the latter located in the next three Books of the Written Torah.

    The last Book of the Torah sets and establishes משנה תורה common law as the basis, how to correctly learn the sealed Torah. Herein a succinct explanation of the Order of the 5 Books of the Written Torah. Just as the Torah, a common law legal system. So too and in the “image of the Torah” the Books of the NaCH prophets.

    Where does the halachot of the much later Talmudic common law fit-in, as the authoritative codification of the Oral Torah? If the offspring commandments within the 3 Books of the Written Torah, in fact exist as “offspring” to the Father time-oriented commandments of the First Book of the Torah,,, then the halachic judicial rulings within the Talmud codification of the Sanhedrin courts judicial rulings, they qualify as “offspring” commandments. If made into tohor time oriented commandments through affixing prophetic mussar as the dedicated k’vanna of these ritual halachic observances.

    The Talmud – mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama – asks the famous question: do the toldot/offspring follow after the Avot/fathers. Shabbat and damages most essentially defines the Torah concept of Justice, justice pursue. Another very deep idea which falls outside the limited scope of this introduction to the relationship between father/time-oriented & offspring/positive and negative commandments relationship the one to the other.

    The point of bringing these key Talmudic references, to emphasis the Centrality of the question which seeks to grasp the relationship “ratio” between tohor time-oriented commandments to positive and negative commandments, which alone do not require k’vanna; but affixed to prophetic mussar do require k’vanna. Prophetic mussar has the power to elevate offspring commandments to the level of Avot time-oriented commandments.

    Consider the precedent בנין אב of saying a Torah blessing as taught in the opening Talmudic mesechta of ברכות. The question which that Gemara asks: מאי נפקא מינא between Torah blessings from T’NaCH praise – like as codified in the Book of Tehillem/Psalms? Torah scholarship makes subtle distinctions between terms. For example: the Germara continuously asks: what differentiates between the two different Cases within a single common law Mishna?

    Answer: A blessing exists as an “offspring” of Torah oaths; not so — saying Tehillem praises. The Torah directly warns against swearing false oaths. The mesechta of Sanhedrin teaches through the question: what caused the floods in the days of Noach? Answer given there: false oaths! Saying a Av tumah false oath or blessing in vain – offspring – does the offspring follow after the fathers? This question, repeated over and throughout the Talmud! Talmud means: Learning.

    Moshe in the end of the 5th Book, commands life & death – therefore (a סוד reference to a sworn oath) choose Life. Notice how the Parshaot of בראשית ונח stand distinct and apart from the rest of the stories in the first Book of בראשית?

    The Creation story, accomplished through swearing a Torah oath! The Flood Destruction story, likewise achieved through swearing a Torah oath. A deep kabbala: expressed within the RambaN commentary to the Chumash: A person with fear of heaven understands. Fear of Heaven interpreted as Baal Shem Tov/Master of a good reputation. This tohor middah serves as the יסוד/foundation upon which all father time-oriented commandments stand.

    The mesechta of ברכות teaches that swearing a Torah blessing requires שם ומלכות. Translations do not define abstract terms, such as swearing Torah oaths. Covenant fails to define ברית. The first word of the Torah contains the רמז of ברית אש within its 6 letters. Hence the dedication of קרבנות/dedications holy to HaShem — does not translate as “sacrifices”. ברית defines קרבנות because both the dedication of a korban and the brit/alliance between the 12 Tribes achieved through swearing Torah oaths.

    Offering sacrifices qualifies as making a barbeque unto Heaven. The dedication of living blood משל teaches the נמשל of swearing Torah oaths through the mitzva of korbanot. Subtle distinctions that require making an essential הבדלה, necessary to keep all Torah commandments, across the board! Torah commandments continuously separate like from like. This separation defines the Torah concept of “understanding.”

    Time orientend-commandments require the k’vanna of swearing a Torah oath through שם ומלכות. The משל language of מלכות, interpreted as the dedication of the one or more of the revelation of the 13 middot Spirits: אל רחום חנון etc etc etc. Only within the borders of the oath sworn lands can a bnai brit Man do mitzvot לשמה. This Torah wisdom explains the concept of g’lut, translated as “exile”. Key Torah concepts express a depth which two-dimensional word translations fail to comprehend.

    Blessing or Curse: doing time-oriented commandments לשמה brings Life or Death unto the world in all generations. If the commandments in the other 3 Books of the Written Torah exist as toldot offspring commandments then the same applies to the halachot “commandments” contained within the Talmud! Raising a commandment to a tohor time-oriented commandment raises both commandments and Talmudic halachot to Mitzvot from the Torah! Just how to accomplish this qualifies a the kabbalah of the Torah.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.