TRUTH ON TRIAL PART 7 THE YAH

[unknown]

KJV Micah 5:2 .... yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose "goings forth" have been from of "old", from "everlasting." The word
used here for "going forth" actually means, family descent. H4163 "Going forth" is
the root word of the word "family descent." "Old" is the front part or fore part.
H6924. Everlasting is "owlem" H5769. The vanishing point. There are two vanishing
points, or time out of mind. One before Adam, at the first or fore part, the other is
at the end. You have no knowledge previous to Adam, and you have no knowledge after
the end. The last part of this verse said his family descent was from the first part
in the day of the vanishing point. Basically saying, Jesus was a descendant of Adam.
This verse was "twisted" to make it look like Jesus pre-existed. This was not a glitch
or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate falsification of the text.

The doctrine of the logos was first applied to Zeus the head God of the Pantheon. This
was about two hundred years before Jesus. It was said that Origen ( about 250 CE.) was
the one that applied this doctrine to Jesus. Sometime between 250 and 325 CE the logos
doctrine was added as a prologue to John. The Catholics accused the heretics of
editing the books of the bible. So when it came time for them to edit, it was their
choice as to what would be written and what was scraped. Once the bible was edited and
given to Constantine. He declared it the word of God. To call anything in the bible a
lie, would be calling Constantine a liar. The biblical text brought forth in 325 CE.
is affirmed by a murderer.

Things were "edited in" trying to disprove the coming of Jesus in the flesh. As was
the doctrine of some in those days. This doctrine was not approved by the catholic
church. The "blood of the lamb" proves this catholic doctrine wrong. Their dogma
stated that Jesus was born of the spirit from Mary. 1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the
Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus the Christ is come in the flesh
is of God: The first two chapters of Matthew are verses the tares picked out, and made
Jesus fulfill them. If you have knowledge that Jesus was one chosen from among the
people. Then you know his early life would not have been written about, by anyone that
knew him. This happened before he was chosen.

God sent his message to earth. He gave these people on earth his word. Part of this
word was the promise of a messiah. Then God turned to those that have the ruling power
in heaven and said. I told these people that this is going to happen. It's up to you
to make it happen within this certain time frame. Jesus was only a part of the word
of God. The word of God pre-existed THE LAMB. There are many messages to others, other
than Jesus. God gave his word. No one else can take responsibility for what God said.

It is the catholic church that holds it's people in bondage with lies and deceit. The
waters of Egypt and the waters of the catholic church are the same. They are brackish
waters. Sea water mixed with fresh. Not fit to drink. God has a few people in the
catholic church. But there are none in the hierarchy. Because they deliberately lie to
everyone. Jesus was the light of the world. When he was removed, darkness came. This
is when the enemy (Satan) planted the tares. Mat 13:30. Let both grow together until
the harvest: The only church that has an unbroken succession to the beginning, is the
catholic church. They are still here, at the time of harvest. If you know that they
are false grain, then you should also know to reject anything produced by them.


John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I
am. "I am" is the catholic interpretation. I have yet to see these tares do anything
right. John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing. So four
verses later, many claim that Jesus honors himself by saying he was the God, I am. It
would be out of character for Jesus to make such a statement, and against his own
teaching. John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: When the
accusers delivered him up they stated that he said he was "the son" of God. They did
not accuse him of saying he was God. Mat 27:43. According to Mat. 13:14 Jesus only
spoke in parables to the crowds. See also Mark 4:11.and Luke 8:10. There is no parable
in John 8:58

Every letter in the Hebrew script has a meaning. In the early Archaic Paleo script
they used pictographs. The first letter "Aleph" is a consonant and is translated in
the Aramaic script as an "A" or an "E." Not so with the Paleo script. In the Archaic
Paleo Hebrew it is represented by an ox head which meant, strength, mighty, or
powerful. Exo 3:14. And God said unto Moses, eHYeH asher eHYeH. This verse would
have predated the Aramaic script. This name would have been known to Jesus. Asher
means "that's" or "that is" or "who is". The Aramaic script and the Paleo script had
no capital letters. The Archaic Paleo script had no vowels and did not use consonants
to imply vowels, like the later Aramaic does. An "Aleph" in front of a name of a God
is used to show strength and power. An"Aleph" is used in abbreviated or foreign and
other names of God. eL, eLoHiYM and so forth

The second letter in the word "eHYaH" is "H" This letter is used as the definite
article "THE". Vowels were not placed in words until about the sixth or seventh
century CE. There was some vowel usage previous to this, but there was no complete
system. There is "Aleph" and THE. " eH". Y and H is not hard to figure out. YaH. The
word spoken to Moses was, THE YaH who is THE YaH. The same name used in Psalms and
Isaiah. "THE" being part of the title. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, THE YaH hath sent me unto you. A same use of "H" for "THE" is found in Job 1:7
where Satan is called "THE SATAN". Also "THE 'eL" of Gen.31:13.

John 8:58. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was (born), THE YaH. This
verse IS NOT Jesus saying he was "THE YaH". God was known as YaHWeH. The short version
of YHWH was a title "THE YaH". Psa 102:18 This shall be written for the generation to
come: ( NOW) and the people which shall be created shall praise the "YaH". The "W"
according to some is also translated as "V" if found in the middle of a word.. Which
would be "YHVH". The name YHWH is the name of the supreme God. The God above all other
Gods. The vowels added here are for reference only. This does not make them exact. In
Israel today some have a necklace or bracelet with an H and a Y on it. Representing
THE and Y or YaH. The unmentionable name. There never was a God called, I am. Trust
no man with your eternal life. And they shall be ALL taught of God. John 6:45. Not by
might, nor by power, but by my spirit. The spirit of truth. Jesus did not pre-exist.
THE FIRST WITNESS

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by unknown
KJV Micah 5:2 .... yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that
is to be ruler in Israel; whose "goings forth" have been from of
"old", from "everlasting." The word used here for "going forth"
actually means, family descent. H4163 "Going forth" is the root word
of the word "family descent." "Old" is the front part or fore part.
H6924. Everlasting is "owlem" H5769. The vanishing point. There are
two vanishing points, or time out of mind. One before Adam, at the
first or fore part, the other is at the end. You have no knowledge
previous to Adam, and you have no knowledge after the end. The last
part of this verse said his family descent was from the first part in
the day of the vanishing point. Basically saying, Jesus was a
descendant of Adam. This verse was "twisted" to make it look like
Jesus pre-existed.

No, it was not. Nobody has ever used Micah 5:2 to refer to His eternal
existence.

Post by unknown
This was not a glitch or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate
falsification of the text.

The only 'falsification' I see here is the falsification of your
"straw-man" arguments.

Post by unknown
The doctrine of the logos was first applied to Zeus the head God of
the Pantheon.

No, it was not. Where did you get this tidbit of misinformation?

Post by unknown
This was about two hundred years before Jesus. It was
said that Origen ( about 250 CE.) was the one that applied this
doctrine to Jesus.

He was not the first. The author of John 1:1 was.

Post by unknown
Sometime between 250 and 325 CE the logos doctrine was added as a
prologue to John.

Again, where did you get this tidbit of misinformation?

Post by unknown
The Catholics accused the heretics of editing the books of the
bible. So when it came time for them to edit, it was their choice as
to what would be written and what was scraped. Once the bible was
edited and given to Constantine. He declared it the word of God.

And yet again: where did you get this tidbit of misinformation? By
Constantine's time, the text had already stabilized into the major
text-types we know today, the Syro-Byzantine, 'Western' and
Alexandrian.

Post by unknown
To call anything in the bible a lie, would be calling Constantine a
liar.

More totally unhistorical nonsense. Constantine never certified the
contents of the Bible. That he did is a MYTH.

The biblical text brought forth in 325 CE. is affirmed by a

Post by unknown
murderer.

Just yet more nonsense.

[snip]

Post by unknown
John 8:58. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was (born),
THE YaH.

What nonsense is this? This NG is infamous for 'straw-man arguments",
but this has got to be one of the most peculiar of them. Nobody with a
clue ever claimed Jn 8:58 read "Verily... THE YaH". By no means!

Rather, the claim has always been that it reads:

AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI

OR:

Amen, amen, I say to you [pl]: before Abraham was I am.

This is an _allusion_ to the divine name, not the divine name itself
(which would be O WN as in Ex 3:14lxx). But it _was_ taken as an
allusion, and even an offensive one, which is why they _immediately_
picked up stones to stone Him (Jn 8:59).

Post by unknown
This verse IS NOT Jesus saying he was "THE YaH". God was
known as YaHWeH. The short version of YHWH was a title "THE YaH". Psa
102:18 This shall be written for the generation to come: ( NOW) and
the people which shall be created shall praise the "YaH". The "W"
according to some is also translated as "V" if found in the middle of
a word.. Which would be "YHVH". The name YHWH is the name of the
supreme God. The God above all other Gods. The vowels added here are
for reference only. This does not make them exact. In Israel today
some have a necklace or bracelet with an H and a Y on
it. Representing THE and Y or YaH. The unmentionable name.

But this is all _completely_ irrelevant, as explained above.

[snip]

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by unknown
KJV Micah 5:2 .... yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose "goings forth" have been from of "old", from "everlasting." The word
used here for "going forth" actually means, family descent. H4163 "Going forth" is
the root word of the word "family descent." "Old" is the front part or fore part.
H6924. Everlasting is "owlem" H5769. The vanishing point. There are two vanishing
points, or time out of mind. One before Adam, at the first or fore part, the other is
at the end. You have no knowledge previous to Adam, and you have no knowledge after
the end. The last part of this verse said his family descent was from the first part
in the day of the vanishing point. Basically saying, Jesus was a descendant of Adam.
This verse was "twisted" to make it look like Jesus pre-existed. This was not a glitch
or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate falsification of the text.

Not quite...
Mimkha li yetze lihyot moshel beyisrael
Umotza'othav miqedem, miyemey olam
This is my Hebrew transliteration...

The 1999 JPS [Jewish Publication Society] translation calls it this

Post by unknown
From you one shall come forth to rule Israel for me

One whose origin is from of old, from ancient times

The verb yatza means to go out/emerge from... it is an extremely common
verb in Hebrew; kshechayyim yatza bebeto... when Hayyim left his house....
It doesn't actually mean family descent, though it can be used like
that in the sense of something being taken out...
This is a very common mistake of those that don't know Hebrew... But the
language is highly contextual with a fairly limited biblical
vocabulary being used to articulate lots of meanings. In other words,
the words don't have just one meaning. That doesn't mean you can make
them mean whatever you want, but you need to consider them in their
contexts linguistically. There is simply no way one can impose this to
mean only family descent.

Likewise qedem... it can mean front, but in the sense of before. It is
before things, therefore in front. But it can also, referring to time,
mean a time before

Second, I might propose that you would consider a VERY common Hebrew
poetic device: parallelism, whereby 2 lines are used to say the same
thing in a slightly different way.
While olam can certainly mean everlasting, it's not safe to apply it
to only the future. It is used lots of times speaking obviously of the
ancient:
Amos 9:11 "I will build it [the fallen booth of David] firm as in the
days of old [yemey olam]"
Malachi 3:4 "Then the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be
pleasing to the Lord as in the days of yore [yemey olam], and in the
years of old."
The context of those verses tells us that olam cannot be a future
everlasting, but a "time long past"

The dual phrasing in the last verse: "as in the days of yore and in
the years of old" brings me to another point-
I think the author here is using the common Hebrew parallelism to
reinforce what he has already said:
Whose origin is from of old
....................from ancient times

Notice that both phrases use the preposition mi... from
... its not "from x to y" as you have translated it, but parallel
phrases to reinforce from ancient.

I'll also note that all my translations are from the JPS... where there
would be no bias to twist the scriptures and accommodate a messianic
attribution to Jesus. Sorry, but your translation or understanding of
it simply isn't the way the Hebrew is understood. This is not a glitch
or a falsification, it is the way the Hebrew reads. Even the JPS
translates it in line with the KJV.

Post by unknown
Every letter in the Hebrew script has a meaning. In the early Archaic Paleo script
they used pictographs. The first letter "Aleph" is a consonant and is translated in
the Aramaic script as an "A" or an "E." Not so with the Paleo script. In the Archaic
Paleo Hebrew it is represented by an ox head which meant, strength, mighty, or
powerful. Exo 3:14. And God said unto Moses, eHYeH asher eHYeH. This verse would
have predated the Aramaic script. This name would have been known to Jesus. Asher
means "that's" or "that is" or "who is".

This does not exclude the script being used primarily as letters, even
if the letters had a simultaneous pictographic reference.

Post by unknown
The Archaic Paleo script had no vowels and did not use consonants
to imply vowels, like the later Aramaic does.

Really?????
Try applying that little rule to all the other words that start with
Aleph or Ayin.. or yod, vav and het for that matter since those are
regularly used for vowels too.
In fact, let's apply your rule to the very verse you quoted and see if
it holds up. And I'm going to be generous and keep in some of the yods
and hets even though they aren't pronounced and are used in this very
passage just like you say shouldn't happen.

VaYoMeR eLoHiM eL-MoSHe eHYeH aSHeR eHYeH, VaYoMeR KoH ToMaR eL BNeY
yiSRaeL - eHYeH SHeLaCHNi eLeyHeM

The first word vayomer is from the Hebrew amar to say, but according
to your rule, we'd have to remove the aleph, likewise in the third
word el- which is written the same way as the word God, but context
tells us it means "to" in the sense of directed towards...
Likewise the word asher would have to drop its aleph..
Even the name Israel would need to drop both the yod at the start and
the aleph in the middle to accommodate your rule, since they are both
used as vowels.