Jeff A. Benner?
Comments
-
My mistake, in a couple of years perhaps I can check with George to see if he has changed his opinion.
As for Avenger of Blood material, you excel most that you have recognized the prophetic significance. Is it something you can elaborate on? If not I surely understand as these things take so much time to write out (at least for me) but if you are inclined, I enjoy insightful dialogue. Again, I absolutely understand if that is not your interest.
0 -
Never trust anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's
An important rule of Biblical hermeneutics: "If it's from Strong, it's probably wrong."
0 -
Never trust anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's
An important rule of Biblical hermeneutics: "If it's from Strong, it's probably wrong."
While I am late to the fray, I will say that the moment I see someone appeal to Strong’s for their original language assertions—I discard the work & remove it from my library.
Unfortunately, many ministers today *STILL* appeal to Strong’s in their pulpit preaching. Mind boggling.
0 -
I will say that the moment I see someone appeal to Strong’s for their original language assertions—I discard the work & remove it from my library.
You are obviously allowed to do whatever you wish with your stuff, but the "principle" driving your assertion is unprincipled. I find mistakes in Strong's from time to time, most being in the typo category, but some clearly in the content realm. I have also found Strong's on occasion to be one of the only resources to get it right. My take on Strong's is this...it is the most often employed resource of its kind. I am aware that fledglings and novices rely upon it more than they should, and as a result make claims based on it that they should not. However, for myself, if it presents accurate information for whatever I am attempting to "settle" and understand, I will use it. I almost never consult it alone. One of my favorite resources are the Dictionaries of Biblical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek). But I consult numerous others as I see the need. One of the main reasons I utilize Strong's is because it is immediately available in L3 as I use my NASB95, which has integrated hotlinks for all non-pedestrian words. Simply hovering the cursor over a word results in the Strong's entry for that word popping up in gloriously useful fashion with nary a click required. The usefulness of instantly knowing what the underlying OL word is can't be overstated. If I could make the links pull up the aforementioned Dictionaries, I would, but I can't. My point is, I make use of Strong's and know with the certainty afforded by years of use that George, and anyone else who likes to feign superiority at the lexicon's expense is blowing wind out of their backside. It is a legitimate resource, and it cannot be relied upon with overweening confidence any more than any other similar resource can be. Besides all that, I surmise that for about 90% of the entries it has, the content will be pretty much exactly what every other similar resource will contain. Suggesting it is worthless is absurd.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Dear David Paul
I am interested in Jeff A. Benner teachings, but I am not a scholar. So, I would like to know if you agree with the meaning of Benner about אֶחָד (one):
https://ancient-hebrew.org/definition/one.htm
He gives the meaning of the word. Then, he talks about Hebrew mind :
"In the Hebrew mind everything is, or should be, a part of a unity. There is not one tree but a tree composed of units within the unity-roots, trunk, branches and leaves. A tree is also in unity with the other trees-the forest. A son is a unit within the brotherhood and the family."
Here is a more detailed article on "one" with the grammar and verses of the Bible : https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/history-of-the-hebrew-word-for-one.htm
"As languages evolve over time certain idiosyncrasies occur within that language. Let's take an example from the English language. Nouns are made plural by adding "s" to the end of the noun. Some examples are boys, girls, trees, pots, pans and of course there are many others. But some words do not follow this rule of grammar. For instance man becomes men, mouse become mice, and deer is used for both the singular and plural. Many idiosyncrasies occur in Hebrew as well. The usual plural suffix for masculine Hebrew words is iym, which can be found in words like beniym (the plural form of ben - sons), batiym (the plural form of beyt - houses) and hariym (the plural form of har – mountains). However, the word for face is paniym (a singular noun with a plural suffix). The Hebrew for a tree is eyts, but the plural form etsiym means wood.
The word ehhad is one of the idiosyncrasies of Hebrew and apparently, the original Hebrew word for "one" was ash'tey, but at some point in history, before the Bible was written, the word ash'tey was replaced with the word ehhad, except in some cases when it is attached to the word as'rey to mean "eleven." But if ash'tey was the original word meaning "one," and the original meaning of ehhad was a "unit," which is "one" part of the whole. We can also see this through some words that are closely related to ehhad. The verb יחד (Y.HH.D, Strong's #3161) means "to unite" or "to join together." From this verb comes the noun יחד (yahhad, Strong's #3162), meaning "together," and the noun יחיד (yahhiyd, Strong's #3173), meaning "solitary.""In another article, he wrote : "A language is always closely connected to the culture of the people using that language. This is not only true for different languages, but for different cultures using the same language. We can never assume people from one culture will always understand a people from another culture in the same way." https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/culture-of-the-hebrew-language.htm That's why he does these connections.
Do you agree with all of these informations?
God bless you.
Encre & Soupirs
0 -
Dear Brock Lenox
I am interested in Jeff A. Benner teachings, but I am not a scholar. You and Paul David say that his materials are very good, but you don't agree with all. So, I would like to know if you agree with the meaning of Benner about אֶחָד (one):
https://ancient-hebrew.org/definition/one.htm
He gives the meaning of the word. Then, he talks about Hebrew mind :
"In the Hebrew mind everything is, or should be, a part of a unity. There is not one tree but a tree composed of units within the unity-roots, trunk, branches and leaves. A tree is also in unity with the other trees-the forest. A son is a unit within the brotherhood and the family."
Here is a more detailed article on "one" with the grammar and verses of the Bible : https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/history-of-the-hebrew-word-for-one.htm
"As languages evolve over time certain idiosyncrasies occur within that language. Let's take an example from the English language. Nouns are made plural by adding "s" to the end of the noun. Some examples are boys, girls, trees, pots, pans and of course there are many others. But some words do not follow this rule of grammar. For instance man becomes men, mouse become mice, and deer is used for both the singular and plural. Many idiosyncrasies occur in Hebrew as well. The usual plural suffix for masculine Hebrew words is iym, which can be found in words like beniym (the plural form of ben - sons), batiym (the plural form of beyt - houses) and hariym (the plural form of har – mountains). However, the word for face is paniym (a singular noun with a plural suffix). The Hebrew for a tree is eyts, but the plural form etsiym means wood.
The word ehhad is one of the idiosyncrasies of Hebrew and apparently, the original Hebrew word for "one" was ash'tey, but at some point in history, before the Bible was written, the word ash'tey was replaced with the word ehhad, except in some cases when it is attached to the word as'rey to mean "eleven." But if ash'tey was the original word meaning "one," and the original meaning of ehhad was a "unit," which is "one" part of the whole. We can also see this through some words that are closely related to ehhad. The verb יחד (Y.HH.D, Strong's #3161) means "to unite" or "to join together." From this verb comes the noun יחד (yahhad, Strong's #3162), meaning "together," and the noun יחיד (yahhiyd, Strong's #3173), meaning "solitary.""In another article, he wrote : "A language is always closely connected to the culture of the people using that language. This is not only true for different languages, but for different cultures using the same language. We can never assume people from one culture will always understand a people from another culture in the same way." https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/culture-of-the-hebrew-language.htm That's why he does these connections.
Do you agree with all of these informations?
God bless you.
Encre & Soupirs
0 -
Shalom Jeff.
Not sure how I came across this Forum but, let it be known, I was looking for something YOU wrote. I don't have time for "truths" that are lacking the all important understanding of the ancient Hebrew alphabet and the culture that it represents. Few, if any, "Hebrew" students know anything about Middle Hebrew much less about the significant treasures that a comprehensive and scholarly understanding of the early Hebrew alphabet and mind-set unlocks.
Trust me, I know you didn't get that from Strong's. I have devoured your teachings over the past several years so I unconsciously groaned in pity for anyone who would read a few words from a book cover or a phrase, or two, from a random page and came up with the opinions I am reading here. These people don't know what they don't know and they certainly don't know what they are missing if they choose to turn their backs on the most enlightening, honest and pure English translation of the Hebrew Bible that there is.
Anyone who has come across your work and has been sparked to delve deeper knows that your mechanical translation is just that - "MECHANICAL".
Your teachings reveal the unmechanical ( it's word now) nature of Scripture but a Mechanical Translation can't do that - DAH? (And isn't supposed to do that - DAH?) I would have to go back and look up the name of the earlier Scholar upon whose work you have continued to build but I know it ain't Strong's. It ain't.... And I know you use many scholarly and scientific resources in your labor of love.
I guess that is one reason I KNOW your work is honest. You have poured your gifts and wisdom and knowledge and heart and soul and learning out to others for many years asking for little, if any, recompense. You have given of your Biblical wealth so freely, and you have given access to longed-for- truth to those of us who could have never been able to afford the resources it would take to find that truth.
I have spent many hours in pastor's church offices scouring their resources for "the missing link" , the real genesis of it all but never found the answers I was looking for until I found your teachings on the early Semitic alphabet. I can still recall the feeling of emptiness and the desperation with which I searched for a clarity that was never at the end of any academic thesis or seminary text book or historical book about church fathers I ever read.
My heart does groan for all of these impressive people who don't dare to look a little deeper.
I can never thank you enough for the immeasurable feeling of fullness your table has provided for me.
0
