Jeff A. Benner?

Hello, Do any of the Hebrew Scholars reading have any opinions on the works of Author : Jeff A. Benner? Thank You.

I had never heard of him before so I googled him and took a look at his web site.  I would not recommend him.  He is something of a kook.  He doesn't seem to understand that words in any language vary in meaning depending upon their context and cannot therefore be translated the same in every instance.  He really doesn't understand the language -- he only thinks he understands it better than those who have been involved in various translations or commentaries.  (Never trust anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's.

Here's a sample page from his A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis:

Do you find that helps you understand the text?

(Never trust anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's.

I'm getting a T-Shirt made with this on it! [:D]

Hello Mr. Somsel, this is the kook :-)

I'm pleased to see that you admit the facts.  Now you can begin your recovery.

Hi Jeff and welcome to the Logos forums! 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your resources and for generously making them readily available--I have benefitted from them as I have used them in e-sword.  God bless!

Hello Joan and thank you for the support and I hope the materials continue to help you in your studies of Hebrew and the Bible.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm currently studying hebrew at uni.

Just out of curiosity, why only use Hebrew lexicons/bibles etc that are hundreds of years old? Surely you considered using some of the corrected updated versions which are readily available?

You have made a lot of new claims without any evidence or reference, so how can students know that you're not confusing Hebrew languages and characters with the many other languages around at the time? If the Hebrews came out of Egypt before their writings, wouldn't their concepts of heaven and hell conveyed in their writings be a lot closer to the Egyptians than those in the lands they invaded? (which you seem to assume they were more similar to).

your pottery 4000 years old (1_introduction.html) found in present day Israel would be more likely belonging to one of the people groups the Hebrews slaughtered as they entered Israel approx. 3500 years ago as they came out of Egypt. Only a few hundred Hebrews at most, including kids, would have gone down to Egypt, and I doubt anyone could pick out their writings from those around them at that time.  But after 400+ years in Egypt, if Moses was brought up with a royal household, his education / thoughts would have been far different than that of the groups remaining in the land.

the mechanical way also means you are very open to translating every word incorrectly most of the time, based on your own personal opinions. the Hebrew bible was reportedly compiled over many hundreds of years, and i would have thought words and meanings would have changed in that time, as it they have done in every other language known in history, with words changing meanings within the 1000 year period it was written.

it seems you're trying to change a whole lot of whats considered the historical christian norm, do you mind me asking what denomination/faith/belief that you adhere to from?  Are any organizations or groups funding your project? 

I'm just asking so we can all get the clear perspective from which you are writing / publishing/ teaching, the lens through which you view the information before you.

Thanks and regards,

Warren Knott

Welcome to our forums Jeff

That's the spirit!

And the words became alive!

And to think that Hebrew was considered a dead language for centuries! But, behold the hebrew!

it seems you're trying to change a whole lot of whats considered the historical christian norm,

If things were so complicated and so difficult, (as dramatically Warren pictures), it would be impposible to talk about. Doubt would reings forever!

Before shocked me to hear different things that those, traditionally, I had been taught, but I think our theology has been in hands of and influenced by philosophy, rather than by the Holy Spirit, and we should no fear other perspectives. Everything can become an idol. Don't touch, don't ask, don't even think about. It's ok to rewiew Strong, Hebrew is getting more and more importance today. Hebrew thought is now closer than ever, we have the Talmud in Logos! It clarifies the context of the Gospels and the teaching of Jesus and Paul, the whole teachings of NT really.

Baruch Adonay hamevorach le'olam va'ed!!!

Before shocked me to hear different things that those, traditionally, I had been taught, but I think our theology has been in hands of and influenced by philosophy, rather than by the Holy Spirit, and we should no fear other perspectives. Everything can become an idol. Don't touch, don't ask, don't even think about. It's ok to rewiew Strong, Hebrew is getting more and more importance today. Hebrew thought is now closer than ever, we have the Talmud in Logos! It clarifies the context of the Gospels and the teaching of Jesus and Paul, the whole teachings of NT really.

Mr. Jimenez, I come from a similar background.  Since I have come to know the Holy Spirit more intimately, I have become interested in learning to read and understand ancient Hebrew so that I can better understand context.  Even though I am not very far on that journey, I am already seeing Old Testament scripture in a different light.  It is much more alive to me now.  The Holy Spirit is opening my eyes!

Mr. Benner, thank you for your resources.  They have been invaluable to me.

Don't be jealous. Sit down. Be humble!

Jeff,

Please be honest and let people know what you really think about the bible and it not being the words of God but rather the words of man writing about God.  Full disclosure please.  People have a right to know, especially if they pay for your classes expecting to learn biblical Hebrew.

You at least admitted on YouTube that you do not believe God created the heaven and earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbcB1puaOyc

Derek Rhoads

This is a work fraught with challenge and difficulty and I frankly I consider someone non-formally trained the best candidate, as there is a tendency amongst the formally trained to cookie cutter their thought process into regurgitated versions of rubber stamped conclusions mandated within in the scripts of their disciplines.

Yeah...that. Human systems systematically create blind spots that only those not in the system are capable of perceiving. 

I've brought up Jeff Benner's name on at least a couple of occasions on the forums; I never knew he had actually posted here. George's response was par for George's course. He never could let pass a chance to take a swipe at Strong and his lexicon/concordance. Concurrently, he seemed to believe that HALOT was YHWH's crib sheet. I find HALOT to be heavy on irrelevant bombast and only rarely worth the time it takes to consult it. But those are opinions, whatever they may be based upon. Likewise, as with most, if not all of the issues that come before the court of human affairs, no two people will ever see eye-to-eye on all matters. It is fundamentally impossible since our knowledge is at its core experiential, and we all have experiences as unique as fingerprints. I don't agree with Benner on everything, but his teaching is highly useful even as it is somewhat (not entirely) unique in the arena of Hebraic studies. I have seen a Jewish resident of Israel praise Jeff for opening up his native tongue to him in a way he had never contemplated. That ought to undercut a lot of the snooty dismissals he is accustomed to having tossed in his direction. Jeff is outside the mainstream of scholarly study, to be sure, but I hope I don't have to make a case for that being entirely irrelevant as long as the output of his efforts is supported by evidence. He has plenty of that. Again, I don't subscribe to everything he teaches, because I'm not a sycophant. Benner's vocabulary is occasionally not the same as most other university-trained professionals in his field, which has to be taken into account. But I've already posted plenty about Biblical Hebrew on these forums and the willingness of "experts" to teach things (in resources sold by FL) that are a without question false. There is usually always something that can be second-guessed in the work of any human being. Generally speaking, I find that Benner is less often wrong (IMO, obviously) than the vast majority of what is available in Logos.

BTW: George is no longer with us. He's passing out tinfoil hats to the angels...or whoever else he's encountering.

One thing that George and others who have posted in this thread have said, and it is effectively a manta in Biblical studies these days, is that CONTEXT drives meaning, not etymology. Barr was a famous early proponent of this view, and his reprimand convinced many others as well, to the point that it is now nearly an unquestioned dogma. Unfortunately, Barr's famous example of the so-called "root fallacy" is an egregious error, and others attempts to buttress the point have failed in equally comic fashion (if failure can be such). I find examples of translations which pay homage to the idol named Context all the time, where the decision to kiss the perceived context's feet reigns unmolested. But context--ESPECIALLY IN A BOOK THAT IS PACKED TO THE GILLS WITH PROPHETIC INTENTIONS--is a fundamentally slippery affair. As I said in another thread recently, Context is a pimp that will often as not slap around those who look to it for cover and protection. Beware assumptions that Biblical context is related to surface appearances. One of prophecy's most troublesome characteristics is that it deliberately eschews the "obvious".

BTW: George is no longer with us. He's passing out tinfoil hats to the angels...or whoever else he's encountering.

Are you sure? He just posted a couple of weeks ago:

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/177457/1031622.aspx#1031622 

Well, I'm just going on what I was told. If I recall, supposedly a family member posted his demise to the forum. I'm actually glad the grump may still be with us. MJ is fun to spar with, but George is much more tactile in his contradictions. I so rarely get to practice my akido.

BTW: DEWEY WINS!!!

What ?? Tragedy has struck the recipient of my first post with whom I thought a bit of sparing might be a pleasant pastime...this may not bode well for me.

However, I find your response refreshing with a seeming open-minded eclectic tone of insightful value. You mention Mr. Benners seeming approval of HALOT and that brings us back again to the ideology again that everyone has tools in their tool box.  Most have their tools and then there is their bias in others use of their chosen tools.  In various phases of my life I have found that I have been susceptible to various, what I consider weaknesses, in tool dependence. I recognize most put a ceiling on their reach and I feel limit their ability to grasp correct principles. Most of us are really only looking for someone who corroborates our own biases and then one might inquire are we really learning?.  I try not to place more value in my tools than in my reach.  In other words, with the exception of scripture, I consider all knowledge resources horizontal planes of knowledge to one degree or another.  There may be levels but the apex is that books and research and such form the plane of all that man can know. We do our best, we have experts among men that have studied brilliantly upon all that man can know and sometimes we become satisfied considering that our process of studying the thoughts of other men elevates our understanding of God.  

I have valued the exposure to these writings and they do provide a foundation upon which to reach higher, in some instances, however at times I found there were understandings that I was gaining which breached the boundaries men put upon such things...sometimes, certainly not as often as I wished because the sense of correctly understanding something of God is radically, but subtly (quite paradoxical) different than understanding the things that men think they understand.

Trying to be brief I will reference one such. Writings concerning the Avenger of Blood (AoB) material in the Old Testament are not super common.  Or at least I have not encountered much. However, after memorizing certain verses concerning such, I ran into a section in the Mishnah which had a maybe 5 sentence reference. As immersed as I was from the memorization process, that little paragraph opened a window of perception that to this day, I consider an imperative for its implications concerning the Fall, the atonement, and the afterlife and a multitude of other dependent doctrines.

My point is that there is a realm of horizontal understandings that expands as men make their discoveries and research and speculate upon the things of God. These are the tools of our ambition to know God.  However, there is also a vertical plane of knowledge that reaches upward beyond mans plane.  Not as easily reached, and surely of little value if you find yourself dependent on a horizontal plane of supporting material that men have agreed upon to be of correct interpretation.  Anyone can understand the horizontal as it makes no requirement of the individual. (There is probably a better analogy than vertical and horizontal but off the top of my head it will have to do for now.) You can be immoral, you can be arrogant, you can be in constant judgment of your peers as to understand the things of men makes no demand of the character of either the receiver or giver of horizontal knowledge.  BUT to understand the vertical knowledge designed to lift man over the plateaus of our horizontal view we must be ever striving, ever reaching, ever pleading.  Tool dependency will forever keep one mostly horizontal in the learning plane rubbing shoulders with the giants of the plane.  Hence the absolute necessity of prayer and application of gospel principles and other defined demands of the scriptures, which, sometimes seem not critical considerations amongst those of purely intellectual pursuit.