Re’shith - Genesis Chapter 15
1After (‘achar - following and pertaining to) these (‘el-leh) words (dabar - conversations and matters involving communication; messages and news), the Word (dabar) of Yahowah came to exist with (hayah ‘el) ‘Abram (‘abram - 82
father who uplifts) in the form of a visual and illuminating manifestation, which can be seen and experienced (machazeh - as a celebration of enlightening communication which can be beheld and visualized, as a window or aperture constructed for the purpose of flooding an area with light), saying (‘amar - promising and answering, claiming and avowing), ‘Do not be awed (yare’ ‘al - do not be frightened or intimidated) ‘Abram. I am (‘anokiy) your defender and shield (magen - your refuge, the one who covers and surrounds you, protecting you, shielding and delivering you). I am your reward (sakar - payment for passage, generous father and doorkeeper) who will make many increase and grow great (rabah - multiply and thrive, becoming greater than they are) in power and strength (ma’od - exceedingly abundant with regard to energy and force, capacity and ability).’
2But ‘Abram said (‘amar) to Yahowah, the father and head of the family (‘eden - the upright pillar of the tabernacle), ‘What am I to be given (mah nathan)? I walk (halak - journey) childless (‘aryry - without a son or daughter) and the heir to my household is ‘Eli’ezer (eli’ezer – God is my help) of Damascus (dammeseq – activity, moist with blood, oldest standing city in the world, city of the plateau, North East of Mt. Hermon).’
==================

I suppose the "Word of Yahowah" predated the Hindus.

This notion that we should always reject or believe the opposite of pagans is not convincing. Seems satan's means is more mixing mostly truth with deadly lie is more his tactic. Else it wouldn't be beguiling and would only fool a fool. Because of this I'm not ready to toss out John 1

The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven beyond a doubt that Isaiah 9:6 does not say anything about Jesus being God. (The person who made this has a doctorate in hebrew and Paleo hebrew, he is not using translation aids)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXPnrhvxrZg

I’m going to weigh in just as a fact checker here. I don’t have the credentials that author of the video has, but I do have the materials at hand to check his facts.

First there are only two potential differences between the MT and DSS on Isaiah 9:6, neither of which substantially changes the text.

The first is debatable because 1QIsa and 4QIsa differ. 1QIsa has a different from of qara then 4QIsa and the MT, which agree. So the difference is rather it was wa qara or wa yqara, the difference being his name will be called, or his name is called.

1QIsa has Waw Qof Resh Alef

4QIsa and MT have Waw Yod Qof Resh Alef

The other difference is that 1QIsa has a Ha before Shalowm which would add a The between Prince and Redemption so Prince of the redemption. These are just word for word translations not complete, but it demonstrates the difference and how it doesn’t affect the message at all.

The author of the video points out two additional differences between the DSS and the MT, which if true would change what is being said. So the question then becomes are the differences he points out true or not.

Fist I open my DSS bible and check Isaiah 9:6, and it shows only the two difference I pointed out.

Next I opened logos pulled up Isiah 9:6 and check the DSS transcription to see if the two differences he mentioned are there. And again the only difference between the DSS and the MT are the two I mentioned, the two the author mentions are not there.

But transcriptions are manmade projects and subject to error, so thankfully the Great Isaiah scroll has been digitized and made available online, so I go to http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#9:5 and pull up the scroll, and again I see nothing other than the two differences pointed out by the DSS Bible, and the two I saw in the Logos Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Database transcriptions. So it appears to me that two of the main points he brings up in his video were in fact made up.

But don’t take my word, look at the DSS yourself.

The two differences that the author points out which are not there are.
1. He states that in the MT El Gibowr is two words and that it is one in the DSS.
2. He states that in the MT Abi Ad is one word and that it is two words in the DSS.
So let’s examine the two claims. I have circled each in black the document but feel free to do to the above website and check for yourself, it’s in column 9 about 7 lines up from the bottom near the middle.

Now his second claim is clearly visable, yes the DSS does have Abi Ad as two words; the problem is with the second part of that claim. I open my Anderson Forbes Analyzed Text of the Hebrew Bible, in logos and it shows Abi Ad as two words, I open my Lexham Hebrew English Interlinear and it has two words, I open my ESB Reverse Interlinear and it has it as two words. So this claim is completely false the DSS and the MT are identical in this.

Now the first claim. He claims that El Gibowr is one word in the DSS and that the MT separated it into two words. If you look at the DSS you notice that there is a space between the Lamed in El and the Gimel in Gibowr, although it in not as big of a space as others, however if you examine more of the scroll you will notice that when a Lamed is in the middle of a word there is very little to no distance between it and the next letter, see red circles for examples.

Now look just below at the green circle and we have another example very similar to our case. Here we see al kisse, two words, but because they are linked and al is closely related to kesse in the text there is a smaller space than there would normally be, but still a space because they are still separate words. The space between the Lamed and the Kaf is nearly identical to the space between Lamed and Gimel.

So in my opinion the DSS Bible is correct in that there are only two differences between the DSS and the MT. The Qumran Scrolls transcriptions in logos appear to me after examining the actual scan of the scroll to be perfectly in sync.

So to me the author of the video seems to be willing to twist the facts, and indeed make them up to fit his position.

And after James' skillful technical criticism I would like to get back to this idea of the vedas.

The problem with that conclusion is that your idea of "the Word" is not how the Yahudim conceptualized this "Word" that appeared on a cursory recounting at least 2 more times (to Samuel and YirmeYahu). The "memra" (as per the the aramaic targums) was viewed to be a divine manifestation in its own right. You can say that Yahochanan didn't write John 1.1 or whatever else you want....but the issue comes down to this....whether by fluke or by design or because it is the truth....Yahonachan 1 is thoroughly and consistently in line with the Yahudi viewpoints and tenets. (at least the viewpoints contemporary with the text of Yahonachan) We do not need to grasp at such absurdities (such as plagiarism of the vedas)...I am sorry.....and in light of the actual Torah texts themselves and the later commentaries on those texts...your forum posting analogy is anemic and vapid....Read the targums... and read the literature of the day before and after Yahonachan was written....Yahonachan 1 is not a product of hindu veddas. It is a solid and undeniable product of the prevailing Yahudi thought on this very specific issue of the word.....as found in Torah and in contemporary Torah exegesis

Gen 1:3: "And the Memra of (YHWH) said Let there be light and there was Light by his Memra." (and the rest of the account of creation on down from light is attributed to the Memra)
Gen 3:8 ff: "And they heard the voice of the Memra of (YHWH)... . And the Memra of (YHWH) called out to the Man."
Gen 18:1: "And was revealed to him the Memra of (YHWH)."
Gen 19:24 "And the Memra of (YHWH) rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah."

Gen 15:1, "And it was after these things that the Word of God appeared to Abraham"......15.6: "Abraham believed in God and he reckoned it for him as righteousness," Targum version: "Abraham believed the Memra of God...."

Exod 3:12-14 :
"I, My Memra, will be with you." (Palestinian Targum/MS Neofiti)
"And he said: Because my Memra will be for your support."
"And the Memra of (YHWH) said to Moses: He who said to the world from the beginning, Be there,' and it was there, and who is to say to it 'Be there,' and it will be there; and he said, Thus shall you say to the Israelites, He has sent me to you." (place this Targumic commentary in the context of the afore mentioned Gen/Ber 1:3)



Exod 17:21 : "And the Memra of (YHWH) was leading them during the day in a pillar of cloud."
Deut 32:39: "When the Memra of (YHWH) shall be revealed to redeem his people."


This is what Philo had to say:

"To His Word, His chief messenger, highest in age and honour, the Father of all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word both pleads with the immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subject. He glories in this prerogative and proudly describes it in these words "and I stood between (YHWH) and you" (Deut. v. 5), that is neither uncreated by God, nor created as you, but midway between the two extremes, a surety to both sides."

"For this reason, whereas the voice of mortals is judged by hearing, the sacred oracles intimate that the words of God (TOUS του θεού λόγους) are seen as light is seen, for we are told that all of the people saw the Voice (Ex. 20:18), not that they heard it; for what was happening was not an impact of air made by the organs of mouth and tongue, but the radiating splendour of virtue indistinguishable from a fountain of reason. . . . But the voice of God which is not that of verbs and names yet seen by the eye of the soul, he (Moses) rightly introduces as 'visible.'"

Now we have here the inclusion of various sources. We have the oriental semitic (backwoods...if you will) aramaic Targums and we have the Alexandrian cosmpolitan urban Greek exegesis of Philo. Bringing the evidences from the broadly ranging sources we have what I think we can safely conclude to be a widely held if not universal concept. That the Word- Dabar/Memra/Logos is YHWH but yet something set apart from Him....a manifestation tasked with the role of the worker, the abassador, and the mediator. There is AMPLE material to suggest that this a a viewpoint that is an inexorable part of the Hebrew tradition.

My point in all this is not so much to say this proves that יהושע is a manifestation of YHWH or even that He is the Messiah. So you should not take it as such. However, I believe that the above evidence and the conclusions that naturally follow from the evidence is that the claim that Yahonachan 1 is a product of the hindu vedas is the product of poor investigation and scholarship at best...and more likely is product of an agenda that makes no qualms about embracing dishonesty.

The fact of the matter is that the Hindu Vedas were written thousands of years before John. No amount of speaking or writing in hebronics will change that.

With the exception of I don't like the word worship, but I'm betting you don't mean it in the religious sense, I think we can all agree on this.

Yahowah should be our focus, just as our focus should be on the Towrah and not the Greek text. It's like Craig has said, the christian focus on Jesus/Yahowsha is like focusing on God's toenail instead of on Him.