.
Brit-Am Discussion Group |
Contents by Subject |
Research Recognition Reconciliation Contribute |
Site Map Contents in Alphabetical Order |
This Site |
I am not questioning your interpretation of the Hebrew language but am trying to gain further understanding myself of its meaning. You seem at times overly sensitive to questions, as if under attack, when in actuality people are just trying to get some questions answered. After re-reading Gen. 48 (something I should have done first before writing you), I see that the expression "a nation and a company of nations" is not the wording used for Ephraim and Manasseh, as you of course pointed out in no uncertain terms. Your take on its meaning is undoubtedly the correct interpretation and I stand corrected.
===============================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
OK. Thank you. I appreciate your asking these questions. In fact we need you and
others to do so. We learn from them and important points become clarified
through them. My apparent sensitivity should be accepted as inherent. I was not
offended by your question but rather pleased at the opportunity to further
elaborate on this point. I also did not intend to offend you by my answer.
God bless you
Yair
PS. In the past we had raised the possibility that
A NATION AND A COMPANY OF NATIONS referred to Judah and the Ten Tribes but only
now have we confirmed this explanation through an analysis of the Hebrew text.
This to our mind helps confirm the Brit-Am Ten Tribes Movement outlook that the
division between the two halves of the Israelite Nation had a Divine Purpose
behind it.
This needs to be emphasized.
In the past there was the conception amongst Believers in our field that this
expression applied solely to Joseph. Others ignored it. We should come out of
our shell, become more orientated towards Judah and his place in Scripture and
ALSO compel (through persuasion and use of the sources) mainstream Christians to
relate to us.
The concept that Judah and Joseph are separate entities with different prophesied destinies should be considered an integral aspect of Scriptural understanding.
===============================================
(a) From Eric Schendel
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1387
Yair,
In 1833 the American linguist Noah Webster published a Bible that is very
faithful to the KJV (even includes the thou/ye singular/plural distinction) but
without the archaic words and expressions that sometimes make the KJV difficult
to understand. He based it on the KJV but went back to the original languages
to make his revisions. There have been a few later versions, too. I use the
1995 Revised Webster Bible (RWB). It is free and downloadable.
See
http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/
And
http://www.unboundbible.org/index.cfm?method=downloads.showDownloadMain
A modern translation that is free and downloadable (although with some minimal
copyright restrictions) is the NET Bible. It is not as literal as the KJV,
tending to be somewhat more interpretative, so it provides a contrast with the
KJV/Webster. However, what I really like about it are the really extensive and
detailed footnotes.
See
http://bible.org/downloads
Eric
===============================================
(b) Robert Smith
Subject: which bible
My name is Robert Smith e-mail is pigeonman@commspeed.net. For information
sake I and many of my friends believe the KJ version is the most incorrect,
inaccurate version written. The English language was changing between 1600 and
1611.
In my most humble opinion the two best are Restoration Scripture (study bible),
and the Sacred Scriptures (bethel edition).
Shalom Bob
===============================================
(c) From: diane herndon
Subject: Bible
Yair shalom,
As for me and my household, any version of the Bible other than the KJ would be
preferred.
GOD bless you, Diane
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem." Psalm 122
GOD BLESS YOU !
Pleased with what you read?
Click Here to make an offering. |
PREVIOUS ISSUES |