[stephanos]

I have been doing a lot of chatting/debating with those that are in or loosely affiliated with the Hebrew Roots Movement. Most of them are infatuated with, as you can guess, Hebrew. Naturally these people are against the KJB, for its use of 'Jesus' and 'Jehovah'. One recent man I've been talking to is even against Adam being the first man, and a the young earth doctrine which I hold. I recently sent this guy a copy of "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones, after I told him I was a KJO Bible Believer, this is what he wrote me (I'm using this because the HRM people generally say similar things against Jesus and the KJB etc...)

I love to read and look forwrd to setting aside some time for this as it looks time consuming. I am sure there is some valuable information and I appreciate you thinking of me. I scanned it briefly and got the impression that the author is trying to conclude that the KJV Bible is wonderful, so if that is the case, I have some bad news for him. The KJV is perhaps the worst in a bad lot of translations. The difference between what the KJV says and what God actually says, is night and day different. I have done this study years ago, and there is no doubt about it. Here is one of a thousand examples I could list:
Yahushua was Yahuweh's implement, His Servant, a manifestation He used to advance His will. By piercing His hands, and suffering His Soul unto separation, the case against man was resolved. .

Yahuweh doesn't want you to miss the fact that He as Spirit, through Yahushua has a Soul. Nepesh is repeated in the next verse. Yahshua's Soul, not Yahweh's Spirit, was the guilt offering, doing "hard labor" for our crime. "Out of (min - removed from) the toil ('amal - hard work, great effort, suffering labor, misery and distressing experience) of His Soul (nepesh), He will see (ra'ah) light ('owr) and find satisfaction (saba' - be fulfilled)." (Yasha'yah/Isaiah 53:11)

Consistent, albeit evil and beguiling, the Rabbinical/Masters did their best to hide this truth. Their altered text reads: "He will see some of the suffering of his soul." Having the suffering Servant descend into the darkness of death and then be resurrected and see light was too obvious a clue that Yahushua was the Messiah.

The Jewish Publication Society's Tanach perpetuated the Mesoretic deception with a translation that is completely disconnected from the actual text: "Out of his anguish he shall see it," removing "soul" and "light." Hebrew scholars know that nepesh is "soul," not "his," as "his" is huw', but they don't much like the notion of Yahuweh having a Soul as it suggests that God has a human aspect. And they don't care for the idea that their soul isn't immortal. They also know that the Septuagint and the Qumran Scrolls say "He will see light" as the complete Isaiah Scroll is plastered intact along the inside wall of a building erected to display it. So they added a footnote to say "it" refers to "the arm of the LORD." If it were so obvious that Yahushua didn't fulfill these prophecies, why did they need to alter Yahsha'yah's prophetic testimony about Him?

In this case, trusting men, the "Authorized" squad of scholars who rendered the KJV under political and religious pressure, erred by eliminating "light" from the verse. The Protestant scholars and pastors who compiled the New King James Bible decades after the Dead Sea scrolls exposed the cleric's clerical error, failed to make amends, also leaving "light" out of Yahuweh's Messianic revelation. Shame on pastors who hold up their corrupt English translations and profess that they are "inerrant." They aren't even accurate. I could point out examples like this all day, but why look any further than the removal of God's name by these morons? They edited God's name out 7000 times! What more do we need to see?

Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Elohim shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the set-apart city, which are written in this Book.

And then like the simple minded (taking up the shield of faith) servant of Jesus Christ that I am, my response was brief and without the strength of some of the responses I read here from brother Matthew (bibleprotector) and Steven Avery (btw I'm so glad to know you guys. Keep on being the champions of the faith, all for the glory of the KING!)

Hi Stephen,
Thanks for writing me back, brother.

" Sorry Shane, but I believe that Jesus is the Son of Jehovah God. "

Hopefully you will recognize that what you believe is not important-only the reliability of the object of your faith. You may "believe" that "Allah" is God but that doesn't make it true. In this same vein you can believe all you want that God's name is Jehovah and that the Messiah's name is Jesus Christ....but you're wrong, and it's simplistic to determine. The letter "J" was invented in the 15th century LOL!!!! There was no James and John walking with Jesus in Jerusalem. That is IMPOSSIBLE.
No "J", no Jehovah. Period!

"You won't like hearing this, but neither do your fellows in the Hebrew Roots Movement "

I have no affiliations and I have never heard of this group.

"I've had plenty of oportunities to discuss things with folks like yourself. "

I seriously doubt that.

"I DO believe the KJB is the inerrant Word of God, PERIOD. "

Once again, your opinion is worthless-as is mine. I could show you corruptions, errors and stupidties all day long in that translation but since the removal of God's name 7000 times is not sufficient for you, I suspect that nothing will help.

"It is my authority on all matters"

Then you believe in unicorns. You must also think the earth is 6000 years old, Adam was the first man and the flood wiped on all life on Earth. Rubbish-the lot of them.

"of faith and practice. I hope you can look past what I believe and still find it important enough to read that book. "

I already said that I would read what you were kind enough to send me, Stephen. I am busy so it may take a week or two. Here's how I operate: If I find the message to be errant and I see a lie, I dump it. I'll let you know how far I got and why I stopped if that happens.

In Yahuweh's shem, Shane

I of course know the truth about the KJB and don't mind the typical and overused attacks against it (since those common attacks are very well defended in countless books), but in all honesty I don't know how to impress upon these folks that God has chosen English to preserve His word. When I've thought upon the issue of Jesus vs Yehoshua vs Yeshua etc... I've often wondered why, if the Hebrew name for our Lord was so important, why was it written as Iēsous in the greek? Would our Master have allowed this to happen (not to mention it was written that way by those closest to Jesus) by accident; I think not. But these HRM guys would never look at it this way. I really don't know how to convey the absurdity of their claims against the name Jesus. I also in my heart of hearts take a bit offense to this, since they seem to be hinting at the fact that all those Christians who died for JESUS died in vain. Did Polycarp/Ignatius die in vain? Did the Anabaptist martyrs die in vain? I could go on and on. *sigh* I want to help these guys wake up, but sometimes I wonder if they simply lack the Spirit which is why they stumble like they do. I of course can not judge that for myself, but if the shoe fits...

I've prayed a lot about this (some of the men I've gotten to know lately in this movement, as well as some of the influencial Jews like Matisyahu) that our Father would turn on the lights within these men (for a lack of a better term ^_^). I've read on Bibleprotectors site that it is believed that this movement is a part of the last days falling away, which I would tend to agree with. Part of me sees nothing wrong with using the name Yehoshua or Yeshua; am I wrong in this view? So much confusion, lol.

I know you guys have seen this situation before, and I thank you all for taking the time to hear my thoughts on it. It's such a priviledge to know such champions of the faith, the whole lot of ya. You are all very much so loved.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

[Luke]

Stephanos, you wouldn't happen to be Stephen Horner would you? Same guy I have chatted to on facebook about dispensationalism?

Anyway, I have come across people who attack the name of Jesus.

There used to be a great tract ministry in NZ called Tracts4free

They were KJB only, fundamental, bible believing. Then they went bonkers. Conspiracy theories, changing the name of Jesus to Yeshua/Yahshwa and Jehovah to Yahweh, insisting that people who call Jesus "Jesus" are unsaved. Things like that. Never found out what happened to them? They don't print their tracts anymore...

they had a dvd ministry for a while at www.shockingdvds.com but it doesn't appear to work now.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Luke

Stephanos, you wouldn't happen to be Stephen Horner would you? Same guy I have chatted to on facebook about dispensationalism?

Anyway, I have come across people who attack the name of Jesus.

There used to be a great tract ministry in NZ called Tracts4free

They were KJB only, fundamental, bible believing. Then they went bonkers. Conspiracy theories, changing the name of Jesus to Yeshua/Yahshwa and Jehovah to Yahweh, insisting that people who call Jesus "Jesus" are unsaved. Things like that. Never found out what happened to them? They don't print their tracts anymore...

they had a dvd ministry for a while at www.shockingdvds.com but it doesn't appear to work now.

^_^ Yep that's me, haha.

I'll take a look at that link you posted.

Have any of you actually read some of the books these so called Nazarene Israelites/Messianic's have written? I almost laughed when I saw that one of their important books is one written on the book of Galatians, rofl. http://www.hebroots.org/store.html#Galatians

Someone really should write a book in defense of Jesus, and against this new 'circumcision party'. *lol*

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

[Biblestudent]

I met a man in the mountains where I preached in a funeral. He is "almost persuaded" to call upon the name of the Lord, but he hesitated because he doesn't believe that the "no other name given among men whereby we must be saved" had to be "Jesus" (or "Hesus" in Hiligaynon dialect). He said it had to be Yeshua (back to the "roots").
He seems to be an "intellectual". Well, I gave him some "unscholarly" questions. What language does God speak? What is His original name before He translated it in human language?
The man doesn't believe Hebrew is the language of heaven as some does, so we parted and he left with his "million dollar" question: "What is the original name of God?"
I'm glad I'm saved in Jesus' name!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by stephanos

Have any of you actually read some of the books these so called Nazarene Israelites/Messianic's have written?

Hi Stephen and Bible Student,

Interesting discussion.

Yes, I have skimmed and read varous books and know a lot of the names involved personally. And in fact I was actually quite sympathetic to this viewpoint when I did not understand that God's word was fully inspired and preserved. To the point of attending a sacred name event in Michigan - and having various visits and communications with other groups - and discussing the Bible issues with them, their various theories of trying to insert their preferred names into the NT (which is actually similar to the debauched Jehovah Witness NT methodology). Actually there are various philosophies involved, not all Hebrew Roots stuff is deficient, most of what you are referring to is where they are either 'sacred name' or 'qodesh name' and various Bible corrector ideas. Yet, it is true that even the sounder 'Hebrew Roots' (e.g. where they accept the name of Jesus as sound and valid and given in the historical, preserved NT) usually have a propensity to false pure Bible criticism from 'the Hebrew'. (The more learned in those realms will acknowledge quietly that the King James Bible is an excellent reflection of the Masoretic Text, that is why it was noteworthy to see this fellow strangely attack the MT, leaving him with no preserved NT or OT.) However Hebrew Roots is a wide term, as is Messianics, your 'Nazarene Israelites' is more alongside the doctrines you mention, the specific term used by a fellow named Norman Willis, who I met in Israel a few years back and then maintained some contact (I was asking him to speak publicly about the plagiarism mentioned below). The book on Galatians is probably the one by Bradley Marcus (Avi Ben Mordechai). Note - a sacred name group in Pennsylvania also has a book on Galatians.

You are right that the fact that Iesous == Jesus is given and preserved in the NT text (and Christ is shown as fully equivalent to Messias in John) essentially deep-sixes the movement's principle philosophy. This simple truth had a profound effect on me, especially when I realized the deficiencies of the rewrite attempts.

And I have a 30-page article exposing one of their versions HRV - Hebrew Roots Version - as an abject plagiarism. These groupings are rather splintered so each one comes up with their combination of names and theories and version rewrites.

Since the DSS Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text are close to identical (putting aside dialect differences) this fellow had to stretch to try to find a point to make on Isaiah, so I may take a look at that later. The idea that the Masoretes tampered is now essentially discredited, with the Great Isaiah Scroll being one powerful evidence. If there was a place for the Masoretes to want to tamper, to override their fealty to the Bible text, it would be Isaiah, especially verses in chapter 7 and 9 and the full chapter 53 (and end of 52); yet after 1000 years the MT and DSS texts are essentially identical. Thus the true Hebrew text was being copied meticulously and carefully and accurately, which fits well with what we know of their scribal skills and techniques. It is well known that the DSS scroll does have some corruptions, this was not the Jerusalem Temple scroll, there is a website that actually goes through the scroll word-by-word, although most of those errors are simply obvious scribal faux pas. So I have a bit of interest in looking up the fellow's assertion, working around all his other confusions and belligerence.

The resources are readily available, although one resource I had, an article in a book by Daniel Sapp showing the gross inferiority of the Greek OT on Isaiah 53, discussing also the close harmony of the Masoretic Text and the DSS, I may have misplaced and need to rebuy or photocopy in a library. Neat article, which with sound scholarship ends up essentially affirming the pure Bible

One thing that astonished (shocked) this 'movement' five years ago was when Karaite scholar Nehemiah Gordon (confused on the NT but quite good on many asapects of the Tanach - OT ) came out strongly against 'yahweh' as a paganism, and defended a 3-syllable form of the Tetragram very close to Jehovah, Yehovah if I remember offhand. Since a lot of them have a philosophy that sees 'yahshua' or 'yahushua' or some other variance in 'yahweh' that caused many of them spiritual conniptions and they then had to switch gears this way and that to come up with new excuses for the false usages.

Shalom,
Steven

StevenAvery wrote:One thing that astonished (shocked) this 'movement' five years ago was when Karaite scholar Nehemiah Gordon (confused on the NT but quite good on many asapects of the Tanach - OT ) came out strongly against 'yahweh' as a paganism, and defended a 3-syllable form of the Tetragram very close to Jehovah, Yehovah if I remember offhand. Since a lot of them have a philosophy that sees 'yahshua' or 'yahushua' or some other variance in 'yahweh' that caused many of them spiritual conniptions and they then had to switch gears this way and that to come up with new excuses for the false usages.


Hi Steven,
I was kind of overjoyed when I first read Nehemia Gordon's studies about the Sacred Name. Before I found out about his studies I had come to very similar conclusions about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton while I was studying the Hebrew of the TaNaKh(OT). Nehemia does come to the conclusion that it should be pronounced "Yehovah" but he makes a big deal about the accent being on the last syllable and about the "J" not existing in Hebrew. This I believe he says to try not to confirm that the King James use of JEHOVAH is correct. The truth is that the KJV translators are very correct in using JEHOVAH in the Bible text and also very correct to use LORD to translate YHVH since many Jews when reading the Hebrew Bible generally pronounce YHVH as "Adonai" which means Lord.


Joe