ELTBefore Introduction: Difference between revisions

From 2nd Book
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bl| ELTBefore Introduction }}
{{bl| ELTBefore Introduction }}
When I first set out to learn Hebrew, my primary goal was to gain enough understanding to verify whether the meanings people were attributing to the language were truly accurate. The Hebrew alphabet was so unfamiliar to me that I struggled to even recognize the letters, let alone distinguish between similar ones. To overcome this, I started with a children's primer and spent time tracing the letters to build my familiarity with them.
=Learning Hebrew: My Journey=


I also began to use Strong's Concordance and Harris' Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament to explore the meanings behind Hebrew words. However, my observations quickly led me to a troubling conclusion: much of the material I encountered was unreliable. The Theological Wordbook, for example, was based on the modern system of vowel markings (nikud), which were only introduced in 600 AD. This was a problem, as Jesus never saw these vowels. The references in the book often included phrases like:
When I first started learning Hebrew, my main goal was to find out if the meanings people gave to Hebrew words were really true. The Hebrew alphabet was so new to me that I couldn't even recognize the letters at first. To get better, I used a children's workbook and traced the letters until I could tell them apart.


    4a – Assumed root…
I also used tools like Strong’s Concordance and Harris’ Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament to learn what Hebrew words meant. But as I dug deeper, I noticed something troubling: much of the information wasn’t reliable. For example, the Wordbook was based on vowel marks (called nikud) that didn’t exist until 600 AD, long after Jesus’ time. Many entries had notes like:
    1a – Assumed root…
 
    27a – Assumed root…


In essence, the book admitted that many of its conclusions were speculative at best, and they made up a great deal of the information. I didn’t want to rely on guesses and assumptions, especially when studying the language of Scripture.
:“4a – Assumed root...”
:“1a – Assumed root...”
:“27a – Assumed root...”


Determined to learn Hebrew more accurately, I turned to the teachings of the Rabbis. However, this was a double-edged sword. While their understanding of Hebrew was deeper in some ways, the Rabbis, unfortunately, reject Christ, which means their interpretations are often skewed and lead one away from Him. While it’s possible that some of their insights are inadvertently correct, the majority of their teachings are not.
These notes admitted that the roots and meanings were mostly guesses. I didn’t want to build my understanding of Hebrew on guesses, especially since I was studying the language of the Bible. (See [[ Appendix 1: Critique of Modern Hebrew Tools ]] )


A clear example of this is their false claim made to Jerome that there were only 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In reality, the Rabbis teach that Hebrew has 28 letters, each carrying its own unique meaning. This is why final forms are unique letters. Six of these are called "final forms," which are used only when certain letters appear at the end of words.  One of these final forms is even used in the priest's garment but is never found in any word. Interestingly, 28 is a much more appealing number than 22, and the Rabbis' explanation of this idea seemed to further obscure the truth.
Next, I looked into what the Rabbis taught about Hebrew. They had a deeper knowledge of the language in some ways, but their teachings often left out Jesus. This meant their interpretations were sometimes off track. Even when they had some correct insights, much of what they taught was still misleading.


Additionally, the Rabbis misled Jerome by telling him that Hebrew was like Greek, with three-letter roots for every word. This claim overlooks a crucial aspect of the language: the meaning of Hebrew letters comes from the strokes and shapes within them. The Rabbis failed to account for the profound significance of these individual strokes in the letters, which is key to understanding Hebrew words more deeply.
For example, the Rabbis told Jerome (who translated the Bible into Latin) that Hebrew had only 22 letters, like Greek. But that wasn’t true. Hebrew has 28 letters, including six “final forms” used only at the end of words. One of these letters even appeared on the priest’s clothing but wasn’t found in any words. The number 28 made more sense because each letter carries a special meaning.


I realized that in order to understand Hebrew in its truest sense, I would need to look beyond the conventional methods and develop a way to read Hebrew from the meaning embedded in the very letters themselves. Since the Rabbis had forgotten the ancient method of interpreting the language, I decided to reverse-engineer the language based on my own observations and insights.
The Rabbis also claimed that every Hebrew word came from three-letter roots, like in Greek. But this ignored an important part of Hebrew: the shapes and strokes of the letters themselves have meaning. These shapes are key to understanding Hebrew words, but the Rabbis didn’t focus on them. This is why the final forms are different letters from the standard forms. (See [[ Appendix 2: Critique of Rabbinic Interpretation ]] )


I began by taking around 8,000 Hebrew lemmas from Strong’s Concordance and breaking them down to their component letters. I re-examined the strokes that make up each letter, treating Hebrew like a giant multidimensional crossword puzzle. Through this method, I started to see connections and patterns emerge, and when I applied this framework to the first verse of Genesis (Gen 1:1), I felt like I had made a significant breakthrough.
To understand Hebrew better, I realized I needed to move away from the usual methods. I decided to study the letters and their shapes to discover their meanings on my own; inductively. Hebrew had been a dead language; the ancient way of understanding Hebrew had been forgotten, I began reverse-engineering the language.


My work is far from complete, and it would benefit from others reviewing and contributing their thoughts. However, it has been a productive and fruitful endeavor so far, and I am confident that I am on the right track to unlocking the deeper meanings of the Hebrew language and, by extension, the Scriptures.
I broke down about 8,000 Hebrew words (called lemmas) from Strong’s Concordance into their individual letters. Then, I studied the strokes and shapes of each letter, treating Hebrew like a huge, 3D crossword puzzle. As I worked, patterns and connections began to appear. When I applied these ideas to the first verse of Genesis, it felt like a big breakthrough. (See [[Appendix 3: Restoration of Ancient Methods of Interpretation ]])
 
My work isn’t finished, and I’d love to hear thoughts and ideas from others. But so far, this journey has been exciting and rewarding. I believe I’m on the right path to uncovering the deeper meanings of Hebrew and, through it, the Bible itself.
 
[[ AI disclosure: ELTBefore Introduction ]]

Latest revision as of 14:14, 12 January 2025

ELTBefore Introduction [∞]

Learning Hebrew: My Journey

When I first started learning Hebrew, my main goal was to find out if the meanings people gave to Hebrew words were really true. The Hebrew alphabet was so new to me that I couldn't even recognize the letters at first. To get better, I used a children's workbook and traced the letters until I could tell them apart.

I also used tools like Strong’s Concordance and Harris’ Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament to learn what Hebrew words meant. But as I dug deeper, I noticed something troubling: much of the information wasn’t reliable. For example, the Wordbook was based on vowel marks (called nikud) that didn’t exist until 600 AD, long after Jesus’ time. Many entries had notes like:


“4a – Assumed root...”
“1a – Assumed root...”
“27a – Assumed root...”

These notes admitted that the roots and meanings were mostly guesses. I didn’t want to build my understanding of Hebrew on guesses, especially since I was studying the language of the Bible. (See Appendix 1: Critique of Modern Hebrew Tools )

Next, I looked into what the Rabbis taught about Hebrew. They had a deeper knowledge of the language in some ways, but their teachings often left out Jesus. This meant their interpretations were sometimes off track. Even when they had some correct insights, much of what they taught was still misleading.

For example, the Rabbis told Jerome (who translated the Bible into Latin) that Hebrew had only 22 letters, like Greek. But that wasn’t true. Hebrew has 28 letters, including six “final forms” used only at the end of words. One of these letters even appeared on the priest’s clothing but wasn’t found in any words. The number 28 made more sense because each letter carries a special meaning.

The Rabbis also claimed that every Hebrew word came from three-letter roots, like in Greek. But this ignored an important part of Hebrew: the shapes and strokes of the letters themselves have meaning. These shapes are key to understanding Hebrew words, but the Rabbis didn’t focus on them. This is why the final forms are different letters from the standard forms. (See Appendix 2: Critique of Rabbinic Interpretation )

To understand Hebrew better, I realized I needed to move away from the usual methods. I decided to study the letters and their shapes to discover their meanings on my own; inductively. Hebrew had been a dead language; the ancient way of understanding Hebrew had been forgotten, I began reverse-engineering the language.

I broke down about 8,000 Hebrew words (called lemmas) from Strong’s Concordance into their individual letters. Then, I studied the strokes and shapes of each letter, treating Hebrew like a huge, 3D crossword puzzle. As I worked, patterns and connections began to appear. When I applied these ideas to the first verse of Genesis, it felt like a big breakthrough. (See Appendix 3: Restoration of Ancient Methods of Interpretation )

My work isn’t finished, and I’d love to hear thoughts and ideas from others. But so far, this journey has been exciting and rewarding. I believe I’m on the right path to uncovering the deeper meanings of Hebrew and, through it, the Bible itself.

AI disclosure: ELTBefore Introduction

Retrieved from "https://2ndbook.org/w/index.php?title=ELTBefore_Introduction&oldid=11761"