Etymology of words
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Justmom [ Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Etymology of words

Peace to you brother and thank you for sharing this.

Man has needed this reminder even written on stone because of the lack of love on our part in our hearts. It is also a reason that Israel did not want JAh to speak to them " personally" so they chose Moses ( someone they could see) as a mediator to intervene instead of Jah himself. And because of lack of love for Jah was not content with Him as King and so asked Samuel for an earthly King.

Always needing something " to see", written on stone instead of walking by faith and not by sight.

So I long for the day as well when no one will need to teach this law of love. That Jah will write in on their hearts.

Thank you for this reminder, your sister and fellow servant of Christ, Kim

Author:  Summer [ Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Etymology of words

"Do ALL people have the law written on their hearts? No, of course not. But those who do, know it, and, hopefully, appreciate it, and thus, make better choices for themselves and their loved ones. And no other outside person need “teach” such laws to another as these laws are already written on one’s heart. Reminds me of Jeremiah 31 about the New Covenant where it says no one need teach another about laws written on hearts because Jah will write them on each individual’s heart so that all, from the least to the great, will be instructed in law by Jah Himself."

Thank you Armand that has helped to clarify for me that to have the law written on our hearts we need to have love in our heart.

It seems to me that the law of love is related to property, that is having respect for what belongs to God (as opposed to idolatry) or what belongs to other people. But there is a distinction between the moral laws and the purity laws that were specific to the people of Israel.

The following quotes are from a book on Leviticus by Rabbi Sacks who was the Chief Rabbi in the UK.

"Holiness and purity depend on the ability to distinguish, separate, and know what belongs where.....Recall that God created the universe in the first chapter of Genesis by bringing order to chaos through the act of separating domains - light and dark, upper and lower waters, sea and dry land. God then filled each with its appropriate objects and life forms. The dietary laws have the same logic. Clean animals, fish, and birds are those that most conspicuously represent order. Lobsters are impure because, though they live in the water, they walk as on land. Amphibians are impure because they lack a definite place.....Whatever blurs boundaries is unclean.....

Failure to observe the boundary between permitted and forbidden caused Adam and Eve to be exiled from Eden.  Within a generation the first murder had taken place, and before long 'the earth was filed with violence.....small breaches in boundaries can lead, in time, to anarchy and tyranny.....
The purity laws exist only because Israel was called on to become a holy nation and only because, through the Tabernacle, God caused His presence to dwell in the midst of the camp.  That is why the purity laws are specific to Israel - the people of the land - unlike the moral laws that apply in broad outline, to everyone.  It is always wrong to murder, rob, steal, and commit adultery."

Author:  Armand [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Etymology of words

Hello, Summer: May you have Peace.

You state:

It seems to me that the law of love is related to property, that is having respect for what belongs to God (as opposed to idolatry) or what belongs to other people.

Why would you assume that the “law of love is related to property”? It seems to me or, at least, how I read your statement that the only thing the “law of love” is related to IS property. Don’t you think it relates to a lot more than just property? Maybe I don’t understand exactly what you mean by property. Please clarify a bit more, if you don’t’ mind. Thank you, Summer.

But there is a distinction between the moral laws and the purity laws that were specific to the people of Israel.


The following quotes are from a book on Leviticus by Rabbi Sacks who was the Chief Rabbi in the UK.

And you say this to say what, Summer? Do you put much store in what Rabbi Sacks says, because he’s Chief? I mean, you quote him, Summer; however, I’m not sure why it is you quote him. Frankly, I am more interested in what YOU think and believe than in what Mr. Sacks thinks and believes. Or, are you quoting him because you do believe what he states?



Author:  Summer [ Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Etymology of words

Thank you Armand

I will try to clarify. Please excuse me as I have a tendency to be long-winded, so I try to avoid that by being brief but that obviously means I'm not making things clear.

My statement about the law of love relating to property was more meant with regards to the Mosaic law where the head of the household seemed to view everything as his property, including his wife, servants, slaves, animals etc, and the Mosaic law seems to address things in regard to that relationship.

I have read three of Rabbi Sacks' books and have learnt a great deal from them in understanding the way the Torah was written and understanding the reasons for the various laws. The explanation he gave about boundaries helped me to understand more about this so I thought I would share it.

I read a great number of books and value everyone's opinion while not necessarily agreeing with them. In fact I often read say a couple of books with completely opposing viewpoints so that I can get a balanced understanding.

So to get back to the law of love I was wondering about your comment:
"But then the Lord reminded me of the “law of love” that we hear so much about, this law of love superseding any written code. The law of love encompassing those laws AND MORE."

People separate the 10 commandments from the other laws. Do the other laws and the dietary laws come under the law of love, directly or maybe indirectly? Or do we consider the principles behind them? These were things I was considering.

I hope this has clarified things and not made it all more complicated. haha

Author:  Summer [ Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Etymology of words

Justmom That's a very important point you make. Man out of fear from witnessing the works of this great and powerful God wanted Moses to be their mediator and to see things in the physical.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily we forget things and need constant reminders. It's good to share loving reminders isn't it?

Author:  AGuest [ Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Etymology of words

I have a tendency to be long-winded, so I try to avoid that by being brief but that obviously means I'm not making things clear.

I totally understand this comment, dear Summer (peace to you!). As the most verbose person on this board (and perhaps on ANY board - LOL!), I have learned NOT to be brief when there is much to be shared. For one, I am not one of those people who can "read between the lines." There's that saying, "There's just as much said in what is NOT said than in what IS said." I dunno. Personally, I think lot... indeed, MOST... of mankind's "ills" are borne out of what is NOT said/stated... "left out" if you will... which leads to a plethora of misunderstandings, mistranslations, mistransliterations, etc. I am very much a "SAY what you mean," person. I am also very much a "MEAN what you SAY," person.

Except where the message is not necessarily for the one (who might be) reading it... eye-ee, Scripture (where many undertake to read it, but it wasn't written TO everyone, per se), coded messages in times of danger/conflict, etc.), I think purposefully leaving things to others to "interpret" is, IMHO, quite UNloving. There is a certain nuance of deceit behind it ("Why SHOULD I tell them; let them figure it out!") and contrary to my Lord's admonishment, "All things you want to be done to you, you must do to others." I don't anyone to be playing "word games" with ME, so I try very hard not to do so with others. Hence... it all comes out - LOLOL! Which translates into "long-windedness" on my part (as you can see here - LOL!).

And it makes sense as both JAH and Christ can be pretty long-winded, as you can see from Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms, and Christ's own recorded words. Even the "minor" Prophets' words are substantial, given the tendency today to shy away from words (a la Twitter, etc.). Today, everyone wants everything to be abbreviated. Because they don't have time, can't sit still, time is money, etc. But think of what dear Lazarus said at the conclusion of HIS account:

"[Jesus] did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Imagine if such WERE written: would we bother to read about it? True, the devotion to many books CAN be wearisome to the flesh: many folks don't LIKE to read. But many things were written... and lengthily so... for the benefit of Israel... and as corroboration for what Christ tells those of his Body. It was even commanded under the Law to READ the Law... DAILY (yikes!).

Alternatively (and much better and more desirable, of course), there is Christ himself... who SPEAKS. BUT... are we SO "busy", so occupied/preoccupied, that we don't even take the time to listen to HIM? What if what he say to say is quite lengthy? At what point do we STOP listening ("Ummm, yeah, okay, Lord, I got THAT part. But the rest? Well, you've been talking for some time and, well, I gotta go, now - things to do, y'know? So, I'll try to check back wit'cha later!")?

I say all of this to say... do you. If you have a "lot" to say, please... say it. IF it's of benefit. Not just rambling on so as to hear yourself talk, musing over things that have no real benefit. Don't worry about someone not liking it or wanting you to be brief. Be YOU and if you is "long-winded" so be it. So long as what you have to say is of some benefit to others... and especially SPIRITUALLY... then I think you OWE it to them to say/share it. If they can't handle/get through it, that's on them. They don't have to "consume" it all at once - anything can be read in pieces (a paragraph or two today, another... or two... tomorrow, etc.). But Christ said:

"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." John 15:15

Perhaps he didn't give them EVERYTHING all at one time, or even before he left, but he gave them EVERYTHING they could bear at the time... and a great deal more, later.

So, as long as it isn't about, say, laundry (LOLOL!), speak up, please... and do not worry that you will be disdained HERE for "many words." Unless those words are "empty" (i.e., full of rhetoric, propaganda, lewdness, lies, deceit, vanity, blasphemy... or things like these), then they have value HERE.

As before, peace to you!

Your servant and a (very long-winded) slave of Christ,


Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group