SIL Hebrew Keyboard is highly recommended!

 

        I have always loved SIL keyboard since I installed the software on my laptop. However, for two years, I could not find anything similar to SIL keyboard on iPhone. 

        Thank God, it is now possible to install the SIL keyboard. This is how you do it:

1) Go to App Store on iPhone or Play Store on Android phones. Look for Keyman. Install Keyman on your laptop. Once you get this screen, click on (1) and (2) 

After downloading, if you click on Keyman app, you will see this screen. This is like a simple Word file for you to type anything in a language that you choose. Click on the three dots on the top right corner. You will see "SETTINGS." Click SETTINGS followed by INSTALLED LANGUAGES. You can then choose what language you are looking for. For Hebrew, look for ANCIENT HEBREW. For Greek, I suggest ANCIENT GREEK (to 1453). 

Once you have installed the languages, click on the globe icon just next to the space bar. Choose the language that you want to use to type. 

 

2) Once you have installed Keyman on your phone, and now you want the keyboard to be used for other apps, you need to go to the SETTINGS on your mobile phone. In the case of iPhone, it will appear like this after I clicked on SETTINGS. 

3) Next, I click on GENERAL. This will give me this page: 

4) Choose and click KEYBOARD. This screen will appear. Click on the word KEYBOARDS. 

5) You will see that I have installed a few keyboards in the past. I have just added KEYMAN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES.  Just click it to install. 

After that, you should be able to type Hebrew or Greek on Signal, Whatsapp or any other app that you have. 

I hope the above helps. As I managed to install the keyboard after some trials and errors, I may not remember every step. Try to play around with the app to learn how to use it.  

Come, join us to learn how to Learn and Teach Hebrew with Aleph and Beth!

In case you missed this today, here is the video for you to watch. Andrew and Bethany Case from Mexico shares the pedagogy behind their teaching of Hebrew. 

If you are interested to follow the series, join this chat group. https://chat.whatsapp.com/ItUm9xzMYoLAX5OJcsROUj  

Please memorise this song. We may sing this together with Andrew. 

IT'S NOT DE-GREECING BUT LEARNING MORE HEBREW & GREEK

 

Do we now tear down every Greek portico in our modern buildings just because they are part of Greek architecture? Did Jesus or Paul ever advocate that? 

Sometimes, proponents of the Hebraic Roots Movement have gone a bit too far as to claim that God wants us to learn Hebrew instead of Greek. 

        While I promote the learning of the biblical languages so that we can read the text in its original languages, to downplay the Greek New Testament for a Hebrew New Testament is simply inappropriate.

        There are also claims that David Pawson once taught about "de-Greecing" the modern church. However, after listening to the audio recording, I can only conclude that Pawson was not even recommending that we drop the Greek New Testament, or totally disregard anything that appears to be Greek, but he has been quoted out of context to support one's disposition towards the Hebraic roots movement. 

        Dawson was merely talking about some of the influences from Greek philosophy, cultures and architecture that were clearly contradictory to the scriptures (cf Col 2:8), just as Peter had to be "detoxified" of his Jewishness before the gospel could reach the Gentiles (cf Acts 10:9-17). 

        Pawson, in no way, was playing down the New Testament in Greek nor was he talking of the superiority of the Hebrew language. In fact, for most part of his ministry, he would have to speak in koine Greek -- the lingua franca of the day -- to communicate his message to the Gentile world.

        Just as we need to understand the Hebrew language and culture to interpret the Hebrew scriptures, we need to understand the Greek language and culture to exegete the New Testament. This is my stand.  

        It is important that we understand that:

        (a) the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew and only certain portions of it were written in Aramaic. This is the reason why we learn biblical Hebrew instead of modern Hebrew. 

        The Hebrew used during the times of the prophets and the kings of Israel was different from the modern Hebrew that you will experience in Israel today. A young Jewish friend of mine laughed when he heard that I was learning biblical Hebrew, "Why are you learning biblical Hebrew? If you come to Israel and you speak in biblical Hebrew, no one would understand you!"

        In short, someone would be laughed at if he were to speak Shakespearean English in the wet market in 2021! 

        (b) the original New Testament was written in koine (common) Greek. Compared to what is claimed to be the 'original' Hebrew manuscript of the New Testament, we have thousands of Greek manuscripts. There are no major manuscripts in Hebrew (even if there are, there were probably only one or two copies), whose claims as the 'original' Hebrew text of the New Testament has been disputed.

        There are, however, what we have today a present day translation of the New Testament into modern Hebrew. Like any other translations, it is merely a translation, and should be treated only as a translation. Nothing else! 

        So, this should raise a red flag, when someone comes to you claiming that he or she has found some new and hidden nuances about a doctrine which has come across more strongly than the Greek New Testament, and if it goes against the basic doctrines of Scriptures (for example, the trinity of God, the incarnation of Christ, His death and His resurrection), it is best that you take it with a pinch of salt. 

        (c) When the Hebrew Old Testament was first translated into the lingua franca of the day, it was translated into Greek by a group of 70 Jewish scholars in the third century BC; hence, we have our Septuagint Greek Old Testament, or LXX (the Roman numeral for 70) in short.

        Allow me to further elaborate:

        (a) As Greek was the lingua franca of the day, the Jewish scholars had no problem translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. They did not even preserve the Tetragrammaton, holy as we may think it is; instead, they used the title in the Greek language (κυριος). If God had placed so much emphasis on His Name in its Hebraic form, would He not have the Septuagint transliterated Yehovah into Greek? 

        Therefore, never assume that God's Name must always be written as YHVH, Yahweh or Jehovah. Or, Jesus' name Yehsua. I have seen people littering some Hebrew names amidst a text written in English, which makes the entire text look distasteful. Read this blog post regarding the Name used in the Old Testament Hebrew text.

        Dr Bill Barrick in his lecture (watch from time 15:00 min - 30:00 min) explained very well about the Name Jehovah. He explains how although he prefers the name Yahweh, the Name Jehovah was formed using the vowels in Adonai to the tetragrammaton. I agree with him on this.

        Likewise, when the scholars translated into the Greek Septuagint, they did not see they needed to preserve the name of the trumpet made from ram's horn. Instead of using a Greek transliteration of the word שׁוֹפָר (transliterated as shofar), they used the Greek equivalent, σάλπιγγος. Look at all three texts:

        A lot of things have been stretched too far by proponents of the Hebraic movement. Some do it to sell their paraphernalia, others do that sincerely as they believe it is a new revelation from God. As far as God is concerned, there is no new revelation except what is already written in the Scriptures. 

        Therefore, we have to be careful what we teach. 

Good Question, Nehemia Gordon!

 

During one of the sessions on the book of Hebrews by Dr David Allen on Oct 24, 2021, someone by the name of N. Gordon posed a question about Psalm 110: 1:

”לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה ׀ לַֽאדֹנִ֗י שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י עַד־אָשִׁ֥ית אֹ֝יְבֶ֗יךָ הֲדֹ֣ם לְרַגְלֶֽיךָ׃“

(Psalm 110:1 HMT-W4)

https://accordance.bible/link/read/HMT-W4#Psa._110:1

        I would like to take some time to respond to Nehemia's question, which I believe that Dr Allen had done succinctly albeit the little leftover time he had. 

        Firstly, let me say that this is nothing but a superscription added to the Masoretic Text to provide some background to the psalms. 

        Secondly, as suggested by Nehemia, the literal translation of the words in Hebrew לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר is 'a psalm to David'. However, this is only half correct. 

        Well, the preposition לְ means 'to'  or 'for'. But, is Nehemia's translation necessarily correct and the translation into the English Bibles 'A psalm of David' therefore erroneous?

        If we look at other psalms, we see the use of the preposition to suggest that it is not necessarily to be literally translated as 'to David' or 'for David.'  

1) Look at a few other psalms: 

        There are, in fact, 117 out of 150 psalms that carry some form of superscriptions in the Masoretic Text. I will not dwell into all the psalms or provide the statistics as this is not the focus of my blog:

        In Psalm 55:1, we have:  מַשְׂכִּ֥יל לְדָוִֽד. This same phrase also appears in Psa 53:1 and elsewhere.

        Psalm 3:1מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִ֑ד is even clearer. If you look at the superscription, it says in Hebrew:

 מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִ֑ד בְּ֝בָרְח֗וֹ מִפְּנֵ֤י ׀ אַבְשָׁל֬וֹם בְּנֽוֹ׃

 New American Standard Bible renders it as "A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son."

        While the literal translation would have been 'A psalm to David,' as suggested by Nehemia; however, it would not make sense if someone had written this psalm to David, and he refers to David as 'אָדֹנִ֗י' (my lord). Why?

        This leads to my second point. In this instance, the superscription is clear that it refers to David in the third person as in the two words used בְּ֝בָרְח֗וֹ and   בְּנֽוֹ (he fled from the presence of Absalom, his son). 

        Read carefully as this clearly shows that the one who wrote the superscription could not have been the same person who wrote Psalm 110 `to/for David'. 'Get it? 

        It makes no sense for us to assume that the psalmist is someone else (perhaps, his transcriber) other than David, who refers to David as 'my lord'. 

        "The LORD says to my Lord: 
“Sit at My right hand 
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1) 

        Read on, and you will get the whole picture. 

2) The preposition  לְ does not only imply 'to':

        Hence, to suggest that Psalm 110:1 should be literally translated as a 'Psalm to David' may not be exactly that accurate. 

        In fact, Robert Alter, a Jewish scholar and Bible translator himself, rendered Psalm 3:1 as 'A David psalm.' This is because, as he explains:

"The traditional rendering is "a psalm of David," which tends to imply authorship. (Read on, Nehemia) The Hebrew preposition  is ambiguous (emphasis, mine). It could mean "of" or "by"; it often means "belonging to"; another common meaning is "for" or it might refer to something as loose as "in the manner of." The choice of translation is intended to preserve these ambiguous possibilities." (1) 

        Just to add to the fun, look at Psalm 56:3b, 

כִּֽי־רַבִּ֨ים לֹחֲמִ֖ים לִ֣י מָרֽוֹם׃

         How would you translate the preposition in the word לִ֣י? In this instance, the English is a richer language than Hebrew because in English, you have different prepositions which are more specific, 'for', 'to', 'against', 'by' and 'of.' 

        Put simply, because Hebrew is more of a pictorial language, when you say לִ֣י, you automatically point to yourself. And, depending on the context, it simply cannot be translated as, 'fighting for me' or 'fighting to me.'  

        In this instance, the NASB translates it correctly as: "For they are many who fight proudly against me." (Psalm 56:3b). 

        My conclusion: when you see the preposition in this usage לִ֣י in Hebrew, you have to look at the context, not simply translate it as 'to' (or even 'for') as suggested by Nehemia in his example of Psalm 103:1.  

        Alter is not a Messianic Jew who believes in Jesus, and even he prefers to render the translation as 'A David psalm' rather than literally 'A psalm to David.' 

        So, Nehemia, I have one brownie point, you just lost it to me. Wink Wink.

3)  My suggestions: 

        There are several possibilities how the translation can be rendered to the phrase לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר:

        (a) A psalm according to David 

        (b) A psalm attributed to David 

        (c) A psalm belonging to David

        (d) A Davidic psalm 

        Or, as Alter puts it, "A David psalm." 

        So, what's wrong with the English translation, "A psalm of David"? 

4) Who is then the psalmist referring to?

        If David is the author of Psalm 110, it is obvious when he wrote, לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, David could not have referred to himself as 'my lord.'  He would have referred to someone else far more superior than him, as his 'lord.'

        Bearing in mind, there is a 51% chance that David the king could have someone transcribing for him, hence, even if the transcriber wrote for him, the psalm is still attributed to David, not the transcriber.

        However, to suggest that the transcriber is of any relevance is to suggest that the ghostwriter can have a voice to the autobiography that he writes for his client. As a ghostwriter myself, everything I write in an autobiography, is not about me but the client himself. He pays me to write on his behalf. So, do you get it now?

        לַֽאדֹנִ֗י therefore, refers to David addressing a third person as 'my lord', not a third-person psalmist referring to David as his 'lord.' 

 5)  שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י    'sit at my right hand.'

        As pointed out by Allen in the Q&A session, is David still alive today to be seated on God's right hand? Would this be presumptuous to even imagine that David has greater prominence than Moses himself from the Jewish point of view to be invited to sit on God's right hand?

        Please read on verse 4:

 נִשְׁבַּ֤ע יְהוָ֨ה ׀ וְלֹ֥א יִנָּחֵ֗ם אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵ֥ן לְעוֹלָ֑ם עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק׃

(In NASB, it says, "The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.””) 

        David is not a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and never was he referred to as a priest in the entire Tanakh. Ask any orthodox Jew, and you will be scorned if you suggest this to him that David is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek forever. 

6) Come by simple faith to Christ:

        Here is a sincere invitation to simple faith in Christ. 

        Acknowledge that:

        (a) "All have sinned and come short of the glory of Christ" (Romans 3:23)

        (b) "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)

        (c) “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died    for us.” (Romans 5:8)

        (d) "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)

        (e) "knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, 1is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him." (Romans 6:9)

        Simple faith means setting aside all your years of scholarship and after you have understood your real predicament as a man of the flesh, you speak to this Jesus directly acknowledging your sin, believing that He died for you, was raised from the dead, and receive Him as your Savior and Lord.

    

Footnotes:

(1) Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible (Vol 3) The Writings. First. Vol. 3. 3 vols. NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

 

Original Text of the New Testament was written in Hebrew?

 

A few years ago, I was told that a Hebrew teacher from India claimed that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew. 

        Just this week, another gentleman from Singapore made the same claim. In my follow-up discussion with him, he claims that the New Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

        Allow me to put my response to this in point form:

1) Lingua Franca 

The entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with the exception of certain portions in Daniel that were written in Aramaic.

However, well known manuscripts such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (which is based on Codex Leningradensis) and Aleppo Codex do not make any attempt to preserve the Aramaic text.

The fact that the Aramaic text is not even preserved in these manuscripts show that even the Jews themselves did not bother to preserve the original Aramaic text.

2) The Septuagint 

The entire Tanakh was translated by 70 scholars from Hebrew to Greek around 3rd Century BC. Why was Greek chosen, instead of Aramaic? 

The answer is obvious: Greek has already become the lingua franca of the day. Koine Greek (or what I call 'marketplace Greek) was already used widely during era of Jesus and the early church. The translation was necessary as Greek was the form of education that even the Jews in disapora were receiving even before Jesus' era. 

This is similar to our English language which is the lingua franca in our 21st century, while Aramaic is similar to our Chinese dialects such as Hokkien or Teo Chew.  

It is obvious that when God wanted to communicate with the nations of the then known world, He would have picked Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

This is common sense that Aramaic was not an important language in those days. There could have been portions of the Bible translated into Aramaic for the specific groups of people, but Greek was still the common language that people could read and understand. 

While Jesus and His disciples may have used Aramaic in their daily conversation, the gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written in the lingua franca of the day: koine Greek.

Meanwhile, Hebrew was confined to only the synagogues and the Temple during Jesus' lifetime. Put it in the modern context, Hebrew is like Arabic to the Muslims.

For that reason, we have many thousands of early Greek manuscripts compared to what some claim to be the 'original' Hebrew or Aramaic New Testament.

While there may be claims that the early church fathers had cited some Hebrew New Testament manuscripts, the truth remains that God did not bother to bring it to the forefront until recent years.

3) Jewish scholar Nehemias Gordon has also dealt with this kind of claim that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Although he is not a Christian, Gordon has put it clearly that there is no such thing. He spent a few thousand dollars to purchase a manuscript and studied it. Very quickly, he concluded that it was fake.  

4) What about Hebrew New Testament that we have now?

Bible.Is app, for example, has a Modern Hebrew version of 1995.  It has the New Testament translated from Greek into Hebrew.

I use this occasionally but I would not take it as the original text. It is as good a translation as translations into any other languages. If I want to find the original words used in the Old Testament, I would refer to the Hebrew text, but for the New Testament, it would be Greek.  

If I teach Hebrew to a group of believers, I would use the Hebrew Old Testament as the text, but I would treat the New Testament in Hebrew as just another translation.

5) Repeatedly making his false claims.

Before I decided to block this gentleman from Singapore, he kept repeating one or two statements. I do not understand his intention, whether he was trying to print screen something and show people that I believed what he said about the New Testament.  

However, I think this guy has been so conditioned after 17 years in the Hebraic Movement that he no longer could see the truth any more. 

 

 

 

HEBRAIC ROOTS: Making Sense of the Hebraic Roots: A Messianic Jew's Perspectives

Please return to this blogpost for any updates, including the video recording or notes, if any.

This public lecture is hosted by Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary (MBTS) together with Explain International

    Please register: https://tinyurl.com/hebraic2021

For more information, email silkrgn@gmail.com 

Rev David Zadok 

will be sharing about the Hebraic Roots:

Making Sense of the Hebraic Roots: A Messianic Jew's Perspectives

Date:  Dec 1, 2021 (Wednesday)

Time: 8pm-10pm (Malaysia) (GMT +8)

Use 

http://www.thetimezoneconverter.com/ 

to convert to your local time.

Background:

David Zadok is both the pastor of Grace and Truth congregation and the director of HaGefen Publishing in Israel. He was born in Israel, and grew up in Iran.

David serves on the board of National Pastors and Elders in Israel, as well as Israel College of the Bible and the Church’s Mission to the Jews, and the first Messianic Research Center.

He has been serving in the same church, Grace and Truth for 31 years as an elder, and pastoring it for the last 9 years.

David is married to Esther (Eti) and they have three children, Maayan (24), Hadas (21) and Meidan (16).

Beautiful Psalm 54:1-4

 

Psa. 54:1‏ לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ בִּנְגִינֹ֗ת מַשְׂכִּ֥יל לְדָוִֽד׃

‎Psa. 54:2‏ בְּב֣וֹא הַ֭זִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ לְשָׁא֑וּל הֲלֹ֥א דָ֝וִ֗ד מִסְתַּתֵּ֥ר עִמָּֽנוּ׃

‎Psa. 54:3‏ אֱ֭לֹהִים בְּשִׁמְךָ֣ הוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נִי וּבִגְבוּרָתְךָ֥ תְדִינֵֽנִי׃

‎Psa. 54:4‏ אֱ֭לֹהִים שְׁמַ֣ע תְּפִלָּתִ֑י הַ֝אֲזִ֗ינָה לְאִמְרֵי־פִֽי׃

‎Psa. 54:5‏ כִּ֤י זָרִ֨ים ׀ קָ֤מוּ עָלַ֗י וְֽ֭עָרִיצִים בִּקְשׁ֣וּ נַפְשִׁ֑י לֹ֤א שָׂ֨מוּ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְנֶגְדָּ֣ם סֶֽלָה׃

‎Psa. 54:6‏ הִנֵּ֣ה אֱ֭לֹהִים עֹזֵ֣ר לִ֑י אֲ֝דֹנָ֗י בְּֽסֹמְכֵ֥י נַפְשִֽׁי׃

‎Psa. 54:7‏ יָשׁוֹב [יָשִׁ֣יב] הָ֭רַע לְשֹׁרְרָ֑י בַּ֝אֲמִתְּךָ֗ הַצְמִיתֵֽם׃

‎Psa. 54:8‏ בִּנְדָבָ֥ה אֶזְבְּחָה־לָּ֑ךְ א֤וֹדֶה שִּׁמְךָ֖ יְהוָ֣ה כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎Psa. 54:9‏ כִּ֣י מִכָּל־צָ֭רָה הִצִּילָ֑נִי וּ֝בְאֹיְבַ֗י רָאֲתָ֥ה עֵינִֽי׃

        

        Like Psalm 23, this psalm is short and very meaningful when we are faced with adversity. I believe the way this psalm was written is to help people to reflect over David's personal thoughts when he was betrayed by the Ziphites. In very much the same way, we see this in the lectio divina (Latin: divine reading of the Scriptures). An example is provided here. 

        It begins with the introduction, לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ בִּנְגִינֹ֗ת , which tells us who the psalm is prepared for. It is for the 'chief musician' or some call it 'choir director' and it appears that he was in charge of the players of stringed instruments. 

        The word  מַשְׂכִּ֥יל  is not translated, but I believe this is something like a rendition or an attribute to David. The psalm is therefore an attribute to David (לְדָוִֽד). The context is also given so that people could understand the circumstances involved. 

        If this psalm is written by a third party, it is probably attributed to David. Perhaps, David had shared his own thoughts about that incident and the psalter helped to put it in words. Or, David could have also written it, but the story is based on the narrative we read in 1 Samuel 23 where the Ziphites (זִּיפִים) told King Saul that David (and his men) were hiding in their land. There was an agreement between King Saul and the Ziphites to spy on David's whereabouts, and all his hideouts so that King Saul could pursue him to the last hideout to finish him off. 

        If we understand how lectio divina is written, we will see how Psalm 54 was put together to enable us to experience a closer relationship with God by putting ourselves in David's shoes. Hence, the entire chapter gives us the first person perspective which is different from the third person narrative in 1 Samuel 23. 

        In verses 3 & 4, we see David turning to One and Only One who could save him. He is none other than God (אֱ֭לֹהִים) Himself. Who do we turn to when we are in distress? 

        Four verbs are used in these two verses, which the psalmist linked David and God, 

•         הוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נִי  which means 'save me.' This same root word  ישׁע is how we get two names, Joshua and Jesus. 
•        תְדִינֵֽנִי  means 'vindicate'. The Hebrew root word is דין which is translated as 'judge.' This tells us how David turned to God as the One who could see from Heaven and knew what was on the mind (motive) of Saul. God is the best judge, and David turns to Him for vindication. Bear in mind that the word we see in the word וּבִגְבוּרָתְךָ֥, the root word is גבר which means 'might', 'strength' or 'power.' Just as he did, David once again looked up to God as the One who has the power to save him from King Saul and his army. 
•  שְׁמַ֣ע Here is a word that we have come across time and again. "Hear , O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (see footnote 1) The word is in the Imperative, and this is like David demanding God to hear his cry.          

• הַ֝אֲזִ֗ינָה is a hifil imperative. The English translation 'Give ear' does not bring out the nuances that we see when we understand the Hebrew grammar. Hifil is a 'causative active' and 'imperative' means a strong urging from the person who speaks this word. It is like David telling God, "You have ears, O Lord. Cause Your ears to hear me!" This is a sound of desperation on the part of David.  How often do we call to God with such strong impulsion as David did! He did it to show God that he had no one else to turn to but God alone!

 I will leave the rest of the verses to another day. 

 FOOTNOTES:

1. Deut 6:4 is an imperative given to Israel to listen or hear this declaration that is God and He is only One God. 

”שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד׃“

(Deuteronomy 6:4 HMT-W4)