Digging with Darren

I’ve been trying to post this as a note on Facebook, but evidently they have a content filter in place that won’t allow me to post notes with the name of the President in it. I’m posting it on my site as an alternative.

I’ve had a few people ask me about the validity of the statements behind a video on YouTube (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsgHUZX&h=4b2921334b24fa472a39a1114ceb45d5) trying to make a connection between the name “Barak Obama” and Yeshua’s (Jesus) statement in Luke 10:18 that he saw “Satan falling as lightning” so I thought I would go ahead & post a note about it. The creator of this video claims that the original Hebrew that Jesus would have spoken would contain the name “Barak Obama” thus pointing to our current President as the Anti-Christ. My statements henceforth are neither an endorsement of the character of the our current President, nor any kind of slander.

First, let me say that I’m no Hebrew scholar by any means, AND I am willing to stand corrected by those who know far more about the intricacies of Hebrew than myself (i.e. @aaron.eby, etc.). However, from my current knowledge of Hebrew, this is my understanding…

Although the creators of this video have some basic Hebrew knowledge, they don’t have any understanding of Hebrew syntax.( FYI – A Strong’s concordance is not going to give you Hebrew understanding beyond a few root words.) The main error he made in this is that the Vav (he called it a “Waw” or “Vau”) is used primarily as a conjunction meaning “and.” If the Vav were where he says it would be, it would read “And I saw Satan falling and lightning.” There would be no mention of “from heaven” or “AS” lightning. Also, when the Vav comes at the beginning of a word, in all the cases I know of it has the “oo” sound, not the “oh” sound.

I’m looking at one of my Hebrew New Testaments right now, and this is how Luke 10:18 reads:

ראיתי את השטן נופל כברק מן השמים.

Which transliterates to:

“Ra’iti et HaSatan nophel k’varak min hashamayim.”

The word “k’varak” uses the root word “barak/baraq” which means lightning. But in this syntax, it doesn’t sound anything like what he is saying. The prefix “k” means “like” or “as.” It has to be there to say “like lightning” or “as lightning.”

Also, there is no mention of “bama.” The common Hebrew word for “heaven” is “shamayim.” In the Avinu (what we call “The Lord’s Prayer”), it begins with “Avinu Shebashamayim” (Our Father In Heaven) and would be rendered the same in any context. The word “heaven” or “heavens” is always rendered as “shamayim” since Genesis 1, especially when referring to the throne of Hashem (God).

This appears to be a very forced, and poor translation of the Hebrew behind the words of our Master.

“And they will know you are my disciples by your Systematic Theology.”

I would like to hear about your highlights for this year’s Shavuot, especially from you who attended the FFOZ Conference in Hudson. Leave me a comment with a special memory to share with others!

If you would like to see more texts available freely online that related to Messianic studies, please consider helping me out. I’m looking for a volunteer to help develop my textual repository site DWD eTexts. I currently have posted all of Pirkei Avot (in both Hebrew and English, with a bit of commentary), Odes of Solomon, the Didache, and have begun adding 1 Clement.

You don’t have to be a web developer. You just need to be a little computer savvy. Essentially, you would just be logging into the site and copying/pasting in text. There would be a little formatting required, but not much. If anyone would like to help me add more texts (and finish 1 Clement) to this site, please post a comment on this post.

I failed to mention the final session of the FFOZ Shavuot ‘09 conference, which was taught by Daniel Lancaster. This was probably the biggest “aha!” moment at the conference for most attendees and ended with a long, standing, round of applause.

Daniel took a long, 2-part session to go into great detail and offer up an almost air-tight case for the proper interpretation of the terminology and analogy of the book of Hebrews (particularly chapters 7-10).

He first set his teaching up with three arguments typical of Christian theology & interpretation based on the book of Hebrews. With each of these, he presented the problems associated with such a perspective with an expression with Talmudic sentiments, “This is a difficulty.” Of course, he stated that the goal was to be able to reach the actual Talmudic statement, “There is no difficulty here” (for which he did—at least in my estimation).

He specifically addressed issues such as how to resolve phrases that seem to negate the Mosaic covenant, overthrow the Aaronic priesthood and the belittle the function of the Temple service.

His second part systematically worked through each of these “difficulties” and resolved them to what appears to be great satisfaction. Lord willing, I’ll be cleaning up my notes over the next few days and posting them. However, I believe Daniel is planning on posting a full, 30-page article (I am pretty sure I heard) on this teaching in the next Messiah Journal (which we all eagerly await!).

Thank you FFOZ for all of your hard work and diligent study, and for sharing it with us.

The FFOZ Shavuot 09 Conference in Hudson, Wisconsin ended yesterday afternoon, and it was sad. We left Wisconsin this morning and are on our way back to Arkansas. The conference was really great and everyone involved did such a great job. It was difficult to leave. We made so many great new friends. I want to thank everyone who took the time to say hi and let me know that you knew me from diggingwithdarren and we were finally able to meet face to face. I look forward to getting to know you all better, soon.

Also, Lord willing, I will be posting notes and overall thoughts from the conference over the next few days. Many blessings!

I wanted to post a brief note on Session 1 from this morning (Shavuot Conference 09) in which Aaron Eby did an excellent job at making a definitive disconnect between the Jewish “rejection” of Yeshua and the destruction of the Temple. He did an excellent job in showing that the destruction of the Temple was not due to the rejection of the theological assent to Yeshua as Messiah, but the rejection of Yeshua’s central message of teshuva /repentance and acceptance of the Kingdom as the authority over one’s every day life. His mission was to call people to repentance, returning them to the Torah of Moses which defines proper conduct. He (Eby) stressed time and again that Yeshua’s message was, “Kindness takes precedence over Temple service. Without kindness, there will be no service,” saying that his message actually revolved around his love for his Father’s House (the Temple), with the ultimate message being that we will only see redemption when we personally carry out the teachings of our Master (Yeshua) in our lives. Great stuff…!