Does Gav Prove the Vav?

Nehemiah Gordon claims that the Hebrew word “gav” holds the key that unlocks the true pronunciation of the sixth letter waw, which almost all Hebrew linguists (including those at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem) believe anciently had a “w” sound. If he can prove that the sixth letter, also known as the vav was pronounced anciently as a “v,” then his claim that Yehovah, (Jehovah) holds more weight over the traditional scholarly consensus of the pronunciation Yahweh. His claim is that these two Hebrew words, one spelled with the soft bet “gav,” and the other spelled with waw “gaw,” clearly prove that this sixth letter had the original sound of “v.” He believes these two words are interchangeable, so according to him this is a major discovery that should rock the scholarly word to its core. Gordon has a history of speaking in hyperbole but in this case does he have validity?

According to Gordon: “The word for back in Hebrew is gav and gav can be written with a soft bet or with a vav, and the only way that can happen is if the soft bet and the vav have the same pronunciation.” So Gordon believes that this is proof of two variant spellings of the same word, back, and not two variant spellings of two different words.

The word Gav גַּב 1354  spelled with the soft bet (without the dagesh) occurs 13 times in the Hebrew Bible and only translates to mean “back” one time, in Ezekiel 10:12.  The 12 other various translations of gav are mound, rim of a wheel, embossed shield, arch of eye, dome roof, and various meanings of something “rounded.” It would make sense that this word could be used used for back as well, since the human back can curve and be round.

The other Hebrew word Gaw גַּו 1458 spelled with the “waw” or commonly called “vav” in modern Hebrew, occurs three times, 1 Kings 14:9, Nehemiah 9:26, and Ezekiel 23:35. In every occurrence of this word it means just “back.” It seems pretty clear from the translations and the word root that gav and gaw are two distinct words with two distinct meanings.

We reached out to the Hebrew University language department regarding Gordon’s claims regarding the Gav-Gaw connection since he claims this is such an amazing and earth shaking discovery. Professor Adina Moshavi commented:

“I completely agree that the גב/גו alternation is not an adequate proof to the contrary. I have not looked into this issue, but I see that the lexicons derive the two words from different roots, implying that the phonetic identity of the two words in Tiberian Hebrew is not significant,” Adina Moshavi, PhD, Hebrew Language Department, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. More about Professor Moshavi

We also reached out to Steven Fassberg, PhD, professor at the Hebrew University and one of the world’s foremost experts in the Hebrew language and the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Israel. Regarding the gav-gaw question he replied: “gb (gav) is from the root gbb and gw (gaw) is from the root gww. Both are well attested roots in Semitic.” He continues…“There is no doubt whatsoever that vav was pronounced w in the Hebrew of the First Temple period and in Semitic languages.”

We also asked Professor Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal of the Hebrew University the same question and here was his response:

“Thank you for your question. There is no doubt that the original pronunciation was w There is some evidence that in some early Hebrew dialects there was a sound shift of w>v. There are two different prepositions go – inside and gab > on top.” Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal, PhD, Department of Hebrew Language, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

So if both of these words are from different roots according to the lexicon and to some of the best Hebrew experts in the world, then how can Gordon claim that they are a variation of the same word? Is Gordon ignorant of these Hebrew word roots? Is he willingly misleading people? To make these outlandish claims one can only assume one or the other.

We could also use such flawed reasoning, let me give you an example. Lets look at the Hebrew words שָׂחַק sachaq “to laugh” 7832 and צְחַק 6711 tzchaq “to Laugh.” Both have different roots but similar sounds. So with the same logic used by Gordon, does this mean that the letters Sin (s) and the Tzade (ts) have the same pronunciation just because the sounds of these letters are similar? Is this some cutting-edge find that should implode Biblical Hebrew as we know it? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Gordon had made a challenge to prove the waw sound has a “w” sound. He said: “Can you please show me your manuscripts with the “w” pronunciation?” This is not hard to do. If you understand how the language works and how contractions work, we can easily prove the waw sound as a “w” literally hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible through contraction. When a word contracts, as happens with many words, it gets easier to say as fewer letters and sounds are typically used.

Let’s look at the Hebrew word, Avihu אָבִ֖יהוּ which means “his father” in Judges 14:10. It contracts to Aviw אָבִ֣יו “his father,” as found in in Judges 14:3. Notice in the contracted form the heh (h sound) has been dropped and the Shureq vowel letter וּ (which has the sound of “u” as in ruler) contracts to a consonantal waw ו and loses the niqqud dot. Now pronounce Avihu in it’s contracted form without the “h” Aviu. The softer sound of w is now vocalized. You could phonetically spell it Aviw with the double u. This occurs 220 times from Genesis to Chronicles and clearly proves the sound of the “waw” anciently is tied to the “w” or “double u” sound of the וּ Shureq. The use of the letter waw in connection with the “o” vowel sound as in Shalom שָׁלוֹם is no accident. When pronounced fast you can hear that “w” sound in the word—try it, say Shalom several times rapidly (shalom, shalom, shalom, shalom)…hear that “w” sound? The lips are in the same position when making an “O” (וֹ‎)   “U” (וּ)‎  or “W” (ו‎) sound but not with the “v” fricative sound which needs the upper teeth and lower lip engaged. The v in Hebrew is not tied to the waw letter ו‎ at all in biblical Hebrew but to the letter bet in Hebrew. The Bet has the sound of B with the dagesh dot בּ and V sound ב without the dagesh. The sounds B and V are very similar.

We can also see this with the word for brother, Akihu אָחִ֖יהוּ found in Jeremiah 34:9, contracted down to Akhiyw אָחִ֨יו where the heh is removed contracting the “hu” sound to the simple double U “w” sound in Jeremiah 34:14. This contraction also is seen hundreds of times in the Masoretic text. Now try saying Akihu several times really fast and you will hear the W sound in Akhiyw.

In our correspondence Professor Moshavi goes into greater detail regarding the connection to the “U” sound and why the waw could only be a semivowel, not a consonant like the v. She says: “I believe there are many ways to demonstrate that the waw was not originally pronounced as a bilabial ‘v’ as it is in Tiberian Hebrew. The fact that the waw is frequently used as a mater lectionis for a long u sound would be impossible to explain if it was pronounced v, like the bet rafeh, rather as the semivowel w. Furthermore, there are many Hebrew words where a historical dipthong aw, as evidenced from Semitic cognates, has been reduced to a long vowel, e.g., in hiphil perfect of w-initial verbs hawrid > horid ‘he brought down,’ or in the word yawm > yom ‘day.’ and alternations between a dipthong and a long vowel, e.g.,absolute , awwet vs. construct mot ‘death.’  Such correspondences are only understandable if the phonetic value of the waw was a semivowel,” Adina Moshavi, PhD.

With so much evidence at our fingertips it is hard to comprehend how so many can believe Gordon’s false claims regarding the Waw vs. Vav debate. The information discussed is just another proof that the name Yahweh is not just ancient, but it also fits the rules of Hebrew grammar and cutting-edge linguistics.

How the Bible Defines Leavening

In this article we will examine the meaning of leavening. For the last 20 years, this ministry has viewed leavening as an item that simply contained a leavening agent, e.g., yeast or baking soda. However, after a recent in-depth study, we have discovered that the concept of leavening is more complex.

The catalyst that motivated this study was Leviticus 23:13. “And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto Yahweh for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.”

We see here a reference to the firstfruits offerings during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. One item that is prohibited during this Feast is leavening.

Historically we’ve defined leavening as an item that simply contained a leavening agent. From this passage, though, we find a problem with this definition: the mention of wine. As most may know, wine is produced with yeast, a leavening agent. And for this reason it’s also been our position that wine and other alcohol must be removed during Unleavened Bread. But as we see in this passage, wine was used in an offering during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Some may wonder, is the wine mentioned here really alcohol? Maybe it’s something closer to grape juice. The word wine comes from the Hebrew yayin, which Strong’s defines as, “wine (as fermented); by implication, intoxication.” The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon also defines this word as, “wine.” Based on Strong’s and BDB, we know that this word refers to fermented wine.

So how do we reconcile what we’ve always believed with what we find here? The answer is we can’t. We can’t reconcile our previous definition of leavening with the fact that wine was the drink offering commanded during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is why we took the time to re-evaluate this belief.

Going back to the Hebrew, we reviewed every instance of where leavening is used in Scripture. This involved every instance of the Hebrew words seor and chamets, the words used for leavening in the Tanakh or the Old Testament. To understand leavening, we MUST understand the meaning of these Hebrew words.

We find our first example in Exodus 12:15: “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”

This passage refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread during which time we’re to put away the leaven or seor from our homes and abstain from eating leavened bread or chamets. I want to point out that it explicitly mentions eating; nothing is said about drinking. As we’ll see from other instances, chamets is always connected to eating. Interestingly, this time is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, not the Feast of Unleavened Drink.

Meaning of Seor

Let’s focus now on the meaning of seor. According to Strong’s, seor is defined as, “barm or yeast-cake (as swelling by fermentation).” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, barm is defined as “yeast formed on fermenting malt liquors.” The yeast cake mentioned here is a reference to a sourdough starter, which is how Israel would leaven their dough to make leavened bread or chamets.

Continuing to look at the meaning of seor, we discover that the Fausset’s Bible Dictionary defines this word as, “A lump of old dough in high fermentation. Because making it, and leavening bread with it, took time, unleavened bread was used in sudden emergencies (Gen 18:6; 19:3). It was forbidden in all offerings to [Yahweh] by fire (Lev 2:11; 7:12).”

We see here that seor refers to an old piece of dough that is highly fermented, which is what we call a sourdough or a starter dough. It’s a piece of dough that is allowed to ferment to the point of becoming sour or acidic and then used to leaven another piece of dough. This dough contains both grain and a leavening agent. For Israel, the leavening agent would have been wild yeast. Therefore, seor must include grain plus a leavening agent and not a leavening agent alone.

When speaking of yeast and starter dough, a few facts to consider are:

1) wild yeast is all around us and even within us; 2) a starter is formed when the yeast breaks down the starch in the flour into sugar, producing carbon dioxide; and, 3) it’s the carbon dioxide that causes the bread to puff up or to rise. The rising was the focus of seor and chamets.

In fact, the word “leaven” comes from the Latin verb levare, meaning, “to raise.” Again, what allows for this to happen is the starter dough, i.e., the dough that is in high fermentation or that contains a high concentration of yeast. Therefore, when we speak about seor, especially from a biblical standpoint, we are speaking about a sourdough starter, which is how Israel leavened their dough.

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary refers to seor as a small portion of dough that is highly fermented and turning acidic or sour. This was used to leaven and produce leavened bread or chamets. “The Heb. term se’or occurs only five times in Scripture, in four of which (Ex 12:15, 19; 13:7; Lev 2:1-11) it is translated ‘leaven’ and in the fifth (Deut 16:3) ‘leavened bread.’

The NIV translates ‘yeast’ in each of these references. This probably denotes the small portion of dough left from the preceding baking that had fermented and turned acidic. Its distinctive meaning is fermented or leavened mass.”

Another source, Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, gives the following definition: “A substance used to produce fermentation in dough and make it rise (Ex 12:15, 19-20). In Bible times leaven was usually a piece of fermented dough retained from a previous baking that was placed in the new dough to cause it to rise.”

From here we see that seor refers to a piece of old dough in high fermentation that would then be used to leaven new dough, which is what we would call a sourdough starter.

A similar explanation is found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: “In bread baking.-The form of leaven used in bread-making and the method of using it were simple and definite. The ‘leaven’ consisted always, so far as the evidence goes, of a piece of fermented dough kept over from a former baking. There is no trace of the use of other sorts of leaven, such as the lees of wine or those mentioned by Pliny (NH, wviii.26). The lump of dough thus preserved was either dissolved in water in the kneading-trough before the flour was added, or was ‘hid’ in the flour (the King James Version ‘meal’) and kneaded along with it, as was the case mentioned in the parable (Matt 13:33). The bread thus made was known as ‘leavened,’ as distinguished from ‘unleavened’ bread (Ex 12:15, etc.)”

Again we see that leavening or seor refers to a piece of leavened dough from a previous baking, which would then be used to leaven a new loaf.

According to this source, this could have been done in two different ways. The first process would be to dissolve the starter within the kneading-trough before the flour was added. The other method was simply to take the starter and place or hide it within a new dough. Either of these two methods would leaven a new piece of dough, causing it to rise. This was done using the starter or this highly fermented, acidic piece of dough.

For good measure, let’s consider one more reference, from the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. “‘Seir’ occurs only five times in the Scriptures, in four of which (Ex 12:15, 19; Ex 13:7; Le 2:11) it is rendered ‘leaven,’ and in the fifth (De 16:4) ‘leavened bread.’ It seems to have denoted originally the remnant of dough left on the preceding baking which had fermented and turned acid.”

This source once more confirms the meaning of seor, a portion of leavened dough from a previous baking that has turned acidic or sour.

In summation, we learn that seor is a piece of dough that contains flour and yeast, is highly acidic, and is used as a sourdough starter. Also, by the existence of wine during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, we see that a leavening agent alone, e.g., yeast or baking soda, would NOT be considered seor.

 

What is Chamets?

Let’s now review the meaning of chamets. Strong’s states, “ferment, (figuratively) extortion: -leaven, leavened (bread).” The Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon explains it as: “…that which is leavened…forbidden at Passover Exodus…in all sacrifices…exceptions are of peace-offering and the wave loaves.

Biblically, we see that chamets refers to leavened bread. We also know that it’s forbidden during the Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, along with all sacrifices, except for the peace offering and the wave loaves offered during the Feast of Weeks or Shavuot.

Here’s how the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature defines leavening: “‘chamets’ ought not to be rendered ‘leaven,’ but leavened bread… In Ex 13:7, both seor’ and chamets’ occur together, and are evidently distinct: ‘Unleavened bread (matstsah’) shall be eaten during the seven days, and there shall not be seen with thee the fermented bread (chamets’), and there shall not be seen with thee leavened bread (seor’) in all thy borders.”

We see that chamets is not simply leavening but is leavened bread. In other words, it is the leavened product produced from the seor. Again, the primary example of chamets from the Bible is leavened bread. There are no other examples for chamets, but for leavened bread, whether eaten or used in sacrifice. When we think of seor, we should think of a sourdough starter, and when we think of chamets, we should think of a leavened product produced by a sourdough starter or an alternative leavening agent.

 

The Jewish Perspective

Let’s consider now how the Jews understand leavening.

According to oukosher.org, “If one of the five grains – wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt – sits in water for more than 18 minutes it becomes chametz, and one may not eat, derive benefit from or own it on Pesach.”

Kashrut Division of the London Beth Din, kosher.org.uk, states, “Chametz is formed when dough made from wheat, barley, rye, oats or spelt is allowed to ferment (or rise). The time in which fermentation takes place is deemed to be 18 minutes.”

As the last example, chabad.org verifies that “chametz (also spelled ‘hametz’ or ‘chometz’) is any food product made from wheat, barley, rye, oats or spelt that has come into contact with water and been allowed to ferment and ‘rise.’”

We see that chamets is any food product that is produced from grain that has come in contact with water and allowed to ferment or rise. So based on the Jewish understanding of leavening, we find that four things are needed for something to be considered chamets:

1) It needs to contain grain, e.g., wheat, barley, rye, oats or spelt;

2) It needs water;

3) It needs access to a leavening agent, which is around us in the form of wild yeast; and,

4) It needs time to leaven or to rise.

According to many Jews, the time it takes for a piece of dough to become leavened is 18 minutes. With this in mind, if we took flour, added water, and then allowed that dough to ferment with the natural yeast within the air for 18 minutes. According to many Jews, we would have chamets.

Because chamets requires all these items, a leavening agent alone is not considered chamets or seor. For those who were part of the initial study, this was the bombshell that changed the trajectory of what we would come to understand about leavening. Again, it was always our belief that a leavening agent alone was considered seor or chamets, but when we understand these words from a biblical standpoint, there’s more to it. In this case, we know that yeast or a chemical leavening agent alone is not considered chamets.

Wikipedia concurs: “Chametz is a product that is both made from one of five types of grain and has been combined with water and left to stand raw for longer than eighteen minutes (according to most opinions) and becomes leavened … Leavening agents, such as yeast or baking soda, are not themselves chametz. Rather, it is the fermented grains. Thus yeast may be used in making wine.”

From this source, we again see that chamets is when grain is combined with water and allowed to become leavened. Remember, from a biblical standpoint, seor is a sourdough starter, and chamets is a leavening product made from seor.

 

Examples of Seor and Chamets

Let’s now review where soer and chamets are used within Scripture. From the Torah we find the following passages containing the word seor.

Exodus 12:19 – “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.” All seor must be removed from our homes during the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Exodus 13:7 – “Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.” All seor must be removed from our quarters, Heb. gebul, referring to a person’s boundary or territory.

Leviticus 2:11 – “No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto Yahweh, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of Yahweh made by fire.” No meat or grain offering was to be made with seor or a sourdough starter. THIS IS IMPORTANT – it shows that seor was the initial starter that was used to leaven chamets.

Deuteronomy 16:4 – “And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.” No seor was to be seen within a person’s coast, Heb. gebul, referring to a person’s boundary or territory.

Let’s now look at the examples for chamets, which is found 13 times in the Old Testament, 12 within the Torah and once within the Nevi’im, e.g., prophets.

Exodus 12:19 – “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.” The command is not to eat chamets during the seven days of Unleavened Bread. The penalty for ignoring this command was to be cut off from the congregation. It’s crucial that we do our very best to abstain from eating leavened products or chamets during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Before moving on, I want to emphasize that the command here is eating and not drinking. And the reason for this is simple – chamets is leavened bread, not leavened drink.

Exodus 12:20 – “Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.” As we saw in verse 19 we see here, that we’re to abstain from eating chamets or anything leavened during this Feast. And again, I point out that the command is of eating, nothing is said about drinking. For those wondering, there is a Hebrew word for drinking, it is shathah, but we don’t find that word in relation to seor or chamets.

Exodus 13:3 – “And Moses said unto the people, remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand Yahweh brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.” As we’ve seen previously, Yahweh commands us here not to eat chamets or leavened bread during this Feast.

Exodus 13:7 – “Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.” There are several items to consider here: we’re to eat unleavened bread, i.e., matstsah’, for all seven days of this Feast. So, in contrast of removing and abstaining from leavening, we find that we’re to eat unleavened bread for all seven days of this Feast.

As we know from the New Testament, unleavened bread symbolizes sincerity and truth. Understand that there’s a spiritual lesson to be learned throughout this Feast. This passage also relates that no chamets or seor should be seen within our quarters or boundaries.

Exodus 23:18 – “Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.” As we saw from the BDB, we also find here that no leavened bread or chamets was to be included within the offerings. The only exception was the peace, or fellowship offering along with the two loaves offered during the Feast of Weeks.

Exodus 23:25 – “And ye shall serve Yahweh your Elohim, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.”

Leviticus 2:11 – “No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto Yahweh, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of Yahweh made by fire.” A better name for the meat offerings is a grain offering and as before, leavening, whether chamets or seor, was not allowed within this offering. We also see the mention of honey and because of this, some ask if we should be removing honey during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. While honey can be used to speed up the leavening process, honey of its own is NOT considered seor or chamets. For this reason, there’s no need to remove honey during this Feast.

Leviticus 6:17 – “It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.” Two specific offerings are mentioned here – the sin offering for unintentional sins and the trespass offering, which was for intentional sins. Notice that if a person brought a cake or grain offering, it had to be without leavening or chamets. This offering was a food product that was baked.

Leviticus 7:13 – “Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.” Unlike the sin and trespass offerings, we find that leavening was to be used during the fellowship or peace offering. The peace offering was a show of desire to fellowship with Yahweh and for this reason, it was treated differently.

Leviticus 23:17 – “Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto Yahweh.” Again, we see that leavening or chamets was to be used within the wave loaves offered during the Feast of Weeks or Shavuot. As was seen here and in the previous example, leavening or chamets is not always negative. We know this because it was commanded to be used in the peace offering and the wave loaves offering to Yahweh.

Deuteronomy 16:3 – “Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.” This passage is referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As we’ve already seen from many other examples, during these seven days we’re to abstain from eating leavened bread or chamets.

Amos 4:5 – “And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith my Sovereign Yahweh.” We find here another reference to the fellowship or peace offering in which leavening or chamets was to be used.

Let’s review what we’ve learned thus far about seor and chamets:

  • In the Old Testament, the word seor is found five times and the word chamets is seen 13 times, referring to the sourdough starter and leavened bread, respectively.
  • During the Feast of Unleavened Bread, we’re commanded to remove all seor and chamets from our homes and boundaries.
  • During this Feast, we’re commanded to eat unleavened bread and abstain from eating leavening or leavened bread in the form of seor or chamets, emphasizing the focus is on eating and not drinking.
  • Except for the peace offering and the two wave loaves offered during Shavuot, no seor or chamets was to be used in a sacrifice or offering.

 

Defining Seor and Chamets

What do you suppose ancient Israelites would show us if we asked for examples of seor and chamets? More than likely they would bring us a sourdough starter for seor and a loaf of leavened bread for chamets.

Based on this, we offer the following definitions for seor and chamets:

Seor: A piece of highly fermented or acidic dough or any other grain-derived leavening product that might be used to leaven dough, much like our own sourdough starter.

Chemets: Any grain derived food product that has been leavened by seor, i.e., a leavening agent, whether that be natural or chemical. The primary example would be leavened bread, but it would also include items that may not resemble bread but contain both grain and a leavening agent.

So again, any food product containing grain, wheat, barley, spelt, rye or oats, along with a leavening agent, would be considered chamets. This is why we must take stock of the food items we have within our homes before the Feast of Unleavened Bread and remove anything that would be considered seor or chamets.

We have only referenced leavening agents until now, but have not provided a list of such agents. Below is a list of leavening agents we have identified over the years.

  • Yeast
  • Baker’s yeast
  • Active dried yeast
  • Baking powder
  • Baking soda
  • Cream of tartar (potassium bitartrate)
  • Ammonium carbonate
  • Ammonium bicarbonate
  • Potassium carbonate
  • Potassium bicarbonate
  • Dipotassium carbonate

Remember that these leavening agents alone are NOT considered seor or chamets. For this reason, there’s no need to remove these leavening agents from our homes during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

However, there is one caveat. Based on our research, some yeast packets would be considered seor due to the way they are manufactured. Some companies will produce a yeast cake with grain and then disaggregate that yeast cake into the yeast we find within many yeast packets.

This seems to be especially common with organic yeast packets. Because of this, we encourage you to remove your yeast packets during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

But for the other items in the above list, there’s no need to remove them unless you are convicted of doing so, which is certainly acceptable.

 

What May Remain?

Beyond defining leavening, we must address those items that may remain during the Feast of Unleavened Bread that we previously disallowed. Since leavening agents alone are not considered seor or chamets, there is no need to remove leavening agents that cannot be used as a starter in their current form, e.g., baking soda and baking powder.

In addition to leavening agents, there is also no need to remove alcohol unless there’s evidence that it can be used as a starter. The following alcohols contain no yeast in their final form and therefore would not be considered seor: vodka, gin, tequila, Irish whiskey, bourbon, schnapps, most wine, and many commercial beers.

Even though many alcoholic beverages contain grain and a leavening agent, e.g., yeast, in their original form, the leavening agent is purged or made inert in its final form. For this reason, they are unable to be used as seor or a starter.

In our research we contacted several brewers and verified that most commercial beers either remove or kill any excess yeast; some exceptions, though, include Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. Therefore, if you choose to keep commercial beers, we suggest that you confirm with the manufacturer that the yeast has been removed or made inert.

In our investigation, we sent the following question to several breweries: “Can you verify if any of your beers contain live or active yeast that could be used as a starter to make bread without the assistance of any additional leavening agents?”

We received the following replies:

“I can tell you that almost all beer, except for draught beer, is pasteurized. This process enables the brewer to kill traces of live yeast or other organisms which helps the beer stay fresh longer,” Anheuser-Busch.

“Almost all of the yeast used in the brewing process is filtered out of the beer prior to packaging,”

Molson Coors Beverage Company.

“The yeast used to make our beers is filtered out before bottling. If you would like yeast for bread or other means, we recommend buying yeast itself,” Samuel Adams.

“Our bottle-conditioned beers will have live yeast sitting at the bottom of the bottle. Bottle-conditioned beers include: Pale Ale, Porter, Stout, Celebration, and Bigfoot. There are about a couple thousand cells at the bottom of a can or bottle and will need to be propagated to be used for making bread. Yeast for bread and our ale yeast are a little different. You may have to use a bit more ale yeast than the recipe calls for or use additional leavening agents,” Sierra Nevada Brewing Company.

Also, as we see from Scripture, chamets is a food item. Therefore, by definition, alcohol would not be considered chamets and since most beer cannot be used as a starter, it would not be considered seor.

In addition to alcohol, since the Feast of Unleavened Bread focuses on food items we consume, there is no reason to remove non-food items with a leavening agent, e.g., baking soda toothpaste.

What About Grain Substitutes?

The last issue to address is grain substitutes. Examples of this includes quinoa, rice, almonds (and other nuts), coconut, tapioca, or sorghum. Many Jews use grain substitutes with a leavening agent to make cakes and other items during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Even though grain substitutes are technically not grain, we believe that using such products combined with a leavening agent to make bread or pastries violates the command of abstaining from leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The main point of this Feast is to remove and abstain from leavened bread or that which puffs up.

 

In Summary

Let’s now summarize what we have learned:

  • Wine was used during the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the form of an offering. This shows that a leavening agent on its own is NOT biblically considered leavening.
  •   The two words for leavening or leavened bread within Hebrew are seor and chamets.
  •   From a biblical standpoint, seor refers to a piece of highly fermented or acidic dough or any other grain-derived leavened product that might be used to leaven dough, much like our own sourdough starter.
  •   Chamets would be any grain-derived food product that has been leavened by seor or a leavening agent, whether natural or chemical.
  • Except for yeast packets, a leavening agent alone is NOT considered seor or chamets.
  • Since most alcohol does not contain active yeast and cannot be used as a sourdough starter, i.e., seor, and would not meet the definition of chamets, it can remain during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

I hope that this information has helped you better understand the biblical definition of leavening. We encourage you to prove all things from Yahweh’s Word as we are all obligated to do

Caramel-Pecan Coffee Cake

1/3 cup chopped pecans
3⁄4 cup brown sugar
1 tablespoon light corn syrup
1⁄4 cup melted butter
3⁄4 cup white sugar
3⁄4 cup butter
1 egg
1 3⁄4 cup flour
3⁄4 cup milk

Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Combine brown sugar, pecans, butter and syrup. Spread evenly in bottom of greased 8 inch square pan.
Cream white sugar, 3⁄4 cup butter and egg thoroughly.
Add flour alternately with milk to creaed mixture, stirring just until all flour is moistened. Spread batter
evenly over caramel mixture.
Bake at 375 degrees for 35 to 40 minutes.

Favorite Unleavened Bread

1⁄2 cup hot water
1⁄2 cup butter
1-1/3 cups wholewheat pastry flour
2 cups oatmeal flour
2 – 4 tablespoons brown sugar
Sesame seeds
Nut meats

Preheat oven to 350 or 375 degrees.
Mix hot water and butter. Add salt, flours, brown sugar, sesame seeds and nuts.
Roll out very thin. Place on 2 or 3 cookie sheets. Score into squares.
Bake at 350 degrees to 375 degrees until light brown.
When cool, break into scored squares.

Feast of Unleavened Bread 2022 Registration

Join us this April 17th-23rd* for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. We will have a full week of worship, music, study, food, and fun! Register below! (Passover will be observed the evening of April 15th.)

See Schedule for FUB 2022 (Schedule is subject to change)

* Projected Date

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Feast of Unleavened Bread

GENERAL INFORMATION

(as appears on driver license or other government issued ID)
Address
City
State/Province
Zip/Postal
Country

OTHERS IN GROUP

(please list ALL within your group; if 18 or order, include name as appears on government issued ID and date of birth)

LODGING

AGREEMENT

I affirm that *
(include any questions or special requests)
Sending

The Pagan Origins Of “God” And “Lord”

A Tight Collection Of Notes Regarding The Pagan Origins Of “God” And “Lord” and why rejection of them is most reasonable.
Agreed-upon:
1) It is wrong to use anything besides the Sacred Name when reading a scripture that contains The Name. Substitutes not allowed.
2) The Scriptures transliterate names of pagan gods and kings. Thus, by example, Yah teaches transliteration.
3) For clarity, titles should be translated -> idea-for-idea, accurately rendering Yah’s Thoughts and Priorities.These are not issues. OK? The Issue:
We are commanded to not utter the names of pagan deities. We have reason to believe that names of pagan deities are a common part of the English vocabulary, and thus should be avoided in a devotional context.
Exo 23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other elohim, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.This author is focusing on the use of “other elohim” in a devotional context. Days of the week and other topics will not be addressed here. Further, we only summarize points relative to the common titles “god” and “lord”.Is it possible that pagan names have crept into worship?Admission: Word origin (etymology) usually has an element of uncertainty. When we trace a word or name to its possible origin, there is a chance we have missed something, or made a false connection. Conjecture abounds.
The names of deities do travel great distances. Mithra originated in Persia. Then the Romans brought Mithra to Central Europe, where his worship was mingled with Christian practices.

Ishtar originated in Assyrio-Babylonian mythology, and made her way to central Europe, as the sunrise goddess, Ēostre or Ostara. (Christians will deny this).

The name “god” originated somewhere in the eastern hemisphere, and has made its way all the way to Asia, where American territories and allies use it frequently.
Modern pagans in the USA (yes, they do exist) freely invoke the names of Egyptian, Babylonian and Teutonic deities.

It is certainly possible that the name of pagan deities would make their way across great distances. These deities travel with people, and people migrate great distances.

Could pagan names in our mouths be an issue today?

Without a doubt, the answer is Yes. In the last days, Yahshua tells his people, worldwide, to come out of Babylon. Babylon was global before global was cool.

Twice, Yahshua’s Revelation warns us about “names of blasphemy” associated with the beast. Note this is the plural form, “names”, and the beast is filled with them (Rev 17:3)
Combining these facts, Yahshua’s Revelation makes it a certainty that “names of blasphemy” is a matter of concern for his people worldwide at the end time.

Why would “names of blasphemy” apply to the command cited, above, from Exodus 23:13?

Connecting “names of blasphemy” to pagan names is easily done by looking at the interpretation that best fits the facts.

In Isaiah 66:1-3, Yahweh condemns a hypocrite, and (among other things) states the following in vs. 3b:“ … he that burneth incense, is as if he blessed an idol.
Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.”

That clause, “he that burneth incense, is as if he blessed an idol” is translated in the Greek Septuagint as:

“… he that gives frankincense for a memorial, is as a blasphemer.”
(the above taken from http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/index.htm)
Thus, the names of blasphemy are connected to blessing an idol, through the word “blasphemy” (Greek #988 and 989) in our Greek copies of Revelation and Isaiah. Though “blasphemy” has a handful of applications and interpretations, this one best fits the facts: The “names of blasphemy” in Yahshua’s Revelation are the names used in idolatrous worship around the world.

This connects Revelation to a systematic theology against these names, meaning, it is a continuation of ancient warnings. In addition to Exodus 23:13, we have:
Psa 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.

Hos 2:17 For I will take away the names of the Baals out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.

If this is not the correct interpretation, then what are the “names of blasphemy”? Outside of Sacred Name teaching, no one seems to have a systematic theology for this issue, even though it emerges twice in Yahshua’s Revelation.
What is the problem with the name “god”?

We start with “god”, because it is easiest to demonstrate. Weakest data first and building from there.

Linguistic theory of the origin of “god” shows it is perhaps from the Sanskrit (Proto-Indo-European) root “gheu” meaning to call, or else to pour. It can go either way.

The meaning “call” is connected to the Hindu deity Indra through the epithet (secondary name) “khuta”, meaning “invoked one”. This is not necessarily a problem. After all, Yahweh is invoked too. But that idea does not accurately translate the word “elohim.” Other possible meanings and origins of “god” are even more problematic.

The alternate meaning, “pour”, is interpreted as either pouring a drink offering or pouring a molten idol.
The citation, below, from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed. Vol VI, begins at once with uncertainty.

The word, geotan, highlighted in red, will be important, as will be the Greek cuton.

The connection with molten images, suggested near the end, is most alarming, but deemed unlikely by the author. That is, unlikely until other data is considered.
At dictionary.com, under “ingot” we get this: 1350-1400; Middle English: literally, (something) poured in, equivalent to in- in-

1
+ got (e) a stream, Old English *gota, akin to gēotan to flow; cognate with German giessen, Gothic giutan, Old Norse gjōta to pour
From: ingot. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ingot

Thus, the “got” in “ingot” means “to pour”. The form “geotan” appears above both in the speculative derivation for “god”, and for the “got” in “ingot”. It is eerily similar to “Godan”, one of the names of Wodin/Woden/Wodan.

While the “got” in “ingot” comes from a word meaning to pour, linguistic sources shy away from connecting god->got-> g,heu (pour) in Sanskrit. Thus, the Sanskrit/Proto-Indo-European data is both ugly and elusive.

Note the mention of the Greek “cuton”, above, meaning “cast” (as in molten metal). This Greek word is sounded like “khuton”. Though evidently cognate with Sanskrit “khuto”, that connection is rejected out of hand by the citation, above.
While the Sanskrit-origin path is unclear, (to scholars, anyway), an alternate explanation is the importation of “god” from the Semitic word “gawd” (H1408, 1409).In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word gad (or rather gawd) is usually a nice word with positive meanings. In the one case where it is part of a religious scenario, it is condemned, as it is the name of a deity.Isa 65:11 But yeH859 are they that forsakeH5800 Yahweh,H3068 that forgetH7913 (H853) my holyH6944 mountain,H2022 that prepareH6186 a tableH7979 for gawd (fortune),H1408 and that furnishH4390 the drink offeringH4469 unto that number meni (luck).H4507 (citation adapted from esword withStrong’s numbers).That alone should eject the word “god” from the vocabulary of the saints. At a minimum, the English “god” sounds JUST LIKE the name of a Babylonian deity of luck.

A cogent connection between the central European “god” and the Semitic “gawd” is found in the name for the Almighty in Slavic languages in Eastern Europe, which is right next door to Central Europe. “Bog” is the name they use. And its fundamental meaning is “Rich”.
Even more, while the Semitic “gawd” also means “troop”, Slavic mythology has legends of “bogatyrs”, who were soldiers of fortune. The following table may clarify the connection.

The intellectual connection between the Semitic “gawd” and the Slavic “bog” lends weight to the likelihood of a deity having to do with “wealth” migrating around central and Eastern Europe.

It should be remembered that there is no literary evidence connecting “god” to Sanskrit. Those connections stated above by the pros are admittedly conjecture. They are unverified, but plausible.
The connection to the Semitic “gawd” is just as plausible, if not more so, with that connection to Slavic “bog”.

More importantly than the above, despite any origin, the Teutonic word “god” (and related words) always pointed to Germanic idols and false deities. First, keep in mind that pagan mythology and religion are related, but not the same thing. Religion calls into play devotional practices. In “Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs” (2002) by John Lindow, page 147, the author speaks to the use of this word “god” in mythology.

It is significant that the word “god” is used almost always in a plural form in mythology, and that it appears in singular only in reference to the sun, or else an alternate pagan deity. But in religious practice, “god” is used for idols. Only in later, Christian times, is the word “god” brought screaming into a Monotheistic interpretation. This is explained in the following citation from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The fact that “god” was always a pagan deity, and (if you prefer the Semitic root) the fact that “gawd” is the name of a known Babylonian deity, should cause us to remove this word “god” from our worship AT ONCE.
But these words were never pagan to me.
This statement suggests that if something is done in ignorance enough times, then it becomes sanctified. On the other hand, the great apostle said:
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance Elohim winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:The forgoing material may seem like a witch hunt. But the urgency to “Come out of her, my people” points to a need for diligent inquiry. There is something here to which Yahshua is alerting the end-time saints. And since Revelation is directed through 7 gentile assemblies, the focus should be on names used among the nations.
What is the problem with the word “lord”?

Let it be agreed that the word “lord” should not be rejected, merely because it was used as a substitute for the Holy Name.

Linguistic Theory says that “lord” comes from “hlaf-ward”, where:“hlaf” means loaf and “ward” means “keeper”, like a warden.

At this time, this author has nothing in analysis of the word, “ward”.

The word “hlaf”, for loaf, is more interesting. From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=loaf

loaf (n.)
late 13c., from Old English hlaf “portion of bread baked in a mass of definite form,” from Proto-Germanic *khlaibuz, the common Germanic word for “bread” (source also of Old Norse hleifr, Swedish lev, Old Frisian hlef, Old High German hleib, German Laib, Gothic hlaifs “bread, loaf”).The Germanic root is of uncertain origin; it is perhaps connected to Old English hlifian “to raise higher, tower,” on the notion of the bread rising as it bakes, but (according to OED) it is unclear whether “loaf” or “bread” is the original sense. It is disguised in lord and lady. Finnish leipä, Estonian leip, Old Church Slavonic chlebu, Lithuanian klepas probably are Germanic loan words.
The words in Bold, above, draw the connection to the Latin word “Libum”, from which it is derived. A closer look at “loaf” reveals:
From: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/loaf
Word Origin
Old English hlāf; related to Old High German hleib bread, Old Norse hleifr,
Latin libum cake
So, what does “libum” mean? From: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libum
Noun[edit]
ībum n (genitive lībī); second declension
1. pancake (sacred to the gods)
Key point:
Other online sources (For example: http://www.latin-dictionary.org/libum) also show that this libum cake is sacrificed to the gods on one’s 50th birthday.
Here is the connection:
Libum (pagan sacrifice cake) -> hlieb (Old German for bread) -> hlaf (for loaf) + ward->hlaf+ward->lord
The last step is the hardest to accept. But if this is true, “lord” means a pagan sacrifice cake keeper. Yes, we are reaching back far, but the urgency of Yahshua’s Revelation compels us to test all things.
Isn’t the foregoing a stretch?
erhaps it is, in at least two(2) dimensions.
As is common with word evolution, “libum” is hidden in the word “lord” through centuries of contraction. Though this author is unwilling to use “lord” in worship, perhaps some will think the long evolution of this word has adequately cleansed it … Rather like those who think a sufficiently hot deep-fryer will cleanse the fried chicken made in the same vat as shrimp and crabs.More importantly, the transition from “hlaf-ward” to lord is a stretch. In Surnames as a Science (1883), Robert Ferguson expresses doubt over “Lord” coming from “hlaf-ward”, he states under LORD, LORDING (Kindle Locations 2847-2848):
We may take the above to be the same as an [Ango-Saxon] Lorta and Lorting, … And whatever may be the origin, it is certainly not [Ango-Saxon] hlaford, Eng. “lord.”
The connection from “hlaf-ward” to “lord” becomes abundantly absurd when considering the middle-English form “Lorde”, which is common in old Geneva Bibles, a sample of which is pasted below. It’s hard to see how
“hlaf-ward” would morph into “Lorde” with that “e” at the end.Psa 23:1 A Psalme of Dauid. The Lorde is my shephearde, I shall not want.The case against “lord” is much stronger than the “hlaf-ward” connection, owing to its evident cognate status with pagan deities from the past. The following is an expansion of material available in Elder Chris Koster’s work, “The Final Reformation” (also known as “Come Out of Her My People”, under the section on LORD, subsection (a) LARTH, which is the strongest evidence.Koster’s section will be pasted at the end, but material you can check will be provided first.There was a household idol from Roman days, which appeared in pairs. Singularly, one was called a “Lar” and when they started popping up in pairs, they were called “Lares”. The form Lar was also cognate with Larth.
Koster makes the following connection within an ocean of legitimate linguistic data:
Lar / Larth ->Lard ->Lord
Information on Lar and Lares is available in many places. You are invited to do n internet search on your own.
First consider the Lar connection to Larth. It was a common prefix name, meaning “Lord”, as shown here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DLar1

Lār or Lars , Lartis, m.,
I.a prænomen of Etruscan origin (in Etruscan, usu: “the prefix of the first-born, while a younger son was called Aruns. The name Lar, Lars, or Larth was an honorary appellation in Etruscan, = Engl. lord): Lars Tolumnius, rex Veientium,” Cic. Phil. 9, 2; Liv. 4, 17, 1; 4, 58, 7: “ad Lartem Porsenam,” id. 2, 9 (nom. Lar, Charis. 110 P.).From: A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.Next …
The Middle English Dictionary (online) is a recent achievement. The entry of “lord” is located at this link: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?size=First+100&type=headword&q1=lord&rgxp=constrainedThey list several variants of the word “lord” from Middle English:
lōrd (n.) Also lorde, lorte, lhord,
(errors) lor, lorlde & loverd,
(early) lovered, lowerd, lhoaverd, hloverd,
(errors) lover, lorverde & lard,
(early & N) laverd,
(early) lavord, lavard, laverred, lavert, laferd, laford, lhaferd, hlaverd, hlavord, hlaford, (error) laver &(early) leverd, læverd, leaverd, leoverð. Pl. lōrdes, etc. &

(?error) lōrde &
(early) hlāforde(n; pl.gen. lōrdes & lōrden(e & (early) lōverde, lāfordæ, hlāforden.The purpose of posting this list is to note and compare ancient spellings for “lord”. It is especially intriguing that forms deemed to be “error” are nearly identical to non-error forms. “lorde” is deemed an error, yet we see it plainly in the Geneva Bible.  It is most significant to compare the existence of 1-syllable and 2-syllable forms, as though the parallel history of two different words are mixed up together.The citation from Koster’s book is here. (Downloadable PDF: http://www.sa-hebroots.com/koster.htm)(a) LARTH: There was an Etruscan house deity whose name was Lar, which signified “Lord”, also known as Larth, who later on became very popular in Rome and became known as Lares (plural), because as idol statues they were usually in pairs. This deity was invoked together with Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus and Bellona. The Greek equivalent of this name was Heros, which was another name for Zeus, as we have seen previously in this article. A feminine form was known as Lara, who was the beloved of Mercury, the Sun-deity. Another name for Zeus was Larissaeus, which also was another name for Apollo. Zeus was also known as or Lariseus, while Larasios was also a surname of Helios. Typical of the syncretism and polytheism of those days, we read of emperor Alexander Severus (222 – 235 C.E.) who “had images of Abraham, Christ and Alexander the Great among his household Lares.” These Lares are to be found in the East as well, seen in niches in Hindu houses. However, what is the analogy between Larth (Lar) and Lord? Firstly, all sources agree, that this Lar or Larth means: Lord. Secondly, it is well documented that “the” and “d” were virtually interchangeably used, varying from nation to nation. Thirdly, in Old English and Middle English it was common to find the “o” and “a” interchangeably used too. In the Middle English Dictionary, editor S.M. Kuhn, we read that lord was earlier spelt lard; that lor became lord; that lor was spelt lar in Old English (meaning: the action or process of teaching or preaching); that Lore-fader was also spelt Larfaderr or Larefadir or larfadir (meaning:teacher); that lorspel was lar-spel in Old English (meaning: that which is taught in religion); and that lor-theu was previously also spelt lar-theow, lardewe, lardewen, lauerd, lordeau (meaning: teacher or spiritual or theological teacher). Thus we can easily see the ease of identifying Lard, Lord, Larth, Lor, Lar, Lortheu, Lartheow, Lardewe with one another. In fact, it is easier to trace the origin of “Lord” according to this well documented evidence, rather than the commonly held belief that it originated from hlaf-weard.What is most compelling is that these lord-related word, beginning with the household idols used to “lord” over a home or public place, form a continuum of thought in the arena of master and teacher. This by far beats the mental gymnastics summoned to derive “lord” from “hlaf-word”.

Summary Points for “god”

“god” perhaps comes from a reconstructed Sanskrit root, likely meaning to pour a molten idol. We get this from the connection of “ingot” to the very same Proto-Indo-European root claimed by linguists. This would obviously be unacceptable.

If “god” comes from the reconstructed Sanskrit root “to invoke”, in itself, that would not be a problem. But that makes it an inaccurate translation of Elohim, which means “mightiest one” or “Almighty.” It’s hard to justify a word translation which obviously distorts a ubiquitous, Spirit-Breathed Description of Yahweh in The Scriptures.Or else “god” comes from the Semitic gad/gawd, condemned in scripture in the context of worship.

Or else it came belching forth directly from the bowels of Teutonic mythology, a word always pointing to an idol.

Regardless of your tack, “god” falls short of the intention to faithfully translate a title. In three of the four possibilities, it is unacceptable out-of-hand.

Summary Points for “lord”
Either ”lord” means “keeper of the pagan sacrificial loaf”, using “the hlaf-ward” derivation.

Or

“lord” comes from the household deities named “Lar/Larth” singular and Lares plural. Through old-middle English, its evolution forms a continuum of thoughts in the realm of lord/master/teacher.What is a useful translation for “Elohim”?

In reference to Yah, the most literal way to convey the thought behind “Elohim” is “Almighty”. It is a perfect bulls-eye. In reference to pagan deities, this author has no concerns.
What about other languages, like Greek?
Though the handling of this matter in other languages is beyond the scope of this summary, the handling of Names and Titles in the Greek NT texts is striking. There are at least three (3) text types, which scholars enjoy arguing over. Regardless of textual type, the earliest ones ALL exhibit the “Nomina Sacra”, where we would expect to find Sacred Names and titles. This phenomenon is typically two or three letters of a name or title (an abbreviation) with a line drawn over it. E.g., ̅̅𝒌𝒔̅̅ for “kurios” The purpose of these devices is still a matter of debate. Because this practice is so ancient, we must learn why full-form “theos” and “kurios” never made it into the earliest Greek texts. Until that mystery is explained cogently, there is no compelling reason to leverage “theos” and “kurios” (which have their own questions) as an excuse to be undisciplined in modern times.
Overall Summary

We have an end-time warning about names (plural) of blasphemy, coming to us from Yahshua through 7 gentile assemblies. The saints of all nations should be examining what they use to describe The Supreme Being. In English, the common terms lord and god have fallen short. Yahshua’s Revelation is most likely about this very thing. If not about this, what could it be, to merit such warning in the final Revelation?

One might cling to a more favorable theory about the origins of these words. But, who among us has the supernatural ability to know which one it is? It doesn’t matter: In no case, does “god” convey the inspired concept of “Elohim”, and both of the lord-derivations are unsatisfactory.

Psa 19:13-14 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me:
then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Yahweh, my strength, and my redeemer. To the chief Musician.

[dflip id="20978" ][/dflip]

Why does the Hebrew University teach that anciently, the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a “w” sound rather than the modern Hebrew “v” sound?

Q Why does the Hebrew University teach that anciently, the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet waw has a “w” sound in their curriculum rather than the modern Hebrew “v” vav sound?

A To answer this, we reached out to Professor Adina Moshavi, Ph.D. in Semitic languages and Literature at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, this was her response:

“…there are many ways to demonstrate that the waw was not originally pronounced as a labiodental “v” as it is in Tiberian Hebrew. The fact that the waw is frequently used as a mater lectionis for a long u sound would be impossible to explain if it was pronounced v, like the bet rafeh, rather as the semivowel w. Furthermore, there are many Hebrew words where a historical diphthong aw, as evidenced from Semitic cognates, has been reduced to a long vowel, e.g., in hiphil perfect of w-initial verbs hawrid > horid “he brought down”, or in the word yawm > yom [יוֹם] “day”, and alternations between a diphthong and a long vowel, e.g., absolute mawwet vs. construct mot “death.”  Such correspondences are only understandable if the phonetic value of the waw was a semivowel.”

 

Professor Adina Moshavi, Ph.D. Semitic languages and Literature
Biblical Hebrew syntax, Biblical Hebrew pragmatics
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hebrew Language Department

DATE-COCONUT COOKIES

½ cup honey
½ cup oil
2 cups whole wheat flour
2 cups oatmeal
2/3 cups apple juice
1 teaspoon vanilla
½ teaspoon salt
½ cup chopped nuts
½ cup coconut shreds
1 cup chopped dates

Blend honey and oil. Add remaining ingredients. Form into small flattened circles on lightly
oiled cookie sheet. Bake at 350 degrees for 10 to 15 minutes. Makes 3 to 4 dozen delicious
cookies.

No Bake Oatmeal Cookies

2 cups sugar
3 Tablespoons cocoa
½ cup milk
¼ cup butter
¼ teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon vanilla
¼ cup peanut butter
3 cups quick cooking oats

Combine sugar, cocoa, milk and butter in saucepan. Bring to a rolling boil. Continue cooking
over reduced heat for 2 minutes. Remove from heat. Add salt, vanilla, peanut butter and oats.
Stir briskly until well blended. Drop quickly onto waxed paper.

Date Casserole Cookies

1 cup sugar
2 eggs, beaten
1 teaspoon vanilla
½ teaspoon almond extract
1 cup chopped nuts
1 cup chopped dates
1 cup finely shredded coconut

Butter a 2-quart casserole dish generously. In a separate bowl, beat eggs and add sugar and
vanilla and almond extracts. Stir in the rest of the ingredients and place everything in the

buttered casserole dish. Bake at 350 degrees for 25 to 30 minutes. Stir a few times during the
baking period. Remove from oven and cool at room temperature, stirring occasionally. When
cool enough to handle, form into small balls. Roll in granulated sugar. Be sure to keep hands
buttered before forming balls or mixture will stick to hands.