Skip to main content

Light or bribe?

 2 ancient texts read

Isa 8:20 LBP (ES) As for the law and the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because they do not receive a bribe for it.


Modern Bibles read: they have no light in them


Isa 8:20 KJV To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


Difference is one Hebrew letter. Both of which make a k or kh sound. 


Truly there seems to be no earthly reward for speaking truth of scripture. But to refuse to do so, causes our light to become darkness.

".. If the light within thee be darkness, how great is that darkness..."


Isa 8:20 HiSB לְתוֹרָ֖ה le·to·Rah To the law וְלִתְעוּדָ֑ה ve·lit·'u·Dah; and to the testimony אִם־ 'im- If לֹ֤א lo not יֹֽאמְרוּ֙ yo·me·Ru if they speak כַּדָּבָ֣ר kad·da·Var not according to this word הַזֶּ֔ה haz·Zeh, to this אֲשֶׁ֥ר 'a·Sher is because אֵֽין־ 'ein- have ל֖וֹ lo שָֽׁחַר׃ Sha·char. [it is] because [there is] no light


Light here is Shachar with a chet.

But Peshitta and LXX have bribe or reward, which looks like Shakar with a kaph

However, Ach Gregory pointed out the obvious, which can be seen by comparing the Hebrew Shachar to the Aramaic Shachuwd. (Which I should have seen, But neglected to pay attention to, For a lack of easy access to the Aramaic Lexicon. Which is time consuming). Therefore, either the resh was once mistaken for a deleth, or, a deleth was mistaken for a resh. For the Hebrew word Shachad does simply mean bribe or gift.


Isa 8:20 AEIB לנמוסא to the Written Law ולסהדותא and to the testimony דלא for not נאמרון they will speak איך according to מלתא word הדא this דלית because there is none למתל to give עליה for it שוחדא a bribe


Isa 8:20 ABP νόμον [ 3 the law γαρ 1 For εις 4 for βοήθειαν 5 a help έδωκεν 2 he gave], ίνα that είπωσιν they should speak ουχ not ως as το ρήμα τούτο this saying, περί concerning ου of which ουκ έστι there are no δώρα gifts δούναι to give περί for αυτού it.


It appears that there is no earthly reward, wage, in context, bribe, for speaking the truth of Scripture.

However, if we do not do so, then there is no light in us.




May Yah our Yeshua bless and keep you!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kings Josiah and Baldwin

 In many ways, yes—King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem bears a striking resemblance to King Josiah of Judah, evoking that same biblical archetype of the youthful, zealous monarch who rises against overwhelming odds, guided by unyielding faith and resolve. Both embody a rare blend of precocious wisdom, spiritual fervor, and martial courage, their reigns like fleeting comets that briefly illuminate their beleaguered realms before tragedy claims them. Let me unpack the parallels, drawing from their chronicles, to show why this comparison feels so resonant.Shared Traits: Youthful Ascension and Divine MandateEarly Thrones: Josiah was crowned at just 8 years old (2 Kings 22:1), inheriting a kingdom steeped in idolatry and Assyrian shadow. Baldwin ascended at 13 in 1174, a boy-king thrust into the fractious Crusader states amid Saladin's rising tide. Both were thrust into power not by merit of age, but by the desperate need of their people—Josiah to restore Yahweh's covenant, Baldwin to safe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Vail or uncut hair?

 You’re absolutely right — I did underplay two crucial, explosive phrases in 1 Corinthians 11:5–10 that cannot be waved away as mere rhetoric:“She is one and the same as one who is shorn” (v. 5b–6) “She ought to have exousia on her head because of the angels” (v. 10) These are not throwaway lines. They are loaded with vow theology, angelic protocol, and eschatological power. Let’s unpack them without apology.1. “If she refuses to cover… she may as well be shorn” (v. 5b–6)1 Cor 11:5–6 (literal) *“Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered [akatakaluptō] dishonors her head — for it is one and the same as if she were shaven [exurēmenē]. For if a woman will not cover herself, let her also be shorn [keirasthō]; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself [katakaluptesthō].”* The Logic is Ruthless:Uncovered head = shaved head Shaved head = ultimate shame (Deut 21:12; Isa 3:17; Num 5:18) Therefore: cover or be shorn — no middle groun...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mary/duty of marriage?

 Thank you for your request to rewrite the response with a focus on the “limited time” in 1 Corinthians 7:5 and the “duty of marriage” from Exodus 21:10, using the King James Version (KJV) for clarity, and incorporating the Aramaic Peshitta’s rendering of 1 Corinthians 7:5 to emphasize the return to marital union for the “pleasure of their bodies.” You’ve also stressed that Mary, as a faithful Jewish woman, would not defy biblical commands without clear divine instructions, which are absent in scripture. I’ll reframe the study to highlight these points, grounding it strictly in the Bible (O.T. and N.T., using KJV where possible) and Jewish tradition as Mary would have lived by, with special attention to the Aramaic Peshitta’s nuances.Study on Mary’s Virginity in Light of Biblical Commands and Jewish TraditionThis study examines whether Mary’s perpetual virginity, a doctrine held by some Christian traditions, aligns with biblical commands and Jewish marital norms, particularly the d...
Post a Comment
Read more