Hi Bad Bird:

You wrote:Your observation so far is quite accurate to this point to my way of thinking. There is another aspect of determining the meaning of words as well and than is how they themselves are used within the scriptures with the scriptures sometimes giving its own definition directly. ie. sin is the transgression of the law.

You wrote:This certainly is a factor as well and the use of lexicons helps out.

You wrote:I have just hated using dictionaries in the past (not to mention reading in general) but with the advent of computer Bible dictionaries this has made things more easily accessible. For the most part right now I have used mostly Bible dictionaries but even there sometimes definitions from one dictionary to the next can have differences.

The biggest challenge is trying to see through the doctrinal influences which has a huge impact on the choice of word renderings in the English translations of the Bible. In that case English dictionaries might not be of much help.

You wrote: The same could be said about the religious observer(s) too. For instance, since I started to look into this recently rather than just taking the word of my teachers, I'm coming up with something that I've never been taught before on this subject. I'm beginning to think that might be because faith/belief is a very fuzzy subject at best with as many 'definitions' as there are observers.

I would think that the differences in definitions that you see between Bible dictionaries would be much more pronounced than than they are between the various secular dictionaries simply because the former dictionaries are each backed by a particular sect, with its own doctrinal peculiarities; whereas it is in the secular dictionaries' financial best interest to be as close to non-biased as possible. The latter do vary, but not very significantly.

Your statement "There is another aspect of determining the meaning of words as well and than is how they themselves are used within the scriptures with the scriptures sometimes giving its own definition directly. ie. sin is the transgression of the law." interested me, so I went to Webster's Dictionary to see what the current definition is. It is still pretty much as contained in scripture, with a few expansions. (E.g., sin taxes as a sarcastic term for taxes intended to modify our behavior. Hmmm. I wonder how a punitive alcohol tax would have gone over in biblical times: they seem to have liked their wine back then.)

My recommendation of the Oxford English Dictionary is based on it being the only dictionary that can explain what English words meant at the time each English translation of the Bible was taking place. I would think that would be of considerable interest to those of you trying to figure out what the translators' words meant to them at the time.

The OED is the only really authoritative source that I know of on the subject. Beware, though. It is 13 volumes!!! So you would have to use it at the library. I have a two (large) volume unabridged set that cost only $40 about 20 years ago. They managed to get it down to that size by printing it on very thin paper and shrinking the type down until it is unreadable without a magnifying glass. It did come with a really good magnifying glass, though. If you try the OED out and find it useful you might be able to find one of the two volume sets at a used book store. (Save gas, use your telephone.)


Yea, verily. That is my conclusion, too. It seems a shame as faith and belief are central to very concept of religion.

Hi Bad Bird:

Thanks for your insightful explanation into what is commonly regarded as the secular view of faith and belief. I tend to think it will help in establishing the differences between what most understand about them and how YHWH would have us understand them so those who may be interested in becoming believers can more easily make the transition.

You commented and asked:As I understand it, at least for now, faith has to come first because belief is 'developed' from faith. It may seem that faith and belief have the egg or chicken effect after some time as faith initially received becomes belief and new or additional faith comes to the individual so the various aspects of our spirituality have varying levels of a faith/belief mix. Our beliefs are developed on a step by step, precept by precept basis with each aspect of our faith turning into belief at different points in time.

As I understand from scripture, from the religious aspect, at least, we receive faith, which is actually a certain amount of information, from YHWH. This religious faith (information) may come from scripture, from others, or from within one's self through the Spirit of YHWH.

It is the turning of faith into belief that can be quite intensive for an individual when trying to obey or at least trying to figure out how to obey YHWH. In essence belief is 'applied' or 'proven' faith. As an example, Abraham took the faith given to him from YHWH that he should sacrifice his son, Isaac.

Abraham could have rejected that information, or faith, and forgotten about the whole thing but instead he decided to apply that faith in obedience to YHWH. In doing so he proved to both himself and YHWH that he indeed believed YHWH.

So belief then is a special type of faith. It is applied faith that is proven to be so at least to that individual.

On the other hand faith that is rejected, or not applied or not proven is dead faith. It obviously results in unbelief OR for some individuals 'blind' faith.

It seems to me then that you are saying that faith is only blind faith from a secular point of view and I would certainly say it is in keeping with how the non-religious generally view the religious in regard to these terms especially in stark contrast to the scientific method and its system of proof.

The level of the burden of proof that various individuals hold themselves and others to is cause for the various points of view about one or another's level of faith and belief. One's 'proven' faith, or belief, might be another's blind faith, for instance. This could be true for believers and unbelievers alike mixed together or separately amongst themselves of a particular group or 'faith'.

Another aspect of this is the amount of faith an individual is given and then what they can actually process from it. Everyone has different capabilities and one may have be given lots of faith but believes little while another has little faith but has developed very passionate beliefs from that small amount of faith.

Now, that being said, how is this all applied in a practical manner? Sorry Bad Bird, this may be of little concern to you as an 'unbeliever' but I think this fits in here well.

Getting back to Abraham, he was 'justified' because he believed YHWH according to the scriptures.

When he was about to plunge the knife into his son Isaac, YHWH had to directly restrain him from doing so. The faith of YHWH within Abraham was proven at that very moment without question to both YHWH and Abraham. It was then that Abraham fully believed YHWH. If there had been any doubt before on Abraham's part, it was totally removed.

That act of applied, proven faith, which is belief, caused YHWH to consider Abraham to be justified. In other words, all of Abraham's sins were forgiven because of his belief in YHWH. Abraham was considered righteous because the faith given to him was put into action and proven to be true which is belief.

It was living faith because of his works of obedience to YHWH unto belief not a dead faith that results from no works or evil works and ends in unbelief.

One of the biggest controversies amongst Bible believers is whether or not 'works' is 'required' which translates into 'keeping the Commandments of YHWH'. In other words, is the Law of YHWH still in effect.

The root of the problem comes from the misunderstanding of the scriptures that indicate that we cannot be saved by our own works and that those scriptures are then taken out of context saying the Law or Commandments of YHWH no longer apply to anything at all above and way beyond our salvation. They are considered to be done away with. That is not what is intended by those scriptures.

Our salvation depends only upon our belief in YHWH, nothing else and especially not any of our works. We cannot do anything to save ourselves - nothing. We cannot make ourselves righteous. We cannot make ourselves immortal. We are doomed no matter what we do of and by ourselves. Only YHWH can make us righteous and immortal. But He wouldn't do that until we believe Him in the same way Abraham believed Him.

And how did Abraham come to believe YHWH. It was by combining the faith of YHWH in him with works of obedience which resulted in Abraham's belief in YHWH.

Those works of Abraham's did nothing to save himself. All they did was to bring the faith of YHWH into the belief in YHWH for him. Those works did no more than that. From there everything that was necessary to save Abraham was only done by YHWH. There was nothing more Abraham could do much less save himself.

So works are required to develop our belief in YWHW so YHWH will save us. Our works will not save us.

And as scripture prophesies, Abraham will be saved by YHWH (YHWH-shua) and he will have a major role in the government of the kingdom of YHWH. And it will happen only because of the faith of YHWH in him, which he applied through obedient works turning it into belief.

All believers of YHWH will do likewise in their quest to seek His kingdom and His righteousness beginning with the faith of YHWH in them.

I think DCinc explanation of Christian faith and belief is very good. I may just add that some of us get our faith from people learned in thelogy or by the example of good men like saints

Hi lizbeth:

You wrote:Good point lizbeth. Parents, because of many of life's experiences, have developed a number of beliefs as well as continuing to receive new-to-them faith.

When they pass on their beliefs to their children, the parents' beliefs become the child's faith. If the child just accepts the parents' beliefs as being so, they only have blind faith and not their own beliefs which can only come by their testing of the faith given to them to prove the faith as being true which then becomes their own belief(s).

You wrote:Just a quick note. I think YHWH gives faith and expects (rather than 'demands') belief in Him.

You asked:Good question lizbeth. A complete answer could be quite lengthy. It took me years of study to come to this understanding. I had hoped my previous post had condensed it in an understandable way. I'll try again.

Paul writes very plainly who was with the Israelites in the wilderness right from the start ...

1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was the Messiah.

It was the Messiah, Yahshua (Jesus), who led, feed, gave drink and protected the Israelites in the wilderness. We also read that ...

18 No man hath seen the Father at any time; the only begotten Son, which was in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

... so from this scripture ...

Exo 33:17 And YHWH said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found favor in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of YHWH before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 21 And YHWH said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

... who was it then that Moses saw the back parts of if no one has seen the Father?

You commented and quoted:So in the beginning there were two Creator beings with the Word, who was 'God' and who was with 'God', doing the hands-on creating. There was also 'God'. And then further in that scripture it says ...

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Yahushua the Messiah.

So John has very plainly stated that the one Creator called The Word became Yahshua (Jesus), the Messiah and that the other being was His Father which from the scriptures above indicate that to be 'God'. Further ...

Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O YHWH, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

And another scripture says ...

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from YHWH.

... so it is obvious then that Eve, the very first woman who was created, knew the name of 'God' the Father, YHWH, and that the name of YHWH is eternal, according to these scriptures.

But, in apparent contrast, from this next scripture ...

Exo 6:2 And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am YHWH: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El-Shaddai, but by my name YHWH was I not known to them?

... it seems that our forefathers did not know or understand the meaning the name of YHWH although they knew about the name just as Eve did ...

Gen 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of YHWH, El-olam*. *Everlasting El

Here, for instance, Abraham called on the name of YHWH, the everlasting 'God', without knowing why He is self-existent (ie. because of His righteousness).

It wasn't until Moses went into action that the meaning of the name YHWH was made known to mankind ...

Exo 3:14 And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

YHWH simply told Moses that His name meant He, Yah, is self existent because of His righteousness that was revealed through the Commandments or Law of YHWH given later to Moses. This was not revealed to Abraham, or Eve, or anyone before Moses time.

So why is this not generally known by most Bible believers? Well among many reasons one has to do with the English translations. Most, like the KJV, are suffering from unfortunate translation problems. You can see this quite readily when the KJV is compared to the Restored Name KJV of the Bible that I have quoted here several times.

Understanding these translation problems helps greatly in determining who The Creators of the Bible are, their names and their roles throughout the scriptures.

A handful of ambiguously translated words are involved. 'God' is one of them and causes much confusion.

'God' can mean 'God' the Father, 'God' the Son, 'God' the 'Godhead', 'God' the 'Mighty One' (El), 'God' the 'Mighty Ones' (Elohim), 'God' the Word, among a few other designations not having to do with The Creators at all but instead with pagan dieties.

In the Old Testament the words most often translated 'God' are El and Elohim and a few times YHWH. In an English translation it is difficult to know for sure which is being referred to unless you check a concordance. We can't always know only from the English if it means just one Creator or both or the 'Godhead' collectively. Consequently misunderstandings crop up about who is being talked about. The singularity/plurality of the original Hebrew is lost with the English rendering of 'God'.

In the New Testament the confusion is greater as the 'original' Greek translation suffers the same problems with the word 'Theos' which is mostly rendered as 'God'. That problem can be seen in both the KJV and the RNKJV.

For instance, beginning in John 1:1 ...

KJV ...
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 The same was in the beginning with God.

RNKJV ...
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHWH, and the Word was YHWH. 2 The same was in the beginning with YHWH.

Translation rules sometimes overrule the context of the scripture and the above is a very obvious example of that.

In John 1:1 it says in part, "... the Word was with God. ...". Not too much wrong with that except for some ambiguity. It could be one of several things.

1. The Word was with 'God' the Father, YHWH (as in the RNKJV).
2. The Word was with a 'Mighty One'.
3. The Word was of the 'Mighty Ones'.

The Greek 'Theos' rendered 'God' does not give us a definitive picture here like the Hebrew/Aramaic would have.

But the end of verse one, "... the Word was God. ...", is cause for concern in the English and the Greek. Does it mean ...

1. the Word was 'God' the Father?
2. the Word was 'God' the Son?
3. the Word was a 'Mighty One'?
4. the Word was of the 'Mighty Ones'?
-- OR -- as the RNKJV rendered it.
5. the Word was YHWH?

Well if the Word was 'God' the Father, or YHWH then He would be His own Son. That isn't possible. If the 'original' Hebrew/Aramaic were still available here then it would have been made clear who The Word was in the beginning rather than having used the Greek/English translations with their less than clear Theos/'God' rendering.

Then in verse two, although not as concerning, the use of the 'God' term is less than satisfactory in defining who The Word was/is - YHWH, Mighty One or Mighty Ones.

Then there is the well known translation of translations of the English Bibles that end us up with Yahshua='Jesus' rather than 'Joshua' in the New Testament and statements that say 'Jesus saves', rather than YHWH saves, and 'Jesus is Lord' which makes 'Jesus' the central figure of our salvation rather than YHWH thereby causing us to become part of the many of the 'I Am Christ' crowd as foretold by scripture.

That is a result of intertranslations from the Hebrew directly and indirectly amongst the Aramaic, Latin, Greek and English languages.

You wrote:I think you are correct in saying this. We are all given faith of different sorts and amounts. And then we all test that faith in different ways rejecting some of it and accepting some of it. As a result we all come up with differing beliefs. This is confirmed by the scriptures when it speaks of having strong or weak faith and/or beliefs.