Proverbs 6:20 King James Version (KJV)

[dpr112yme]

"My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:"

Keep thy father's commandment, and don't forsake thy mother's law.

Children need to keep their dad's commandment and not forsake their mother's law.

Law = tō·w·raṯ = תּוֺרָה ..... noun feminine ..... Deuteronomy 1:5 (Law)... direction, instruction, law

8451 [e] .......... tō-w-raṯ ....... תּוֹרַ֥ת ....... the law
direction, instruction (teachings), law


'My son, keep they father's commandment, and forsake not the teachings, instructions, directions of thy mother.'

It is the responsibility of the mother, also, to teach about the 'Laws', 'Instructions' of God's Law as well as other important valuable teachings.

"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy (as together; as 1 Unit) children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." -Deuteronomy 6:6-7

 

[fschmidt]

Here is a reasonable translation:

"My son, keep your father's command and don't forsake your mother's teaching."

Translating "torah" as "law" is completely wrong. Even "instruction" is wrong. Here is Proverbs 31

"She opens her mouth with wisdom and a torah of kindness is on her tongue."

What is reasonable for "torah" here? Only "teaching". In fact the only translation of "torah" that makes consistent sense is "teaching". The entire point of the Old Testament is torah, God's attempt to teach us how to behave. But since people are too stupid to understand this teaching, we have the New Testament for good behavior based on faith, and the Quran for good behavior based on blind obedience.

 

[dpr112yme]

Here is a reasonable translation:

"My son, keep your father's command and don't forsake your mother's teaching."

Translating "torah" as "law" is completely wrong. Even "instruction" is wrong. Here is Proverbs 31

"She opens her mouth with wisdom and a torah of kindness is on her tongue."

What is reasonable for "torah" here? Only "teaching". In fact the only translation of "torah" that makes consistent sense is "teaching". The entire point of the Old Testament is torah, God's attempt to teach us how to behave. But since people are too stupid to understand this teaching, we have the New Testament for good behavior based on faith, and the Quran for good behavior based on blind obedience.

I see what you may be trying to say, but I disagree.

 

[dpr112yme]

Here is a reasonable translation:

"My son, keep your father's command and don't forsake your mother's teaching."

Translating "torah" as "law" is completely wrong. Even "instruction" is wrong. Here is Proverbs 31

"She opens her mouth with wisdom and a torah of kindness is on her tongue."

What is reasonable for "torah" here? Only "teaching". In fact the only translation of "torah" that makes consistent sense is "teaching". The entire point of the Old Testament is torah, God's attempt to teach us how to behave. But since people are too stupid to understand this teaching, we have the New Testament for good behavior based on faith, and the Quran for good behavior based on blind obedience.

I see what you may be trying to say, but I disagree.

Firstly, the word 'Torah' is not in the English Holy Bible, I don't think. I cannot be certain of what the word 'Torah' means coming from the Hebraic definition but I'm pretty sure that the word is not in the English Holy Bible. The word translated as teaching from the above post is not Torah, but rather, the pronunciation as To-w-rat with the word being .
This is NOT the spelling for Torah............... תּוֹרַ֥ת

If they wanted to say 'Torah', then the spelling might have had to be what is below.

This is the Hebrew spelling for Torah ..... תּוֹרָה

There is a difference in spelling between the 2 words...


Here is a better explanation...to me at least
The below is a better definition of תּוֹרָה

◄ 8451. torah ►
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from yarah
Definition
direction, instruction, law
NASB Word Usage
custom (1), instruction (10), instructions (1), Law (1), law (188), laws (10), ruling (1), teaching (7), teachings (1).

And which could also be seen as 'bullock, ox'

 

[fschmidt]

dpr112yme, this is just basic Hebrew. The way to say "torah of whatever" is "torat whatever". It's just grammer. The word is still "torah".

 

[dpr112yme]

dpr112yme, this is just basic Hebrew. The way to say "torah of whatever" is "torat whatever". It's just grammer. The word is still "torah".

well, regardless, it is the responsibility of both genders in the family heads to teach their children proper living skills. It is not only left up to the male parent to do all the teaching and instructing. And if the mother is not a part of the child's upbringing then this could leave lots of room for the child to grow into a half truth half lying adulthood.. And with a person who has only half of the parents' instructions, the person is more likely to get into more troubles. So basic Hebrew is not as important to discuss than full parental duties.

And surely, many of the parental duties can be found in the Torah.

 

[dpr112yme]

dpr112yme, this is just basic Hebrew. The way to say "torah of whatever" is "torat whatever". It's just grammer. The word is still "torah".

well, regardless, it is the responsibility of both genders in the family heads to teach their children proper living skills. It is not only left up to the male parent to do all the teaching and instructing. And if the mother is not a part of the child's upbringing then this could leave lots of room for the child to grow into a half truth half lying adulthood.. And with a person who has only half of the parents' instructions, the person is more likely to get into more troubles. So basic Hebrew is not as important to discuss than full parental duties.

And surely, many of the parental duties can be found in the Torah.

You can't say that you love Christ, the New Testament as many might call it, and yet deny His Father's Old teachings. And this is if the Old Testament was ONLY given to man by The Father of Christ and only by The Father of Christ.


To say that Jesus was NOT part of the Old Testament is like saying The Father of Christ was not part of the New Testament.

And before any non-Jewish man can claim to know what Christ's Apostle's meant when they wrote the Epistles, people should not assume to know everything the Jewish Apostles were trying to say through their Epistles. So without knowing anything about The Old Testament, a non-Jewish person can not claim they know what the Torah is about. The word 'Grace' in Hebrew may have a completely different meaning of what we might be taught 'Grace' might mean. And if someone is so obstinate that they refuse to do any good thing that the Old Testament recommends because of The New Testament is insanely all based upon faith.

The word 'faith' is not SOLEY a Christian word, you know..

 

[waltky]

God's standards come before...

... sop-head's so-called 'higher' standards.

Deut.13.3

 

[dpr112yme]

I think the ONLY word that The Apostles had to come up with was the word to represent 'homosexuality' in one word and not a description with words. the word homosexual may not be able to be found in all of the Old Testament because they were not into that kind of stuff.


But now, the whole world is at wars with Christianity because of God's Laws pertaining to homosexuality.

 

[dpr112yme]

I don't want to sound crass but homosexuality was a 'Pagan' doing, not a doing that started from Abraham.

But although, the first instance of any kind of homosexuality in The Holy Bible was from Noah's son, Ham, who looked upon his father's nakedness. And so by doing, Ham received a curse by his own father.

But still, Christ came to redeem all that junk that happened in the past AND give the people of the future a chance to get into God's Kingdom.

think of it this way... How could ANY faith be tested before there was ever any Faith to be received?

All of Israel believed upon God in the B.C. years. Even when God warned them of certain things, they still believed upon God. In those years, it was their 'disobedience' that got them into trouble, not a lack of 'faith'.

 

[dpr112yme]

And in these days, we wrestle against evil forces and evil spirits.... Back then they wrestled against sin, which is a transgression of God's Law.

The people back then DID NOT have to worry about their private lives being 'spied' on by their neighbors.

But regardless of if it is the Old Testament or the New Testament, God is God. Period.

And the New Testament, after Christ began His Ministry, began to teach how to enter into The Kingdom of Heaven. If we do not follow His instructions on how to, we will miss the boat.

The Torah, being instructions, as well as the New Testament, being instructions are both Instructions. From Torah to Torah.

 

[dpr112yme]

Satan does not want you to know that you have forgiveness. And the reasonings he uses is that God will put to 'death' anyone who disobeys which is a bunch of lies. Christ became the death penalty so that even if we should commit sin that is to be put to death, Christ took that penalty unto Himself. So basically, no one can commit any sin anymore that requires the death penalty even by God's Own Laws.

So, if we commit sin, there is no requirement for death by any of God's Laws. The 'verdict' of death for certain sins, has been placed upon Christ. No one is going to be put to death for breaking any of God's Laws. Not by God, at least.

And if the wages of sin is death, does that mean that no one is going to die the second death if they have believe in God? Living la vida loca will not keep me from entering into The Kingdom of Heaven since Jesus took all death penalties unto Himself, even the death penalty of 'hell' and the 'lake of fire?'

 

[dpr112yme]

Satan does not want you to know that you have forgiveness. And the reasonings he uses is that God will put to 'death' anyone who disobeys which is a bunch of lies. Christ became the death penalty so that even if we should commit sin that is to be put to death, Christ took that penalty unto Himself. So basically, no one can commit any sin anymore that requires the death penalty even by God's Own Laws.

So, if we commit sin, there is no requirement for death by any of God's Laws. The 'verdict' of death for certain sins, has been placed upon Christ. No one is going to be put to death for breaking any of God's Laws. Not by God, at least.

And if the wages of sin is death, does that mean that no one is going to die the second death if they have believe in God? Living la vida loca will not keep me from entering into The Kingdom of Heaven since Jesus took all death penalties unto Himself, even the death penalty of 'hell' and the 'lake of fire?'

If death is death in all ways, and if Christ took the penalty of death upon Himself, how would anyone be put to death if they believe upon God? Has it now become, that to ONLY believe, is all you need to be spared the penalty of death regardless of how you live and how you do not live?

I don't know.... Some churches do teach this though... That it is only 'grace' which saves and nothing else. Which would, then, make the Old Testament, the first, second, third , etc etc.... centuries up until now, to have become obsolete.


Regardless of what sorts of 'blessings' God may pour out onto Earth and regardless of what has become allowed and what is not allowed, it is up to each individual to live the life that they 'believe' is worthy of the calling of God upon their lives with whatever they may hold dear to their lives.


And it SURE would be frightening to go into a Church that teaches these things. That all things have now become acceptable with God.

If you are going to accept something, you are condoning it. If you condone it, you will accept it. If you accept it and condone it, you will make it lawful. If you make it lawful, you cannot get hurt by it. If you make it lawful, new amendments must be added.