I'm confused about something I can't find the answer to online maybe you can help me?

Is it a Mitzvah to tear down statues of demons if on public property?

Some local "artist" erected 20 statues made from driftwood and metal that looked like evil demons with horns, nose rings, and one even had a throne and orbs. They sat all in a row on a public foot path with a sign that read, "Monster Valley Beware"; it's where I jog all the time; why did it bother me if I'm not superstitious?  On Oct 31 it took 4 hours "nullifying" the path to remove and haul them to the dump. I feel like there is less darkness in my neighbourhood now but I don't understand how I felt this way... 

The police called to let me know about the investigation being open and I may be charged with criminal mischief if the statues were on the owners property; however, they were just outside of the boundary by 5 feet, thank Hashem!

Today I ran past and now there is a new statue; what do I do? I've been told it's not up to me to judge weather the object is evil and demonic and that I should just ignore it.  I'm finding it difficult to let it go but think I should; how can I have peace living side by side with pegan "art" everywhere? I don't want to sell and leave my home; I've asked Hashem which has lead me here; I am asking for advice from a Tzadik; please help!

I wonder if there are anymore Einstein's out there, looking for a new Spinoza.



https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Proofs_of_God


I was wondering if you could help me review this work.

Hello,
I'm a Hebrew initiate (made brief introduction in the welcome section).  


 I've had several years of Greek, German, and now a year of Hebrew, which isn't enough for really digging into translation, so I joined to brush up and have questions answered as I'm going along.

What I've been noting, with ancient Hebrew, is translators tend to use context to translate particular words, hence נָחַם Nacham, has a list of possibility for translations:   Comfort, Repent, Relent, changed my mind, and tend to replace the one word with larger vocabulary in conveyance.

I'm under the impression that Nacham is the root word "sigh."    When I'm trying to translate, I tend to go to the root meaning, first, and often last.    There are all kinds of issues with translating any particular language, but with Tanakh Hebrew, there were only about 8k words. The idea of giving multiple meanings to Hebrew expression for particularly English, where we have over a half a million words for expression is understandable, but for me, back-loading on translation, meaning into words that are (to me) imported back upon Hebrew Tanakh simplicity.    

As I look at the options from a standard concordance, I have to wonder if 'to sigh' is being pushed further by context, rather than by the word itself in translation.    

Exodus 32:14, by example, might not convey well as 'G-d sighed.'   Relented perhaps the better for English understanding, but it is my thinking "G-d sighed" is 1, the actual equivalent, and 2,'relented' the action contextually following the word Nacham.   IOW, "G-d sighed" followed by "He didn't bring disaster" where we allow context to inform instead of adding translated thoughts we are just about to translate anyway (a redundancy and it seems to me, a force upon the one word).  

So the argument for translation would be:  Minimal, allow the reader to come to conclusions and don't over-stuff any particular word with context that is already given, especially when context definitely fills out meaning.   

One problem:   "G-d changed His mind," is one go-to for translators and I've all kinds of issues with it being legitimate.   For me, 'changed one's mind' is vague, and not very meaningful for understanding any particular text, even in English.    Rather, the action following 'I changed my mind' is pertinent, and Nacham, rather the set up for that action.    Revisiting Exodus 32:14, "G-d changed His mind" goes much further in assumption than "G-d sighed."   I can intimate 'why' but if I translated that intimation, it appears to me, I've forced the text and translation and back-loaded it with meaning that can and often does redirect a reader from original intent (again, such is my drive when trying to be faithful translating any text).   

On point is a question of whether or not, based on my translating inclination, to always go as minimal and faithful to a word's meaning whenever meaning can be deciphered by further contextual reading.   I prefer word-for-word over against thought-for-thought, simply because of the middle-man between me and actually getting to the gist of a text. 

Thoughts, input appreciated and thank you.  -Lon

Hello.    I've had a little Hebrew (one year) and have questions from time to time.    I've a BTh in theology, MA in Teaching/child psych.

I've had to years of German, two years of Greek, and am currently learning a bit of Spanish on my own.

My interest in forum is to ask questions and get a better grip on the Tanakh.   

Currently I'm in a discussion about  the meaning of ָחַם -Nacham.   I tend to believe all words must travel back to their root meaning for proper interpretation, such that 'comfort,repent, relent' are, I think, rather contextual than implicit.    For me, 'sighed' carries the broader meaning of the Tanakh language more appropriately, and leaves context for further meaning.    Such is a sample of 'why I'm interested in being here.'   

Thanks for taking a few moments to briefly get acquainted.  -Lon

menachen Begin..he made one mistake during his political career,,,he signed a peace treaty with egypt...egypt got contral of the sinai; an oil well that Israel could have needed,,,what did Israel get...a scrap of paper and re quiring of a demolishing a Jewish settlement ..although not a direct result- the precident had been set..give up the land of Israel  for peace...  in short it was the begining of the oslo accords and the destructions of 25 Jewish settlements in judea; Samaria; gaza and the Sinai...yet one action can have a long effect...

What do these words mean?

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

Tommorow evening it begins.

Chag Sameach, chaverim.

In this new year we will not be perfect, but we can be better. We have to be.

May you have an easy fast.

May you find meaning in the day.

Gemar hatimah tovah.

I chanced upon a book that really got me interested in my Jewish heritage. I haven't really been so observant for a good portion of my life but I still could never justify opting out of Judaism altogether. After all, we have really suffered for keeping and observing the same beliefs that today we often take for granted in a world that pushes for questioning religion and being a skeptic while simply ignoring the fact that indeed questioning science is also something that must be done. I don't want to put myself entirely in the believer camp yet, but all I have understood from this book is that if we must be iconoclasts then let us equally scrutinize everything. 

Here is a brief summary of the book below and the link to the book for anyone that is interested in reading further. - (This is a 4 part series)

 https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Real-Juda...rd_w=fZJWq&content-id=amzn1.sym.dcf559c6-d374-405e-a13e-133e852d81e1&pf_rd_p=dcf559c6-d374-405e-a13e-133e852d81e1&pf_rd_r=GQE4GH95ZW7NQ9K6KBMX&pd_rd_wg=UJtFy&pd_rd_r=aeb809f4-d355-4d5e-861d-d10d8ea03984&pd_rd_i=1568717059&psc=1


This four-volume judicial review, addressed to the skeptical, non-religious Jewish mind, delivers a shocking verdict: "Real Judaism" is a proven, non-faith religion, vindicated by cold logic and unavoidable evidence, not sentiment or superstition. The implication is clear: rejecting your heritage is intellectually dishonest and leads directly to Jewish self-annihilation.
Here is a short, compelling summary of the case presented across the four books:

1. Let's Really Try to Disprove Judaism: This volume establishes the uniqueness of Judaism's core claim: a mass, simultaneous, public Revelation at Sinai in 1312 BCE, unlike other faiths based on unwitnessed, private revelations. The mathematical force of the Law of Probability proves that the survival of this story for over 3,000 years is impossible if it were a lie. The odds were against survival by roughly 50,000 to 1. Your existence as a Jew today is presented as the living, inexplicable proof that the claim must be true.
   
2. Judaism on Trial: The case is strengthened by irrefutable non-Jewish evidence—including archaeology, history, DNA findings, and ancient texts from enemies like the Samarians. This confirms the unbroken, generational chain of testimony (the Sinai Argument). The ultimate objective witness, Sir Isaac Newton, is cited as having examined and intellectually embraced the Sinai argument, rejecting both atheism and faith religions for lack of judicial certainty.
   
3. Mutation: Schmutation: This volume contrasts the proven nature of Real Judaism with the secular atheist worldview, often rooted in the "Faith of Immaculate Mutation" (evolution). It argues that the secular framework, which rational Jews embrace, fails every legal and logical test that Judaism passes beyond a reasonable doubt. This irrational rejection of a proven heritage is attributed to a preference for a life of amoral freedom and intellectual laziness.
   
4. Why Bad Things Happen to Good People: The Hidden Book Answers: Having judicially established the Creator's existence, this final volume draws on the profound wisdom found in the Talmud (the encyclopaedic Oral Law). The Talmud is presented as the only source that provides robust, logical answers to the ultimate questions of existence, suffering, and justice. It explains that life is designed as an ultimate test of Freewill, proving that knowledgeable observance leads to emotional security and contentment, making the choice to assimilate the self-inflicted final solution.
   

Just wondering if there happens to be any Noahides who browse this forum.


Wondering what resources are best recommended for those who are interested/beginners and wanting to look more into Judaism while practicing the Seven Laws.