The Old Testament

Some scholars say and we can now say with considerable confidence , are two different statements arising from different mental processes. The first statement, some scholars say, is a reflection of studied opinion.
The statement, we can now say with confidence, is a matter of an apprehension of faith.
This is not a foundation of reason upon which you can further build accurate observations.

Stole? You are quoting what intellectual property right? You have questions because your world view is not supported by fact but by impressionistic moralization. On that basis you stole your language and incorporated it into your fledgling face.

You do it because you consider yourself to have the inspiration of reason.
If you think, more specifically omniscience, is lacking in fact truth or logic, it is the result of your less than omniscient apprehension of this.

This is not a social theory, it is an air of disrespect for a process.

So you are collecting poll data?

The only ones bound by law are those in prison.

On the basis of what evidence is that at all apparent. The evidence you present is, pri fix opinion, not documentation of the observed responses in this thread.

Apparent by what metric?

 

Yeah, Ok, I don't recall anybody claiming Christians wrote the Old Testament.

You make this statement, or rather proclomation.......

then respond to my question with this;

apparently my point eluded you.

If, as you claim, Christians plagiarized and re-wrote the Old Testament to coincide with and give foundation to their fledgling religion, how do you explain the Dead Sea Scrolls predating Christianity by a few hundred years YET the content of the scrolls matches pretty much word for word what the Christians except as the Old Testament. Some of those scrolls even contain some of the most compelling prophetic passages that many feel point directly to Jesus.

You would think that if it was as you suggest that there would be far greater discrepancies between documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the "Christian Old Testament", but the opposite is found to be the case. Or why did they not doctor the "Christian Old Testament" to plainly and without any doubt point to Jesus as the Messiah???


So did Christians go back in time and alter the documents so that centuries later they would support the religion that did not yet exist?

that would be nice, but honestly your premises, the reasoning you use to develop them and the conclusions you arrive at are just so flawed and erroneous as to render them pretty much difficult to discuss because, as has been demonstrated by myself and most others, it becomes just constantly pointing out the gross errors in your ideas.

errors in understanding the connection between Judaism and Christianity
errors in understanding the Bible
errors in understanding Judaism
errors in understanding Christianity
errors in simple logic, reasoning and deduction.

Then when these errors are pointed out or your hypothesis and conclusions genuinely challenged, you resort to labeling the guilty party as a "troll".

All this is further compounded by the forum rules that prohibit posting Biblical scriptures in order to expound or explain a position, yet you can cut and paste as much crap as you want.
Perfect forum for anti-Christian trolls.

There is the sanctuary section, but trollish, inflammatory posts such as yours would be removed from that section.

So do understand that any type of "debate" you would like to carry on with someone of the Christian faith here put's you at an immediate advantage due to the inherit anti-Christian bias of the forums as a whole.

Not bitching, not whining, not defending Christians
just making a valid and neutral observation.

 

No, I think I understood you. The C/Old Testament does not say the same thing. If you read the Hebrew bible, the Tanakh, you can see the differences are pretty clear. The Dead Sea scrolls are accepted as being written by the Hebrews. I used to have a copy of the Hebrew bible, when I was studying, and the differences are pretty obvious. The christians of the time did not do a complete re-write, I never said that, I did say they changed it. And those changes can be seen when compared side by side. This happens as I said, (maybe I said it in the other thread) when an emerging religion needs to add validity to what they are doing, they "adopt" I say plagiarize) what others have already done. It makes a transition easier to accept for people they get to follow them, as they are already familiar with some of the precepts. What happens is the new religion makes changes, a word here, one there, references to different things, write another manuscript saying the first one is what makes the second one true, or, rather, that the second on is the "fulfillment" of the first. The christians are not the only to do this, there are many others, even predating christianity, this just happens to be the christian forum, and I haven't got to the others yet.

I think there is great discrepancies, but you have to look at the original manuscript, the Hebrew bible to see them.
The reason they weren't more direct, referring to the second part of your comment, is that, (and this is my opinion, based on what I read) is that they needed to add a mystical element to the whole Jesus thing, making it seem more than it was.
This does bring up another point though, if it was so certain, why not just write up a manuscript that clearly states what is going to happen? If someone who creates prophecies wants to be taken seriously, then a direct and clear statement of what is to happen, and when, and how, etc., would remove any doubt. If all these things were inspired by a omnipotent, omniscient entity, wouldn't it be better to just make the statement, and have it come true without any doubt?

Obviously not, but again, the documents most people see in the "Old Testament" are not the same ones found in the Hebrew bible, so they would not have had to go back in time to do anything. Keep in mind that in those times few people could read, had any access to the material anyway, and relied on their priests or other holy people to tell them what things said. This would make it very easy to plagiarize some other document, since there would be no one around to doubt it.

Tell me how they are wrong, and we can discuss that. I see people here telling me I am wrong, but they can offer nothing to back up what they say, so all we do is have this constant opinion fest which resolves nothing. When I do post facts, with some supporting evidence, it is ignored, or misinterpreted. Pretty much everything I have said, such as the the people in those days not being able to read, or not having access to material, etc., are things we learned in school, and I have satisfied myself since then that these things are true. Short of writing a book, which these threads are turning into anyway, I try to shorten the amount of info that supports what I say, so as not to inundate someone who wants to read it with all sort of references, since it would probably turn them off the thread. I have tons of references, but I would have to spend more time than it is worth to go find them to support every little thing I say here. I assume that anyone commenting on what I say would have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject or they would not comment, or at least ask what I mean by something, before rejecting it out of hand.
I have no agenda here, I just want to discuss issues that are interesting to me.

Again, unsubstantiated claims. Point out the issue and we can discuss that, and if need be I will go find the references that back up my claims. I think it only fair that if someone wants to call me on something that they say something like, "Wait a minute, in such and such book on page whatever, it says this." Or something like that. To just say "Bullshit, you're wrong", and provide nothing to back up the statement other than opinion isn't right either. And I am guility of doing it too, so I am not trying be a martyr or anything.

No, I allege the party as a troll when they immediately attack me for the subject matter, continually post derogatory comments, like yours for your edit, or where they are just so vague and off topic I can't understand what they are trying to say. I am not always right either, but I think I have been trying to stick to what I originally posted. And if I find I am wrong, as was pointed out to me by Tyrsonwood, I apologize for the wrong. So far I feel I have only been wrong in the one instance.

I have never posted any biblical scriptures. Please show me where I have done this. Referencing a book something is found in is different than posting scripture. Having read the rules, I am pretty sure that refers to people using them to proselytize others anyway. It sounds like some people were getting pretty serious about wanting others to join their religion, and the management stepped in to prevent the trolling that resulted from that. You would have to asks the management if I am right or not. I would think that Meagain would have no trouble pinning my ears back if I was violating the rules, and rightly so, since this is not my forum.
And you really need to understand, I am not anti-christian, I am anti-ignorance, and the threads I participate in I do for the reasons of negating my own ignorance, or at least satisfying my curiosity on a subject.

I think you misunderstand what trolling is on this forum. I think Meagian posted what the rules say, and they seemed pretty clear to me what it meant. Again, I would think that if I was trolling, then Meagain would step in and take action, as he has already done in at least one instance I have seen. I probably won't go to the sanctuary section as I actually do respect those people their right to discuss their beliefs amongst themselves in peace. Outside of that, however, the subject is fair game.

I don't think they are anti-christian. I think they are trying to balance some rules that make this place somewhere people can discuss issues important to them without allowing some people to infringe on the rights of those who just want to have a decent discussion, so, in order to do that, given that people generally have self control problems, they have put rules into effect to try to protect everyone. They probably don't always work, and not everyone will agree with them, but, hey, we can always go start our own forum if we want our own rules.
Did you notice that these forums are owned by "Hip, Inc"? That makes it a business, which also brings into play rules they have no control over, laid down by the various government who govern their activities.

I'll accept that.

Something I can't really accept though, is this:
Last edited by NoxiousGas; Today at 11:15 AM. Reason: *sniff sniff* anybody else smell Jewish troll?
found at the bottom of your post. It smacks of bigotry and is very unwarranted.
Just so you know, and anyone else who reads this, I am not Jewish. I did study with a Rabbi for a number of years regarding questions I had pertaining to my religious inclinations at the time.
I am a humanist with strong leanings in naturalism. I am also of German descent, so really, some Jews could be suspicious of me just for that. My name is German, my family hasn't been here all that long. I do have a lot of respect for most Jews, at least the ones I have associated with, They are smart, hard working, and generally just good people. I am sure there are many bad ones too, but there are lots of bad people from all walks of life. I don't support everything the ones I used to know in everything they did, but we generally settled disagreements amicably.

If you ever feel I am trolling a thread, please feel free to report me, if you think you need to. My choice for dealing with that problem is to just ignore the person doing it, whether it is right or not, if I am having trouble with someone that can't be resolved, then I just ignore them. But I have not problem if you think I did something that needs reporting.

 

I find this whole thread puzzling. I thought it was common knowledge that Christianity grew out of the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jew steeped in the Torah. The Gospel of Matthew is at particular pains to point out that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy and upholder of the Law of Moses, which would not be changed one iota until God's promise was fulfilled (presumably by Jesus's crucifixion). Is this "plagiarism"?

The Tanakh is Israel's understanding of itself. It is not history, in the sense of being a reliable guide to what actually happened in the past. But it is a unifying national myth that binds the Jews together as a special people in relation to their (our) God.

Or, to put it in less accusatory terms, because their world view, like ours, is shaped by what has gone on before and what is going on around them.

This is an odd viewpoint. Christians today don't think of their God as the Christian God, as opposed to the Hebrew God. It's all the same Abrahamic God, which the Jews called YHVH and Muslims call Allah.

Here again, true but beside the point. Jews, like Christians, recognize that the Law of Moses applied only to the Jews through their covenant with God, while Gentiles are bound by the Noahide laws. Christians( at least those influenced by Paul) also believe that Jesus' death fulfilled the prophecies and liberated us from the law, although certain basic rules contained in the Law of Noah still apply.
I see Christian memes behaving as they're supposed to in the evolution of Christian doctrine.

 

"Common knowledge" is really a fallacy. People believe all sorts of things without actually looking at the facts of an issue in question. The Jews see their beliefs as having nothing to do with christianity. I know this having studied with an orthodox rabbi for some time.
"Grew out of" is the conception people have of christianity. In reality, at least according to what I read, christianity plagiarized the Hebrew bible, and redefined/reinterpreted what it said to fit its fledgling religion. As I said in another post on this thread, this would have been simple given that very few could read during that time.

Yes, that is what a lot of people think. And I think the (presumably by Jesus's crucifixion) part does not accurately reflect what was said, but I would have to quote some scriptures which are forbidden here. But this is not what I was referring to. I am referring to the fact that the "OT" is not the same as the Hebrew bible, which christianity purports it to be, and claims it as part of its own belief system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament this link shows some of what I am attempting to explain.
If you put the Hebrew bible and the christian version, the OT side by side, it is easy to see the differences.

The Tanakh is the Hebrews understanding of their relationship with their god, who they believe is not the same as the christian concept. Any orthodox rabbi will back up what I am saying here, since the christians added Jesus to the mix, especially. The Tanakh contains what the Jews believe to be their history, whether it actually is real history or not is a whole other subject I would like to get into some day.
I think you said it right, "a unifying myth", the problem is, most Jews disagree with it, and many are outright angered about it. Talking about the orthodox Jews there.

According to the rabbi I studied with, he says that part of their beliefs is to keep their beliefs as "pure" my word, not his, as possible. They have tried since they began keeping records to accomplish this. Record keeping became an art form for them, attempting to keep an accurate record. In the old days, before printing presses, any documents containing holy words that the scribe made an error on could nt be destroyed, it had to be dealt with in a prescribed manner. So, at least for the orthodox Jews, their world view has not changed, so far as their god is concerned. Obviously, there are offshoots to all religions, and their belief system has its fair share that does not agree. I have only studied with orthodox rabbis, since my belief is they have tried to keep their beliefs pure, and so closer to the original thinking.

I know this is a christian trait, but I think it is more of a christian attempt to unify all people under the banner of chrisianity, than there being any truth to the concept that they are all the same god. Go to any place where you can discuss this with Jews of Muslims, and brace yourself for the response, expecially from Muslims. Ten or fifteen years ago I remember reading articles of how Muslims would kill missionaries who pushed this concept on their peoples, believing that it violated their bible.

I agree, but the Noachide laws are also found in the Tanach, and the Jews consider it all still valid today. So, depending on your viewpoint, they are still just as valid today as when they were written.

This is not in keeping with other scriptures found in the NT, of course, it depends on which version you are reading and want to believe in.

I would have to ask, where in any of the chrisitian bible writings does it say that christian doctrine is supposed to evolve? Since that would change the original intent of the founders of it, then that would indicate the entire system is in doubt of having actually been divinely inspired, wouldn't it?

 

I have been wanting to answer this tikoo, sorry to take so long doing so.
I have trouble following poetic verse, but I think I understand what you are saying.
I appreciate your family beliefs, we have ours and hold them dear to us also, and we hold them dearly regardless of what anyone else says about them. I respect your beliefs and those of your parents even though some people think otherwise.
My issues with religion stem from being an agnostic. I am always looking for answers to the questions regarding a creator entity. (I use a general term for it since no one can truthfully say what it would be, if it existed)
It sounds like you have a close family, and that is always a great thing, regardless of any belief system (religion).
I won't comment anymore, since I am not sure what you really mean here and I don't want to say anything that would be disrespectful.
I really enjoyed what you posted, though, it is very poetic. I am lousy with artistic things, I guess being solidly practical in my make up for some reason, but I do enjoy what others create, more so since I struggle with creating them myself.

 

Thanks for your insights, I think we pretty much agree.

 

yes , it's a book of peace and there is a story here . i think
the war is won and i may retire . bloviate in bliss !

 

Right back at ya!:daisy:

 

If this is the case still kicking, then you would expect to see no common definition of god.

Yes people believe all sorts of things without considering the facts within the model of a cogent whole. To say the jews see their belief as having nothing to do with christianity because you studied for some time with an orthodox rabbi, is like saying you studied christianity with a catholic bishop and thus can make definitive statements about the entirety of the christian faith.

If what you claim is true regarding the jews then what is interfaith conferencing about? I have been to churches where the guest speaker is a jewish rabbi, speaking of the same god that the congregation of christains understands and vice versa. I would point out also that there are many different sectarian expression of judaism as there are in christianity and as there are in islam.

I can see that you would like to conclude that the whole issue is a sham based on plagiarism. The fact is that learning involves incorporating some of what is old into some of what is new. If you are really serious about tipping the scales of belief for yourself then you should consider what I am saying to you because your arguments are not substantive and you are coming to false conclusions in the body of your model which makes the model meaningless at large. That is, what you say is not reflected in the phenomena that everyone sees. The only reason I say this is your avowed effort to come to a meaningful conclusion

I would of course like you to understand that this is not an attack on your person, but to point out that your methodology of apprehending things does not come to logical conclusions. The main error is in insufficient sampling. You make the claim that you studied the issue for four years and think that this somehow qualifies you to declare a sham of religion, particularly christanity, which is in fact representative of thousands of years of various supplications. My study encompasses 45 years if that is the badge of relevance we must wear.

And a peculiar trait of judaism does not make any christian trait illegitimate.
They are not in fact the same practice although they believe largely that they are trying to apprehend the same god. Our western civilization is said to have judeo/christian influence.
You say according to the rabbi I studied with. If you are basing your conclusions on that single, sectarian viewpoint, then you have really not apprehended the depth and breadth of the phenomenon you are attempting to expound upon.

So we are to extrapolate from this that anger is a significant expression of Judaism toward the phenomena of christianity? Who's problem is that exactly?

Your entire foundation for seemingly reasonable argument, is personal belief, not apprehension of the facts



I know this is a christian trait, but I think it is more of a christian attempt to unify all people under the banner of chrisianity, than there being any truth to the concept that they are all the same god. Go to any place where you can discuss this with Jews of Muslims, and brace yourself for the response, expecially from Muslims. Ten or fifteen years ago I remember reading articles of how Muslims would kill missionaries who pushed this concept on their peoples, believing that it violated their bible.


I agree, but the Noachide laws are also found in the Tanach, and the Jews consider it all still valid today. So, depending on your viewpoint, they are still just as valid today as when they were written.


This is not in keeping with other scriptures found in the NT, of course, it depends on which version you are reading and want to believe in.



I would have to ask, where in any of the chrisitian bible writings does it say that christian doctrine is supposed to evolve? Since that would change the original intent of the founders of it, then that would indicate the entire system is in doubt of having actually been divinely inspired, wouldn't it

 

See, I'm not the only one who sees that your entire premise is flawed from the start, thedope is just nicer about it.

Oh, and I've got around 30+ years of study/dabbling in the topic if that counts for anything.

 

Having said that the remedy is information. In order for information to be apprehended there must be space in the mind for it's reception. Egotistical defensiveness creates a wall through which information cannot pass.

My sincere hope is that still kicking is amenable for his own sake to appreciating these issues anew. So I am not here to slam still kicking, while at the same time I would not limit accuracy of my own statements, to the extent of dishonesty.

 

So you say.

Your opinion. Mine is different. End of story.

 

apparently it's not just my opinion.

 

You stated once that you're not an atheist. Might I ask what your religion is? You might be aware that when you studied with an orthodox rabbi, you were hardly getting your information about Christianity from a neutral source. The founders of Christianity--i.e., Jesus and His disciples--were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Matthew was a Jew who was at pains to show that Jesus respected and was a fulfillment of Jewish law. Indeed, all of these people claimed to be the true heirs to the Jewish traditions, and that the Sadduccees and Pharisees (who were the founders of rabbinic Judaism) had gone astray. The rivalry and animosity among these Jewish sects was intense, and there are apparently still some hard feelings.

 

I am an agnostic. My philosophies are naturalism/humanism.
My wife and I set out some time ago to become more involved christians, that being the religion we were both exposed to when we were younger, and really not having had much to do with any other. We were taken to a variety of churches, but neither of us really participated much, it was just somewhere we had to go on Sundays.

We thought we really needed to learn what we thought we needed to in order to stay right with the god we were told existed. So, we began a pretty intensive study of the bible, starting with the old testament. As we read, it seemed that what it was saying is that we were all supposed to be Jews, since all the subjects we were reading seemed to point that way. The christian sources we had at the time, (a few preachers, the internet, books at the library) told us basically that we just had to have faith, and not worry about the details. Since we considered ourselves at least of average mentality, we started to call bullshit on what we were reading.

I had the idea that we needed to talk to some Jews, since it seemed all that we were reading was revolving around the Jews. We were aware at the time of bias between the Jews and christians, so we wanted to find someone who would treat us fairly. I found a rabbi who was willing to talk to us. I made it clear we were not interested in the problems between Jews and christians, and just wanted to know what the so called Old Testament was telling us.
Long story short, instead of just telling us things, he made us study what we were reading and arrive at our own conclusions. When we asked questions, he would give us Hebrew bible passages to read, and told us to read the Old Testament versions side by side. He said he felt that we could then make up our own minds of which was right, without our feeling like he was being biased. My wife and I agreed that we thought he was being fair. We had bought a Hebrew bible just for studying.
We learned about how the Jews believed that all Gentiles, (in their opinion anyone who was not a Jew) were supposed to follow the Noachide laws, which are extrapolated from the passages found in the Hebrew bible. Of course, this was done by the Hebrews, and we questioned the rabbi on the possibility that this was bogus, and meant to put the Jews in a superior position to the rest of the world.
He explained that their god, (I say their god, as they don't believe in the christian version) made it clear that they were intended to be teachers of his laws, and in no way superior to anyone. Obviously, not all of them feel that way, but he did, and he was certain that any other Jew who felt otherwise would be dealt with in Purgatory.
Anyway, we also started to question the things he was telling us, as they did not ring true either, the whole Genesis story, the age of the earth, mistakes in some of what was written, (like rabbits chewing the cud), that sort of thing, and I ended being branded a heretic by the Noachide groups I was studying with. Not all of them, a lot of them thought it was good we were questioning so much and forcing them to question their rabbis.
The rabbi we were studying with thought it was the greatest thing we could do, question what was written, as they are also taught that they must first satisfy themselves that their god existed, before they went to deep in their studies.
He disagreed with us in the end, as we decided that his god did not exist, and he merely told us that we would have time in Purgatory to learn otherwise. Purgatory to the Jews is not a place of punishment, but a place to learn the errors of our ways, they do not have a concept of hell. Once a person learns how things really are in Purgatory, they move on to whatever their god has in store for them.
After all that, we tried the New Testament. And found so many questions, errors, and what we felt were outright lies, we didn't even bother to finish studying it.
We then considered ourselves atheists for a time, thinking we had proved that no god existed, and went on about our business. Until one day I was thinking about the matter and came to the determination that what we thought was proof, really was not. I also came to the conclusion that no one, ever, has resolved the matter of the existence of a Creator entity ( I call it that as no one really has any idea of what it really is) either way, so the only rational way to consider the matter was as an agnostic. I explained my rational to my wife, and she agreed that I was sound in my thinking. (She is not the type to just agree with me, she has a mind of her own, and lets me know, ahem, whenever she feels I am wrong on something)
This lead us to humanism, which we didn't really feel all that comfortable with, outside of firmly believing that the scientific method is the best possible way to resolve issues affecting humanity. While researching humanist issues, we ran across a naturalist site, and found that it suited us more than anything else. Naturalism, not naturist as in nudists, or naturalists, as in bird watchers, but the philosophy.

We rejected the New Testament due to what we felt were so many errors, arguments, etc., that it sounded like an entirely made up thing, so what Saul, Peter, Matthew, and anyone else says in it we just can not believe.

We were aware of the problems between the early Jews, the supposed issues with (sorry) the supposed Jesus ( I have doubts he even existed) and other Jews, and we arrived at the conclusion that it was mostly false.

I hope you don't take offense, I don't mean to be rude, or imply that you should question what you believe in, it is just the conclusion we arrived at, based on our study.

 

Still kicking. You tried to compare the old testament of the christian bible with the traditional hebrew documents and regard them a poor plagiarism. Now you say that you didn't study the new testament of the christian bible which is in fact more complementary to the old testament than the original hebrew documents.

You rejected the new testament because of errors? As though you and yours
had after all written the new testament yourselves. It is nothing to me your beliefs, but I am astounded that you think you that you have come by them through reason.

Not in an effort to change your beliefs but in the hope you may comprehend the subject you are wont to expound on, the christian bible is a collection of books written by many authors, spanning hundreds of years. Because of the time spans over which these books were written they are written in different dialects.

There are two distinct creation stories for example in the book of genesis.
They are from different periods of time although many treat the two stories as though they were complementary. In one story man is created through gods spoken conception in the image and likeness of god, male and female, (creative principle).

In the second story man is fashioned from dust and god breathed life into him alone. Later god causes a deep sleep to come over adam and god makes wo-man, a lessor kind of man as companion to man, out of a rib from mans body. No where does it say that adam woke up.

From that original creation story to the second, is a point of departure so to speak as mans dream of separation from god begins. The second creation story becomes the story of mans uneven relationship to god even though in the first creation story man is created in gods image and likeness and called by god good, very good.
In addition the second creation story lays the foundation for patriarchal social organization whose property rights and law making were reserved for men.

Then jesus in the gospels the of the new testament seeks to reconcile mans uneven relationship to god by awakening them to their true relationship to god as children of creation who create as god creates.

 

No, I don't take offense. I agree with most of what you say, and applaud your efforts at critical inquiry. I've come to a different (though not radically different) conclusion within a framework that takes much of the Bible as metaphor, reveres Jesus as an enlightened teacher, and thinks of God as a Higher Power that is responsible for the laws of nature, including human nature, ergo evolution and history. My beliefs are what William James called "working hypotheses" and my faith is what Luther called a "joyful bet", consistent with logic and science, and based on reasonable suspicion, using reason, experience, intuition, and my best judgment as guides. I'm confident that much of what I believe is crap, but I'm only a fallible human doin' the best that I can. Thanks for sharing your perspectives. Namaste.

 

While what is related in the "Old Testament" is useful and informative, Christians are not under the Law and are not bound by it. Quite simply; Christ is the end of the Law. (Romans 10:4)

 

Then the bible is at odds with itself:
(I won't quote the verses since that is against forum policy)
(17) 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
(18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
(19) Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(From the book of Matthew NKJV).