Skip to comments.Are Rabbinic Interpretations of the Bible Accurate?
Posted on 04/21/2014 4:54:57 PM PDT by Jandy on Genesis
Misunderstanding can result from the mechanical reproduction of previously published ideas either because those ideas are taken out of context or because they are based on factual errors. The way authors sort and select data, without verifying the source or checking the facts, leads to distorted interpretations. This problem must be anticipated in Bible interpretation where it is common to rely on what the rabbis have written.
As the Bible is viewed as a Jewish religious text, it is natural to seek rabbinic guidance. Christians tend to read the Old Testament through rabbinic sources. Many pastors use commentaries written by Christ-rejecting Jews. This is especially true among American Evangelicals. They appear to be unaware of the antecedents of Messianic expectation among Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors. They are generally unaware that Hebrew is an African Language.
Rabbinic interpretations have influenced how Christians read the Old Testament from the beginning of the Church. Some early Christians agreed with the rabbis' interpretations, but often they did not. The Church Fathers condemned Jewish attempts to discredit the testimony of the Apostles and many others. They also attempted, some more successfully than others, to refute rabbinic interpretations of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and rabbinic interpretations of Messianic passages, such as Psalm 101:1
The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.
And Psalm 110:4. The Rabbinic community has made many inflammatory accusations against the Christian interpretation of this verse.
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Some rabbis insist that Christians tampered with the passage. One contemporary Rabbi has written: Psalm 110 represents one of the New Testamentss most stunning, yet clever mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures...
(Excerpt) Read more at biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com ...
Have you ever posted anything other that that written by Alice Linsely?
Sure looks like you are just promoting yourself like a scumbag blogpimp.
Any thoughts on that?
I would trust the ancient ones before I would trust a news reporter.
The old timers have much more knowledge of the context and ancient meanings behind the words. We can only guess because we do not live like the old ones.
Probably because this statement is a gross error.
Perhaps you might consider reading even the excerpt, if not the article.
Let's ask Helen Thomas. She may be from that time.
Look at the article history:
This critter is only here to promote itself and gain blog hits.
Hebrew originated in the area now known as the Congo and was transferred to the Hebrew tribes through contact with Black Egyptian traders riding gliders into the desert sometime around 4000 BC. Originally, the Hebrew tribes spoke a dialect of Estonian but they had little use or understanding of some words like 'ice', 'snow' and 'refrigerator', so they dumped the Estonian and took up this funny language that you read from right to left.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do you want any group making that decision for you?
Given how the King James version mistranslates Thou shalt not kill, why not.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!
Everybody knows the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, Jehovah Witnesses, Joseph Smith, Michael Rood, and Joel Osteen, all have much more inspired and reasonable interpretations of the Bible than those goofy rabbis who have only 3000 years of learning!
Protestant Christians might tend to do that. We Orthodox (and the Latins and the Copts and the Armenians and the Assyrians) read the whole of the Scriptures, of the both Old and New Testaments through the light of Christian Holy Tradition, which is often very much at odds with rabbinic sources. The Old Testament is seen as pointing to Christ, and all matters which require interpretation are approached in that manner. Rabbinic Judaism essentially defines itself in contradistinction to Christianity (for example, the one passage in the Jewish canon which is never read in synagogue is the "Suffering Servant" passage in Isaiah).
The Holy Apostles dealt with a judaizing heresy involving earthly food and drink. Preferring the interpretations of Christ-denying rabbis to those of the Fathers of the Church is a judaizing heresy involving the spiritual nourishment of the Holy Scriptures.
Incorrect premise....it is not the Bible which is considered a Jewish religious text....that only applies to the Old Testament. The New Testament is a Christian religious document.
I don’t bother reading further when the premise is misplace. It guarantees false conclusions
Would like to see a citation on this piece of so called evidence
I don't know if there is any way to determine if the proto-language from which the later languages descend was spoken in Asia or Africa. The late Martin Bernal thought they started in Africa because there is a greater diversity of them on that continent.
As to Hebrew, after it developed as a language, being African, that would apply only to the time when the Children of Israel lived in Egypt.
Because everyone understands that the KJV is poetry, not translation.
My post # 12 was not intended to be taken seriously.
Okay. Sorry my brain apparently isn’t registering properly this evening..... I was trying to make sense of it and was confused.....(but then I find myself in that state all too often these days)
Although it is true that Ancient Hebrew was developed through the efforts of Apostle of Eris Dr. Van Mojo (Patron Saint of the Season of Discord)
But though he be African Hebrew is not only more like unto itself A Sacred Chao brought to the Middle East by Hung Mung, A Sage of Ancient China and Official Discordian Missionary to the Heathen Chinee.
Hebrew was then widely diasporated by Malaclypse the Elder
During the Mediterranean Walk-About Era.
But in the modernness of today, thorough understanding of Hebrew can only be appreciated completely when viewed (and heard) through the seeings of Zarathud the Incorrigible.
Zarathud expoundiates completely in his commandments (also known as the Several Strong Urges) to which he can be seen pointilliating above.
But Hebrew definitely did not emitiate itself from Africa.
Wow...gonna be one of *those* nights, eh?
To Eris human.
I think it’s more correctly “Thou shalt do no murder” which is different from killing in war, etc.
All hail Discordia. Or maybe Dat Cordia.
The meds just kicked in.
Pardon my usurpinations, but I think Gunner might be catching a wink or two.
So on his behalf (Or his bewhole) let me just say .....
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)
Their interpretations are not simply uninformed. They are deceptive. Again, the Bible makes this clear.
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denierh the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (1 John 2:22,23
You don’t say!
They were never accurate? Or were they only accurate until Jesus came?
Now that there is just plain funny
You complaint comes from the changing times not the manner in which the scholars translated it. Read about the men who undertook the task before you discard with contempt
Phoneuo is translated as "to murder, slay, kill, commit murder, put to death."
So either "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" are acceptable renditions.
I have a serious question for this thread: Do Rabbis claim divine inspiration for their interpretations of scripture or do they just logic it out?
The meaning of Scripture is conveyed by learning from master to student going back to Moses. It is believed that Divine Inspiration vouchsafes faithful transmission, but merely claiming Divine Inspiration gets one nowhere among knowledgeable religious Jews. Quite the opposite. Sharp logic may be honored and have applications in Jewish law, but really doesn't determine interpretation of Scripture except in a general way. Tradition determines the meaning of Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.