Eric Garcetti, L.A.'s First Elected Jewish Mayor, Will Take His Oath On A Christian Bible

LA Weekly ^ | Tue., Jun. 25 2013 | Gene Maddaus

[imardmd1]

Uh, I'm familiar with the fact that one cannot read the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew/Aramaic from copies of the autographs without some training in the languages therein. Can you read, understand, and study the Tanach yourself?

However, if one wishes to review and get a great familiarity with the Old Testament, one may use a good English translation, not inspired as the original. but good enough to please The God.

Before you let your opinion run away from you, you might consider the Septuagint and all that means. After that, please take a look at

http://jewishpub.org/pdf/Tanakh1917.pdf

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
ACCORDING TO THE MASORETIC TEXT
A NEW TRANSLATION
WITH THE AID OF PREVIOUS VERSIONS AND WITH
CONSTANT CONSULTATION OF JEWISH AUTHORITIES

PHILADELPHIA
THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA
5677-1917

Uh? Uh?

[jjotto]

The Judaica Press and Artscroll both have much better translations of Tanakh than the JPS.

[imardmd1]

Using what underlying text? the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia?

[jjotto]

It is unclear to me that there is an “underlying text” other than the traditional Masoretic text, perhaps represented best by Aleppo Codex.

In any case, the JPS, Artscroll, Judaica Press and many Jewish translations other would use the same source text.

Those who want Christian or secular texts should ask their own teachers.

[imardmd1]

A translation of the Masoretic text is not “Christian” — it is a translation. An interpretation comes from applying hermeneutics to find the meaning of the text in the target language. All the modern English versions fail in this.

[jjotto]

For Jews, the meaning in the text is determined by 3000 years of tradition, which, come to think of it, is exactly how the meaning of a text in English is determined, except it’s just hundreds of years instead of thousands.

[imardmd1]

Ah, the English translation is not an apograph, and it is not inspired, as is the original God-spoken Scriptural autograph. So, an English translation must be qualified for its precision in translating the nuances of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, as well as warning of its own shift in drift of word-meanings.

[jjotto]

That’s one of the reasons I recommend an interlinear or side-by-side translation with original text. Easy research into context and accuracy.

[imardmd1]

That’s one of the reasons I recommend an interlinear or side-by-side translation with original text. Easy research into context and accuracy

I have both, as well as a copy of Torah with translation, but mostly I use eSword which is free, easy to use, and has multiple versions free or reasonably priced, including BHS, Scrivener's TR, and the Robinson/Pierpont Koine Majority Text Form, with grammar. I also have an older LOGOS version with KJV, RV, NASB, BHS, and WH/Nestle-Aland. I use them all, as well as credible online resources.

See my tag? Here is what The God has done for my soul:

Ps 40:1-3 (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings. And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

This song is not new in time, it is new in kind. No rapper of today can even come close to calling their cant a "song."