Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
* Hebrew Bible is referred to as the Tanakh by most Jewish people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
This is true. But since I'm not Jewish . . .
You can still learn and apply the proper terminology in the appropriate context?
However, to be fair, “Hebrew Bible” is also broadly accepted (probably because it’s more intuitive to non-Hebrew speakers).
The only term Jews tend to bristle at is “Old Testament” (at least as applied to Jewish theology; obviously, Christians are free to name their holy books as they please), especially since while there’s significant overlap, it’s not the same compilation of books as the Tanakh.
The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible with the Writings and the Prophets comprising the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
My impression is that you are distinguishing between the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament which you refer to as a Christian book. But the only real difference between the Hebrew Bible and the (Christian) Old Testament is in the arraignment of the books and in the fact that certain books such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are divided into two books in the Christian Old Testament - 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles. The actual textual content is basically the same between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. It must be kept in mind that there were textual differences between the various versions of the Hebrew Bible itself which can be seen by comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the existing Masoretic text. And the LXX or Septuagint has some texts which were apparently translated from Hebrew texts which are no longer extant.
Any claim that the 'Christian' Old Testament drastically textually misrepresents the Hebrew Bible is fallacious.
But this is off topic for the thread.
it is very much on topic for this thread. Because post above repeats the same errors found in the opening post. It is inaccurate and it is a misrepresentation of what Torah is.
The OT and NT is Crstian nomenclature. And again: The OT is not the Torah. The Torah was given on Har Sinai (Mt. Sinai) to the Jews about 3,300 years ago. It was not until about 1,600 years after that, that the new religion Crstnty appropriated and plagiarized parts of the Torah, and re-wrote it with a very specific agenda. The new religion Crstnty formalized its canon around the year 380 common era.
This bears repeating:
Quote:
It is best to remedy the ignorance (lack of information, understanding, and knowledge) demonstrated in both the post above and the opening post. That what Torah is and what Torah teaches is very, very different from what your own upbringing and religious indoctrination have taught you to believe about what the Torah is and what Torah teaches
Crstianity is not a reliable source for what Judaism teaches.
it is very much on topic for this thread. Because post above repeats the same errors found in the opening post. It is inaccurate and it is a misrepresentation of what Torah is.
The OT and NT is Crstian nomenclature. And again: The OT is not the Torah. The Torah was given on Har Sinai (Mt. Sinai) to the Jews about 3,500 years ago. It was not until about 1,800 years later that the new religion Crstnty appropriated and plagiarized parts of the Torah, and re-wrote it with a very specific agenda. The new religion Crstnty formalized its canon around the year 380 common era.
This bears repeating:
You argue just to argue. There is no error in what I said which you could easily check for yourself if only you would. And actually, regarding at least Genesis one, many or most scholars believe it was written around the time of the Babylonian captivity, and obviously not by Moses.
You can still learn and apply the proper terminology in the appropriate context?
However, to be fair, “Hebrew Bible” is also broadly accepted (probably because it’s more intuitive to non-Hebrew speakers).
The only term Jews tend to bristle at is “Old Testament” (at least as applied to Jewish theology; obviously, Christians are free to name their holy books as they please), especially since while there’s significant overlap, it’s not the same compilation of books as the Tanakh.
I already knew the Tanakh terminology. I simply chose not to use it in this particular instance. My choice.
You argue just to argue. There is no error in what I said which you could easily check for yourself if only you would. And actually, regarding at least Genesis one, many or most scholars believe it was written around the time of the Babylonian captivity, and obviously not by Moses.
To bring this thread more back on-topic, here’s a question to which I don’t know the answer: is Lev. 24:19-21 (the “eye for an eye” verse) translated differently into English for Jewish educational purposes than the King James Bible for English-speaking Christian audiences?
I’m not asking about the interpretations and implications, which I know are distinct. I just mean the plain text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
I already knew the Tanakh terminology. I simply chose not to use it in this particular instance. My choice.
You say this as if I’m outraged or otherwise invested in your terminology choices. I’m really not. Biblical scholars tend to prefer Hebrew Bible because it’s considered the most neutral in academic contexts.
To bring this thread more back on-topic, here’s a question to which I don’t know the answer: is Lev. 24:19-21 (the “eye for an eye” verse) translated differently into English for Jewish educational purposes than the King James Bible for English-speaking Christian audiences?
I’m not asking about the interpretations and implications, which I know are distinct. I just mean the plain text.
I'm not sure what you're asking, but the King James version was written in Elizabethan English and so certain words used in the King James version have different meanings today than they did back then. But comparing Lev. 24:19-24 between the KJV, the NASB, and the Jewish Study Bible, 2nd edition, Tanakh translation, the meaning of the text seems the same to me in all three.
Quote:
You say this as if I’m outraged or otherwise invested in your terminology choices. I’m really not. Biblical scholars tend to prefer Hebrew Bible because it’s considered the most neutral in academic contexts.
No, I simply stated that I already knew the term 'Tanach.' No assumptions on my part regarding your motives.
I'm not sure what you're asking, but the King James version was written in Elizabethan English and so certain words used in the King James version have different meanings today than they did back then. But comparing Lev. 24:19-24 between the KJV, the NASB, and the Jewish Study Bible, 2nd edition, Tanakh translation, the meaning of the text seems the same to me in all three.
I meant the current edition of the King James Bible, although your point on the original translation is very well-taken, especially since it predates Oliver Cromwell’s allowance of the Jews to resettle in England (meaning that English-language versions of anything from a Jewish perspective didn’t really exist at that time).
My own ancestors only would have spoken varying dialects of Eastern Yiddish as their first language.
I meant the current edition of the King James Bible, although your point on the original translation is very well-taken, especially since it predates Oliver Cromwell’s allowance of the Jews to resettle in England (meaning that English-language versions of anything from a Jewish perspective didn’t really exist at that time).
My own ancestors only would have spoken varying dialects of Eastern Yiddish as their first language.
I haven't seen the current edition of the King James Bible so I can't speak to it.
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
