Page 16 of 16
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:04 pm
by Narrock
Lyion wrote:For Christians the New Testament completely supercedes the old testament for law and direction in life. It's not that we don't follow the whole bible, it's just moreso the Sermon on the Mount is more important for us than what was taught before.
Saint Jerome was a master at languages and worked with Rabbi's to ensure he had an excellent translation of the Old Testament from the scattered Hebrew texts. He had no bias and worked in Bethlehem around 385 AD on his works.
And my understanding is part of the Tanakh was written in Aramaic. Given the Jews primarily switched to Aramaic from Hebrew 3000 years ago it makes sense much of what we have from them is written in it. There is Aramaic in the Talmud, Zohar, Book of Ezra and Book of Daniel.
I understand there are older scrolls, Ganzo, but much of what was done 2000 years ago by the Catholic Church is much older and better preserved than many of the Jewish documents. I was somewhat poking fun at you, although there are some discussions about the date and methods of copying the Torah, unlike the Catholic Bible.
Your first sentence in your first paragraph is wrong. SDA's hold the OT in just as high regard as the NT. Go to a service one Sabbath, and you'll see what I mean.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:11 pm
by Ganzo
Lyion wrote:If the oldest complete is from 900 AD, and the rest are newer than that, how do you know they are identical, Ganzo?
Ganzo wrote:my point stands that there are 1000's of ancient texts on judaism in both Hebrew and Aramaic that quote every single passage from Torah. All the quotes mach with scrolls. So unless someone went through every book on judaism ever writen and changed the quotes to mach with "new torah" I don't see how it is possible.
Texts i'm refering to are from BC period like: Babylonian Talmud, Canaan(Palestinian) Talmud, i can pull a list for you if you want, but I'd rather see you PROVE that Torah is newer than Catholic Bible
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:12 pm
by Ganzo
Mindia wrote:Ganzo wrote:Mindia wrote:I know you think the NIV is a poor translation Ganzo, but I would highly disagree with you. The NIV is probably the most popular translation in the world, having been put together by worldwide religious leaders, top scholars, educators, and historians. It didn't get to become the most popular translation by being inaccurate.
Popularity of a book is not a sign of it's truth. The DaVinchi Code is hugely popular, yet you would not think that theories it shows are true. Catholic Bible was most published book for centuries, yet You argue it is wrong.
Mindia, trust me on this at least because i do speak multiple languages. YOU CAN NOT EVER PERFECTLY TRANSLATE FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER. You will always change something to make it make sence in the language you translating into. And this is just one aspect. As i said it's also has to do with multiple variations of reading same words in hebrew and because in ancient hebrew same words could mean multiple things. Does NIV encompas all posibilities and interpritations?
Ganzo, I respect your opinion in this matter, but I still have to disagree based on the fact that you are telling master Theologians that they have it all wrong. That is something I cannot accept... that Ganzo knows translation better than Theologian elders who have been studying that all their lives. Sorry man, no offense.
Than we agree to disagree.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:19 pm
by Rust
The issue of translations from Hebrew is well known - the Isaiah prophecy of a young woman bearing a child was re-interpreted by Christians as a virgin bearing a child, and then used to claim Christ's birth was the one predicted.
The problem being that the Hebrew doesn't say 'virgin', it says 'the young woman'. Many modern Bibles correct the translation since it was so widely known to be incorrect. The next problem being that Matthew 1:23 repeats the claim from Isaiah about it being a virgin, and claims it was prophesized... except it wasn't.
I'd like to see people who claim the Bible is infallible to explain this discrepancy.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:21 pm
by Langston
Rust -
Minutiae.
There are bigger issues than that one discrepancy.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:43 pm
by Rust
I generally suggest that Ganzo pointing out that JEWISH theologians disagree about what various verses in the Torah say is a pretty good indication that anyone (including Catholic theologians) who says there's a single meaning to a given verse is on shaky ground at best.
Hey Ganzo - how's this for Genesis 1 - "In the beginning the Mighty One filled the skies and the land because the world existed devoid and void. A chaotic void was over the face of the deep then the creative breath of the Mighty One hovered over the face of the water."
or this?
"in the beginning the powers he did fatten at the skies and at the land and the land she did exist unfilled and empty and darkness was over the faces of the deep and the wind of the powers she did hover over the faces of the waters"
Again, I leave the Hebrew discussions to the Jews, by and large.
--R.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:44 pm
by Donnel
Rust wrote:The issue of translations from Hebrew is well known - the Isaiah prophecy of a young woman bearing a child was re-interpreted by Christians as a virgin bearing a child, and then used to claim Christ's birth was the one predicted.
The problem being that the Hebrew doesn't say 'virgin', it says 'the young woman'. Many modern Bibles correct the translation since it was so widely known to be incorrect. The next problem being that Matthew 1:23 repeats the claim from Isaiah about it being a virgin, and claims it was prophesized... except it wasn't.
I'd like to see people who claim the Bible is infallible to explain this discrepancy.
Ganzo, please weight in on this one and compare the following for me:
Isaiah 7:14:
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.
Song of Songs 1:3:
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.
Exodus 2:8:
ח וַתֹּאמֶר-לָהּ בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, לֵכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, הָעַלְמָה, וַתִּקְרָא, אֶת-אֵם הַיָּלֶד.
Please point out the Hebrew words in each referring to maid, maiden, virgin, whatever your interpretation. If I managed to completely mess up the passages by cutting and pasting, please let me know.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:08 pm
by Ganzo
can you at least break words apart and put text right to left like hebrew reading goes, so i don't try to decifer this:
thisdecifertotrydon'tisogoes,readinghebrewlikelefttorighttextputandapartwordsbreakleastatyoucan
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:41 pm
by Ganzo
Rust wrote:Hey Ganzo - how's this for Genesis 1 - "In the beginning the Mighty One filled the skies and the land because the world existed devoid and void. A chaotic void was over the face of the deep then the creative breath of the Mighty One hovered over the face of the water."
or this?
"in the beginning the powers he did fatten at the skies and at the land and the land she did exist unfilled and empty and darkness was over the faces of the deep and the wind of the powers she did hover over the faces of the waters"
Got beter:
Gen.1 "In the begining..."(eng) "Be Reshit"(hib)
now as i said earlier ajetives such as "In" added to word they point to and there are no words such as "the" in hebrew; so "in the begining" is "inbegining" or "BeReSHiT", also vovel are symbols under leters and are omited, plus SH is actualy 1 leter in hebrew so its "BRST". Now leter Taf(t) based on dot in center can be Caf(k,s), but dots are omited so it can be "BRST" or "BRSK" or "BRSS". I won't go itho BRSK combo now but lets see BRSS it can break down into BoRa SheSh(as i said s and sh is same). Now comes fun part, BoRa SheSh translates as "Built/Created Six". Some argue that it's additional hidden verification to creation taking six days. There are arguments to other interpritations as well.
The entire Torah is like this, and that is why i say you can't just read one translation because you miss all the little intricacies.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:35 am
by Donnel
Ganzo wrote:can you at least break words apart and put text right to left like hebrew reading goes, so i don't try to decifer this:
thisdecifertotrydon'tisogoes,readinghebrewlikelefttorighttextputandapartwordsbreakleastatyoucan
Sorry :-/
I was cut & pasting and I will be the first to admit that I can't read Hebrew, so I really had no idea what the "sentance" structure should have looked like.