How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

[Joshua Ray]

Have you forgotten the origins of christianity?

Christianity is the complete opposite of Abraham. Allowing men to put their own laws above Gods. Few people have any regard for the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, the Pope himself has said that the child molestation within the Church are the remnants of pederasty, which was a practice amongst European religions before Christianity. The fact it existed when the church was started confirms that the Catholic Church wasn't Abraham from the beginning, but that they attached their book to the Old Testament to suit their own personal interests, the men at the top of the Church that is. I doubt that the son of Abraham's God died so that men could start practicing something that wasn't Abraham in origin.

 

[roger1440]

I'm gonna have to be very brief as I'm leaving to do some shopping with my wife in a few minutes, and she dictates my schedule, my calender, and my to-do assignments-- I'm so oppressed.

In Judaism, if one converts, they are looked at and considered as if they've been Jewish all their life. IOW, one becomes one with the "family", much like I did with my wife's family when I married her.

The "high-jacking" reference was tongue-in-cheek reference to events that led to my unexpected conversion to Judaism. Like Woody Allen said, when we plan our lives out, God just laughs.

The church I grew up in was a fundamentalist Lutheran church (yes, there still is such a thing). What you say about Luther is true, but let me also add he died a broken man because he believed he created a nightmare with churches splitting off from each other and literally fighting-- hardly Paul's reference to the church being "one body".

I am not a biblical literalist-- far from it-- a long story.

Sorry-- gotta go.

BTW, thanks for posting your experiences as I really do find it interesting.

Martin Luther nearly left the book of Revelation out of the Lutheran Bible. He had only left it in because he thought he could use the book against the Catholics. I used to think, maybe he was right, and he should have left the book out. As I got older, I had changed my tune. In the end, Luther had made the right decision. If Luther had left the book out, it would have opened the door for other churches to leave other books out and still other churches to include so called non canonical books. In the end we would had ended up with dozens or hundreds of Bibles.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The term "etzba elokim" does not mean a literal finger though we use it in contradistinction to the hand of god visible at the reed sea. To say god has a literal finger is sacrilege in Judaism.

The yad (hand) that some synagogues use is made out of a number of different materials. Silver is no sine qua non, neither is the shape of a hand/finger.

The figure of speech about the flesh of the heart circumcised is one which has a place within the imagery of the tanach and judaism. Getting your heart fingered by a silver object is creepy.

Yes, yes, yes, anthropomorphism is a distinct no-no in Judaism. Why would God have a literal finger? After all he must have eaten with Abraham by using His feet. I hope that doesn't sound sarcastic--it's a fine Jewish tradition to use a little humor here and there.

 

[rosends]

Yes, yes, yes, anthropomorphism is a distinct no-no in Judaism. Why would God have a literal finger? After all he must have eaten with Abraham by using His feet. I hope that doesn't sound sarcastic--it's a fine Jewish tradition to use a little humor here and there.

God didn't eat with Abraham.

 

[metis]

Martin Luther nearly left the book of Revelation out of the Lutheran Bible. He had only left it in because he thought he could use the book against the Catholics. I used to think, maybe he was right, and he should have left the book out. As I got older, I had changed my tune. In the end, Luther had made the right decision. If Luther had left the book out, it would have opened the door for other churches to leave other books out and still other churches to include so called non canonical books. In the end we would had ended up with dozens or hundreds of Bibles.

Theologians estimate that maybe as many as 1/3 of the churches did not use Revelations, and when the canon was chosen in the 4th century, Revelations and Hebrews were accepted but with reservations.

Luther had some "issues", if you know what I mean, and yet I give him credit for "Here I stand...". IOW, his willingness to stand for what he believed.

 

[catch22]

God didn't eat with Abraham.

An Eating, Drinking, Walking, Talking “Jehovah” | TaborBlog

Good luck explaining it away.

 

[rosends]

An Eating, Drinking, Walking, Talking “Jehovah” | TaborBlog

Good luck explaining it away.

Really? Did you even read the website?

It acknowledges that there were 3 men.

"The fascinating thing about this whole scene is that one of these three men is clearly identified as YHVH (Heb. יהוה Yahweh or Jehovah) "
No, actually, none is. Verse 17 introduces God into the equation. None of the men/angels is ever identified as God.

"This is apparently such a problem for the Masoretes who edited the final versions of the Hebrew Bible that they replaced the divine name YHVH with Adonai in vv. 3, 27, 30, and 32 and changed the phrase in v. 10 to read “And Abraham still stood before YHVH” rather than “And YHVH still stood before Abraham”"

Specious and unsubstantiated claims and, for that matter, immaterial as none of it relates to eating.

Sorry, but nothing on that website shows that God ate anything. In fact, the word "ate" (and any conjugation of it) never appears in chapter 18.

Care to try again? This time, after reading a bit?

 

[catch22]

Really? Did you even read the website?

It acknowledges that there were 3 men.

"The fascinating thing about this whole scene is that one of these three men is clearly identified as YHVH (Heb. יהוה Yahweh or Jehovah) "
No, actually, none is. Verse 17 introduces God into the equation. None of the men/angels is ever identified as God.

Of course I did. Just because you don't believe what you read, doesn't make a published PhD, an expert in this field, any less credible.

God appears in verse 1, according mechon-mamre.org and chabad.org, respectively:

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.

אוַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהֹוָה בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא ישֵׁב פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם:

Soooo... yeah. QBible same thing. Everything I've checked... same result. This isn't an issue of debate, is it? Just to go further, those sources also show Him speaking in verses 13 and 14.

And yet, YHVH isn't mentioned in YOUR bible until verse 17.

So, which bible are you using...?

"This is apparently such a problem for the Masoretes who edited the final versions of the Hebrew Bible that they replaced the divine name YHVH with Adonai in vv. 3, 27, 30, and 32 and changed the phrase in v. 10 to read “And Abraham still stood before YHVH” rather than “And YHVH still stood before Abraham”"

Specious and unsubstantiated claims and, for that matter, immaterial as none of it relates to eating.

It's not unsubstantiated. He is an authority in this field. You'd have to demonstrate how his claim is unsubstantiated, or demonstrate that your counter claim is more reputable than his.

In the mean time, I'll take a professor at an accredited university on historical matters of the bible over you. What's his theological bias? See, you have a clear and distinct theological bias. He's by no means a Christian nor a Jew, but rather a secular historian.

So, you're up.

Sorry, but nothing on that website shows that God ate anything. In fact, the word "ate" (and any conjugation of it) never appears in chapter 18.

I'm pretty well convinced you are just full of it at this point. Even Rashi says they ate. I think you cited the Tanakh from chabad.org to me in a previous post. Even that says "ate."

Genesis - Chapter 18 (Parshah Vayeira) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Some render it in english as: "and they did eat." (such as Genesis 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

The tense doesn't even matter. Eating was going on ('akal). The verb IS THERE.

From Genesis 18 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study :

0398
אָכַל
'akal
{aw-kal'}
A primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively)." style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; font-family: 'Ezra SIL', 'Ezra SIL SR', 'SBL Hebrew', David, 'David Transparent', FrankRuehl, Narkisim, Aharoni, Miriam, 'Miriam Fixed', 'Miriam Transparent', 'Fixed Miriam Transparent', Rod, 'Rod Transparent', Gisha, 'Levenim MT', 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 24px; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(100, 89, 50);">יֹּאכֵלוּ

Care to try again? This time, after reading a bit?

Try what again? It's on you to refute an authority on this topic who demonstrates your wrongness. I just presented his claim. I think Tabor refutes your claim pretty clearly. You're outright wrong about the "eat" verb, you're outright wrong about YHVH not appearing until verse 17. Why aren't you outright wrong that God did no eating, here? If God isn't one of the three messengers, then who's talking in verses 13, 14, etc? Who's the Lord mentioned in verse 1?

Tabor presents this as a weird passage. He's right. It is weird. He even goes so far to speculate on the Jew and Christian positions, and some possible ways to reconcile this to the rest of the bible (you did read the rest of his article, right? The last paragraph is interesting).

Anyway, disprove him as an authority to say what he said. You're more than likely using the edited copies he's talking about; they're part of your faith. You're biased. He doesn't appear to be. It's on you to present otherwise.

Care to do anything scholarly, like cite sources, experts, etc? Or do you just cry foul on everyone who shakes up your faith a little? "Specious! Specious!"

 

[rosends]

God appears in verse 1, according mechon-mamre.org and chabad.org, respectively:

Yes, God appears. Then in verse 2, Abraham raises his eyes and sees 3 men. Two verses. Two events. What's the difficulty? If anything, this proves that none of the 3 men is God.

Soooo... yeah. QBible same thing. Everything I've checked... same result. This isn't an issue of debate, is it? Just to go further, those sources also show Him speaking in verses 13 and 14.

And God, who was there along with the separately listed 3 men speaks to God in verse 13 pretty clearly. That negates the thesis that God was one of the "men." In fact, the next verse then says that the men left, and yet God speaks again in verse 20.

And yet, YHVH isn't mentioned in YOUR bible until verse 17.

No, my text has the 4 letter name in verses 1 and 13. What are you talking about?

You'd have to demonstrate how his claim is unsubstantiated, or demonstrate that your counter claim is more reputable than his.

Really? Do you see anything other than his unattributed claim? Do you see any substantiation to his claim that the text was changed. I don't. I have to demonstrate that he lacks any citation or source for his claim? Do you understand that his making a claim calls forth a demand for evidence on his part, not mine?

In the mean time, I'll take a professor at an accredited university on historical matters of the bible over you. What's his theological bias? See, you have a clear and distinct theological bias. He's by no means a Christian nor a Jew, but rather a secular historian.

That's nice. He is making claims about the text which I am holding in my hand and which are inaccurate as shown in that text. He has no bias but also no evidence.

I'm pretty well convinced you are just full of it at this point. Even Rashi says they ate. I think you cited the Tanakh from chabad.org to me in a previous post. Even that says "ate."

Actually, it says vayocheilu (interestingly, not vayoch'lu). Which means that they "did eat" not "ate" -- but they did, God didn't and that was the initial claim. And rashi says that they didn't eat. He says "it appeared that they ate." Don't make reference to rashi if you haven't read rashi.

It's on you to refute an authority on this topic who demonstrates your wrongness. I just presented his claim.

So it is on me to refute his unsubstantiated claim because you quoted it? I think not. It is up to him to prove his claim or else he can go on saying whatever he wants with no proof and you'll swallow it without thinking.

I think Tabor refutes your claim pretty clearly. You're outright wrong about the "eat" verb, you're outright wrong about YHVH not appearing until verse 17.

The tense does matter (if it doesn't then your English is worse than your thinking) but I acknowledge that a conjugation of the verb does appear. My mistake.

Why aren't you outright wrong that God did no eating, here?

Because the text never says God eats -- just that the men eat. You can;t show otherwise and neither can your "source". He makes an equation unsupported by the text and decides to draw a conclusion based on that invention.

If God isn't one of the three messengers, then who's talking in verses 13, 14, etc? Who's the Lord mentioned in verse 1?

As the text indicates, God was there before the 3 men showed up and after they left. He was also there the whole time in between. But when he isn't mentioned, then he isn't the one being spoken about. The text is explicit about that.

Anyway, disprove him as an authority to say what he said.

I don't have to disprove him as an authority. His position as authority hasn't been claimed. He is staking his conclusion on flawed premises which he never supports. You like what he says because you know no better.

You're more than likely using the edited copies he's talking about; they're part of your faith. You're biased. He doesn't appear to be. It's on you to present otherwise.

Ah, see -- he claims my text is edited so you decide I am using an edited text. Except I am not using an edited text. He never proves any claim that my text is edited, but he predicates the rest of his argument on it. Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

Care to do anything scholarly, like cite sources, experts, etc? Or do you just cry foul on everyone who shakes up your faith a little? "Specious! Specious!"

Source? You mean besides the actual text? You cited a source -- Rashi. You just got the content wrong. My source is the Hebrew text which he claims (with no proof) is edited. Feel free to take his unproven word for it because that makes you happy.

 

[catch22]

Yes, God appears. Then in verse 2, Abraham raises his eyes and sees 3 men. Two verses. Two events. What's the difficulty? If anything, this proves that none of the 3 men is God.

Sure, it makes perfect sense. God appears and Abraham looks up and sees 3 men! But nevermind that appearing thing, had nothing to do with those guys.

Weak.

And God, who was there along with the separately listed 3 men speaks to God in verse 13 pretty clearly. That negates the thesis that God was one of the "men." In fact, the next verse then says that the men left, and yet God speaks again in verse 20.

Um, what? I'm not sure what you mean or if that was a typo.

Anyway, verse 22, Abraham standing before YHVH again. Keep on swinging brother, you just keep digging deeper and deeper.

Shall we migrate over to Psalm 22 and talk about piercing or being like lions, next?

No, my text has the 4 letter name in verses 1 and 13. What are you talking about?

Stop it. Just stop. Why do you do this? Is it your game, or tactic, to go in circles to exhaust your competition due to your total lack of ability to make decent counter arguments?

You said God doesn't even come into the equation until verse 17. He was clearly there in verse 1 and 13, etc. What are YOU talking about?

Really? Do you see anything other than his unattributed claim? Do you see any substantiation to his claim that the text was changed. I don't. I have to demonstrate that he lacks any citation or source for his claim? Do you understand that his making a claim calls forth a demand for evidence on his part, not mine?

That's nice. He is making claims about the text which I am holding in my hand and which are inaccurate as shown in that text. He has no bias but also no evidence.

You are blind. He's a historian and an authority on the text. It's his understanding of it. His credentials give him the authority to make such assertions.

I have made and inquiry about his position. I will let you know what he says, if he ever replies, that is.

In the meantime, you are aware that there is are authorities for certain positions, based on their research and academic work? You have to "cite" someone, afterall? Similarly how you regard Rashi, Kimchi, or others who support your theology. They are authorities because of their life's work. It's similar with Tabor and others like him. Why do I even have to explain this to you?

Actually, it says vayocheilu (interestingly, not vayoch'lu). Which means that they "did eat" not "ate" -- but they did, God didn't and that was the initial claim. And rashi says that they didn't eat. He says "it appeared that they ate." Don't make reference to rashi if you haven't read rashi.

Rashi's commentary, from chabad.org:

and they ate: They appeared to be eating. From here we learn that a person should not deviate from custom. — [from B.M. ad loc., Gen. Rabbah 48:14, Targum Jonathan]

You said no conjugation of ate appeared (you admit the mistake in your reply below). I said even Rashi acknowledges there was eating going on. I was just showing you how your esteemed Rashi even acknowledges the fact the verb is present, which refutes your positions (which you admitted was wrong). Nothing more. The relativity of "eating" nor the conjugation wasn't the point.

I recommend getting a clue and stepping down your level of haughtiness. Mincing words doesn't help your flimsy case.

So it is on me to refute his unsubstantiated claim because you quoted it? I think not. It is up to him to prove his claim or else he can go on saying whatever he wants with no proof and you'll swallow it without thinking.

He's a published, doctorate holding, authority on this field of study. He's just one such authority that I happened to cite, because he published something on the web that was easily accessible for both of us.

It isn't I who accepts without thinking, but rather, you. That's been my point since the beginning, even when we were dancing around Isaiah 9:5/6.

I recommend reading this before being so fast to throw out insults:

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tense does matter (if it doesn't then your English is worse than your thinking) but I acknowledge that a conjugation of the verb does appear. My mistake.

Of course tense matters, but this is a moot point because tense was NOT the issue, the actual appearance of the verb, or any conjugation of it, was! Seriously, you gotta stop with trivialities, it makes you look silly.

Because the text never says God eats -- just that the men eat. You can;t show otherwise and neither can your "source". He makes an equation unsupported by the text and decides to draw a conclusion based on that invention.

Indeed, this is the point of conjecture. For each of us to decide. I was merely demonstrating how someone without obvious theological bias agrees with me, and not you.

Because it's on you to find someone not of your theological bias who actually disagrees with me, Tabor, or... the rest of the scholars in the world who can read, understand, parse, and otherwise handle Hebrew -- possibly better than even you.

See, that's what "sources" are for. You and I disagree on the understanding of this text. Authorities on said text can shed light on which might be more accurate.

Again. You're up.

As the text indicates, God was there before the 3 men showed up and after they left. He was also there the whole time in between. But when he isn't mentioned, then he isn't the one being spoken about. The text is explicit about that.

I don't have to disprove him as an authority. His position as authority hasn't been claimed. He is staking his conclusion on flawed premises which he never supports. You like what he says because you know no better.

It very could be such a common piece of information in his academic circle, he didn't feel the need to cite it. Ultimately, I await his reply.

His position of authority is simply his credentials and life's work. He's a biblical scholar. Perhaps, more of the greek than the hebrew, but alas, he does teach both at a very high level. Again, why do you trust Rashi, or Kimchi? Does the concept of authority on respective fields of study really elude you?

Ah, see -- he claims my text is edited so you decide I am using an edited text. Except I am not using an edited text. He never proves any claim that my text is edited, but he predicates the rest of his argument on it. Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

Source? You mean besides the actual text? You cited a source -- Rashi. You just got the content wrong. My source is the Hebrew text which he claims (with no proof) is edited. Feel free to take his unproven word for it because that makes you happy.

First, it was I who implied your text was edited, because I assume you are using the Masoretic (or derived) hebrew pertaining to Genesis 18. I asked you to provide your text, you still haven't answered. It's rather up to you to decide, because neither I nor Tabor know what you're reading.

Second, I didn't get the content wrong -- like you did with Tabor's article, if you misunderstand me, it doesn't change what the point really was. I explained it above, I'm not re-hashing on it. I cited what I read, and if what I communicated after came out wrong and was misunderstood by you, consider yourself now clarified.

Suffice it to say Tabor most likely also uses Hebrew also, otherwise, why would he make the assertion he did? Do you suppose one has his credentials and achievements by doing such things?

I'm tempted to find another authority on the topic, but it didn't work with Isaiah 9:5/6 (even citing a plethora of key figures in Judaism didn't budge you), so really... I think you are, at best, a waste of my time.

No sources, again, nothing other than "Well, what I read says..." Yes, yes. We know. I say you're wrong. I used a neutral third party to demonstrate your wrongness. Holding your eyes and ears shut saying "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!" does not, in fact, make you right.

EDIT: Fixed multiple quote tags.

 

[dantech]

Sure, it makes perfect sense. God appears and Abraham looks up and sees 3 men! But nevermind that appearing thing, had nothing to do with those guys.

Weak.



Um, what? I'm not sure what you mean or if that was a typo.

Anyway, verse 22, Abraham standing before YHVH again. Keep on swinging brother, you just keep digging deeper and deeper.

Shall we migrate over to Psalm 22 and talk about piercing or being like lions, next?



Stop it. Just stop. Why do you do this? Is it your game, or tactic, to go in circles to exhaust your competition due to your total lack of ability to make decent counter arguments?

You said God doesn't even come into the equation until verse 17. He was clearly there in verse 1 and 13, etc. What are YOU talking about?



You are blind. He's a historian and an authority on the text. It's his understanding of it. His credentials give him the authority to make such assertions.

I have made and inquiry about his position. I will let you know what he says, if he ever replies, that is.

In the meantime, you are aware that there is are authorities for certain positions, based on their research and academic work? You have to "cite" someone, afterall? Similarly how you regard Rashi, Kimchi, or others who support your theology. They are authorities because of their life's work. It's similar with Tabor and others like him. Why do I even have to explain this to you?



Rashi's commentary, from chabad.org:



You said no conjugation of ate appeared (you admit the mistake in your reply below). I said even Rashi acknowledges there was eating going on. I was just showing you how your esteemed Rashi even acknowledges the fact the verb is present, which refutes your positions (which you admitted was wrong). Nothing more. The relativity of "eating" nor the conjugation wasn't the point.

I recommend getting a clue and stepping down your level of haughtiness. Mincing words doesn't help your flimsy case.





He's a published, doctorate holding, authority on this field of study. He's just one such authority that I happened to cite, because he published something on the web that was easily accessible for both of us.

It isn't I who accepts without thinking, but rather, you. That's been my point since the beginning, even when we were dancing around Isaiah 9:5/6.

I recommend reading this before being so fast to throw out insults:

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Of course tense matters, but this is a moot point because tense was NOT the issue, the actual appearance of the verb, or any conjugation of it, was! Seriously, you gotta stop with trivialities, it makes you look silly.



Indeed, this is the point of conjecture. For each of us to decide. I was merely demonstrating how someone without obvious theological bias agrees with me, and not you.

Because it's on you to find someone not of your theological bias who actually disagrees with me, Tabor, or... the rest of the scholars in the world who can read, understand, parse, and otherwise handle Hebrew -- possibly better than even you.

See, that's what "sources" are for. You and I disagree on the understanding of this text. Authorities on said text can shed light on which might be more accurate.

Again. You're up.



It very could be such a common piece of information in his academic circle, he didn't feel the need to cite it. Ultimately, I await his reply.

His position of authority is simply his credentials and life's work. He's a biblical scholar. Perhaps, more of the greek than the hebrew, but alas, he does teach both at a very high level. Again, why do you trust Rashi, or Kimchi? Does the concept of authority on respective fields of study really elude you?



First, it was I who implied your text was edited, because I assume you are using the Masoretic (or derived) hebrew pertaining to Genesis 18. I asked you to provide your text, you still haven't answered. It's rather up to you to decide, because neither I nor Tabor know what you're reading.

Second, I didn't get the content wrong -- like you did with Tabor's article, if you misunderstand me, it doesn't change what the point really was. I explained it above, I'm not re-hashing on it. I cited what I read, and if what I communicated after came out wrong and was misunderstood by you, consider yourself now clarified.

Suffice it to say Tabor most likely also uses Hebrew also, otherwise, why would he make the assertion he did? Do you suppose one has his credentials and achievements by doing such things?

I'm tempted to find another authority on the topic, but it didn't work with Isaiah 9:5/6 (even citing a plethora of key figures in Judaism didn't budge you), so really... I think you are, at best, a waste of my time.

No sources, again, nothing other than "Well, what I read says..." Yes, yes. We know. I say you're wrong. I used a neutral third party to demonstrate your wrongness. Holding your eyes and ears shut saying "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!" does not, in fact, make you right.

EDIT: Fixed multiple quote tags.

I don't feel like reading everything over again, but are you saying that God was one of the three men that appeared for Abraham?

 

[catch22]

I don't feel like reading everything over again, but are you saying that God was one of the three men that appeared for Abraham?

The Bible says that. I'm just reading what's there, boss.

 

[rosends]

Sure, it makes perfect sense. God appears and Abraham looks up and sees 3 men! But nevermind that appearing thing, had nothing to do with those guys.

Weak.

You say weak. The text says this explicitly. I'll go with the text.

Um, what? I'm not sure what you mean or if that was a typo.

If you can't follow, I can't help you.

Anyway, verse 22, Abraham standing before YHVH again. Keep on swinging brother, you just keep digging deeper and deeper.

Um, yeah...the three men left and God was there. So God wasn't the three men. What is the problem with that?

Shall we migrate over to Psalm 22 and talk about piercing or being like lions, next?

Go wherever you want. Here's the Psalm. Show me "pierce"
Tehillim - Chapter 22 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

You said God doesn't even come into the equation until verse 17. He was clearly there in verse 1 and 13, etc. What are YOU talking about?

Sigh, yes, God is, as I said, there before, during and after the 3 men show up. He speaks in 13 and 14 using the 4 letter name. I misworded what happens in verse 17 when the center becomes the conversation between Abe and God after the 3 men leave in verse 16. Sorry for the confusion.

You are blind. He's a historian and an authority on the text. It's his understanding of it. His credentials give him the authority to make such assertions.

His credentials give him the authority to claim that the text as it exists now has been changed, even without presenting any evidence or proof? Does he also have a bridge to sell you? The text is very clear and if the only answer is "well, you changed it so I'm right and you have to believe me because I'm an expert and I say you changed it" then there is nothing to say.

In the meantime, you are aware that there is are authorities for certain positions, based on their research and academic work? You have to "cite" someone, afterall? Similarly how you regard Rashi, Kimchi, or others who support your theology. They are authorities because of their life's work. It's similar with Tabor and others like him. Why do I even have to explain this to you?

except that when the commentators explain, they ground themselves in the text instead of claiming that the text is changed and then give no proof. Why do I have to explain that one cannot simply claim "change! change!" When rashi quotes the talmud or the Ibn Ezra explains grammar neither is pulling stuff out of thin air as everything is cited (by the way, Rashi's statement that they did NOT eat is from the talmud, Bava Metziah, 86b).

I said even Rashi acknowledges there was eating going on. I was just showing you how your esteemed Rashi even acknowledges the fact the verb is present, which refutes your positions (which you admitted was wrong). Nothing more. The relativity of "eating" nor the conjugation wasn't the point.

The point was the claim that rashi says there was eating. Rashi, as you quoted, says there was NOT eating. So, yes, I was wrong in saying that no form of the word was there, but the underlying position holds -- there was no claim that God ate. Not even the angels ate.

He's a published, doctorate holding, authority on this field of study. He's just one such authority that I happened to cite, because he published something on the web that was easily accessible for both of us.

Oh. It is on the web. It must be wonderful. All I have is the text of a book on paper which has actual words in it. Your admiration for someone who claims " they replaced the divine name YHVH with Adonai in vv. 3, 27, 30, and 32 and changed the phrase in v. 10 to read" but provides no proof for that assertion at all. Is amazing.

It isn't I who accepts without thinking, but rather, you. That's been my point since the beginning, even when we were dancing around Isaiah 9:5/6.

So you have thought about the claim that the text was changed, even though you have never seen any other published version, and decided that it was changed. Good thinking! Maybe you should consider what it means to "think" before you lay claim to it.

I recommend reading this before being so fast to throw out insults:

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, then I'll send you the one about confirmation bias.

Indeed, this is the point of conjecture. For each of us to decide. I was merely demonstrating how someone without obvious theological bias agrees with me, and not you.

And I have shown how that person has a bias as he injects unproven assertions in order to make his point (to wit, "one of these three men is clearly identified as YHVH" a claim which is never borne out by text or any proof). Why do you cling so tight to empty claims like that?

Because it's on you to find someone not of your theological bias who actually disagrees with me, Tabor, or... the rest of the scholars in the world who can read, understand, parse, and otherwise handle Hebrew -- possibly better than even you.

I have to find someone who isn't Jewish but owns a Hebrew text and this text shows the words to support what I said and not what Tabor claims? Sure. Go to any good academic library and look up the Hebrew text they have. Have you looked up what Hebrew text Tabor is using? His expertise in Early Christianity doesn't speak to having an alternate text of the Hebrew bible.

See, that's what "sources" are for. You and I disagree on the understanding of this text. Authorities on said text can shed light on which might be more accurate.

But no variant text has been presented, just claimed. You don't see that as a problem? You are accepting a phantom.

It very could be such a common piece of information in his academic circle, he didn't feel the need to cite it. Ultimately, I await his reply.

It "could be"? So even though the text says one thing, the claim that all the texts around us are wrong is a "could be"? And that's enough for you? Wow.

His position of authority is simply his credentials and life's work. He's a biblical scholar. Perhaps, more of the greek than the hebrew, but alas, he does teach both at a very high level. Again, why do you trust Rashi, or Kimchi? Does the concept of authority on respective fields of study really elude you?

He is an authority on the Christian bible and early Christianity. This is so very simple. He is making a claim that a text which has been used for 2000+ years has been changed. He isn't proving it. You are allowing him to make a baseless claim.

First, it was I who implied your text was edited, because I assume you are using the Masoretic (or derived) hebrew pertaining to Genesis 18. I asked you to provide your text, you still haven't answered. It's rather up to you to decide, because neither I nor Tabor know what you're reading.

I sent you to the chabad site. That's the text. Would you rather this תנ"ך בכתיב המסורה - בראשית פרק יח

Suffice it to say Tabor most likely also uses Hebrew also, otherwise, why would he make the assertion he did? Do you suppose one has his credentials and achievements by doing such things?

That's not for me to answer. You should know that answer before you vest authority in him.

I'm tempted to find another authority on the topic, but it didn't work with Isaiah 9:5/6 (even citing a plethora of key figures in Judaism didn't budge you), so really... I think you are, at best, a waste of my time.

And you seemed unfazed by everything I cited showing otherwise. I think you are academically simple and uninterested in learning, only in being oppositional and hitching yourself to any voice who agrees with the position you choose at any moment.

No sources, again, nothing other than "Well, what I read says..." Yes, yes. We know. I say you're wrong. I used a neutral third party to demonstrate your wrongness. Holding your eyes and ears shut saying "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!" does not, in fact, make you right.

No sources? You mean besides the text, which is one more source than your expert presented. All you need to do is demonstrate the following and I'll be happy:
1. there was an earlier text which reads in accordance with what Tabor claims
2. the masoretes changed that earlier text because it was "apparently such a problem"
3. that the text "clearly identified" any of these men with God.
There are other problems with what he wrote but let's start with 3 relatively simple points which you have, til now, refused to address.

 

[rosends]

I don't feel like reading everything over again, but are you saying that God was one of the three men that appeared for Abraham?

His expert says that one of the men was "clearly identified" as God. Not text supports this, but an expert claimed it so...

 

[rosends]

Hey @catch22 , I have an idea -- skip all the stuff I wrote until the last part. Your acceptance of Tabor as an expert, in my mind, should hinge on his ability to substantiate the 3 points I end with. Why don't you wait until he answers and provides evidence to prove those 3 points, then simply post it. Would you agree that if he cannot prove all 3, he should forfeit, to your mind, the mantle of authority? If his claim to changes is based on the existence of Dikdukei Sofrim, then we know the extent of the changes, and if his proof comes from the Septuagint then we know where his theological bias lies.

 

[catch22]

Hey @catch22 , I have an idea -- skip all the stuff I wrote until the last part. Your acceptance of Tabor as an expert, in my mind, should hinge on his ability to substantiate the 3 points I end with. Why don't you wait until he answers and provides evidence to prove those 3 points, then simply post it. Would you agree that if he cannot prove all 3, he should forfeit, to your mind, the mantle of authority? If his claim to changes is based on the existence of Dikdukei Sofrim, then we know the extent of the changes, and if his proof comes from the Septuagint then we know where his theological bias lies.

Sure, I can only hope he replies, but we shall see. If indeed his claims have no basis then I would of course reject them without further citations or some convincing publication demonstrating the position.

Believe it or not, I don't hold him to any kind of particular esteem, aside from simply recognizing he is a published author in the field and teaches courses at an accredited university. I'd appreciate if you didn't make it something it isn't (such as telling the other poster my opinion is based solely on what he says -- it isn't, it's my own understanding of the scripture, he just happened to agree with me). He doesn't seem to be a Christian. My little bit of looking into that suggests he doesn't consider Christ divine in anyway (typical of secular historians).

I will see if I can find another source in the meantime. As for the Septuagint, I'm not sure it would necessarily show a theological bias here in the Torah -- it pre-dated Christ (some of the other books can be argued to post-date Christ). The works from which the Jews at the time used are lost to history, and from a secular historical perspective, they would be a valid consideration (honestly).

And to not drill down point by point from your response, the only other thing I'd offer is please read chapter 19, verse 1. After JHVH departs from Abraham in the final verses of chapter 18, chapter 19 verse 1 continues the story.

To me it's clear YHVH is one of the three -- once He departs there's only two from that point forth. Just something to think about.

 

[rosends]

Sure, I can only hope he replies, but we shall see. If indeed his claims have no basis then I would of course reject them without further citations or some convincing publication demonstrating the position.

Believe it or not, I don't hold him to any kind of particular esteem, aside from simply recognizing he is a published author in the field and teaches courses at an accredited university. I'd appreciate if you didn't make it something it isn't (such as telling the other poster my opinion is based solely on what he says -- it isn't, it's my own understanding of the scripture, he just happened to agree with me). He doesn't seem to be a Christian. My little bit of looking into that suggests he doesn't consider Christ divine in anyway (typical of secular historians).

I will see if I can find another source in the meantime. As for the Septuagint, I'm not sure it would necessarily show a theological bias here in the Torah -- it pre-dated Christ (some of the other books can be argued to post-date Christ). The works from which the Jews at the time used are lost to history, and from a secular historical perspective, they would be a valid consideration (honestly).

And to not drill down point by point from your response, the only other thing I'd offer is please read chapter 19, verse 1. After JHVH departs from Abraham in the final verses of chapter 18, chapter 19 verse 1 continues the story.

To me it's clear YHVH is one of the three -- once He departs there's only two from that point forth. Just something to think about.

My concern is two fold -- one is that no where in the text is God identified with the 3 men, and two is that the conclusion that because, later on, only 2 men are mentioned, the third must be God is a logical fallacy along the lines of post hoc ergo prompter hoc (though not precisely). There is a difference between explicit statement and inference. Authorities within Judaism dismissed this question a long, long time ago. Their textual (and faith) based answer, to my mind, outweighs a later inference.

As to the Septuagint, I was reading this page Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew | The Orthodox Life and read through the discussion after. If you get the chance, scroll down to the question Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew | The Orthodox Life and you'll see the answer as provided by someone with every reason to present his findings as fact, not theology.
-----------

btw, in the 3 items, I should have said "Tikkunei Sofrim" not "Dikdukei." Different book.

 

[catch22]

My concern is two fold -- one is that no where in the text is God identified with the 3 men, and two is that the conclusion that because, later on, only 2 men are mentioned, the third must be God is a logical fallacy along the lines of post hoc ergo prompter hoc (though not precisely). There is a difference between explicit statement and inference. Authorities within Judaism dismissed this question a long, long time ago. Their textual (and faith) based answer, to my mind, outweighs a later inference.

Inference or not, 18 starts with 3 men, 19 starts with 2, and the only one who departs is YHVH and we see Abraham standing before Him and otherwise interacting with him (He appears, He speaks, "they did eat," etc). This isn't so much inference as, honestly, just understanding what the author was conveying.

I know it's detrimental to your faith if I'm right. It's not detrimental to my faith if I'm wrong. I don't rest my faith on this passage. Nor on Isaiah 9:5(6). When I see things fudged for theological bias, I merely want honesty. I think it's dishonest to translate Isaiah 9:5 in the way you presented it pages back. I think it's dishonest to read chapter 18 in a way you've presented.

You think you're right, I think I'm right. But again, this passags and others similar to it do not hurt my faith. I don't care so much about that as the truth being spoken.

If God didn't eat, fine. My faith is not hurt by that. If he does, great. My faith isn't necessarily bolstered by that, either. It makes sense to me in either case.

Really, I just want the truth and honesty. It is my conclusion for this passage (and for example, Isaiah 9:5) are the result of understanding with an anti-Christian motive. I firmly believe, pre-Christ, these passages are understood the way I understand them, only until the 11th or so century does it change in Jewish Orthodoxy.

I will also turn around and say that the New Testament has similar anti-Semetic omissions as well, through history. It does happen. I just recently got into a discussion about Luke 23:34a (long vs. short reading). The only reason I got to lengths to explain this is because I want to be clear: I don't NEED this passage to read one way or the other. I'm only interested in what Moses wrote for me to read. Nothing more.

And my honest conclusion is the way I've presented it to you, regardless of violations of dietary law (kosher meal or not), regardless of God being presented in human form, regardless of any of that: I just want to read it as it was intended by the original author.

As to the Septuagint, I was reading this page Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew | The Orthodox Life and read through the discussion after. If you get the chance, scroll down to the question Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew | The Orthodox Life and you'll see the answer as provided by someone with every reason to present his findings as fact, not theology.

I see your point. However, in fairness, it works exactly the same from the opposite perspective. If it's true that the texts are corrupted due to an anti-Christian agenda, then one would present the altered/edited variations (mild as they may be) as fact, not theology.

Interestingly, I mentioned Psalm 22 earlier, and the article you posted cited it as a problem passage (it is a problem passage). Of no surprise to you (I'm sure), I agree with the way it's presented in this article. One then has to discern -- did I become a Christian, and then alter my understanding of passages such as this in order to maintain my faith -- or did I become a Christian because after honest research and true seeking, I found it to be the truth?

For what it's worth, after obtaining my credentials in Anthropology, I tried very hard to believe what was presented to me in that discipline. It took more faith to remain a scientist in that regard, than it did to understand the God of Israel. It's unfortunate you and I believe He is a different God (at the end of the day), but alas, I try to conform myself to God. I don't try to conform God to myself, if that makes any sense.

If non-theological authorities trust the LXX (original LXX Torah is dated ~300bc) due to it being a translation from early Hebrew lost to time (and it thusly is the best example of pre-Christian text), then you have to admit an honest middle ground. I know folks in your position don't do that; but that, again, shows your theological bias as well.

At some point secular history has to be of value to you. And by that, I mean essentially people who have no theological bias toward any particular faith (neither Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim). If it isn't, then you must at the very least admit you are driven strictly by theological bias. That's fine. But it means your position is unreasonable, and debate can cease.

 

[rosends]

I understand your point but what you see as " the only one who departs is YHVH and we see Abraham standing before Him and otherwise interacting with him " doesn't make sense to me. 18 starts with God and THEN 3 men, placing God outside the 3 men. Deciding that when the men depart and God stays and then in a separate city, there were 2 men, that this means that God was one of the men is, to my reading, a weak and forced inference which I see as intellectually dishonest.

God is explicitly mentioned outside the scope of the men. Trying to equate him is senseless, if not driven by a need to support an extra textual need that God is human. The fact that the oral law identifies the three men by name and explains why there were 2 later on is simply icing on the cake.

Your being "right" is not a matter of being detrimental to my faith. Your inference simply cannot exist within the overall narrative and understanding of the text -- it would be like saying "I know you think 2+2=4 and it is detrimental to your sense of math if I'm right when I say 2+2=5, but..."

I'm glad you accept that your understanding of the meaning of Isaiah 9 is a matter of your "firm belief" rather than actual matter of proof and evidence. Since you put no stock in the oral law (which predates the 11th century date by a lot), you put no stock in its way of reading the text. That's fine, but you should understand that your reading is one that is a non-starter when looked at from within a system which also predates the 11th century.

The nut here is when you say, "I just want to read it as it was intended by the original author."

You are starting with one idea of authorship and the position of the text within a belief system so you are free to come up with other understandings of text that fit your idea of the author and the origin of the text. But those opinions hold no water when put within the theological construct which was created through the texts themselves.

The same holds for Psalm 22 -- the Hebrew is clear. The resultant claim then has to be "but the Hebrew is wrong and the other version which comes from a 'lost Hebrew' must be right." Simply ascribing validity because of the need to believe is flawed. Without an original text to adjudicate, the sense that there must be a middle ground between two claimed texts is simply a way to force compromise when none is necessary. And it is one driven by a theological demand -- the definition comes first, the variant text is validated through it so therefore there must have been another text which predates and justifies the definition. This is no less a matter of belief and I could ascribe the equal but opposite charge against those who hold for such a compromise -- instead of saying "folks in your position don't do that" I would say "folks in your position have to do that."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”
And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

Regardless, I guess Abraham did something wrong when he served milk with meat for the meal?