Torah and the Bible

[Desert Snake]

Oh. I just figured since they called it Hebrew, they probably associated it with some ancient Hebrew Book or something.

I think it is referring to Paul writing to people identified as Hebrews.

 

[Tumah]

I think it is referring to Paul writing to people identified as Hebrews.

Oh. My mistake.

 

[Rival]

I think it is referring to Paul writing to people identified as Hebrews.

Just to jump in here, for the benefit of others, Paul didn't write "Hebrews", we don't know who did but some think Apollos wrote it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just to jump in here, for the benefit of others, Paul didn't write "Hebrews", we don't know who did but some think Apollos wrote it.

This would put a dent into the ''Paul is the antichrist"'s crowds argument.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Torah can variably mean the Pentatuech, the entire Jewish cannon or the Jewish cannon plus the Oral Torah.

Maybe the poster you are quoting was referring to the order of later Books whose order are switched around in the Christian cannon?
Maybe the poster was making a general statement about Christian translations of the Torah?

Why don't you just ask the poster what he meant?

Because it was threads way back when and it was only two posts or so. It was an off topic; do, I dont know who posted it.

What I assumed is that Judaism is completely different than christianity. I also got the impression that what christians take from the Old Testemant is contrary (from the Judaism DIRs and some scripture threads) is false interpretation than what is originally written.

The poster did not go into detail since that wasnt the thread topic. I just assumed that if Judaism is not a part of christianity, their view of thr OT would mirror their views.

Since it does, Id like to agree with the poster of not using the Bible to determine beliefs in Judaism. Thats like using the Quran to tell about christian beliefs.

Hence why I ask the question.

 

[Levite]

There really is no significant difference, although there can be some minor differences between translations.

Depending on the translation, the differences can be significant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps, the poster was referring to the Christian proof texts. Proof texts are verses in the Christian bible that purport to back their claims for their man. But when compared to the Original Testament, all these proof texts are misinterpreted, ripped out of context, or completely made up.

Yes. Thats the gist of what I got.

 

[metis]

Depending on the translation, the differences can be significant.

I guess it depends on how far in their deviation they must be to qualify as "significant". I have about a half-dozen Bibles, some Jewish and some Christian, and I don't see that much difference between their coverage of Torah, but sometimes a bit more on how they cover the rest of the Tanakh.

 

[rosends]

I guess it depends on how far in their deviation they must be to qualify as "significant". I have about a half-dozen Bibles, some Jewish and some Christian, and I don't see that much difference between their coverage of Torah, but sometimes a bit more on how they cover the rest of the Tanakh.

Off the top of my head I would cite lo tirtzach which in many English versions is rendered as not to "kill" as opposed to "murder." That seems pretty significant to me.

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

 

[Akivah]

What I assumed is that Judaism is completely different than christianity. I also got the impression that what christians take from the Old Testemant is contrary (from the Judaism DIRs and some scripture threads) is false interpretation than what is originally written.

That's all true. Though you have to keep your terms straight for accuracy sake. The Christians refer to their version of our bible as the "Old Testament". We refer to their bible as "The Christian bible" or "The Greek Testment". We refer to our bible as "The Hebrew Bible" , "The Original Testament", or "The Tanakh (or Tanach)". So when you say "that what the christians take from the Old Testament", it means the christians are reading their own bible. And it is contrary to Judaism and the way the Tanakh reads.

I just assumed that if Judaism is not a part of christianity, their {sic Christians} view of thr OT would mirror their views.

Now that I explained what the christian old testament is, you can see that this is a true statement.

Since it does, Id like to agree with the poster of not using the Bible to determine beliefs in Judaism. Thats like using the Quran to tell about christian beliefs.

You can use the bible as long as you define which bible you're talking about.

 

[metis]

Off the top of my head I would cite lo tirtzach which in many English versions is rendered as not to "kill" as opposed to "murder." That seems pretty significant to me.

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

Except that putting it in the broader context should rather easily clarify it, and this is in part why there really isn't that much of a difference on most cases. We are clearly allowed to kill under certain conditions but not ever allowed to commit murder. Instead, I would suggest that most of the more significant differences hinge on interpretation, such as with the concept of "original sin".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Using those terms. Is the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testement (just the first five books) of the Christian Bible the same? If so, do you feel Christians misinterpret "their" Old Testement Books wrong or maybe its as above post, they changed the The Hebrew Bible to compliment their New Testement books?

I was thinking how could q Christian claim that the Old Testement (their bible) is from Jewish origins when their beliefs about it differs from the Jews who believe it first hand.

That's all true. Though you have to keep your terms straight for accuracy sake. The Christians refer to their version of our bible as the "Old Testament". We refer to their bible as "The Christian bible" or "The Greek Testment". We refer to our bible as "The Hebrew Bible" , "The Original Testament", or "The Tanakh (or Tanach)". So when you say "that what the christians take from the Old Testament", it means the christians are reading their own bible. And it is contrary to Judaism and the way the Tanakh reads.



Now that I explained what the christian old testament is, you can see that this is a true statement.


You can use the bible as long as you define which bible you're talking about.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Using those terms. Is the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testement (just the first five books) of the Christian Bible the same? If so, do you feel Christians misinterpret "their" Old Testement Books wrong or maybe its as above post, they changed the The Hebrew Bible to compliment their New Testement books?

I was thinking how could q Christian claim that the Old Testement (their bible) is from Jewish origins when their beliefs about it differs from the Jews who believe it first hand.

Here's a shot...
Jews and Jewish Law define things differently than does Christianity and its historical descendant - "Western" theology and history.

We have the Written Torah which is the first five books of what you know of as the "old testament." We call the "old testament" Tanach, which means Torah; Prophets; and Writings.
The Written Torah is largely written in Hebrew and, according to Jewish Law, cannot be understood without the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah was transmitted to Moses on Mt. Sinai and then transmitted for the next thousand years orally to those who were students and teachers of Jewish Law.
In that context, the Written Torah is the "lecture notes" from the Professor and the Oral Torah is the actual lecture, which is examined for each nuance of meaning and inflection.

The Christian first five books of the "old testament" have been translated from the Hebrew into Greek and/or Latin and then into various languages such as English. Christianity developed its own traditions as to what certain words mean or how certain ideas are interpreted in your "old testament." One example of this is all of the passages that Christian traditions say presage the coming of the "messiah" which, in Christianity refers to Jesus.
We do not believe the Christian interpretations are accurate.

A couple of obvious differences in translations and understandings of the Torah (first Five Books) are - "Thou shalt not kill" is an incorrect Christian interpretation of the Commandment "Thou shalt not commit murder."
"Thou shalt not steal" refers to kidnapping; "stealing" a man.
"An eye for an eye" was always understood as monetary compensation for damages and was NEVER meant to be taken literally - nor was it ever taken literally in Jewish Law.
There are many, many such differences in interpretation and understanding of the First Five Books of the bible.

Such as - the word "messiah."
Literally, this word, which comes from the Hebrew "moshiach" which means "anointed one," was referring to King David. It came to mean a descendant of King David would be an "anointed one" which would, among many other things, re-establish the Kingdom of Israel.
In Christianity and Western thought, "messiah" literally now means "G-d;" "Jesus;" "Christ;" " Divine One" etc.
None of these concepts are remotely in line of what the word "moshiach" means for Jews.
Simply put, "moshiach ben Dovid" will NOT be "divine;" will NOT be a god; and Must reestablish the Kingdom of Israel... Or, he's not moshiach ben Dovid.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow. Thank you for that detailed answer. Even the Thou Shall Not Steal, I never knew that was mistranslated. The more I learn about the Jewish view of abrahamic belief (I dont know muslim), the more I see direpencies in Christianity. Its easier to study Christianity except for the original documents of the Church. They are locked up for only student going into priesthood and the above usage. Im sure Judaism is somewhat similar not in that its locked from the public but more within the culture of Jews and Jewish believers. If that is correct?

Here's a shot...
Jews and Jewish Law define things differently than does Christianity and its historical descendant - "Western" theology and history.

We have the Written Torah which is the first five books of what you know of as the "old testament." We call the "old testament" Tanach, which means Torah; Prophets; and Writings.
The Written Torah is largely written in Hebrew and, according to Jewish Law, cannot be understood without the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah was transmitted to Moses on Mt. Sinai and then transmitted for the next thousand years orally to those who were students and teachers of Jewish Law.
In that context, the Written Torah is the "lecture notes" from the Professor and the Oral Torah is the actual lecture, which is examined for each nuance of meaning and inflection.

The Christian first five books of the "old testament" have been translated from the Hebrew into Greek and/or Latin and then into various languages such as English. Christianity developed its own traditions as to what certain words mean or how certain ideas are interpreted in your "old testament." One example of this is all of the passages that Christian traditions say presage the coming of the "messiah" which, in Christianity refers to Jesus.
We do not believe the Christian interpretations are accurate.

A couple of obvious differences in translations and understandings of the Torah (first Five Books) are - "Thou shalt not kill" is an incorrect Christian interpretation of the Commandment "Thou shalt not commit murder."
"Thou shalt not steal" refers to kidnapping; "stealing" a man.
"An eye for an eye" was always understood as monetary compensation for damages and was NEVER meant to be taken literally - nor was it ever taken literally in Jewish Law.
There are many, many such differences in interpretation and understanding of the First Five Books of the bible.

Such as - the word "messiah."
Literally, this word, which comes from the Hebrew "moshiach" which means "anointed one," was referring to King David. It came to mean a descendant of King David would be an "anointed one" which would, among many other things, re-establish the Kingdom of Israel.
In Christianity and Western thought, "messiah" literally now means "G-d;" "Jesus;" "Christ;" " Divine One" etc.
None of these concepts are remotely in line of what the word "moshiach" means for Jews.
Simply put, "moshiach ben Dovid" will NOT be "divine;" will NOT be a god; and Must reestablish the Kingdom of Israel... Or, he's not moshiach ben Dovid.

 

[metis]

In Judaism, we have what some call a "commentary system" whereas we have not only have had sages chime in their opinions on many, many biblical narratives, but anyone is free to access them, comment on them, and then add to what already exists. This approach is the opposite of having a creed or binding "statement of faith".

 

[Akivah]

Using those terms. Is the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testement (just the first five books) of the Christian Bible the same?

No. Not only are many words changed, added, or deleted; but the order of the books is swapped around. And as Moishe3rd said so well, the meaning of words is different in Christianity as compared to Judaism.

If so, do you feel Christians misinterpret "their" Old Testement Books wrong or maybe its as above post, they changed the The Hebrew Bible to compliment their New Testement books?

Well, when the Christians read their own bible, I couldn't say they are misinterpreting it. They are reading THEIR text using THEIR word meanings.

When Christians claim that their bible is identical to ours, I respond that they clearly are not. Given that our religions disagree on so many core biblical concepts, that's kind of a proof that our bibles are different.

I was thinking how could a Christian claim that the Old Testement (their bible) is from Jewish origins when their beliefs about it differs from the Jews who believe it first hand.

I think it's part of their replacement theology. Rather than making their own stand-alone religion, they want to take ours over and assign their own meanings.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

You've got three things here.

1. The canon. The Protestants have the same books in the OT as in the Jewish Tanakh, but the older churches include the material excluded by the Jews and labeled "Apocrypha" by the protestants. (e.g. Wisdom and Tobit) The Samaritans only have the pentateuch.

2. The text. Protestants and Catholics accept the official Jewish text. Eastern Christians (Orthodox, Assyrian, Oriental) use the Greek translation called the Septuagint, which was made from a rather different Hebrew version. The Samaritans have their own Hebrew version.

3. The translation. This is always going to be a problem, if only because the OT is the only Hebrew text of that period which has survived: we can't compare the use of a particular word in other sources. A further problem is that languages do not divide up the world in the same way. Even translating modern European languages can be a problem. One translator or Hegel's Phänomenologie des Geistes called it Phenomenology of the Spirit, another Phenomenology of Mind. "Ich habe einen Geist gesehen" means "I saw a ghost." Geisteswissenschaften, however, doesn't mean "spiritual sciences", "mental sciences", or "ghostly sciences": just "humanities".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it's part of their replacement theology. Rather than making their own stand-alone religion, they want to take ours over and assign their own meanings.

Yeah. I heard about that theology. I listened to a priest describe it well between Jewish roots and Catholicism. Of course, a lot of us can't check out the validity. The original Church documents are all locked up.

I don't like to look down on Catholicism; but, I like traditional faiths rather than synchronicity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For those truly interested, Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible is exceptional.

 

[metis]

For those truly interested, Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible is exceptional.

I just read an article that covers his contribution to the translation and releasing of the DSS.