Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?

[omega2xx]

If that's your whole response, you lose.

If you think that was my whole response, you lose

 

[omega2xx]

Really? Maybe you missed this fact: " He went on to earn his Th.M. (1934) and Th.D. (1935) from Dallas Theological Seminary,"

DTS is one of the most respected seminaries in conservative theology , so that is a plus, not a negative.

The statement that he went to "Jewish schools" isn't borne out. Apparently he went to the Hebrew Institute of Pittsburgh which was a community school which was established "to make Jewish education a factor in young lives by teaching the Hebrew language and literature and by fostering knowledge of Jewish history and ethics." No mention of real theological training in 5th grade, I guess. Next

That may be part of his training, but it is not the whole story, which you see to want to ignore. He was also associated with "The Masters Seminary, has a PhD in archaeology and Semitic, on the team that translated the NASB, which is considered one of the most accurate translations available and has authored commentaries on 8 books of the Bible, 6 of which are OT books.

I have rabbinic ordination which he never got. [/QUOTE

I acknowledge you are also an expert in Hebrew, just not as expert as he was. He certainly could have earned a rabbinic ordination, if he had continued in that direction.

]I pursued Hebrew in study and use beyond the 21 years he gave to it before he converted and was influenced by Christianity.

If you think he quit studying Hebrew after he was converted, you are mistaken. Becoming a Christian might have influenced his theology, it did not influence his translation of Hebrew words.

Would a university hire me to teach Hebrew? Maybe not, though I can imagine that some would for basic Hebrew or biblical Hebrew. Most colleges teach modern conversational Hebrew and mine is passable. Fortunately, the word in question is a biblical term.

I am not trying to denigrate you or your expertise. I am only pointing our that I consider Feinberg, more qualified than you are.

Meanwhile, have you checked any of his sources which prove his claim?

I did tell you my source and the commentary alma included comments from 5 other experts in Hebrew, although I have not way of checking their exact qualifications.

Or are you swallowing what he says (though you have yet to attribute where he said it) and believing him because of his Christian degrees?

Don't accuse me of being gullible, and don't embellish your comments. He does not have a Christian degree. There is no such thing. I checked what would be on his resume and IMO, it is more impressive than yours.

 

[omega2xx]

My qualifications? A whole bunch of degrees and a whole bunch of time studying. Of course, not in a Christian theological seminary...
Where one studied does not change the meaning of words.

do know his qualifications. In fact, i copied and pasted some of them.

And I just posted some others.

His life changed when he was 21 and he converted and then studied what he did through the lens of Christianity.

The lens of Christianity may have altered some of his theology, but not the definition of words. You lens of Judaism, may have limited your understanding of alma

Not if someone disagrees with me, but if someone is wrong.

You consider he is wrong because he disagrees with you. You don't get to determine who is wrong. I will stick with the one with the best resume.

You haven't given any actual evidence of his claim let alone of the substantiation for his claim. You can assure me of what you want if it makes you feel better. Why don't you try reading Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, and pay careful attention to the right hand column of page 473. If you want Klein's qualifications, read page 6.

Why should I consider them more qualified than Feinberg?

 

[omega2xx]

So... that Moses guy and his wife... where was she from again...

Moses also struck the rock twice. He was not always obedient. Did God tell him to marry her?

 

[rosends]

That may be part of his training, but it is not the whole story,

Except your claim was "He did not get his theological training from Christians schools." So now you realize he did. Fair admission on your part.

I acknowledge you are also an expert in Hebrew, just not as expert as he was. He certainly could have earned a rabbinic ordination, if he had continued in that direction.

And if I went to medical school, I could be a doctor. Until then, should I claim to be an expert in anatomy?

If you think he quit studying Hebrew after he was converted, you are mistaken. Becoming a Christian might have influenced his theology, it did not influence his translation of Hebrew words.

Actually, that's precisely what it did if he is saying that there is an element of "virgin" in the word "almah." That is a decision which comes straight from Christian theology and is not part of the etymology of the word. I included that from Klein's dictionary. What proof did he provide?

I did tell you my source and the commentary alma included comments from 5 other experts in Hebrew, although I have not way of checking their exact qualifications.

Except I provided the Semitic etymology. What do you have to support that claim.

He does not have a Christian degree. There is no such thing. I checked what would be on his resume and IMO, it is more impressive than yours.

So a theological degree from a Christian seminary isn't a Christian degree. Got it.

 

[rosends]

Why should I consider them more qualified than Feinberg?

2 methods of assessing -- one, look at his qualifications and the amount of time he spent studying the content and his source material
two, look at what he presents and how he substantiates it. On both accounts, he is more authoritative.

 

[omega2xx]

Why would our Jewish friends here, want a ThD from a CHRISTIAN school?

If they offered a THD in Hebrew he might.

Feinberg was an AMERICAN that went to an American Jewish school, and obviously had lots of contact with American Christians trying to convert him. He than gets his Christian religious education, and his Christian ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary.

There is no such thing as a "Christiand ThD.

Under those circumstances, - I'm guessing he DID NOT KNOW the language better.

*

At least you acknowledge you are only guessing. His other accomplihmets show you guess wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

Baloney. I'm guessing your Jew is the American Christian theologian you've been going on about. LOL!

He was an American Jew, studying to be a rabbi when he was converted.

Almah means a MAIDEN/young girl/woman = whom may or may not be a virgin. Bethulah = means a virgin.

It uses Almah, not the word for a virgin = Bethulah. The meaning is thus young woman.

Alma means a young girl, a maiden, whose characteristic is virgin. In Gen 24, Rebekah is called an almah and a bethulah. If she is one, she is both.

Again Baloney! It tells us this is the King of Babylon, and that he is a MAN, and that the worms eat this MAN.

Thanks for reaffirming you don't understand allegory.

Christians are the ones whom don't understand and try to turn this into a Satan verse.

That is amusing coming from one who had no understanding at all of the
Bible

The majority of conservative Christians use the HELL idea, which is not correct for Sheol.

Your brush is way to wide. Conservative Christians know the difference.

LOL! In case you haven't noticed! YOU are the one having problems proving what you say, - not only with me, - but most of the other people you are debating with - as well. That speaks volumes as to whom is wrong.

LOL! I have admitted I accept what I believe by faith alone. Now it is time for you be as honest as I am and admit yuo accept what you believe by faith alone.

LOL! You obviously haven't recognized the Biblical figuratives in the debates you are having.

Actually I am the one who has said they are figurative. YOU are the one who says they are not.

LOL! I don't have to look it up. It is impossible. I'm guessing you read a story of some idiot accidently being sucked into the mouth of a baleen whale and being spit back out IMMEDIATLY, - as the baleen sifts plankton.

You have to look it up to know the truth. Evidently you think your OPINIONS are facts.LOL

It is impossible for an air breathing human to survive three days in stomach acid, underwater

What a genius you are and also omniscient. LOOK IT UP.

It doesn't mean it is true.

And you saying it is not true, does not make it not true.

In my view - an omnipotent God would not need fairytale bull to get the message across.
Nor would he be handing out evil laws allowing his people to murder, rape, own women, own slaves, etc.
Nor would he be acting skitzo, paranoid, jealous, or murdering innocent babies for the crimes of adults.

Thus - this is not a God.

Your view is irrelevant except to you. It comes for a complete lack of understanding.

Check out your friendly beginners science sites for the latest ideas.

Cut and paste the evidence they offer and get back to me.



See two up. "In my view ..."

PS - AGAIN - Stop replying with messed up formatting.

*

 

[omega2xx]

Except your claim was "He did not get his theological training from Christians schools." So now you realize he did. Fair admission on your part.

I said no such thing. I said there is no such thing as a Christian degree.

And if I went to medical school, I could be a doctor. Until then, should I claim to be an expert in anatomy?

Irrelevant. One does not become an expert with one degree.

Actually, that's precisely what it did if he is saying that there is an element of "virgin" in the word "almah." That is a decision which comes straight from Christian theology and is not part of the etymology of the word. I included that from Klein's dictionary. What proof did he provide?

You did not provide proof from Klien. you only posted what they said. Fienberg quotes from Genesis 24, where Rebekah is called both an alma and a bethulah. She can't be one without being both. Also God chose her and it is highly unlikely He would choose a non-virgin for the wife of one of His main patriarchs.




Except I provided the Semitic etymology. What do you have to support that claim.

So a theological degree from a Christian seminary isn't a Christian degree. Got it.[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

2 methods of assessing -- one, look at his qualifications and the amount of time he spent studying the content and his source material
two, look at what he presents and how he substantiates it. On both accounts, he is more authoritative.

I believe Feinberg spent his entire adult life studying Hebrew. You have not shown that Klien has spent more time studying Hebrew and you have not shown his expertise exceeds Feinbergs's.

 

[rosends]

I said no such thing. I said there is no such thing as a Christian degree.

In post 238 you wrote, "He did not get his theological training from Christians schools." Then you wrote later, "DTS is one of the most respected seminaries in conservative theology , ". The DTS is an evangelical seminary, "Founded in 1924, our mission is, “to glorify God by equipping godly servant-leaders for the proclamation of His Word and the building up of the body of Christ worldwide.”" So you now concede that he got his theological training at a Christian school. Don't be ashamed to admit that you were mistaken.

Irrelevant. One does not become an expert with one degree.

Really? How many does it take? A doctor with his MD isn't an expert? A lawyer isn't an expert?

You did not provide proof from Klien. you only posted what they said.

Actually, I posted the Klein which had the etymology and the source words from the Syriac and Uggaritic. Your source makes a claim and then draws the inference that because the text says both the two words are identical? The text also refers to her as "bat" a daughter. Does this mean that she can't be one without being both? Are you saying that a young woman by definition MUST be a virgin because you can't be a young woman without being a virgin? And you can't be a virgin without being a young woman?

where Rebekah is called both an alma and a bethulah. She can't be one without being both. Also God chose her and it is highly unlikely He would choose a non-virgin for the wife of one of His main patriarchs.

Now you have completely lost focus. No one is claiming that she wasn't a virgin. The text uses 2 different words to describe different aspects of her and the words are not synonyms. Your claim is that because 2 words are used they are synonyms. That's ludicrous and the etymologies provided from the source words bear this out and deny the claim of identity of meaning.

 

[rosends]

I believe Feinberg spent his entire adult life studying Hebrew. You have not shown that Klien has spent more time studying Hebrew and you have not shown his expertise exceeds Feinbergs's.

You believe? That's nice. Ever wonder why Feinberg didn't make any connection to other Semitic languages? Klein did. I'll trust Klein's expertise and not Feinberg's empty assertion.

 

[rosends]

Here is a fascinating bit of reading (from page 634):

[Almah] ?R f. of the preceding, a girl of marriageable age, like the Arab. in3 Joel 1 : 8). [See note at the end of the art.] The notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is [betulah] (see Cant. 6:8, and Prov. loc. cit; so that in Isa. loc. cit. the LXX. have incorrectly rendered it napdivog); neither does it convey the idea of the unmarried state, as has of late been maintained by Hengstenberg, (Christol. des A. T. ii. 69), but of the nubile state and puberty.

------------------------
From William Gesenius
"Gesenius Hebrew Chaldee (Aramaic, Syriac) Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures translated and edited from the German original by Tregelles, and revised and enlarged and annotated by Gesenius earlier works."

Was Gesenius an expert?

 

[Tumah]

Here is a fascinating bit of reading (from page 634):

[Almah] ?R f. of the preceding, a girl of marriageable age, like the Arab. in3 Joel 1 : 8). [See note at the end of the art.] The notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is [betulah] (see Cant. 6:8, and Prov. loc. cit; so that in Isa. loc. cit. the LXX. have incorrectly rendered it napdivog); neither does it convey the idea of the unmarried state, as has of late been maintained by Hengstenberg, (Christol. des A. T. ii. 69), but of the nubile state and puberty.

------------------------
From William Gesenius
"Gesenius Hebrew Chaldee (Aramaic, Syriac) Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures translated and edited from the German original by Tregelles, and revised and enlarged and annotated by Gesenius earlier works."

Was Gesenius an expert?

Not as much as Feinberg, because Feinberg was a Christian and his translation supports the NT.

 

[rosends]

Not as much as Feinberg, because Feinberg was a Christian and his translation supports the NT.

I was thinking about it this morning -- people will say "but the Jews define it to exclude "virgin" because it fits with their theology." And I realized that THAT is the flaw. The Jewish vision of this prophecy has nothing to do either way with virginity so the definition of the word was understood not in contradistinction with Christian understanding simply because the Jewish understanding developed WELL BEFORE Christianity! As such, it could not be driven by any agenda. The Christian belief has to go back and define a word so that the later claim in the gospels is prefigured. It creates a positive claim that is only "proven" by making an illogical reverse accusation.

How can Christians not see that they are agenda driven but the Jewish understanding developed in the absence of any agenda?

 

[pearl]

The Jewish vision of this prophecy has nothing to do either way with virginity so the definition of the word was understood not in contradistinction with Christian understanding simply because the Jewish understanding developed WELL BEFORE Christianity!

The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity.

The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23.

 

[Tumah]

I was thinking about it this morning -- people will say "but the Jews define it to exclude "virgin" because it fits with their theology." And I realized that THAT is the flaw. The Jewish vision of this prophecy has nothing to do either way with virginity so the definition of the word was understood not in contradistinction with Christian understanding simply because the Jewish understanding developed WELL BEFORE Christianity! As such, it could not be driven by any agenda. The Christian belief has to go back and define a word so that the later claim in the gospels is prefigured. It creates a positive claim that is only "proven" by making an illogical reverse accusation.

How can Christians not see that they are agenda driven but the Jewish understanding developed in the absence of any agenda?

I pointed out something similar on a different thread to the same poster, when he accused Jews of being too rigid by not accepting the 'virgin' definition. I explained that the Jewish definition encompasses both virgin and non-virgin women which is a lot broader than the Christian definition.

 

[Flankerl]

Did God tell him to marry her?

Absolutely irrelevant. Zipporah is regarded highly like her father.

Next would be Ruth, another convert and the great grandmother of King David.


There is no place for your racism here.

 

[Tumah]

The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity.

The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23.

So Matthew is based on the Septuagint rather than MT. And the author was himself possibly Hellenistic.

The translation process of the Septuagint itself and from the Septuagint into other versions can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity.
- Wikipedia​

 

[pearl]

So Matthew is based on the Septuagint rather than MT. And the author was himself possibly Hellenistic.

I think the majority of opinion is that the canonical Mt was in Greek. Christians preached about Jesus in the Greek language and quoting Jewish Scripture in Greek translation, deriving from Alexandrian Jews and regarded as sacred additional books first composed in Greek, (Wisdom of Solomon), or preserved in Greek although originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (I Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach). In Protestant bibles these are named the Apocrypha, Catholics refer to them as Deuterocanonical.