Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?

[Tumah]

Being a Jew and living in Israel does not give him an advantage in becoming an expeert in Hebrew. All become experts the same way---years of serious study.



I agree and I agree they are experts in Hebrew. WE know there ire levels of expertise and IMO, Scholars who do Bible translation are more expert that the average person who studies a language. Even if their expertise is equal, often even very good scholar can disagree at times.

I certainly am not trying to denigrate their proven abilities.

The level of question you are arguing about is what the words "the" and "young woman" mean. You don't need an advanced degree to know these things. The prefix "the" is found twice in the first verse of Genesis and probably thousands if not tens of thousands of times after that throughout Tanach. If someone can't identify this prefix as a definite article, then they don't know Biblical Hebrew at all. Its that common. The identity of the word "young woman" is clearly established by the existence of a word that already means "virgin" (betulah) and a verse where the word is used, but virgin wouldn't fit the context (Pro. 30:19).

This is not advanced Hebrew, this is simple Hebrew that anyone who starts learning the language or reading the Tanach would need to know. You're not discussing the evidence of a prophetic perfect tense or whether the imperfect EYE-H should be translated as "I will be" or "I am". This is simple Hebrew 101.

The only problem here is that you're not willing to admit to Christian bias by Christian translators attempting to make the verse conform with the NT.

 

[omega2xx]

But undoubtedly many translators have a vested interest in pushing the "company line".

If they do, and you have no evidence to support thagt opinion, they are not good translators.

Also, ancient Hebrew is not identical to modern Hebrew, so the translation of certain words in the scriptures can be quite conjectural at times. Languages evolve, and sometimes we can look at a word in Hebrew or Greek and just scratch our heads.[/QUOTE]

Bible translators use the OT mss which are not in modern Hebrew.

Even English is Greek to me sometimes.

 

[metis]

If they do, and you have no evidence to support thagt opinion, they are not good translators.

Actually we do, such as the mistranslation of "young maiden" into "virgin" as found in Isaiah. Also, when the NIV was first being sold, the publishers stated that they were using translation compatible with evangelical interpretations.

Bible translators use the OT mss which are not in modern Hebrew.

You missed the point. Some of the ancient Hebrew words we're not 100% what the best translation would be today. For example, some of the birds that are not to be eaten we're not sure what they're called today or even if they still exist.

IOW, translating from one language to another is not that easy, especially when looking at a language that dates back thousands of years.

 

[omega2xx]

The level of question you are arguing about is what the words "the" and "young woman" mean. You don't need an advanced degree to know these things. The prefix "the" is found twice in the first verse of Genesis and probably thousands if not tens of thousands of times after that throughout Tanach. If someone can't identify this prefix as a definite article, then they don't know Biblical Hebrew at all. Its that common. The identity of the word "young woman" is clearly established by the existence of a word that already means "virgin" (betulah) and a verse where the word is used, but virgin wouldn't fit the context (Pro. 30:19).

This is not advanced Hebrew, this is simple Hebrew that anyone who starts learning the language or reading the Tanach would need to know. You're not discussing the evidence of a prophetic perfect tense or whether the imperfect EYE-H should be translated as "I will be" or "I am". This is simple Hebrew 101.

The only problem here is that you're not willing to admit to Christian bias by Christian translators attempting to make the verse conform with the NT.

What I believe is said by a Jew who started out to become a rabbi. IMO, he was more of an expert in Hebrew than anyone in this forum. He says alma refers to a young girl whose characteristic is a virgin. When I read in Gen 24 that Rebekah is called both an alma and a bethulah, I believe alma can also mean a virgin.

There is more than one problem. You have no evidence of Christian bias and the Jews have more reason to be biased in translating that word than Christisn do.

 

[Tumah]

Your explanation on the details of he language, especially when you use Jewish letters, is beyond my ability to completely understand.

Hebrew letters.
And that sounds like a cop out. You can certainly identify the simple shape of the letter when I enlarge it.

If one translation had a indefinite article and the other 2 had a definite article, I might agree with you, but when 3, made by 3 different teams of scholars have an indefinite articles, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The NASB is considered one of the most accurate translations available. ALL of the good translations have an indefinite article. It seems unlikely to me they all got it wrong.

Allow me to make it simple for you:

hā·‘al·māh — 3 Occurrences <-- hā·‘al·māh = hā (prefix letter) + ‘al·māh (word in question)

Genesis 24:43
HEB: הַמָּ֑יִם וְהָיָ֤ה הָֽעַלְמָה֙ הַיֹּצֵ֣את לִשְׁאֹ֔ב <-- bold word is word in question identical to other two occurences(hā·‘al·māh — 3 Occurrences)
NAS: by the spring, and may it be that the maiden who comes
KJV: of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth
INT: water become the maiden comes to draw

Exodus 2:8
HEB: לֵ֑כִי וַתֵּ֙לֶךְ֙ הָֽעַלְמָ֔ה וַתִּקְרָ֖א אֶת־ <-- bold word is word in question identical to other two occurences
NAS: to her, Go [ahead]. So the girl went
KJV: to her, Go. And the maid went
INT: to her Go went the girl and called mother

Isaiah 7:14
HEB: א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת <-- bold word is word in question identical to other two occurences
NAS: Behold, a virgin will be with child
KJV: you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
INT: A sign Behold A virgin child and bear

Same exact word from the prefix to the vowel points in all three of these verses.

In Genesis the NAS translates it as "the maiden" with the definite article. This word is later translated as "the girl" in Exodus by the NAS - again, with the definite article. And then the same word in Isaiah - exact same word (hā·‘al·māh — 3 Occurrences) becomes "a virgin" according to the NAS, now an indefinite article.

And again. The KJV translates this word as "the virgin" with the definite article in Genesis. Its "the maid" again with the definite article in Exodus. But somehow in Isaiah the definite article is dropped and it becomes "a virgin" in Isaiah.

And one more time. The INT translates this word hā·‘al·māh as "the maiden" with the definite article in Genesis. Its "the girl" in Exodus, still with that definite article. But oddly becomes "a virgin" with the indefinite article by the time Isaiah comes around.

If the NAS is considered the most accurate translation you have, you should give them a call. Because that's extremely clear evidence of Christian bias.
Also see Young's Literal in their choice of articles.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually we do, such as the mistranslation of "young maiden" into "virgin" as found in Isaiah. Also, when the NIV was first being sold, the publishers stated that they were using translation compatible with evangelical interpretations.

The NIV is not a word for word translation.

You missed the point. Some of the ancient Hebrew words we're not 100% what the best translation would be today. For example, some of the birds that are not to be eaten we're not sure what they're called today or even if they still exist.

I am not sure that is accurate but even i it is, it doe snot affect the meaning of alma.

IOW, translating from one language to another is not that easy, especially when looking at a language that dates back thousands of years.

I am sure their are some difficulties, but it is just as difficulties for Jewish translators also. When all major translations have an indefinite article, I think that is evidence it should be one.

 

[Tumah]

What I believe is said by a Jew who started out to become a rabbi. IMO, he was more of an expert in Hebrew than anyone in this forum. He says alma refers to a young girl whose characteristic is a virgin. When I read in Gen 24 that Rebekah is called both an alma and a bethulah, I believe alma can also mean a virgin.

There is more than one problem. You have no evidence of Christian bias and the Jews have more reason to be biased in translating that word than Christisn do.

What makes him an expert more than anyone on the forum?
What makes him more of an expert than anyone of the translators who don't translate the word as he does?

If you compare verses 13-14 with 43, you'll easily notice that the word that the servant is substituting in the retelling is "na'arah" not "bethulah". Why would you be more inclined to assume that the verse would be giving a synonym for virgin? Also how would the servant even know her virginal status that he would even make such a claim to her parents?

 

[Ingledsva]

There is no such thing as a Christian ThD.

Bull! When he gets it from a CHRISTIAN Theological SEMINARY - it is Christian, with Christian bias on the Hebrew texts that Christians have twisted, or mistranslated.

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.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

And as usual you are wrong.

Gen 24:16 And the damsel/na‛ărâh was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

First it is na‛ărâh not almah.

na‛ărâh means a young girl, - and LOOK, - they give us additional info that she is ALSO a virgin/bethulah. WHY? Because not all na‛ărâh or almah are virgins. They would not have to add the extra information if the words meant virgin in the first place!

PS - if you would actually like me to reply to the rest, - reformat your replies, - correctly, - so I don't have to waste time going up and down the page finding them.

*

 

[Tumah]

And as usual you are wrong.

Gen 24:16 And the damsel/na‛ărâh was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

First it is na‛ărâh not almah.

na‛ărâh means a young girl, - and LOOK, - they give us additional info that she is ALSO a virgin/bethulah. WHY? Because not all na‛ărâh or almah are virgins. They would not have to add the extra information if the words meant virgin in the first place!

PS - if you would actually like me to reply to the rest, - reformat your replies, - correctly, - so I don't have to waste time going up and down the page finding them.

*

I think he's referring to verse 43 not 16. But if you look at the narrative and then the retelling of the narrative, verses 13 and 14 parallel verse 43. And the parallel word to almah in verse 43 is na'arah in verse 14.

 

[Flankerl]

I agree but it is not evidence the child is determined by the father.

Still haven't written anything about children.

So if I disagree with you I am being hateful, but if you disagree with me, you are not. Have you ever heard of a double standard?

So you are saying neither Zipporah or Ruth joined Israel?

Any evidence for this?


And yeah you seem to be rather clear that you don't accept conversions to Judaism. Which is kinda...

 

[wizanda]

And as usual you folks jump from what it says

See you're not even listening to me, why are you still compartmentalizing me with Christians; my opinion is my own.

It is one thing to say you don't believe in a specific group's God.

There is only one God Most High, and accept most religious texts globally.

It is quite another to believe in the Hebrew idea of a Messiah, and then also believe the ripped-off Christian version that this Messiah is their Jesus.

Based on numerous prophecies it is the only thing that can fit, the Messiah was to divorce Israel/Judah, and cause the 2nd temple destruction.

That makes your beliefs Abrahamic.

The Abrahamic covenant was nullified by Judah paying 30 pieces of silver into the potters field in the house of Israel (Zechariah 11:10).

My own theology is based on first hand experience, and might be partially explained within other peoples texts.

“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6

“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22" (Note here that we have the SON of AHAZ and the war with ASSYRIA together.)

Thank you for posting evidence of the Assyrian removal of the northern kingdom; now if you can show where in the historical parts of the Tanakh, there was a 65 year war of Israel Vs Judah, please?

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Thank you for posting evidence of the Assyrian removal of the northern kingdom; now if you can show where in the historical parts of the Tanakh, there was a 65 year war of Israel Vs Judah, please?

Start with Kings, and read on from there .

 

[Ingledsva]

See you're not even listening to me, why are you still compartmentalizing me with Christians; my opinion is my own.

There is only one God Most High, and accept most religious texts globally.

Based on numerous prophecies it is the only thing that can fit, the Messiah was to divorce Israel/Judah, and cause the 2nd temple destruction.

The Abrahamic covenant was nullified by Judah paying 30 pieces of silver into the potters field in the house of Israel (Zechariah 11:10).

My own theology is based on first hand experience, and might be partially explained within other peoples texts.

Messiah, Jesus, etc., are Abrahamic ideas. You are using their names and ideas - yet claiming I shouldn't compartmentalize you with them.

Any religion can have a God, even a messiah, but you are specific to the Abrahamic ideas.

Thank you for posting evidence of the Assyrian removal of the northern kingdom; now if you can show where in the historical parts of the Tanakh, there was a 65 year war of Israel Vs Judah, please?

Good grief read it. Why would I have to show a 65 year war? We don't know how long things actually lasted.

I was showing you the verses that show different timelines for events.

We have -
Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. (65 years)

We don't know at what point in this war this child was born.

We are told the two kings will die -

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

We are told -
Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

And we are told that Ahaz's son is alive at that time the people are taken. -

"Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom:

“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6"

2Ch 30:6 So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria.

“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22"

Up to this point everything is taking place within the lifetime of Ahaz and his son Hezikiah.


*

 

[wizanda]

Why would I have to show a 65 year war? We don't know how long things actually lasted.

Because the way i read Isaiah there was no war, 'it never happened'...

It was saying 65 years until the Assyrians took Israel....

So unless someone can show in the historical Tanakh, where it says it took place, I've got no reason to accept what is being said....

Keep posting the same material in big letters like some religious fundie, isn't going to change my opinion, will need to use logic.

We are told the two kings will die -

We are told they've died before the child is even raised.

Start with Kings, and read on from there .

I'm not the one making a case that Isaiah 7 isn't what Isaiah said....

If it can be shown where it says a war took place between northern and southern kingdom, would be grateful if you can show where?

Messiah, Jesus, etc., are Abrahamic ideas.

I find Yeshua referenced in Hinduism, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, etc...

I find the concept of a Messiah in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mayan, Buddhism, Taoism, etc...

yet claiming I shouldn't compartmentalize you with them.

Think no one should compartmentalize people, as people don't fit in boxes, and those who think that way, have a problem in logic.

Any religion can have a God, even a messiah, but you are specific to the Abrahamic ideas.

The specifications of the Abrahamic Messiah are within the Bible, which is the topic we're discussing; if we were discussing another concept of the Messianic age/Satya yuga we'd use another specific text.

 

[wizanda]

So looked it up myself, we can just use a concordance on 'Remaliah' to find the other references:

2 Chronicles 28
2 Kings 16

These both say Ahaz had defiled the ways of the Lord, and paid the Assyrians to take the northern kingdom...

Sorry, guess it wasn't saying there was no war between them; instead what Isaiah 7:7 says is that Tabeal shall not be made king over Judah, it was Hezekiah when Ahaz dies.

That is Isaiah 7:1-9, after that everything else is in a different timeline; like saying Isaiah 7:10 starts a new paragraph, and an independent intention as it states 'again', in other words another context.

When we take everything into context, the lord asks Ahaz if he wants a sign; yet knows he is a liar, defiling his laws, burning children, and paying the Assyrians to take the northern kingdom.

Thus the sign isn't to do with if Israel will attack Judah, because Ahaz had already made his own path of allying with the Assyrians, and as Isaiah 8:6-7 says the Assyrians also then attacked Judah.

The sign doesn't come until after the two kings, and the northern kingdom has been removed (Isaiah 7:16); thus the only thing i can think the sign is for, is Isaiah first son's symbolic name, 'a remnant shall return'.

Which then adds up with the rest of the Tanakh, only those who accept the Marvelous Work of the Lord shall remain on earth, after everything prophesied is completed.

 

[omega2xx]

What makes him an expert more than anyone on the forum?
What makes him more of an expert than anyone of the translators who don't translate the word as he does?

First let me assure you I am not questioning your or anyone else's expertise. First, He was Jewish and knew the language before He was converted. He has as long and distinguished career as a theologian, especially on the O.T and in knowing Hebrew. He has written several(6 as I remember) commentaries on O.T. books. For them to be of any value, he must understand Hebrew better than the average Jew. We both know there are many levels of expertise in any discipline. IMO, his resume better than most and equal to any other experts. Resumes are the only way we have to judge one's qualifications. Kline's expertise is probably equal, but even experts will disagree at times.

If you compare verses 13-14 with 43, you'll easily notice that the word that the servant is substituting in the retelling is "na'arah" not "bethulah".

The servant is not substituting words. The words are God's words. That makes the question, "why would God substitute words?" IMO, it is to show both words have or can have the same meaning. If God did not intend that, He would have never used alma,

Why would you be more inclined to assume that the verse would be giving a synonym for virgin?

For the reason I just stated above.

Also how would the servant even know her virginal status that he would even make such a claim to her parents?

He didn't need to know her status. He was not going to make the choice, God was---The servant prays and says, "may she be the one YOU have appointed for your servant Isaac(Gen 24:14)."

Also, I lean on the N.T. where the verse is quoted, and in Greek, there is no question the word for virgin can only mean a virgin.

 

[omega2xx]

Bull! When he gets it from a CHRISTIAN Theological SEMINARY - it is Christian,

There is no such degree as "PhD or ThD" in Christianity.

with Christian bias on the Hebrew texts that Christians have twisted, or mistranslated.

The only bias in this discussion is yours and you are not qualified to say Christian translators have twisted and mistranslated the Herew texts.

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 "Christian ThD." If you want to discuss the subject, learn to use the right words or you will continue to look foolish and your extreme bias will be even more evident.

Nothing you have said, detracts from his expertise in Hebrew. Dallas Theological Seminary is one of he best in the country and it is certainly much better than the liberal theology most universities offer.

 

[omega2xx]

And as usual you are wrong.

Gen 24:16 And the damsel/na‛ărâh was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

First it is na‛ărâh not almah.

It is neither one. The word is be tulim.

na‛ărâh means a young girl, - and LOOK, - they give us additional info that she is ALSO a virgin/bethulah. WHY? Because not all na‛ărâh or almah are virgins.

You don't know for sure that all almas are not virgins. All you know for sure is that they are young girls.

They would not have to add the extra information if the words meant virgin in the first place!

There are no extra words. God is never superfluous. The change o words indicates an alma can also be a bethula when they both refer to the same person.

PS - if you would actually like me to reply to the rest, - reformat your replies, - correctly, - so I don't have to waste time going up and down the page finding them.

*

Sorry about that. Sometimes I use the quote format used in the forum I have been in the longest, then I forget to edit my post.

 

[omega2xx]

Still haven't written anything about children.

Neither have you and you are the one saying linage comes through the father,

So you are saying neither Zipporah or Ruth joined Israel?

Of curse not. The Bible says they did, sdo they did.

And yeah you seem to be rather clear that you don't accept conversions to Judaism. Which is kinda...

You are accusing me of something for which you have no evidence---I ACCEPT THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL BE CONVERTED TO JUDAISM.

However this post was also about who is hateful. Why is my disagreeing with what someone says hateful, but you disagreeing with what i say, not hateful?