Christianizing the Bible

[muffler dragon]

I have read in a few posts that it is best to read the words of Jesus and Paul in the context in which they were meant: as Jews. Especially in the case of Paul, he should be read in the context of a learned Pharisee. On top of this, the statement has been made about looking at Scripture without the influence of the "Church".

I was hoping to receive clarification on this from someone. It appalls me to think that Scripture would have to be made to fit in a Christian manner, but I would enjoy being educated in this means. I would simply love to learn or be shown the direction I could take in order to learn such.

I, myself, am a Christian. I have no Jewish roots. But I want to know my Lord for all He was, all He is, and all He will be.

I hope that I have made myself understandable in what I am trying to understand.

By the way, one major point that I would like to make known to all who visit this portion of the forum: each and everyone of you exhibit an immense amount of respect for the other and their views. I commend you on this and it is so overwhelming to think about that it almost makes me well up with tears. I spend the majority of my time reading posts more in the science area. People of the same base faith are much nastier than I would have imagined. Anyway, that's a side note and I shall end for now.

 

[simchat_torah]

There are two great books on this very subject that I might point you towards:

1) Paul the Jewish Theologian
and
2) Jesus the Jewish Theologian

both written by Brad Young.

 

[torahlife]

Excellent, excellent books to read!

Blessings,
torahlife

 

[Sephania]

Yeshua said: A new commandment I give you , to love one another as I have loved you, by this all the world will know that you belong to me by your love for one another.~ PP Yochanan 13

 

[muffler dragon]

There are two great books on this very subject that I might point you towards:

1) Paul the Jewish Theologian
and
2) Jesus the Jewish Theologian

both written by Brad Young.

Thank you, I just ordered them on Amazon.

I look forward to the read.

 

[debi b]

There is a very good study you can get on the web from Wildbranch Ministries by Brad Scott. It is called "HEBREW MIND VS GREEK MIND". It will be worth your time. He addresses why two people can gaze on the exact same information (i.e. the Bible) and arrive at two different conclusions.

Has anyone ever pondered the English word "gentile". Let's trace the etymology of one word and see what we can find. This is taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth Edition 2000

There are 3 definitions
1 one who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation
2 a Christian
3 archaic - a pagan or heathen

Etymology: Middle English gentil, from Late Latin gentilis, pagan, from Latin, of the same clan. See gentle

Gentle
Adjective
1 considerate or kindly in diposition, amiable and tender,
2 not harsh or severe
3 easily maaged or handled etc....

Etymology: Middle English gentil, courteous, noble, from Old French, from Latin gentlis....

You get the idea (there is more, but it is lengthy). So what is my point. Many people may think that the most common understanding of gentile is pagan but it is not. It means "not Jewish" and with the other words that are formed from this root you you get the idea that the statement that is being made is that a "Jew" is not "gentle".

I have checked every Jewish translation that I have and in every case they DO NOT use the word gentile. They translate "nations" "goyim" etc. Why because it is offensive. People reading gentile today don't feel this way necessarily but it did not get by the translators.

In addition to the actual words that are used without imtimate knowledge of what was written and understood about Torah (the first five books of the Bible) it is difficult to understand some of the things that are being discussed in the NT, so there are things that have been redefined.

Be Blessed

 

[sojeru]

Hi Muffler Dragon,

PLease email me to my aol address
I have some things to share with you.
but first i would like to get to know you a little more
so when you email me I will let you know some about myself, ok?

shalom u'brachot

 

[Plan 9]

Has anyone ever pondered the English word "gentile". Let's trace the etymology of one word and see what we can find. This is taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth Edition 2000

There are 3 definitions
1 one who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation
2 a Christian
3 archaic - a pagan or heathen

Etymology: Middle English gentil, from Late Latin gentilis, pagan, from Latin, of the same clan. See gentle

Gentle
Adjective
1 considerate or kindly in diposition, amiable and tender,
2 not harsh or severe
3 easily maaged or handled etc....

Etymology: Middle English gentil, courteous, noble, from Old French, from Latin gentlis....

You get the idea (there is more, but it is lengthy). So what is my point. Many people may think that the most common understanding of gentile is pagan but it is not. It means "not Jewish" and with the other words that are formed from this root you you get the idea that the statement that is being made is that a "Jew" is not "gentle".

Okay, it's pretty scary to find myself possibly disagreeing with you, but I think you've either misunderstood the etymology here, or I have misunderstood your post.
It isn't that Jews weren't considered "gentle" in the modern meaning of that term (or courteous, for that matter), but that they weren't, and could not be, of the nobility: the archaic meaning of the word would now be rendered "commoner".
Kings did not make Jews peers of the realm and the word derivation reflects that. That didn't make it any nicer a term at the time; it was still perjorative.

I have checked every Jewish translation that I have and in every case they DO NOT use the word gentile. They translate "nations" "goyim" etc. Why because it is offensive. People reading gentile today don't feel this way necessarily but it did not get by the translators.

No, the definition has changed, as you pointed out, to mean "non-Jewish" (or "non-Mormon"). However, we count on translators to be as precise in their terms as possible.

What does the term "goy" actually mean, and what is its etymology, do you know?
I know goyim is the plural, but are both men and women called goys, or are there different forms for male and female goyim?

 

[Sephania]

I, myself, am a Christian. I have no Jewish roots. But I want to know my Lord for all He was, all He is, and all He will be.

and that is all he asks of you I think, this is very admirable and I feel you are being lead by the Spirit and you are obeying,that is all he asks of any of us, to trust, be obedient and follow Him.

One bit of advise I offer, read the Bible as a whole book, not two separate books for two separate peoples. Realize who the book was written to in the context of the whole and go from there.

May your path be full of wonder at His marvelous revelations~!

 

[muffler dragon]

and that is all he asks of you I think, this is very admirable and I feel you are being lead by the Spirit and you are obeying,that is all he asks of any of us, to trust, be obedient and follow Him.

One bit of advise I offer, read the Bible as a whole book, not two separate books for two separate peoples. Realize who the book was written to in the context of the whole and go from there.

May your path be full of wonder at His marvelous revelations~!

As a matter of fact, I have already done so. I have read it in a couple different versions as well: NIV, KJV, NKJV, Living Translation, NASB, and the Amplified. I receive something new and fresh from each translation. I appreciated the edification, though.
I have an Interlinear Bible as well. However, I have not decided to read it as well quite yet for a couple reasons:

1) It is absolutely humongous. I can't really transport it with me anywhere to read when I have free time, and it would be more than laborious to hold up and read in bed.
2) It is almost a decorative piece of sorts. The appearance of it is very pleasant and I am hesitant to start writing in the margins and underlining things.

I realize that these two reasons are quite lame, but they are the honest truth. I have been in search of a Jerusalem Bible or something that would be on more par with that line of interpretation; however, I have delayed in getting the translation by David Stern. This has to do with money and also not understanding which translation may be the most profitable for me at this time. Also, to be honest, I become weary of translation that are mainly of one man. I have read the other translations freely, because I agreed with the assumption that there was a sort of peer review.

 

[visionary]

and that is all he asks of you I think, this is very admirable and I feel you are being lead by the Spirit and you are obeying,that is all he asks of any of us, to trust, be obedient and follow Him.

One bit of advise I offer, read the Bible as a whole book, not two separate books for two separate peoples. Realize who the book was written to in the context of the whole and go from there.

May your path be full of wonder at His marvelous revelations~!

God never separated His words into old and new. By the enlightenment people saw the old in a new light. May we also get into the old and see it in a new light.

Visionary

 

[debi b]

Okay, it's pretty scary to find myself possibly disagreeing with you, but I think you've either misunderstood the etymology here, or I have misunderstood your post.

...the archaic meaning of the word would now be rendered "commoner".

What does the term "goy" actually mean, and what is its etymology, do you know?
I know goyim is the plural, but are both men and women called goys, or are there different forms for male and female goyim?

It is ok for you to disagree I can see why you would conclude that. But there are many ways to look at things and there is a reason why Jewish translations don't use the term.

Goy means "nation" or "people" generally. Sometimes it is used to referr specifically to Israel, sometimes to other people groups.

Usually Hebrew nouns are formed from verbs. In this case the root can be traced to gimel vav hey meaning to project, be convex, but there is some discussion about that. It is not uncommon to have a verb root drop out of usage and leave only the noun.

When you address a group of men only you would use a masculine form of a word, when you address a group of women only you would use a feminie form of a word, when you address a mixed group of men and women you would you the masculine form of a word. When you are addressing a nation it would be considered a single entity and you would use a singular form of a word. I hope that answered your question.

 

[ShirChadash]

One bit of advise I offer, read the Bible as a whole book, not two separate books for two separate peoples. Realize who the book was written to in the context of the whole and go from there.

excellent advice Zayit. ITA!

 

[sojeru]

The Jerusalem Bible is good
and David Sterns bible is good only for reference, not to actually hold on to a truth, my opinion.

shalomu'brachot

 

[WildCelt]

David Sterns bible is good only for reference, not to actually hold on to a truth, my opinion.

Would you explain this please? What does that mean? Why do you say that?

 

[sojeru]

well, the translation is his own messianic view infused into the text.
he understands it to be at his degree that he practices his messianism (whatever degree, range or end that may be?) which not all in Messianism will share.
There is no set foundation for his interpretation it is solely based on his view of "how Jewish" this "New Testament" is and was.
when is say "how Jewish"
what is somewhat inferred in there is "How MUCH Jewish"
some go very traditional in their Judaism (such as myself) and I personally see that he is lacking very much in bestowing this Jewishness of the "New Testament" in which I call the Nazarean Codicil (Kethuvim Netzarim).
Some in messianism go to a more jewish influenced christian view, while some are more right winged and are more traditional but still do not adhere to everything traditional (most of these tend to be legalistic i their view of Torah) and some are right in the middle while I guess I would find myself more in the way right actually recieving all that is Rabbinical as truth and the basis for interpreting the Nazarean Codicil.

so it is only my dribbled opinion.

shalom u'brachot

 

[Plan 9]

It is ok for you to disagree I can see why you would conclude that. But there are many ways to look at things and there is a reason why Jewish translations don't use the term.

Okay, then; here goes.

Gentle adj. [ME gentil< OFr, of noble birth< L gentilis, of the same gens (in LL of a good family)< gens: see GENS]
1 belonging to the upper classes of polite society 2 like or suitable to polite society; refined, courteous, etc. 3 [archaic] noble; chivalrous [a gentle knight ] 4 generous; kind [gentle reader]...(Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition).

I can go on, if you want, but in spite of us Americans priding ourselves on our 'common' roots, and not being ruled by a king or queen who can confer nobility upon us, this term has changed its meaning so little over the centuries that your definition is number 4 in an American dictionary. My British dictionary is realy too old to be of as much use as I'd like, but I hear the OED is online, and if my comp doesn't freeze on the site, I'll be happy to get the whole ball of wax for you.

Debbi, this is far more more insulting to the Jewish people; it's like being considered "white trash", or lumphen-proletariat. Of course, it wouldn't be used in any translation, even an English one, if there were a better modern English equivalent, but the modern term 'gentile' no longer means that, and there's no synonym that I know of. My translation uses 'nations' a great deal; it's a modern British Oxbridge translation, so it's possible that its translators were more in touch with the term's gravely insulting derivation, but I'll have to check and see, and That may take some time, because my concordance has very small print and my eyeglasses are woefully inadequate.

Goy means "nation" or "people" generally. Sometimes it is used to referr specifically to Israel, sometimes to other people groups.

In modern usage, I've only heard it applied to people who aren't Jewish. It doesn't apear to be a perjorative term now ( we have 'gentile' for that LOL) , but was it ever?

Usually Hebrew nouns are formed from verbs. In this case the root can be traced to gimel vav hey meaning to project, be convex, but there is some discussion about that. It is not uncommon to have a verb root drop out of usage and leave only the noun.

When you address a group of men only you would use a masculine form of a word, when you address a group of women only you would use a feminie form of a word, when you address a mixed group of men and women you would you the masculine form of a word. When you are addressing a nation it would be considered a single entity and you would use a singular form of a word. I hope that answered your question.

Thank you! This is very clear; I appreciate your taking the time to explain.

What are the feminine and masculine forms? Would it be too much trouble for you to use its various forms in sample sentences for me, so that I can be sure of using them correctly in my own speech and writing?

 

[debi b]

The term being insulting was exactly my point. Then we are on the same page.

While all forms (masculine singular, masculine plural, feminine singular, feminine plural) are possible, they are not always used in Scripture. For example the word goy is masc sing and goyim is masc pl and both are used in Scripture. While it is theoretically possible to have a feminine form that doesn't mean it is used.

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation (masc sing "goy") and a company of nations (masc pl "goyim") shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

The word for "it" can be masc or fem, sing or pl (and the word translated as "it" is actually the personal pronoun "him" or "her" and translated as "it" based on how it is used in a sentence). But that would be "lost in the translation". There is no reason to try to indicate that in a translation.

 

[Plan 9]

The term being insulting was exactly my point. Then we are on the same page.

Oh, yes, we're on the same page! I was making a case for it being even more insulting, especially when the KJV was being translated! LOL

While all forms (masculine singular, masculine plural, feminine singular, feminine plural) are possible, they are not always used in Scripture. For example the word goy is masc sing and goyim is masc pl and both are used in Scripture. While it is theoretically possible to have a feminine form that doesn't mean it is used.

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation (masc sing "goy") and a company of nations (masc pl "goyim") shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

The word for "it" can be masc or fem, sing or pl (and the word translated as "it" is actually the personal pronoun "him" or "her" and translated as "it" based on how it is used in a sentence). But that would be "lost in the translation". There is no reason to try to indicate that in a translation.

Your post will be a huge help to me when I check out my translation, but I'd also like to know how I should use the various forms in my own speech and writing. My sister-in-law is Jewish, and I once said to her,
"Thank you for marrying my brother, the goy; you've done him a world of good, and also the rest of us by extension."
She seemed to laugh appreciatively at the time, but if she also laughed because I hadn't used 'goy' quite right, she would not have embarrassed me by correcting me; she would have just give me a mental 'E' for effort.

 

[simchat_torah]

Has anyone ever pondered the English word "gentile".

Problem is, instead of examining the English translations, one really should turn to the original languages the manuscripts were written in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by: sojeru

David Sterns bible is good only for reference, not to actually hold on to a truth, my opinion.

Would you explain this please? What does that mean? Why do you say that?

I most likely would have given you the same feedback about Stern's bible. He really didn't vary from normative translation in anyway, he merely added lots of Hebrewisms to make it sound messianic. There are numerous posts on this forum that explain what I've just said, maybe I'll find one or two...

shalom,
yafet.