simchat_torah
Got Torah?
- Feb 23, 2003
- 7,345
- 433
- 47
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Hebraic Roots Bible
- Thread starter SonWorshipper
- Start date
David stern is a "quick" translation if it should even be called a translation.
the complete jewish bible is just a name.
It USES the Jps version of the tanach, it set up the order of tanach in the corect order (the jewish one) and just added a new testament with hebrew names.
Read the preface- it says it all more exhaustively.
shalom u'bracha
the complete jewish bible is just a name.
It USES the Jps version of the tanach, it set up the order of tanach in the corect order (the jewish one) and just added a new testament with hebrew names.
Read the preface- it says it all more exhaustively.
shalom u'bracha
Upvote
0
Many so called translations, like the HRV and the ISR scriptures use the supposed Hebrew Matthew originals. These are just medi evil altered copies of manuscripts that were written originally in Latin or possibly Greek. Go and spend some time on a textual criticim forum and this will be made evident. There are no original Hebrew NT manuscripts. There are some Aramaic manuscripts held by the Church of the East, but they do not predate the earliest Greek texts.I would love to be able to read a Hebrew NT version, but the reality is, that one does not exist at this time. The two above named 'translations' are mostly about promoting specialized aggenda.
Upvote
0
hi higher truth- either way the POINT IS
the orginal language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew (though little hebrew) not greek.
IF THE ARAMAIC and Hebrew made print in its originals is beside the point- what is ORIGINAL and TRUE and EVIDENT is that the language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew, not greek
SO SOMEONE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE HARD TASK OF TRANSLATING from the ARAMAIC/HEBREW TO GREEK
Also, if the shem tov, which was held by JEWS, and obviously Written by a JEW- and its an ALTERATION- then why does it NOT AGREE WITH Chapter 23 of Matthew?
in the greek it says (im paraphrasing) that "you must obey the pharisees because they sit in the seat of moses- so do what they tell you but not as they do"
However, in the shomtov version which was held by Orthodox jews it says " do not do as the pharisees tell you for they are hypocrites, So only obey and listen to Moses."
What an alteration. It is not right and correct in Jewish law to speak evil and or twist what another fellow Jew said.
So if the Orthodox jews twisted this to make it seem that Messiah had gone against them- then that meant that these jews knew the truth from the greek text that Messiah gave these men an appraisal (for not all pharisees were good anyway- even talmud agrees with this- and there is record in the NT that there were many good pharisees) to say OBEY THEM- then the orthodox jews would not be following their own traditions.And we all know how strongly they hold onto their traditions.
Shalom u'bracha
the orginal language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew (though little hebrew) not greek.
IF THE ARAMAIC and Hebrew made print in its originals is beside the point- what is ORIGINAL and TRUE and EVIDENT is that the language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew, not greek
SO SOMEONE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE HARD TASK OF TRANSLATING from the ARAMAIC/HEBREW TO GREEK
Also, if the shem tov, which was held by JEWS, and obviously Written by a JEW- and its an ALTERATION- then why does it NOT AGREE WITH Chapter 23 of Matthew?
in the greek it says (im paraphrasing) that "you must obey the pharisees because they sit in the seat of moses- so do what they tell you but not as they do"
However, in the shomtov version which was held by Orthodox jews it says " do not do as the pharisees tell you for they are hypocrites, So only obey and listen to Moses."
What an alteration. It is not right and correct in Jewish law to speak evil and or twist what another fellow Jew said.
So if the Orthodox jews twisted this to make it seem that Messiah had gone against them- then that meant that these jews knew the truth from the greek text that Messiah gave these men an appraisal (for not all pharisees were good anyway- even talmud agrees with this- and there is record in the NT that there were many good pharisees) to say OBEY THEM- then the orthodox jews would not be following their own traditions.And we all know how strongly they hold onto their traditions.
Shalom u'bracha
Upvote
0
quote:
"the orginal language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew (though little hebrew) not greek."
Greek was the language of commerce. Many of the Jews spoke it. Paul did in scripture when he addressed the Roman centurion outside the temple. Aramaic was the primary language I will agree. Messiah spoke to Paul in Aramaic on the road to damascus. He also spoke it on the cross.[Eloi Eloi]
quote:
"IF THE ARAMAIC and Hebrew made print in its originals is beside the point- what is ORIGINAL and TRUE and EVIDENT is that the language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew, not greek
SO SOMEONE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE HARD TASK OF TRANSLATING from the ARAMAIC/HEBREW TO GREEK"
If a writer spoke Aramaic as well as Greek, this would not be a hard task at all. It would also render Aramaic phraseology into the Greek writings.There are many Aramaic words transliterated in the Greek manuscripts.
quote:
"Also, if the shem tov, which was held by JEWS, and obviously Written by a JEW- and its an ALTERATION- then why does it NOT AGREE WITH Chapter 23 of Matthew?
in the greek it says (im paraphrasing) that "you must obey the pharisees because they sit in the seat of moses- so do what they tell you but not as they do"
However, in the shomtov version which was held by Orthodox jews it says " do not do as the pharisees tell you for they are hypocrites, So only obey and listen to Moses."
What an alteration. It is not right and correct in Jewish law to speak evil and or twist what another fellow Jew said.
So if the Orthodox jews twisted this to make it seem that Messiah had gone against them- then that meant that these jews knew the truth from the greek text that Messiah gave these men an appraisal (for not all pharisees were good anyway- even talmud agrees with this- and there is record in the NT that there were many good pharisees) to say OBEY THEM- then the orthodox jews would not be following their own traditions.And we all know how strongly they hold onto their traditions."
Interesting speculation, but it is unlikely it would fly among textual critics.
"the orginal language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew (though little hebrew) not greek."
Greek was the language of commerce. Many of the Jews spoke it. Paul did in scripture when he addressed the Roman centurion outside the temple. Aramaic was the primary language I will agree. Messiah spoke to Paul in Aramaic on the road to damascus. He also spoke it on the cross.[Eloi Eloi]
quote:
"IF THE ARAMAIC and Hebrew made print in its originals is beside the point- what is ORIGINAL and TRUE and EVIDENT is that the language was indeed Aramaic and Hebrew, not greek
SO SOMEONE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE HARD TASK OF TRANSLATING from the ARAMAIC/HEBREW TO GREEK"
If a writer spoke Aramaic as well as Greek, this would not be a hard task at all. It would also render Aramaic phraseology into the Greek writings.There are many Aramaic words transliterated in the Greek manuscripts.
quote:
"Also, if the shem tov, which was held by JEWS, and obviously Written by a JEW- and its an ALTERATION- then why does it NOT AGREE WITH Chapter 23 of Matthew?
in the greek it says (im paraphrasing) that "you must obey the pharisees because they sit in the seat of moses- so do what they tell you but not as they do"
However, in the shomtov version which was held by Orthodox jews it says " do not do as the pharisees tell you for they are hypocrites, So only obey and listen to Moses."
What an alteration. It is not right and correct in Jewish law to speak evil and or twist what another fellow Jew said.
So if the Orthodox jews twisted this to make it seem that Messiah had gone against them- then that meant that these jews knew the truth from the greek text that Messiah gave these men an appraisal (for not all pharisees were good anyway- even talmud agrees with this- and there is record in the NT that there were many good pharisees) to say OBEY THEM- then the orthodox jews would not be following their own traditions.And we all know how strongly they hold onto their traditions."
Interesting speculation, but it is unlikely it would fly among textual critics.
Upvote
0
The Thadman
Well-Known Member
Higher Truth said:
Flavius Josephus specifically says otherwise.
Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Upvote
0
Quote:
Flavius Josephus specifically says otherwise.
Flavius Josephus is only one of many sources Steve-o , but you know that.
Flavius Josephus specifically says otherwise.
Flavius Josephus is only one of many sources Steve-o , but you know that.
Upvote
0
quote:
Paul was a Roman citizen and also considered "Hellenized" no?
Paul was also a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee. It has been stated by scholars that he spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and others have said that he possibly spoke another three additional languages. There were other Jews who were hellenic as well. This was mentioned in scripture as a controversy between the hellenic and non-hellenic Jews.
Paul was a Roman citizen and also considered "Hellenized" no?
Paul was also a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee. It has been stated by scholars that he spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and others have said that he possibly spoke another three additional languages. There were other Jews who were hellenic as well. This was mentioned in scripture as a controversy between the hellenic and non-hellenic Jews.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
