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.
I strongly disagree that the greeks were the first born of yisrael. To suggest such is antisemitic and disrespectful to an entire culture.Aloha be(t)et lamed resh
We have two-three scriptural reasons to honor the Niqqud, esp., that of the Massoretes, unfortunately we cannot quite honor the Niqqud of the Massoretes, which was/is far more diverse than the testimony and application of only One Massorete, which is what we find today in the so called (yet somewhat misleading) Masoretic text;
Collectively the Masorettes were a rare treasure trove of those who retained undisputed viable knowledge of the ancient written Hebrew, and were the go to source in their dispensation when it came to potential application and meaning, which (due to the Assyrian/Babylonian Captivity and assimilation into foreign cultures) had become marginalized and had drawn close to the brink of extinction;
In Yeshayahu 9 we discover that the Masorah will be placed upon the Shoulder [the place where Prophecy is borne] of the Child/Son that is given to us, this passage/prophecy alone authorizes the (actual) Masoretic punctuation as an Amendment to the Torah which at the time had no punctuation in the text (which included word spacing), for previously it was the Oral Reading of the Torah that alone preserved the sacred knowledge of an appropriate Reading;
The people were discontent with the various alternate yet viable Readings of the Masorete, and managed to eliminate the input of all but two Masorete (I do not recall their names at the moment), then they eventually chose to run with the testimony and application of the one Masorete, and that is what made it’s way down through unto the Celtic translations of Wycliffe, Tyndall, the KJV and those who follow suite with their overall Reading of the sacred texts;
The fixed Niqqud basically preserves (what many agreed upon at the time to be) the proper Oral Reading of the texts, though not everyone was entirely in agreement, notwithstanding the fixed punctuation preserved a great portion of the historical account of Ishrael, seeing how the Torah can be Read with other viable and intelligent information being Punctuated/Read/Extracted from it, which could easily overshadow the entire historical account of Ishrael;
That is how important the Oral Law was, and how important the Masoretic punctuation has become, without it, much of the historical account which we have today would literally be Lost In Translation, and ironically we still have many things that are yet Lost due to a Fixed Punctuation as well;
Yeshuah defends the Niqqud when he says, not one Yowd [Hand/Manual] nor one Tittle [Diacritic Mark] will be made obsolete until everything has been fulfilled, yet he cautions us to have our Righteousness to exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes [which Punctuate] and the Pharisee [which Read].
Just as the Oral Law was used to teach the early Ishrael community how to Read the Written, the Masoretic Punctuation also teaches us today how meanings can be variously applied and ascribed.
The prophecy of Yeshayahu concerning Immanuel/Manuel is in chapter 8, where the prophet is instructed with a Strong Hand/Manual, and tells us to Bind the Torah and Seal the Testimony of Immanuel’s Disciples, and whosoever does not Speak according to the Torah and the Testimony of his Disciples it is because there is no Light in them, which mind you establishes what our doctrine is, then on to chapter 9 and the Masorah being upon his Shoulder;
Both chapters relate a string of related things that happen to be Associated with one another, the Torah [OT] & NT, a Strong Manual and the Masorah, this is no accident nor a coincidence, and neither am I mistaken to take stock in what is evidently done for a Divine reason and with a Deliberate intent.
Have you ever seen the t.v show My fat Greek wedding? Have you ever lived in a community where there is a notable presence of Portuguese people? If your answer to this question is yes, then you know that they nationality wise are one in the same people, aka the children of Aphrîyem Yowseph’s second born, yet Ishrael’s Firstborn.
Cause & Effect, Yeshuah strictly instructed his Disciples to go unto none other than the Lost Sheep of The House of Ishrael, in Ezekiel 37 Aphrîyem and his affiliates [the northern kingdom, tribes and converts) are reckoned as The House of Ishrael, and Yehudah and his affiliates [the southern kingdom] are reckoned as The Children of Ishrael, ergo the New Testament was propagated in the Latin Greek tongue, and the northern tribes became referred to as the Lost Tribes of Ishrael.
I agree that his interpretation of Ezekiel 37 requires a rather large leap of faith (with wings, an internal combustion engine, propellers and assorted control surfaces), but I don't see that he was being 'anti-Semitic and disrespectful'. Only that he is mistaken.I strongly disagree that the greeks were the first born of yisrael. To suggest such is antisemitic and disrespectful to an entire culture.
Yeah, right. Because Chabad has never turned a phrase based on symbolism?Dang Bro!
How deep does this bunny hole go?
Still, the Hebrew rendering at Chabad still represents a tree, not a stake, not a pale, not a pole, not a crucifix.
OK, here's another one:Yeah, right. Because Chabad has never turned a phrase based on symbolism?
I think we have entered into what might be considered, 'scriptural fracking'. We know we have a bunch of multi-lingual scriptural fragments buried deep within the earth and rocks of time. We then dig very deep holes, highly pressurize large volumes of hot, wet air and pump it into these murky and broken stratified depths to see what bubbles to the surface. Then we try and reconstitute the muck into a usable resource.
From the LXX:
Not meaning to beat the proverbial dead horse, but according to the Rabbinim, LXX is inspired. So why would they translate the term as 'pole' etc., if they weren't taking the meaning of 'tree' as any type of structure that separated the children of Adam from 'adamah', the land? Isn't adamah in covenant terms, haaretz?
So what is the gist of the 'curse'? So that the children of Adam that have a covenant relationship with Adonai and are NOT returned to the land are cursed? Remember, under the covenant, the land has both rights and a voice. It cried out to Adonai when deprived of it's sabbaths, no?
Do you see the relationship?
For the purposes of this discussion, the terms pole, tree, cross, etc. are synonymous.OK, here's another one:
A Hebrew - English Bible
According to the Masoretic Text
and the JPS 1917 Edition
Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
The whole Hebrew Bible in parallel verse by verse with the English translation of Jewish Publication Society edition of 1917.mechon-mamre.org
View attachment 346033
I would disagree with respect to the argument that was made in the video that you presented.For the purposes of this discussion, the terms pole, tree, cross, etc. are synonymous.
How can this be when the MT was first published around 7th century CE?I would disagree with respect to the argument that was made in the video that you presented.
I think that we can agree that the Onkelos Aramaic translation is problematic. I said previously that Yahshua and his Disciples quoted the LXX more often than the MT; but that would not exclude that they quoted the MT.
Now of course the MT that they quoted was obviously not the MT that was adulterated with niqqud. I have read that the Zadokites at Betharaba held copies of the LXX, the MT, as well as other variants. None of them were adulterated with niqqud.
So according to the sources of my studies, Yahshua, his disciples, and the Zadokites, all found value in the MT, devoid of niqqud, along with the LXX.
Now of course Yahshua is the greatest authority on the interpretation of scripture who ever walked the earth. One could make the argument that his closest hand picked students, who took the full course would come second in understanding.
Then YHWH himself said this of the Zadokites:
(CLV) Ezk 44:24
In a controversy it is they who shall officiate in judgment; in accord with My ordinances, thus they will judge it; My laws and My statutes shall they observe at all My appointed times, and My sabbaths shall they hallow.
The Zadokites saw value in the LXX, the MT (devoid of the commentary injected through niqqud) as well as other variants.
YHWH made no mention of the Masoretes as authorities on scripture; and Yahshua admonished the Pharisees that their doctrine was built on. In fact, they rejected some of what Yahshua, his disciples, and the Zadokites recognized as scripture.
Now there is value in commentary, as a starting point for study; but commentary is not a valid substitute for study.
The Masoretic Text[a] (MT or ; Hebrew: נֻסָּח הַמָּסוֹרָה, romanized: Nūssāḥ hamMāsōrā, lit. 'Text of the Tradition') is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the mas'sora. Referring to the Masoretic Text, masorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Jewish scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. It was primarily copied, edited, and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The oldest known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century CE.
For the purposes of this discussion, the terms pole, tree, cross, etc. are synonymous.
My point is that our Father in heaven has a covenant relationship with His creation. He gave His Word (and His word) and the physical realm came into existence. He created man as both a physical and spiritual being. Our spirit belongs to our Father's Spirit. Which is why He is so 'picky' about the condition that His Spirit is returned to Him.
Our physical body came from the earth and therefore belongs to the earth from which it was borrowed. Upon our spiritual departure from the physical realm, our dirt belongs to the dirt. There are multiple covenant conditions at play here. If our bodies are not returned to the earth from which it was borrowed , it is a breach of covenant, both with the Father and His creation. See?
That is why it is 'accursed' in the Father's view. At least, that is what I perceive of the scriptures involved here.
Here is the next paragraph to the article that you presented:How can this be when the MT was first published around 7th century CE?
Thank you brother,Very astute. I don't find many who agree with me in this but you and I do agree. And therefore Paul says, If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, (1Cor 15:35-49 (v. 44)), and moreover he admonishes the reader elsewhere to sow to-toward-into the Spirit, (Gal 6:7-8).
My objection was to the term MT as it is used anachronistically. I understand what you are getting at, but I can't say what version of Torah the pharisaic rabbinate was working with when the Onkelos Aramaic translation was developed. Nor can I say why the current rabbinic orthodoxy has acknowledged the challenge to the MT versus the LXX. Nor can we explain the many differences between the various texts.Here is the next paragraph to the article that you presented:
The differences attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period.[1] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, as is whether such a singular text ever existed.[2] The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century BCE, contain versions of the text which have some differences with today's Hebrew Bible.[3][1] The Septuagint (a Koine Greek translation made in the third and second centuries BCE) and the Peshitta (a Syriac translation made in the second century CE) occasionally present notable differences from the Masoretic Text, as does the Samaritan Pentateuch, the text of the Torah preserved by the Samaritans in Samaritan Hebrew.[4] Fragments of an ancient manuscript of the Book of Leviticus found near an ancient synagogue's Torah ark in Ein Gedi have identical wording to the Masoretic Text.[5]
I see. That's a reasonable objection. If you know me, it's even one that I would raise myself.My objection was to the term MT as it is used anachronistically.
To a degree I agree. I believe that the Zadokites kept multiple variants for the same reason that Yahshua and his disciples quoted from multiple variants. I don't believe that we will have the whole truth until Messiah returns. Still, if we look at the sum of the manuscripts; we can find little nuggets of the more correct text, here and there.We know the Zadokites took their Torah scrolls from the Temple when they were forced out along with many other works that were considered inspired scripture. We know that some of those fragments match with the MT. Our problem is we don't know what happened in the interim between when the Zadokim repaired to Beth Araba and the Pharisees embarked on what is now the MT. Personally, I feel that it is unlikely that we will know the answers to those questions before Messiah's return.
It is disturbing. Then they attribute the work of the Zadokites to the Essenes. Then when the truth comes out, they stick to that tired old narrative.Gee, if they hadn't moved the single most valuable collection of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls of TaNaK, apocalyptical literature and related writings into known climatically destructive environs; there to languish and disintegrate for 50 years while restricting their examination to only Judeo/Christian 'World Leaders'; perhaps whole parchments scrolls wouldn't have decayed beyond decipherability or repair. Perhaps they wouldn't have crumbled to dust along with our hopes of understanding the whole truth of Adonai's Word.
"We wrestle not against..." Yeah, I know.
Grrr... Arrg!!
Sorry, but it still make me very sick, very hurt and very, very angry.
...to where this is found in Pliny's 37 volume work.
Very well then. But I'll need time, and reminder to do so. Been multitasking a bit much before pesach.I agree that his interpretation of Ezekiel 37 requires a rather large leap of faith (with wings, an internal combustion engine, propellers and assorted control surfaces), but I don't see that he was being 'anti-Semitic and disrespectful'. Only that he is mistaken.
I do see how some people might mistake his intentions, not knowing him. But I haven't seen him being intentionally evil toward Adonai's Chosen People or for that matter, towards anyone - ever before. Have you?
Perhaps you might suggest 'how' he misread the prophecy or where his logic has fallen short. Y'know, like Messiah, in His longsuffering and kindness might have done?
Offered in His love,
| וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה לָהּ, שְׁנֵי גֹיִים בְּבִטְנֵךְ, וּשְׁנֵי לְאֻמִּים, מִמֵּעַיִךְ יִפָּרֵדוּ; וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ, וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר. | 23 And the LORD said unto her: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. |
| וַיְמָאֵן אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי--גַּם-הוּא יִהְיֶה-לְּעָם, וְגַם-הוּא יִגְדָּל; וְאוּלָם, אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְזַרְעוֹ, יִהְיֶה מְלֹא-הַגּוֹיִם. | 19 And his father refused, and said: 'I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.' |
| כ וַיְבָרְכֵם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, לֵאמוֹר, בְּךָ יְבָרֵךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר, יְשִׂמְךָ אֱלֹהִים כְּאֶפְרַיִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁה; וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת-אֶפְרַיִם, לִפְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה. | 20 And he blessed them that day, saying: 'By thee shall Israel bless, saying: God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.' And he set Ephraim before Manasseh. |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?