Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/aj-jacobs-ted_n_3762549.html?1376674237&icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D361843

If you say you take the bible literally, as god's word, you Don't. It's not even close. Unless you are all for killing your daughters if they have sex before marriage. Watch this.

by on Aug. 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Replies (51-56):
copasetic1
by Member on Aug. 23, 2013 at 9:48 PM

It is a tenet of many religions - that is common knowledge. But no, I don't know the bible. I tried to read it once, in my 30s, and found it to be pretty barbaric and ridiculous. Does it need to be stated in the bible for a religion to have it as an integral part of their beliefs? Nope. Of course, I didn't say it was in the bible, I said it is a part of christian faith. You are obviously trying to make a point. Why beat around the proverbial bush, why not just say it. Like an adult, you know?

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

Quoting copasetic1:

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Where does it say in the bible we are to take everything literally?

 Apparently you have never heard...well, much of anything.

The bible is supposed to be the literal word of god. It is a tenet of christian faith (I can't speak for the Jewish faith) that it isn't just a collection of stuff that people way back then happened to write down, even though that is actually what it is. Christianity says that the words were given to the writers directly from god. Never hear of god's word?

People hate the lgbt community - because the bible says they are bad. That's been discussed all over the place lately. People use the bible to excuse a LOT of horrible things because it is god's word.

slapping forehead

So you can't tell me where the bible tells us to read every word literally...

 

 

copasetic1
by Member on Aug. 23, 2013 at 10:17 PM

 Thank you!

Quoting Della529:

 Thank you.  You do a great job at it, too!

Quoting collectivecow:

Quoting Della529:


Yea, no problem Della! I'm always here to answer anyone's questions. o.o

 

 

copasetic1
by Member on Aug. 23, 2013 at 10:19 PM

 Thank you very much. I like learning more about things. I would quibble with one thing, though - the idea that the first testament is called "Old" as something of an insult. At that time, to be old was very good. Old ways, and old people were highly respected.

Quoting collectivecow:

I was raised as an Orthodox Jew. I don't have time to go over the video tonight, but I'd like to clarify a few things.

Tanakh is an acronym for the following:

 1. T for Torah: The First Five Books of Moses
 2. N for Nevi'im: The Prophets
 3. K for Kethuvim: The Writings

The Books are as follows:
The Five Books of Moses:
1. Bereshit [In the beginning]: Genesis
2. Shemot [The names]: Exodus
3. VaYikra [And He called]: Leviticus
4. BaMidbar [In the wilderness]: Numbers
5. Devarim [The words]: Deuteronomy.

The Early Prophets:
6. Yehoshua: Joshua
7. Shoftim: Judges
8. Shmuel: I & II Samuel
9. Melachim: I & II Kings

The Later Prophets:
10. Yeshayahu: Isaiah
11. Yirmiyahu: Jeremiah
12. Yechezkel: Ezekiel
13. Trei Asar: The Twelve (1 book)
Hoshea
Yoel
Amos
Ovadiah
Yonah
Michah
Nachum
Chavakuk
Tzefaniah
Chaggai
Zechariah
Malachi

The Books of Truth:
14. Tehilim: Psalms
15. Mishlei: Proverbs
16. Iyov: Job

The Five Scrolls:
17. Shir HaShirim: Song of Songs
18. Ruth
19. Eichah: Lamentations
20. Kohelet: Ecclesiastes
21. Esther

The Other Writings:
22. Daniel
23. Ezra-Nechemiah: Nehemiah
24. Divrei HaYamim: Chronicles I and II

Jewish scriptures are sometimes bound in a form that corresponds to weekly readings (parshas). Scriptures bound this way are referred to as a Chumash.

In addition we have Oral Torah:

Tradition maintained oral form until the 2d century CE, when oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as Gemara.

The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. There have been additional commentaries on Talmud by noted Jewish scholars Rashi and Rambam.

The Mishnah is divided into 6 sections called. Each contains one or more divisions called masekhtot (tractates). There are 63 masekhtot in the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Talmud engage in quite a bit of free-association, thus widely diverse subjects may be discussed.

 1. Zera'im (Seeds): Agricultural laws
 2. Mo'ed (Festivals): Shabbat and Festivals
 3. Nashim (Women): Marriage, Divorce, Contracts
 4. Nezikin (Damages): Tort and Financial Laws
 5. Kodashim (Holy Things): Sacrifices and the Temple
 6. Toharot (Purities): Laws of Purity/Impurity

 NOTE: Please be aware that there are a lot of anti-semitic websites which love to distort the Talmud.

------

- The Torah is part of the so called Old Testament.
 - Old Testament is a Christian theological statement.

The statement 'Old Testament' is a definition of how Christianity views the Jewish Bible in comparison to the New Testament. Something "old" is not nearly as valuable as something new. It's an insulting implication, since we don't feel the Tanakh is old at all.

- The books seen in the Christian "Old Testament" are there, but they are arranged differently.
- The story of Esther is also included in Writings.
- Certain books are considered 1 book in Tanakh, 2 in the OT (Samuel/Kings/Chronicles/Prophets/Ezra)
- Some Christians use extra books, which are called deuterocanonical (or apocrypha).
- These books are found in early Greek translations but were rejected by the rabbis.
- Jewish publishers use different versification scheme than Christian publishers.

Scriptural Discrepancies:

[Psalm 22:17]
Tanakh: "Hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay"
Means: "They bound me like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet).

Hikifuni = They bound me
Ca = like
Ari = Lion
Yaday = My hands
Ve = And
Raglay = My feet

Christian translation: "They pierced my hands and feet"
Nowhere in the Tanakh do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

[Isaiah 7:14]
Tanakh: "Hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben"
Means: "Behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)".

Hineih = Behold
Ha = The
Almah = Young woman
Harah = Is pregnant
Ve = And
Yoledet = Shall give birth
Ben = To a son

Christian translation: "Behold a virgin shall give birth"

They have made two mistakes in the one verse.
1. The mistranslation of 'ha' as 'a' when it in fact means 'the'
2. The mistranslation of 'almah' as 'virgin'. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'betulah'.

Here is another short example (contradictions like these exist consistently throughout the Tanakh/OT)

[2 Corinthians 3:12‑16] “To this day when Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart. But when a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away...”

It's an intentional mistranslation from a passage in Exodus.

In Chapter 34, we are told when Moses came down from Sinai, his face was beaming with rays of light. This light was so intense that the Jews could not look at him. When Moses stopped speaking to the Jews and finished teaching, he would cover his face with a veil.

Tanakh: [Exodus 34:34] “When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.”
[Christian translation] “And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.”

The Hebrew word for “had finished” is the same as used in [Genesis 2:1] where God "had finished" [vayechulu – וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ] creation.

The authors of these Christian translations, including the King James Bible, have contradicted the original Hebrew and intentionally mistranslated the verse in Exodus to make it consistent with the verse in Corinthians.

Their incorrect version deliberately implies that until Moses was finished speaking to the Jews, he had a veil over his face. Therefore, he transmitted only a veiled understanding of the meaning of his words!

There are other major contradictions and inconsistencies within the translations, but these are a few examples.

Quoting copasetic1:

What? Jews don't follow the bible? What? oh, my head hurts. Your ignorance has given me a headache! Um, have you heard of the old testament? The parts that were written for the Jewish people? What do you you think the Torah is?

 

copasetic1
by Member on Aug. 23, 2013 at 10:32 PM

 Excuse me, where did I even try to "incite" a theological debate with Jews? Where? I commented in very general terms. I never, at any point, said that Jews and Christians followed exactly the same 'rules'. Never. I answered someones post with a very short, very broad comment. I can't possibly comment on "actual beliefs and platforms" when I don't know the specifics. I never claimed to know them. I was not attempting to write a dissertation.

And, again, calling it the "old" testament should not be considered an insult in any way. When that term was coined, to be old was to be wise and respected. If you want to see it as an insult, go ahead. It's your problem.

But I did enjoy the brief explanation of some parts of Judaism. It is interesting in a historical sense, I am not interested in religion, but find history to be fascinating.

 

Quoting collectivecow:

Quoting copasetic1:Jews follow much or even all of the old testament, and a lot more. Christians follow the old and the new testament and, I assume, a lot more. He read many versions of these books, Jewish and Christian, ancient and new, many different translations. How is he directing all this at christians? You miss his point entirely.


It's probably more accurate to say more than the TaNaKh, since a lot of the Talmudic based laws are also barriers to prevent certain commandments from being broken.

For example: The commandment to read a certain amount of Torah a day. This is literally built into part of our prayers, so if we 'forget' the commandment is still observed.

Again, the Old Testament is a Christian theological statement: You're basically talking about Christians when you use the term 'Old Testament' (which is particularly why Jews gloss over comments about the OT).

The translation differences are there.
The OT is geared towards setting up the basis for Christianity.
The TaNaKH doesn't have such a purpose because there is no NT.

If you are going to incite a theological debate with Jews, you use actual beliefs and platforms to do so.

The term 'Old Testament' is not only a Christian theological statement, but can be taken as an insult by Jews if you are referring to them. I'm not trying to argue, but trying to have you understand the differences in thought here. You're calling our Holy Texts Old and Invalid, because something 'old' isn't as important as something 'new'. Something 'old' needs updating.

I understand your point, but you should also see Judaism's point of view when making such statements.

If you can't even note the differences of what we call our books, how can you begin to tell me what's inside of them?

You may know a lot about the OT, but what it does is show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about Judaism. Many people couple Christian and Judaic theology as if they are one. That's not exactly the case.

Make sense?

Just for a primer here: Jews don't believe in the following:

- Original Sin
- The NT
- Christian interpretations of Heaven and Hell
- The Devil as Christianity interprets it
- A Trinitarian Godhead
- The virgin birth of Mary
- Jesus as a Messiah/Savior or Prophet
- The resurrection of Jesus
- That Jesus fulfilled any of the Messianic requirements
- The "Holy Spirit"
- That man can remove sin from another man
- That man can become G-d
- That one has to be Jewish to have a connection with G-d
- Proselytizing (although people can convert if they want to)
- That people who aren't Jewish have to follow the commandments

There are more, I just can't think of them at the moment.

 

collectivecow
by Gold Member on Aug. 23, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Quoting copasetic1: Thank you very much. I like learning more about things. I would quibble with one thing, though - the idea that the first testament is called "Old" as something of an insult. At that time, to be old was very good. Old ways, and old people were highly respected.


Except that this wasn't the case or reasoning at all for the concept of supercessionism. To understand the difference, we have to look at the beginnings of Christianity.

Only a handful of Jews defected from Judaism, which left early Christians with a very big dilemma on their hands. If Christianity was right and Jesus the Savior of the Jewish people: Why didn't Jews simply convert?

It was mind blowing to some, especially Paul. With the lack of converts coming in from Judaism, early Christians decided to broaden their audience opening Christianity for all people, Jewish or not.

In order for early Christianity to have had any real validity however, it needed the Jews to convert en masse to its theology and accept it.

This didn't happen though.
So, the answer became supercessionism.

Meaning, the "OT" had become irrelevant to Christians, while Jesus and the NT became part of a "New" covenant with G-d, deeming Christians as the new "chosen people".

The Jews no longer knew what they were talking about because they didn't accept Christianity: Christianity believes the Messianic requirements were fulfilled with Jesus.

This is commonly referred to as a replacement theology. The implication here was that Jews thought they were special and were wrong. Jews thought the Laws still held and that Jesus was irrelevant, when Christianity believed the opposite.

A lot of hatred became inbred in such teachings and the ideology of early Christians turned into a 2,000 year persecution of Jewish people (everything from burning Jews alive on stakes and in Synagogues, to forced conversos, deaths, inquisitions, pogroms, Deicide, asset removal, blames of the Plague, ghettos and expulsions).

Never mind the fact that Deicide accusations were already blaming Jews for the death of Jesus.

The Romans on the other hand, didn't receive that type of scapegoating or treatment...because well....If you messed with the Romans, they'd destroy you in every way possible and then salt your family's land (salting land makes it unusable for years) as pay back.

The pain and death that was meted out was partly due to concepts like supercessionism and Deicide. It was seen as a method of converting Jews in some cases, or 'returning punishment' in others.

Yet 2,000 years later, the majority of Jews stayed Jewish.

So in this specific case: Old was never originally intended to portray wisdom, knowledge and experience. It was meant to portray otherwise.

Make sense?
collectivecow
by Gold Member on Aug. 23, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Quoting copasetic1:Excuse me, where did I even try to "incite" a theological debate with Jews? Where? I commented in very general terms. I never, at any point, said that Jews and Christians followed exactly the same 'rules'. Never. I answered someones post with a very short, very broad comment. I can't possibly comment on "actual beliefs and platforms" when I don't know the specifics. I never claimed to know them. I was not attempting to write a dissertation.

And, again, calling it the "old" testament should not be considered an insult in any way. When that term was coined, to be old was to be wise and respected. If you want to see it as an insult, go ahead. It's your problem.

But I did enjoy the brief explanation of some parts of Judaism. It is interesting in a historical sense, I am not interested in religion, but find history to be fascinating.


I think you misunderstood the nature of my comment. When I say debate, I am not referring to the atypical CM argument that people tend to coin as debating.

I am referring to the more academic definition of the word: Friendly banter, with intellectual discussion and good citation if you will.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)