Posted on 04/21/2014 4:54:57 PM PDT by Jandy on Genesis
Misunderstanding can result from the mechanical reproduction of previously published ideas either because those ideas are taken out of context or because they are based on factual errors. The way authors sort and select data, without verifying the source or checking the facts, leads to distorted interpretations. This problem must be anticipated in Bible interpretation where it is common to rely on what the rabbis have written.
As the Bible is viewed as a Jewish religious text, it is natural to seek rabbinic guidance. Christians tend to read the Old Testament through rabbinic sources. Many pastors use commentaries written by Christ-rejecting Jews. This is especially true among American Evangelicals. They appear to be unaware of the antecedents of Messianic expectation among Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors. They are generally unaware that Hebrew is an African Language.
Rabbinic interpretations have influenced how Christians read the Old Testament from the beginning of the Church. Some early Christians agreed with the rabbis' interpretations, but often they did not. The Church Fathers condemned Jewish attempts to discredit the testimony of the Apostles and many others. They also attempted, some more successfully than others, to refute rabbinic interpretations of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and rabbinic interpretations of Messianic passages, such as Psalm 101:1
The Lord says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
And Psalm 110:4. The Rabbinic community has made many inflammatory accusations against the Christian interpretation of this verse.
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
Some rabbis insist that Christians tampered with the passage. One contemporary Rabbi has written: “Psalm 110 represents one of the New Testaments’s most stunning, yet clever mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures...”
(Excerpt) Read more at biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com ...
Wrong.
Have you ever posted anything other that that written by Alice Linsely?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:jandyongenesis/index?tab=articles
Sure looks like you are just promoting yourself like a scumbag blogpimp.
Any thoughts on that?
I would trust the ancient ones before I would trust a news reporter.
The old timers have much more knowledge of the context and ancient meanings behind the words. We can only guess because we do not live like the old ones.
Scumbag?
Really now.
*************************************
Probably because this statement is a gross error.
Perhaps you might consider reading even the excerpt, if not the article.
Let's ask Helen Thomas. She may be from that time.
Look at the article history:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:jandyongenesis/index?tab=articles
This critter is only here to promote itself and gain blog hits.
Hebrew originated in the area now known as the Congo and was transferred to the Hebrew tribes through contact with Black Egyptian traders riding gliders into the desert sometime around 4000 BC. Originally, the Hebrew tribes spoke a dialect of Estonian but they had little use or understanding of some words like 'ice', 'snow' and 'refrigerator', so they dumped the Estonian and took up this funny language that you read from right to left.
LOL!
2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do you want any group making that decision for you?
Given how the King James version mistranslates Thou shalt not kill, why not.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!
Luke 13:34
Yeah!
Everybody knows the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, Jehovah Witnesses, Joseph Smith, Michael Rood, and Joel Osteen, all have much more inspired and reasonable interpretations of the Bible than those goofy rabbis who have only 3000 years of learning!
Um, no.
Protestant Christians might tend to do that. We Orthodox (and the Latins and the Copts and the Armenians and the Assyrians) read the whole of the Scriptures, of the both Old and New Testaments through the light of Christian Holy Tradition, which is often very much at odds with rabbinic sources. The Old Testament is seen as pointing to Christ, and all matters which require interpretation are approached in that manner. Rabbinic Judaism essentially defines itself in contradistinction to Christianity (for example, the one passage in the Jewish canon which is never read in synagogue is the "Suffering Servant" passage in Isaiah).
The Holy Apostles dealt with a judaizing heresy involving earthly food and drink. Preferring the interpretations of Christ-denying rabbis to those of the Fathers of the Church is a judaizing heresy involving the spiritual nourishment of the Holy Scriptures.
Incorrect premise....it is not the Bible which is considered a Jewish religious text....that only applies to the Old Testament. The New Testament is a Christian religious document.
I don’t bother reading further when the premise is misplace. It guarantees false conclusions
Would like to see a citation on this piece of so called evidence
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.