Are Rabbinic Interpretations of the Bible Accurate?

Biblical Anthropology ^ | April 19, 2014 | Alice C. Linsley

[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...”

[Verginius Rufus]

The favored term now for the language family which includes Hebrew and the other Semitic languages is "Afro-Asiatic." Some of the languages are indigenous to western Asia, others to northern and eastern Africa. There are five branches to the Afro-Asiatic language family: Semitic, Berber, Cushitic, Egyptian, and Chadic. Egyptian survives only in the form of Coptic (used in the Coptic Church the way Latin used to be used in the Catholic Church, but no longer used in daily life as a first language).

I don't know if there is any way to determine if the proto-language from which the later languages descend was spoken in Asia or Africa. The late Martin Bernal thought they started in Africa because there is a greater diversity of them on that continent.

As to Hebrew, after it developed as a language, being African, that would apply only to the time when the Children of Israel lived in Egypt.

[Nifster]

"Biblical Hebrew (Hebrew: עִבְרִית מִקְרָאִית), also called Classical Hebrew (Hebrew: עִבְרִית קְלַסִית‎), is the archaic form of the Hebrew language, a Canaanite Semitic language spoken in the area known as Canaan, roughly west of the Jordan River and east of the Mediterranean Sea. Biblical Hebrew is attested from about the 10th century BCE, and persisted through the Second Temple period (ending in 70 CE). Biblical Hebrew eventually developed into Mishnaic Hebrew, which was spoken until the 2nd century CE. Biblical Hebrew is best-attested in the Hebrew Bible, a document which reflects various stages of the Hebrew language in its consonantal skeleton, as well as a vocalic system which was added later, in the Middle Ages. There is also some evidence of regional dialectal variation, including differences between Biblical Hebrew as spoken in the northern Kingdom of Israel and in the southern Kingdom of Judah." This is what is commonly known

[Nifster]

What????

[hinckley buzzard]

The history of scripture has been explored in prodigious depth by real scholars for centuries, and amateur bloggers like this pisky ex-priestess should not be trying it at home.

[hinckley buzzard]

Makes as much sense as the idiot blogger does.

[hinckley buzzard]

There was never then and is not now any semblance of consensus among rabbis. Anyone can cherry pick a quote that agrees with their premise, if they are not too scrupulous, even among the ancient sources.

[hinckley buzzard]

Given how the King James version mistranslates Thou shalt not kill, why not.

Because everyone understands that the KJV is poetry, not translation.

[17th Miss Regt]

My post # 12 was not intended to be taken seriously.

[Nifster]

Okay. Sorry my brain apparently isn’t registering properly this evening..... I was trying to make sense of it and was confused.....(but then I find myself in that state all too often these days)

[shibumi]

Kernel of Truth are like the Nuts of a Blind Squirrel.
The having of them is tasting the fruitiness of perdition and false sources.

Although it is true that Ancient Hebrew was developed through the efforts of Apostle of Eris Dr. Van Mojo (Patron Saint of the Season of Discord)

But though he be African Hebrew is not only more like unto itself A Sacred Chao brought to the Middle East by Hung Mung, A Sage of Ancient China and Official Discordian Missionary to the Heathen Chinee.

Hebrew was then widely diasporated by Malaclypse the Elder

During the Mediterranean Walk-About Era.

But in the modernness of today, thorough understanding of Hebrew can only be appreciated completely when viewed (and heard) through the seeings of Zarathud the Incorrigible.

Zarathud expoundiates completely in his commandments (also known as the Several Strong Urges) to which he can be seen pointilliating above.

But Hebrew definitely did not emitiate itself from Africa.

[Salamander]

Wow...gonna be one of *those* nights, eh?

To Eris human.

[Salamander]

I think it’s more correctly “Thou shalt do no murder” which is different from killing in war, etc.

[Slings and Arrows]

All hail Discordia. Or maybe Dat Cordia.

[PA Engineer]

Any thoughst on that?

I agree with you here. Thanks for digging.

[shibumi]

The meds just kicked in.

[shibumi]

"I agree with you here. Thanks for digging."

Pardon my usurpinations, but I think Gunner might be catching a wink or two.

So on his behalf (Or his bewhole) let me just say .....

[nonsporting]

No. Rabbinic interpretations are not accurate. The Bible makes it clear that it is impossible for them to accurately reflect the scriptures. These men are unsaved and do not have the mind of Christ.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

Their interpretations are not simply uninformed. They are deceptive. Again, the Bible makes this clear.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denierh the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (1 John 2:22,23

[Salamander]

;D

[Salamander]

You don’t say!

[jjotto]

They were never accurate? Or were they only accurate until Jesus came?