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...”

[Nifster]

Now that there is just plain funny

[Nifster]

You complaint comes from the changing times not the manner in which the scholars translated it. Read about the men who undertook the task before you discard with contempt

[Verginius Rufus]

The Septuagnt translation has ou phoneuseis.

Phoneuo is translated as "to murder, slay, kill, commit murder, put to death."

So either "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" are acceptable renditions.

[1010RD]

I have a serious question for this thread: Do Rabbis claim divine inspiration for their interpretations of scripture or do they just logic it out?

[jjotto]

... Do Rabbis claim divine inspiration for their interpretations of scripture or do they just logic it out?

The meaning of Scripture is conveyed by learning from master to student going back to Moses. It is believed that Divine Inspiration vouchsafes faithful transmission, but merely claiming Divine Inspiration gets one nowhere among knowledgeable religious Jews. Quite the opposite. Sharp logic may be honored and have applications in Jewish law, but really doesn't determine interpretation of Scripture except in a general way. Tradition determines the meaning of Scripture.

[otness_e]

“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...””

Did we mistranslate that scripture? Or was that contemporary Rabbi doing the Jewish equivalent of Taqqiya regarding that scripture. The Talmud advocates for a similar concept towards non-Talmudic Jews, after all.

Anyways, considering at least one passage in the Talmud indicated they were to toss out the bible (in this case, the Old Testament, or the Torah if you will), I don’t think Rabbinic interpretations are anywhere CLOSE to that of the Bible anyways. Besides, one passage in particular that they wrote, “Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” Babylonic Talmud Bava Metzia 59b, was downright disrespectful towards God the Father, making him a weak stupid individual who got bested in a debate by mortals and then restrained to such an extent that he, to be blunt, most likely can’t even pee unless the Rabbis allow for it via majority vote. Seriously, that kind of passage makes the Talmud even WORSE than the Quran. At least the Quran actually WAS respectful to its god.

Besides, Korah had the same idea that Bava Metzia 59b pushed during Exodus. Want to know what happened to him and his followers? They got incinerated by God in pure rage over adhering to Democracy over Himself, then inflicted the remaining survivors with a plague until they cried “uncle.” Oh, and for the record, it’s God’s treatment of Korah and his followers that make me absolutely certain he did in fact want a human king despite what he told the Israelites (if he truly didn’t want a human king, all those Israelites who demanded for one would have met the same fate as Korah and his followers in response).