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.
*************************************
Probably because this statement is a gross error.
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
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
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
“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).