Results 561 - 568 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
561 | Sources? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137708 | ||
I am hunting down the sources for the idiom (can't locate them when you need them...) In the mean time, you can read, "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard. Also, "Our Father Abraham: Jewish roots of the Christian Faith", by Marvin Wilson. Both books show how modern scholars agree that the first century Jews spoke Hebrew as their main language and not Arabic or Greek (or Latin). The ISBNs are: 1-56043-550-X and 0-8028-0423-3 respectively. I apologize for not having the source for the Idiom readily available, but both these authors make the same argument for this verse as I have. I will get that source a.s.a.p. |
||||||
562 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137682 | ||
Absolutly NONE! Thank God for that, heh? | ||||||
563 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137681 | ||
I hate to disappoint, but they spoke Hebrew. It is hardly even disputed anymore. If you wish I can point to some sources making that point so I need not plagiarize here (against the rules.) Besides, it is far off the topic of Matt 5:17. Also, I will concede that the text may very well have been originally written in Greek, but that is not my personal belief. That being said, it hardly matters since they did speak Hebrew as commoners in 1st Century Judea and particularly in the Galilee (Galil). The history of the Septuagint explains why they translated that into Greek and it had nothing to do with the Jews in Palestine. In fact, it had little to do with the Jews (Hebrews) wanting it done. It was a Greek book enthusiast who desired to have them in his library at Alexandria. You can read Josephus for the whole story which is very VERY fascinating. |
||||||
564 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137664 | ||
Mathew wrote in Hebrew – Let’s get this back into context. The text is Matt. 5:17 and my original interpretation was as follows: This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." An argument came that Matthew wrote in Greek and therefore my interpretation was not valid. In response to this I made 2 points: 1) The common Jewish people of Jesus day spoke Hebrew and therefore regardless of what language Matthew wrote in, the interpretation still stands. This idiom (Matt 5:17) was used often in the 1st century, and those living then would have understood it as such. I used extra Biblical sources to make my point because they paint a good picture of history and culture during that time. I also used archeology. 2) Matthew was writing to Jews and would have used their language; Every church father for 400 years after Jesus said Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Jerome said the Hebrew version was still extant at the library of Caesarea (which is a bold thing to say if it isn’t true since his reader(s) would have been able to easily check.). Your comment does not address my comments at all. The fact remains that Jesus spoke in Hebrew. I attest that all of our manuscripts are in Greek. But to assume that one should neglect to study the Hebrew culture of the 1st century is dangerous to accurate scriptural interpretation. Most Evangelicals (and others) agree that you must first attempt to know what the original hearers understood in order to grasp the texts full meaning. Getting back to the verse--when one understands the Hebrew culture of the first century and their idioms, this text is much easier to understand. One more point about Hebrew culture and extra Biblical writings. Jesus often is addressing these very things when he speaks. There were 8 great debates in his time and he addresses every one of them. We can know what many of Jesus contemporaries thought because of extra Biblical evidence. Who are the Sadducees, Pharisees (more than one type), Essences, and Zealots? The Bible is largely quiet on this, but for centuries we knew the answer because Bible commentators used extra Biblical information to paint a better picture of the historical/cultural times. |
||||||
565 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137663 | ||
Point well taken. (I will check out Daniel Wallace's piece) And as I stated I offered to concede that point (that Matthew wrote in Greek) in order to focus more on the interpretation of the text at hand because it had little bearing. "The original hearers of Jesus spoke Hebrew" is an important point to make; however, and if that is not an argument, and if you agree that, "Matthew is written with several Hebrew idioms." then you would have to agree that this would be one of them. After all, it is a word for word Greek translation of that particular Hebrew idiom and it fits the context. Your thoughts? Below is the original interpretation to keep this in context: The text is Matt. 5:17 and my original interpretation was as follows: This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." |
||||||
566 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137627 | ||
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, not Greek . . . but before we get into that statement; thanks for the reply. Honestly, I did not expect a reply, and to have one so soon was a real joy. Nothing excites me more than studying scripture, and the greatest moments are when I learn something new, or learn that I was wrong about something. That being said, let me explain why my original post was both correct, and that Hebrew, not Greek, was the predominate language in Jesus time and therefore any interpretation of Jesus words must be seen in the Hebrew language (and idioms), the 1st century Hebrew culture, and the 1st century interpretations of the Tanak and Torah (the Old Testament). Many scholars who study the 1st century languages now believe that Hebrew was the common language for both the Rabbis and the common people. (Josephus says so; only Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were found in Temple Mount excavations – no Aramaic; the Mishnah and other rabbinic works are in Hebrew; and the grand daddy of them all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Hebrew, including commoner scrolls.) Also, every single early church father who mentions language, says that Matthew was written in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek: Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome (the most learned in the Hebrew Language and who translated the Vulgate) even says that the Hebrew original of Matthew was “still preserved in the library at Caesarea.” Then there are the evidences in the Greek text itself, but that might get too winded for our discussion here at this time. Regardless of what language Matthew wrote in; however, he was quoting Jesus, who certainly spoke in Hebrew, particularly on this occasion being in the Galilee, and speaking to his disciples (not just the 12 closest). Hebrew is full of Idioms of which this particular text is only one. To make my point, allow me to stray over to Matthew 6:22-23. Jesus talks about a “good eye.” “If your eye is good, your whole body if full of light…” What does this mean? In Greek, it means virtually nothing. In English, it means virtually nothing. But in Hebrew is means a lot. This is a Hebrew idiom not unlike an English idiom, “The cat’s got his tongue.” We know this means, “He can’t talk.” But in any other language it is crazy talk. Here the Hebrew idiom is: Good Eye -is- Generous; Bad Eye -is- Miserly. Now re-read that passage in context. It does make sense now. Back to our present passage: Jesus was either answering a direct attack, or an assumed attack, or answering an attack He knew would be forthcoming, on His interpretations of scripture. When you understand the Hebrew idiom as I stated in my first post, this whole passage in context makes sense and also fits perfectly into the rest of the scriptures. Jesus’ very next words are: “not so much as a ‘yod’ or a tittle will pass away from the [Torah]”. (yod being the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the tittle being the smallest mark made on the Yod.) There is not much more I can say concerning this since your reply did not give an alternate interpretation. I have addressed the language issue and I think gave a good refutation as to why Hebrew is the key to understanding this and many of Jesus teachings. I truly look forward to a further discussion should you also desire this. A good book on this whole subject is, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective” by David Bivin, and Roy Blizzard Jr. ISBN: 1-56043-550-X |
||||||
567 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137495 | ||
This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." In other words, if I were to do an essay for a Jewish professor on a passage of scripture he might respond to my essay by saying, "Marvin, you must re-write this paper. You are abolishing the scripture." "How," I might ask. "Because," he would reply, "If we do what your essay says, we would be disobeying God. Now go and fulfill this scripture. (by rewriting your essay is a way that would help people obey God.)" Jesus "spoke as one with authority" and "not as their Torah teachers (teacher's of the law)." Matthew 7:29 (said at the end of the sermon.) In other words, Jesus was giving new interpretation, and he says at the beginning that "I do not misinterpret (abolish), but rather I interpret correctly (fulfill)." The next verse days, “… until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the [Torah] ….” This verse alone contradicts many teachings about the abolish/fulfill statement before it. You can check the accuracy of this Jewish language used in the first century by contacting your local rabbi, or doing the study into original sources. |
||||||
568 | Does Mark 7:19 contradict Acts 15:29? | Mark 7:19 | MJH | 137491 | ||
I (MJH) wrote concerning this, but opted to use the following source instead, since they stated the case best. I believe that this is the best possible interprtation of this text as you may or may not agree: Taken from: http://www.jesusisajew.org/Short/MK7V19.htm At the end of Mark 7:19 most Bible translations say, "Thus He declared all foods clean." So its pretty clear that Yeshua ("Jesus") changed the old food regulations in Leviticus 11, and its ok to eat pork, shellfish, or whatever we want, right? The most important clue for understanding any passage in the Bible is to check the context. In this case, its given in Mark 7:1-5 where Yeshua is asked, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the Tradition of the Elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" (v.5). Notice two things: first, the question isn't about the Torah ("Law"), but about a tradition. Second, its not a question about what may be eaten. It's about whether one may eat at all without a ritual handwashing. That explains why Yeshua responded by saying, "Neglecting the Commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men," (v.8) and, "You have a fine way of setting aside the Commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" (v.9). So then, could verses 18-19 have Yeshua setting aside a commandment of God when up until that point He had been criticizing the Pharisees for that very thing (v. 8,9,13)? And could verses 18-19 have Yeshua talking about a commandment at all, when up until that point His subject had been a "Tradition of the Elders" (v. 3,4,5,8,9,13)? Lastly, could verses 18-19 suddenly be about food when up until that point the subject had been ritual handwashing (v. 2,3,4,5)? Obviously, no. This is made even clearer by comparing the same discussion as reported by Matthew (15:1-20). Yeshua concludes by saying, "but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." Because the subject of Mark 7:1-19 isn't Kashrut (Biblical diet), it cannot be about abolishing Kashrut either. Ok, but why do so many translations* seem to say that it is? Again consider the context, but in this case the social context. This discussion took place in a social and historical context different than our own. Language and practice were based on the Word of God. For instance, their holidays were those days set apart in the Bible for special observance, not ours. Their property rights were those of the Bible, not ours. Likewise, only those things that are not taw-may ("defiled", "unclean") were considered food, everything else was not. Reading Mark 7:19 as they would have, it means, "Thus He declared all things given by God as food to be clean, regardless of ritual hand washing." *Although there are many minor textual differences between source documents of the New Covenant, it is very rare that a variance significantly affects meaning. Mark 7:18-19 is one of these rare passages. The difference of a single letter (Omicron or Omega) determines gender for the word "purging, making clean" near the end of v.19 (katharizon). Most translators believe that this word must attach to a subject, while some do not. For those who do, if the word's gender is neuter (written with the Omicron), it attaches to "stomach," and is speaking of the digestive process. (See the King James Version, for instance.) But for translators who believe the word's gender is masculine (written with the Omega), it must look all the way back to the "He" (Yeshua) at the beginning of verse 18 for its masculine subject. For the sake of clarity, these translators insert a phrase that never appears in the Greek: "Thus He declared." Regardless of which manuscripts and translations are correct, this article attempts to show that Mark 7:1-19 is not an instance of Divine self-correction, by assuming the most difficult case, "Thus He declared all foods clean." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] |