Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Sakhaiva on Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm

The purpose of this thread is to compare/contrast the official Tanakh with the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. A little background: the name "Tanakh" is an acronym of the Torah, Tebi'im and Ketuvim (Law, Prophets & Writings.) The Tanakh is also known as the "Hebrew Bible" or the "Jewish Bible"

Background reading, for those interested Smile I offer up the following links:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/jpstoc.html (an AICE link)

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/ (About the Septuagint; the Greek translation of Hebrew texts.)

http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Genesis/1 Septuagint in orig Greek

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/index.html English translation of the Septuagint

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm The complete Tanach with English translation.

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Research%20History%20and%20Great%20Links/Hebrew_Jewish_%20and_Christian_%20Bibles.htm Comparison chart showing variations.


Succinctly put, my opinion is that the Tanakh is extremely close to being *the same as* the Old Testament; the only differences I have noted are the order of the books and minor issues which do not alter the meanings of the texts. Case in point, if one reads the translated Septuagint, and reads the translated Tanach.... it looks the same.

But what do you guys think? Are there significant differences? How does 'changing the order' affect the meanings? If so, what?

Peace!






avatar
Sakhaiva

Posts : 737
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Sunny California

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:41 pm

I disagree a bit with you, Sakhaiva, that the meanings are pretty much the same. But then again, I may be wrong about that as you'll see when I explain further.

Was just discussing that very issue with my FIL this morning. Naturally, being Jewish and quite serious about his faith, he would say that the OT is similar in many respects but has some significant mistranslations that change the meaning of the original manuscripts. He didn't say just what but mentioned that he'd been involved in an intensive Torah study group once, and the rabbi mentioned that one big problem Christians have is that they believe their OT to be the same as the Tanakh when there are numerous problems with it.

Now, I don't know for sure how long ago that was, so possibly the newer, often corrected Christian Bible translations have eliminated many of those problems. Needless to say, my FIL would be unlikely to know, and I've not done a detailed comparison lately.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:37 pm

its more complicated than that
the Christian OT is a translation of the Masoretic Hebrew; but the scripture available to the NT authors was the Greek Septuagint not the Hebrew
so interpretations based on the Greek win when there are differences between them

the DSS reveal that the Hebrew and Greek meanings were still close circa first century
as a survival mechanism and reaction to Christianity-Judaism began to withdraw within-while reacting to Christian interpretations of their scriptures so that first through the Talmud and secondly through the Masoretic definitions-scriptures became tightly defined so that in some cases they no longer resembled each other

`almah becomes redefined as young woman and jno loner also carries the connotation of virgin

the suffering servant of Isaiah becomes Israel and is no longer a messianic figure-just two obvious examples
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:47 pm

Sakhaiva wrote:http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Research%20History%20and%20Great%20Links/Hebrew_Jewish_%20and_Christian_%20Bibles.htm[/url] Comparison chart showing variations.

Well, I'm still Catholic enough at the core to think that if Prof. Felix Just, a Jesuit, says that the primary differences between Jewish and Christian Bibles lie in some books being excluded and the order being different, then he must be absolutely correct. Wink

Seriously for a moment, the Jesuits have a longstanding and well-deserved reputation for knowing what they're talking about. A cousin of mine graduated from a Jesuit university and said he couldn't complain about the rigor of his course of study other than to say he was hardpressed to succeed in various classes, especially the basic theology ones.

Now that I think about it, the bulk of my comparing the two Bibles was done with my favorite version, the RSV. It's ooooolllld as translations go these days, so I expect that newer versions are rather better. I'd have to look at my RSV to see if it is identified as a corrected newer edition. Not sure, so it's unfair of me to speak as if I know with any degree of certainty that there are notable differences in meaning in updated, corrected editions.

Prof. Just says that current Christian OT versions are taken from the Hebrew Bible, so that should eliminate major discrepancies of meaning right there, barring a few human errors, of course.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Sakhaiva on Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:04 pm

DaveLaw, just to clarify, the Masoretic texts don't come into play until around 1000 ad.

It's my understanding that the Septuagint predates the MT, being written about 250 bc, to meet the needs of the Jews living in Alexandria at the time (ie, Greek speaking folks).




avatar
Sakhaiva

Posts : 737
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Sunny California

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Sakhaiva on Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:45 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:Well, I'm still Catholic enough at the core to think that if Prof. Felix Just, a Jesuit, says that the primary differences between Jewish and Christian Bibles lie in some books being excluded and the order being different, then he must be absolutely correct. Wink

I've never been one to argue with a Jesuit! Peep Wall (I like his thinking on the matter DOT.)

Now that I think about it, the bulk of my comparing the two Bibles was done with my favorite version, the RSV. It's ooooolllld as translations go these days, so I expect that newer versions are rather better. I'd have to look at my RSV to see if it is identified as a corrected newer edition. Not sure, so it's unfair of me to speak as if I know with any degree of certainty that there are notable differences in meaning in updated, corrected editions.

Prof. Just says that current Christian OT versions are taken from the Hebrew Bible, so that should eliminate major discrepancies of meaning right there, barring a few human errors, of course.

Depends upon the translation I suppose; each denomination seems to have it's own little bent on things. Lutherans have been in the habit of using the RSV. The new Lutheran Study Bible, however, is ESV which is an updated RSV:

When necessary to translate difficult passages, the translators referred to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (as found in the second edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), to the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of the Greek New Testament, and to the twenty-seventh edition of Nestle and Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece. In a few exceptionally difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text.

avatar
Sakhaiva

Posts : 737
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Sunny California

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:35 am

Sakhaiva wrote:DaveLaw, just to clarify, the Masoretic texts don't come into play until around 1000 ad.

It's my understanding that the Septuagint predates the MT, being written about 250 bc, to meet the needs of the Jews living in Alexandria at the time (ie, Greek speaking folks).



thats true; but all current translations are based on the Masoretic except where the interpretation disagrees with the Septuagint
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:27 am

Of course, as my FIL pointed out when we chatted about versions and translations yesterday, it's simply impossible to translate precisely from one language to another and have a reasonable expectation of capturing nuances of meaning that can only be conveyed in the original language.

There's much of the Tanakh and the OT that we undoubtedly completely miss or grossly misinterpret because we haven't any idea how people would have understood them when these ancient texts were first written down.

These are reasons why I have much difficulty comprehending how some can perceive the texts as God's Word, pure and unadulterated. While I'm familiar with the belief that God inspires accuracy in the translators as He did in the original scribes, so many errors have been corrected over the centuries that I have significant doubts that this can be true. But then, I'm a diehard skeptic which probably is rightly held in disdain by those who believe.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:20 am

not disdain; a true fundamentalist is first cousin to a skeptic

all our miracles are conveniently in the past-and we are skeptics to all the new fangled stuff like science, and literary criticism
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:35 pm

Gonna hafta burst your bubble a bit, Dave. Treatises on literary criticism date back to the classical Romans and probably to the Greeks as well. Perhaps further still.

I grant you that it wasn't until about the 19th century that lit crits got to be boringly pedantic and full of themselves besides.

However, Petrarchus I think it was, waxed eloquent in that vein at times.

I can certainly testify that grad level coursework in literary criticism will rot your brain faster than any other classes. Lit crit proved a large part of the reason why I decided an MA in English was NOT going to be mine.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Sakhaiva on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:26 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:There's much of the Tanakh and the OT that we undoubtedly completely miss or grossly misinterpret because we haven't any idea how people would have understood them when these ancient texts were first written down.

These are reasons why I have much difficulty comprehending how some can perceive the texts as God's Word, pure and unadulterated. While I'm familiar with the belief that God inspires accuracy in the translators as He did in the original scribes, so many errors have been corrected over the centuries that I have significant doubts that this can be true. But then, I'm a diehard skeptic which probably is rightly held in disdain by those who believe.

Add to this man's ability to tease out certain points and go unnecessarily overboard (yes, Calvin, I'm talkin to you) and what we have the potential for a really a big mess. Regarding this issue, I really like the Lutheran perspective, that the truth is found in the Bible in the way that a baby is found in the crib (note, the baby is not the crib.)

You know, the words of an Indian man I chatted with keep coming to mind; while getting ready to head up to the Hanuman temple together, he was musing about our attempt to understand what can never be understood (by way of statues, traditions & stories etc). We barely know our own selves; how do we supose to figure out the building blocks of Universal creation? This is a Christian perspective to, if we read the words of Paul.... and not every Christian is going to admit that, lol!

Of course, I'm not sure if this is a proper Judaic perspective. Wink

DOT, do you think that, in Judaism, the "meat" is found not in understanding the various translations correctly in as much as understanding a specific translation through the lens of one's tradition? IOW, does tradition matter more than textual research?

BTW:
I can certainly testify that grad level coursework in literary criticism will rot your brain faster than any other classes.
So true! LMAO!
avatar
Sakhaiva

Posts : 737
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Sunny California

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:21 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:Gonna hafta burst your bubble a bit, Dave. Treatises on literary criticism date back to the classical Romans and probably to the Greeks as well. Perhaps further still.

I grant you that it wasn't until about the 19th century that lit crits got to be boringly pedantic and full of themselves besides.

However, Petrarchus I think it was, waxed eloquent in that vein at times.

I can certainly testify that grad level coursework in literary criticism will rot your brain faster than any other classes. Lit crit proved a large part of the reason why I decided an MA in English was NOT going to be mine.

they were new-fangled back then as well. doesn't burst my bubble at all
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:25 pm

Sakhaiva wrote:

DOT, do you think that, in Judaism, the "meat" is found not in understanding the various translations correctly in as much as understanding a specific translation through the lens of one's tradition? IOW, does tradition matter more than textual research?

at least according to Tevye
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:54 am

Sakhaiva wrote:We barely know our own selves; how do we supose to figure out the building blocks of Universal creation? This is a Christian perspective to, if we read the words of Paul.... and not every Christian is going to admit that, lol!

Of course, I'm not sure if this is a proper Judaic perspective. Wink

Oh, yes, Sakhaiva, and that's one major reason why Jewish men for centuries have gathered to discuss, often heatedly, how this or that Torah portion is to be understood.

It's crucial within Judaism to understand the books that contain the dictates of the law in particular. Those, of course, are pretty straightforward. But animated if not quite heated discussion of just what some commentator on Torah actually meant and was he right in his interpretation of the passage to which he referred is tradition topping most other tradition.

That what your Indian gentleman said is true also explains, I feel, why so many Jews will tell you that doing one's duty as specified by G-d in the law is challenging enough without bothering oneself about what some Torah passage or other really meant or ought to mean to us today.

DOT, do you think that, in Judaism, the "meat"s, is found not in understanding the various translations correctly in as much as understanding a specific translation through the lens of one's tradition? IOW, does tradition matter more than textual research?

Actually, I don't know that Jews have the concern that Christians do about which translation may be better than which since as far as I know, there's only the one authorized translation of the Tanakh, that of the Jewish Publication Society which I mentioned previously. Now, variations in translations may be more of a conundrum with the commentators on Torah since those aren't scripture. Interesting question. I'm not sure about that and will ask my in-laws next time I chat with one of them.

As for Dave's remark about Tevye, his brandishing one fist skyward and berating God is SO very Jewish. Jews will argue with each other about Torah and proper observance of various traditions at the drop of a hat, and arguing with God is regarded pretty similarly. God is seen as the person's good friend, big enough to take some human disgruntlement, so unlike the bulk of Christians who feel it blasphemous to question or doubt God, a Jew won't hesitate to ask, "Do You truly think I deserve all this turmoil in my life? How am I so bad as to need all this strife and discord? Eh, Hashem? Tell me that."
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:03 am

I really appreciate being somewhere that I don't have to go back and explain every little reference I make.
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:18 am

Hangin' out with smaaahhht people makes it easy, eh, Dave? Razz

Ultimately, I'd enjoy our getting into something Bart Ehrman-ish, maybe why it is he's turned agnostic after a fundamentalist education at Moody, I think it was. While his book explaining why he feels agnosticism is the only rational attitude toward the Christian story is repetitious and rather boring, I thought, he does explain in detail why he simply cannot believe any of it actually happened.

Or his book Lost Christianities about the many variations in beliefs among the earliest sects is fascinating reading, IMO.

Personally, the whole story of Jesus and many of the other familiar Bible stories (those typically collected for children) seem to me more useful as metaphors for hope and inspiration. Like Ehrman, I just don't see how anyone can believe that the virgin birth or resurrection really did occur, for example, particularly when there are so many contradictions between the Gospel accounts about the latter event.

Unlike many non-believers, I don't advocate tossing out the baby. I think as John Spong maintains, the Christian mythology can be quite meaningful and useful taken somewhat less literally. After all, much of so-called Western culture is permeated with biblical bits, so it's still vital to know at least those familiar stories.

avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Sakhaiva on Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:30 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:As for Dave's remark about Tevye, his brandishing one fist skyward and berating God is SO very Jewish. Jews will argue with each other about Torah and proper observance of various traditions at the drop of a hat, and arguing with God is regarded pretty similarly. God is seen as the person's good friend, big enough to take some human disgruntlement, so unlike the bulk of Christians who feel it blasphemous to question or doubt God, a Jew won't hesitate to ask, "Do You truly think I deserve all this turmoil in my life? How am I so bad as to need all this strife and discord? Eh, Hashem? Tell me that."

Davelaw wrote:I really appreciate being somewhere that I don't have to go back and explain every little reference I make.

DotNotInOz wrote:Hangin' out with smaaahhht people makes it easy, eh, Dave? Razz

Indeed! Makes for honest conversation, too.

DOT, I have to echo what you stated; I really believe that it's good to wrestle with ideas and it pains me that - not all, but certainly many - Christian folk take offense and/or come back with a pre-scripted answer. (The 'causing dissention' script specifically gets to me.)

Ultimately, I'd enjoy our getting into something Bart Ehrman-ish, maybe why it is he's turned agnostic after a fundamentalist education at Moody, I think it was. While his book explaining why he feels agnosticism is the only rational attitude toward the Christian story is repetitious and rather boring, I thought, he does explain in detail why he simply cannot believe any of it actually happened.

Or his book Lost Christianities about the many variations in beliefs among the earliest sects is fascinating reading, IMO.

Personally, the whole story of Jesus and many of the other familiar Bible stories (those typically collected for children) seem to me more useful as metaphors for hope and inspiration. Like Ehrman, I just don't see how anyone can believe that the virgin birth or resurrection really did occur, for example, particularly when there are so many contradictions between the Gospel accounts about the latter event.

Unlike many non-believers, I don't advocate tossing out the baby. I think as John Spong maintains, the Christian mythology can be quite meaningful and useful taken somewhat less literally. After all, much of so-called Western culture is permeated with biblical bits, so it's still vital to know at least those familiar stories.


You really, for me, hit the nail on the head DOT.

I've seen Ehrman's name pop up a few times in various threads... I'm curious enough to read more about the guy.
avatar
Sakhaiva

Posts : 737
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Sunny California

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:23 pm

I've found either Lost Christianities or Misquoting Jesus the most intriguing of his works, Sakhaiva. I think I've read nearly all his books for the general reader.

Misquoting Jesus might be especially interesting for the three of us (hmmmm....must be some significance in that number, eh? Wink ) to read and then discuss. Rats! And I donated my copy of it to the UU church where I was librarian before we moved to St. Looey. Oh, well...easily acquired from the public library, I'm sure, and I wouldn't mind revisiting it.

Ehrman spells out the process by which the canonical books came to be and then talks in fascinating detail about how biblical scholars determine which scribal errors were likely honest mistakes and which were deliberate efforts to alter the meaning of a passage to support dogma. Makes for some highly intriguing reading if you're at all interested in how we got the Christian Bible we have today.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:35 pm

Oh, and I meant to add before the cutoff that I've also got a detailed book on the history of the various versions of the Bible in English by...daggonit, can't recall the author. Anyway, he's a fundamentalist which makes for an interesting counterpoint to Ehrman.

I've really GOT to get this second set of bookshelves put together so I've somewhere to shelve my non-fiction books! It's been sitting patiently in its box since late November when I found out cancer had other plans for how I was going to structure my time until midsummer. Eh, well...could have been a WHOLE lot worse than it turned out to be, a time-consuming but relatively minor blip on my health radar.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:08 am

DotNotInOz wrote:I've found either Lost Christianities or Misquoting Jesus the most intriguing of his works, Sakhaiva. I think I've read nearly all his books for the general reader.

Misquoting Jesus might be especially interesting for the three of us (hmmmm....must be some significance in that number, eh? Wink ) to read and then discuss. Rats! And I donated my copy of it to the UU church where I was librarian before we moved to St. Looey. Oh, well...easily acquired from the public library, I'm sure, and I wouldn't mind revisiting it.

I would be more inclined to Misquoting Jesus than discussing Ehrman's de-conversion experience or the various forms of gnostic and Jewish Christian sects
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Davelaw on Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:44 am

and I will strongly rely on this critical review

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200606/ai_n17176283/
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:58 pm

Then, you and I quite likely cannot discuss Ehrman's book at all amicably, Dave. I prefer to interact directly with Ehrman's text first and then perhaps secondarily with such reviews, considering as best I can the extent to which the reviewer's opinion has merit. Blame that on my grad schooling which stressed that we cannot expect to dialogue fairly or justly with an author if we are swayed from the outset by what a critic has said. And I do not mean critic in the negative sense but rather in the sense of anyone who attempts to interpret the work for us. Approaching the author one-on-one is the preferable starting point so that we ourselves know what the writer says. Then, if we wish, we may proceed to consulting reviewers' opinions. I have read Misquoting Jesus although I'd need to refresh my memory of the text since it's been a few years.

I do agree with both Ehrman and Wallace that Misquoting Jesus is an inaccurate title. The book should never have been titled that since it is not at all about how Jesus is misquoted. Very misleading, but publishers are fond of imposing the most sales-driving title they can think of whether it represents the book's contents or not--oftentimes not.

Unless I do not comprehend what evangelicals mean by "inerrancy of the Bible," I simply cannot accept Wallace's statements about the distinction between inspiration and inerrancy in the following paragraph:

...Inspiration relates to the wording of the Bible, while inerrancy relates to the truth of a statement. American evangelicals generally believe that only the original text is inspired. This is not to say, however, that copies cannot be inerrant. Indeed, statements that bear no relation to Scripture can be inerrant. If I say, "I am married and have four sons, two dogs, and a cat," that is an inerrant statement. It is not inspired, nor at all related to Scripture, but it is true. Similarly, whether Paul says "we have peace" or "let us have peace" in Rom 5:1, both statements are true (though each in a different sense), though only one is inspired. Keeping this distinction in mind as we consider the textual variants of the NT should clarify matters. (p. 4)

It follows from this, since we have no known original manuscripts, that we cannot know that ANY of the text we have was inspired. Whether or not God inspired the original writers is, as Wallace does state to give him credit, "generally believe(d)" by American evangelicals. That means squat in terms of how precisely the wording of the texts we have conforms to what the original manuscript said, difficulties in translation aside. We certainly cannot know that we have the entire original text of the NT somewhere in the various manuscripts we have, which Wallace asserts subsequently. We cannot even be certain that what are taken to be the essential truths of Christianity conform to what the original writers meant.

As for his insistence that statements with no relation to scripture can be inerrant, DUH! We could verify whether or not Wallace is "married, has four sons, two dogs and a cat"; we cannot verify by any reasonable means the factual validity of most of the Bible. In fact, a good many things said therein we know today simply could not have occurred. The sun did not stop in the sky so that Joshua could finish the battle, for instance. Nor did the Earth stop rotating on its axis so that the sun appeared to stop its presumed trek across the sky. The writer simply did not know basic astronomical facts that we do know.

When Wallace states, Similarly, whether Paul says "we have peace" or "let us have peace" in Rom 5:1, both statements are true (though each in a different sense), though only one is inspired., he bends my credulity to the breaking point.

For one thing, "We have peace" does not mean at all the same thing as "Let us have peace." They are two entirely different types of statements. The former is or is not a fact. Seen in its entirety, it's evident to me that Paul believed this statement, the full text of Romans 5:1, to be true: Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, [NRSV] It, however, is somewhat different in meaning from the simple statement, "We have peace," which could mean no discord among the group to whom Paul addressed his letter, speaking as if one of them. Or it could mean that there was no warfare or similar strife at that particular time anywhere in their area or known world. Actually, it is so general, it could mean still more things.

"Let us have peace" is obviously a wish and usually would be understood as implying if not stating that peace is certainly to be wished for but that it is not currently possessed by those to whom Paul speaks.

To be fair, I'll agree to finish reading what Wallace has to say in the remainder of his review, but I find this particular segment more than somewhat dismaying if he wants me to believe that his critique of Ehrman's book is any better than the book itself.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by DotNotInOz on Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:53 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:
It follows from this, since we have no known original manuscripts, that we cannot know that ANY of the text we have was inspired. Whether or not God inspired the original writers is, as Wallace does state to give him credit, "generally believe(d)" by American evangelicals. That means squat in terms of how precisely the wording of the texts we have conforms to what the original manuscript said, difficulties in translation aside. We certainly cannot know that we have the entire original text of the NT somewhere in the various manuscripts we have, which Wallace asserts subsequently. We cannot even be certain that what are taken to be the essential truths of Christianity conform to what the original writers meant.

Correction needed: I overlooked my need to edit out the first sentence which obviously has nothing to do with whether or not the original writers were inspired by God.

The second, "Whether or not God inspired...etc.," should have read, "That God inspired the original writers is, as Wallace does state to give him credit, 'generally believe[d]' by American evangelicals."

When I notice I've said dumb things like these, I wish we had more leeway to edit. Oh, well...these corrections should clarify.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Southern Hick on Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:47 am

Good evening everyone[smile].
To any Jews that may read this, I would like to wish you a Happy Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement.

Southern Hick

Posts : 167
Join date : 2011-06-13
Location : Originally the Florida Everglades, but now, the swamplands near Inverness, Citrus County Fl..

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by gillyflower on Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:14 am

Ditto!

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Tanakh/Old Testament Comparison.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum