[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew
vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Mon Jun 7 11:54:38 EDT 2004
> HH: The fact that the Christian approach requires more assumptions
> does not necessarily make it weaker.
Well, you studied logic, did you? More assumptions - weaker the argument. Or
is the logic inapplicable here? Tertullian's argument about the absurdity
still relied on logic.
>The most simple idea is not
> always correct. It may overlook some important fact.
Taking the NT as a fact is itself an assumption.
>The claim of
> Christianity is that God was giving new revelation through Jesus
> Christ. The claim is that he was a prophet and in fact the Messiah
> prophesied in the OT.
Only a prophet? Wow, you are very liberal. Every Muslim would agree with you
>So the addition you speak of, "axiom B," could
> actually be more truth and so could help one to understand the other
> truth ("axiom A") better.
Yes, if we assume that axiom B is a truth. But, again, this is an
assumption, and makes the argument logically inferior. Substituting logic
with belief remains the only option.
Uh, and one more thing, please: exactly what line of the NT let us
understand the Tanakh better? Just any example, please.
> > >For me the text is paramount, theology be damned.<
> >This ideal is unrealizable when we have to choose the plausible meanings
> >of several grammatically possible.
> >> I have run into Jews who are just as tied to theological assumptions
> >restrict their translations as the most unthinking Christian<
> >I was talking of a different thing. Jews assume an axiom A (TNK).
> >assume axiom A (TNK) + axiom B (NT). Therefore, Christian approach
> >more assumptions, and is weaker; that doesn't mean that Jewish
> >interpretation is perfect.
> Harold Holmyard
> >Vadim Cherny
> >> Karl W. Randolph.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "VC" <vadim_lv at center-tv.net>
> >> > Dear Yigal,
> >> >
> >> > > from SOME Orthodox Jewish students and audiences: why should we
> >> > > gentile anti-semites think about OUR Tanakh?
> >> > While I wouldn't go to this extreme, they have a rationale. In any
> >> > that explanation is preferred, which requires less assumptions. Now,
> >> > Christian scholars introduce a major assumption in interpreting the
> >> > namely, that it could and even should be interpreted with a fringe
> >> > text, the NT, in mind. Since Jewish scholars don't require this
> >> > their opinions should be preferred.
> >> > This, of course, does not imply in any sense pushing someone out of
> >> > field of scholarship, but rather inadmissibility of bringing a
> >> > the field.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > Vadim Cherny
> >> --
> >> ___________________________________________________________
> >> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> >> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> b-hebrew mailing list
> >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >b-hebrew mailing list
> >b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew