Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
christinebass at home.com
Thu Feb 15 17:46:41 EST 2001
Each of us brings something to the table of this discusion group and has
something to offer----
It is said that our greatest strength also has the potential to be a
weakness. One of the strengths of this group is the diversity of viewpoints,
knowledge and background. There are views to be learned from even from those
we completely disagee with---those whose views we might never be exposed to
left to our own normal contacts, most of whom probably think like us,
without a resource such as this worldwide bb.
It is from bb's such as this that I have learned more than I wanted to about
atheism, agnosticism, and humanism.....and it has been upsetting at times
and had I allowed it to, insulting. Yes, I have seen red. However, they
have managed to widen my perspective so that now, regardless of the fact I
did not want to be exposed to it, I know how they think, and why they think
that way. What upsets them, where their hot buttons are and some beliefs I
would never have imagined...(The Jews were never in Egypt???----Solomon
never existed? Moses either?---This is all mythology? In fact, they call it
"Biblical Mythology", there was a call for papers put out on Biblical
Mythology and when I objected they thought I was kidding...)
This group with it's diverse views, and even its disagreements and
contentions has been a great help to me in understanding the differing
interpretations of the Hebrew Scripture. To consider censoring reference
works such as the Talmud, Mishnah (I am now reading Pirkei Avos by Rabbi
Abraham Twerski, M.D.
and it is most valuable) or those by Josephus, Shaul, John, or any others
is reprehensible to me. Each one provides another piece to the puzzle of
the Hebrew Scriptures.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles David Isbell" <cisbell at home.com>
> Dear Cindy, to your assertion ["I believe New Testament interpretations of
> the Hebrew Scriptures are just as valid as Talmudic interpretations of the
> Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, Christian interpretations are just as
> valid as modern Jewish interpretations."], I say Amen and of course.[...]
> Dave is
> 100% correct that NT views of the OT and Quranic views of both the NT and
> the OT form part of the history of the interpretation of each. This list
> not devoted, as I understand it, to the history of interpretation of the
> Hebrew Scriptures,> but to Biblical Hebrew. I will gladly stand corrected
> I have misunderstood.
*The B-Hebrew Mailing List*
B-Hebrew is an e-mail conference of academic professionals, teachers,
students, clergy and laity, people of any faith, devoted to a better
understanding of the Hebrew Bible. As such we often discuss a variety of
topics related to the Biblical languages, THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT AND ITS
STUDY, the culture of the Ancient Near East, the literary analysis of the
Hebrew Bible, and more.
> To say that the NT or early Christianity or even a
> modern sect of Christianity understands a BH passage in a particular way
> not offensive to me at all, and I have not implied that it is. What I
> reacted to was the flat assertion that a NT reading of a BH passage can
> "prove" the meaning of the prior literature.
This is a helpful clarification.......
> To Dave
> am certain that list readers have a clear idea of what each of us believes
I also am certain that list readers have a very clear idea of what each of
others believes, it is abundantly evident.....it comes out in our
interpretation of HS no matter how hard
we attempt to be neutral.
"Naturally, each of us will share our own understanding from our own
perspective,..." (b-hebrew list)
Sharing our own understanding from our own perspective...
This will by its essence mean we won't always agree with the perspective the
scripture is being analyzed through
by someone else.
Censoring those perspectives is an anthama.
More information about the b-hebrew