[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

VC vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Tue Jun 8 00:31:59 EDT 2004


Dear Harold,

>HH; It is because of the figure who is identified
as such in the OT, and the importance he has for
all men, not just for the Jews.<
This also always remained a puzzle for me. The Tanakh devotes much more
space to dozens of other figures, yet so much importance is attached to
avdi.
And in every or so chapter mentioning the avdi, there is this talk of
smiting the foreigners, hardly of universal salvation.
Besides, a good case is made by many that the avdi references are inserted.
I mean, I certainly understand this is a matter of belief, and in no way try
to belittle yours. But since this belief is invoked as an additional axiom
in the Tanakhic interpretation, I'd like to know more about this assumption.

>I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted with the
>Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this title
>is of importance to you.


This is exactly what I'm talking about: the title was not extraordinary,
being applied to many people - some of sufficiently low credentials. Why the
same title, implied for the avdi, is taken so seriously?
>  You surely know that it was widely used; Isaiah
>allowed even Chaldeans their own moshia (which, according to him, was not
>forthcoming to save them).

HH: God called Cyrus His anointed one in the
sense that he was going to accomplish God's
purposes in a special way. While I don't agree
with Liz's theories that God took the kingship
away from the house of David and gave it to
Cyrus, she makes some good arguments in a
published paper that it would possible for Jews
to refer to Cyrus as their king. It would have
been possible for God to label Cyrus as
functioning in the role of His king.

So, you accept that wrong translation can serve as a basis for better
understanding of the original text?
>How does Acts 8 shed light on Isaiah, when even the quotation is brutally
>distorted?
HH: The translation is made from the LXX. The
author was a Gentile and doubtless was more
comfortable with the Greek.


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny


>  Do you see any sense in the stupid question of the eunuch? Surely
>the prophet did not speak of himself being executed.
HH: Tradition has it that Isaiah was executed. If
one doesn't understand who the passage is
referring to, the prophet himself is certainly
one possibility among others.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Vadim Cherny
>
>
>>   > 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.
>
>HH: Reality trumps logic. If something is real
>and you ignore it, you may miss something you
>need.
>
>>   >The most simple idea is not
>>   > always correct. It may overlook some important fact.
>
>>Taking the NT as a fact is itself an assumption.
>
>HH: I said what is most simple "may" overlook
>some important fact. This is common sense. I
>don't need to study logic to know it.
>
>>   >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
>>:)
>
>HH: I guess you missed the part about Jesus being the Messiah, too.
>
>>   >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.
>
>HH: But we should exact the assumption to see if
>it is true. if it is, then we should not ignore
>it.
>
>>Substituting logic
>>with belief remains the only option.
>
>HH: If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims
>carry a lot of weight. There are a good many
>reasons to believe that He rose again from the
>dead.
>
>>Uh, and one more thing, please: exactly what line of the NT let us
>>understand the Tanakh better? Just any example, please.
>
>Here's one relevant to your efforts on B-Hebrew:
>
>Acts 8:30 ¶ Then Philip ran up to the chariot and
>heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet.  "Do
>you understand what you are reading?" Philip
>asked.
>Acts 8:31 ¶  "How can I," he said,  "unless
>someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip
>to come up and sit with him.
>Acts 8:32 ¶ The eunuch was reading this passage
>of Scripture:  "He was led like a sheep to the
>slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is
>silent, so he did not open his mouth.
>Acts 8:33 In his humiliation he was deprived of
>justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For
>his life was taken from the earth."
>Acts 8:34 ¶ The eunuch asked Philip,  "Tell me,
>please, who is the prophet talking about, himself
>or someone else?"
>Acts 8:35 Then Philip began with that very
>passage of Scripture and told him the good news
>about Jesus.
>
>Yours,
>Harold Holmyard
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list