Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT earthlink.net>]

I must say that it is indeed a labor of love to work through all of this
emotion to find some relevant insight to the language of the Bible.

Sincerely,

Mark Spitsbergen


On 4/11/07 8:50 AM, "b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org"
<b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>  1. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Steve Miller)
>  2. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Shoshanna Walker)
>  3. Oral Law / Written Law (A Becker)
>  4. Re: Zech 1:19,21 (Steve Miller)
>  5. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Shoshanna Walker)
>  6. Re: Zech 1:19,21 (Steve Miller)
>  7. Re: Zech 1:19,21 (Steve Miller)
>  8. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Steve Miller)
>  9. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Shoshanna Walker)
> 10. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Peter Kirk)
> 11. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Peter Kirk)
> 12. Re: Dying, you will die (Peter Kirk)
> 13. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Peter Kirk)
> 14. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Peter Kirk)
> 15. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Harold Holmyard)
> 16. Re: Zech 1:19,21 (Isaac Fried)
> 17. Re: Deconstructionism (Yitzhak Sapir)
> 18. Re: dying you will die (davidfentonism AT aim.com)
> 19. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Harold Holmyard)
> 20. Re: dying you will die (davidfentonism AT aim.com)
> 21. Re: dying you will die (davidfentonism AT aim.com)
> 22. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (Harold Holmyard)
> 23. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (davidfentonism AT aim.com)
> 24. Re: Dying, you will die Gen 2:17 (davidfentonism AT aim.com)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:04:24 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
> To: "'Shoshanna Walker'" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <043401c77bee$83666ff0$240110ac@dell2>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
>> From: Shoshanna Walker
>> 
>> Romans is not the word of G-d, it doesn't even allege that.
> [Steve Miller] 
> 2 Peter 3:16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture.
> 
> Shoshanna,
> Thank you for writing. Where do the Talmud, Mishnah and Rashi commentaries
> claim to be the word of God?
> 
> I was raised Orthodox and went to Hebrew school and Hebrew college, and I
> was not taught that the Talmud, Mishnah or Rashi were part of the word of
> God. My mother told us that the Talmud was written by sages much wiser than
> us, but we did not believe that it was the word of God like the Tanach is.
> I have talked to many rabbis, and I have never met any who believe like you
> seem to, that Rashi's commentary is the authoritative explanation of the
> Tanach. 
> 
> Here is a previous post on the subject by Yitzhak Saphir:
>>> The idea that there is an oral law equally as authoritative as the
>>> written law is highly dubious to me. You say that this prevents
>>> mistranslation, but it allows the importation of every kind of merely
>>> human idea and even perversion of God's word. God warns against adding
>>> to his word, and a proposed "oral law" does just that. It presents
>>> something as having the same authority as the written word, from what
>>> you say, and thereby adds to God's word.
> 
>> However, Shoshanna's interpretation of Rashi and Midrash as part of this
>> oral law is not shared by all Jews.  It is an extreme interpretation that
>> essentially says that Rashi or the Rabbis of the Midrash whom he often
>> quotes was not a great scholar but simply a scribe who wrote something
>> handed down to him from the days of Moses.  While that may describe
>> much of his work (much of Rashi is effectively quotes from the Midrash),
>> he was also a great scholar and a true understanding of Rashi can only
>> be achieved by seeing all his quoted sources (which are many!) and
>> identifying which parts he chose to quote, which he chose not to quote,
>> what he chose to add of his own, and answering why he chose to do what
>> he did.
>>>    
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:19:52 -0400
> From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <v04210150c2420d8d9cca@[64.3.184.5]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> 
> Ok, thank you very much, the Torah describes the covenant that G-d
> made with  Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob, and with Moshe,
> and with Am Yisrael, so what is your point?  That you don't accept,
> and are not obligated to accept, G-d's covenant with Am Yisrael, and
> all of our obligations to G-d, and G-d's CONDITIONAL promises to us,
> and no one, not even G-d, says that G-d perfects the universe
> overnight. And all of Torah tells us that it is OUR responsibility to
> play a HUGE PART in perfecting the universe - did you know that -
> that the perfection of the universe depends on us observing the
> Mitzvot of the Torah - that we have a huge and awesome
> responsibility, and that when we fail, EVERYONE - the entire
> universe- suffers- did you know that?
> 
> And you are not obligated to be bound by G-d's covenant with us?
> Obviously.  You are not obligated to be bound by G-d's covenant with
> us.  But not because Jesus said so and said he was making a new
> covenant, because what Jesus said is irrelevant because it is not
> what G-d the Creator of the Universe said.  But because you weren't
> there at Har Sinai, receiving the Revelation and agreeing to its
> conditions, in the first place.
> 
> So what are you trying to teach me, here?  Some Christians may be our
> friends, many have been our enemies, and have killed and utterly
> destroyed entire families and communities, exiled, persecuted us in
> the name of your idolatrous man-G-d, Jesus.  So what do you want me
> to say here and now - thank YOU, Harold, for being my friend - as
> long as I agree that I don't mind that you pervert and try to take MY
> Torah to be your own?
> 
> Shoshanna
> 
> 
> 
> HH: Yes, we believe the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant, but
> it does not replace the Abrahamic covenant. And God does not perfect the
> universe overnight. It is a process, part of which is the age we are
> presently living through. True Christians are your friends, not your
> enemies.
> 
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:39:54 -0700
> From: "A Becker" <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Oral Law / Written Law
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000401c77cbc$9e50f4b0$daf2de10$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Just thought I wanted to add my two cents about this from the Mishnah.
> 
> 
> 
> "[The rules about] release from vows hover in the air and have naught to
> support them; the rules about the Sabbath, Festal-offerings, and Sacrilege
> are as mountains hanging by a hair, for [teaching of] scripture [thereon] is
> scanty and the rules many; the [rules about] cases [concerning property] and
> the [Temple-] service, and the rules about what is clean and unclean and the
> forbidden degrees, they have that which supports then, and it is they that
> are the essentials of the Law." (Hagigah 1.8)
> 
> 
> 
> Any responses can be sent to me directly.
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:42:09 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 1:19,21
> To: "'K Randolph'" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>,
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <043501c77bf3$cc52b430$240110ac@dell2>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="windows-1255"
> 
>> From: K Randolph
>> 
>> Dear Steve:
>> 
>> On 4/9/07, Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Zech 1:19 (2:2 MT)  last phrase ? "scattered Judah, Israel and
>> Jerusalem."
>>> 
>>>  ????? ???????????? ?????????????? ??????????????
>>> 
>>> 1)     There is no "and" prefix in front of Israel. Without the "and" in
>>> front of Israel, does this mean Israel is not another element in the
>> list,
>>> but is in apposition to "Judah"?
>>> 
>> No significance. "And" is optional in lists.
> [Steve Miller] Thanks Karl and Yigal. Can anyone give me examples of lists
> where an "and" is omitted? I cannot find any, but I don't have a practical
> way to search for them. I am just looking for it in my daily reading.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2)     Is there any significance that "et", which points to the direct
>>> object, precedes Judah and Israel, but not Jerusalem?
>>> 
>> Again no.
> [Steve Miller] Thanks. This is common, and I couldn't find a significance in
> other places.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Zech 1:21 (2:4 MT) end phrase "these are come to affright them, to cast
>> out
>>> the horns of the nations that lifted up a horn over the land of Judah to
>>> scatter it."
>>> 
>>>  ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1)Note that there is no "and" before the infinitive form of the verb
>>> "yadah". In the above translation: "to cast out the horns of the
>> nations" is
>>> in apposition to "to affright them". But that doesn't make sense because
>>> these are 2 different actions.  When an infinitive verb follows the
>>> causative verb "make them afraid", the meaning, everywhere I can find,
>> is to
>>> "to make them afraid to do xxxxxxx". So in this case, I think it should
>> be
>>> partially translated, "these are come to make them extremely afraid to
>>> 'yadah' the horns of the nations." (1 Sam 21:1; Exo 3:6;34:30; Num
>> 12:8).
>>> Does this make sense?
>>> 
>>> 2) The verb "yadah" is the root of the name Judah, which appears twice
>> in
>>> this verse. The verb is very common in the hiphil, where it means
>> "praise",
>>> "give thanks", or "confess".  The verb appears only once in the Qal,
>> where
>>> it is translated "shoot at" in Jer 50:14. That seems like a very
>> different
>>> meaning than the Hiphil. It appears 2 times in the Piel: once here in
>> Zech
>>> 1:21, and the other place is Lam 3:53, where it is translated "cast" as
>> in
>>> "cast a stone upon me".
>>> I would like to translate "yadah" here in Zech 1:21 as "praise", or
>> "exalt",
>>> so that the phrase would say, "These are come to make them [the nations]
>>> afraid of exalting the horns of the nations that lifted up ?". Is this
>>> permissible?
>>> 
>> Looking at the meaning of the verb, it refers to the actions of going
>> out towards something. It is used of a missile in attack, of throwing
>> down lots (in ancient times often stones were the lots), with the hand
>> going out in pointing out. Pointing out is also done verbally with the
>> action being understood in the mind's eye, and in the context of
>> pointing out what great things God has done is a type of praise.
>> 
>> You took the above phrase out of context, the full verse reads
>> 
>> ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???
>> ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??
>> ??? ????? ??????
>> 
>> And he said, What are these coming to do? And he said saying, These
>> the horns which scatter Judah according to my mouth, and man does not
>> lift up his head, and these come to cause them to shiver (from
>> fright), to make the horns of the nations go forth, of the nations
>> lifting up a horn unto the land of Judah to scatter it.
>>> 
> [Steve Miller] 
> Karl, where do you get that the verb is used for throwing down lots? And
> thanks very much! I had not noticed the phrase "according to my mouth". Also
> your explanation of "pointing out" is great link between "giving thanks",
> "confessing" and "praising". Would you say that it is possible to translate
> leyadot here as "to praise"?
> 
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:55:36 -0400
> From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
> To: "'Shoshanna Walker'" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <v04210152c24214a0466a@[64.3.184.5]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> 
> So what do I, or any of us Jews who spend our time observing Torah
> and learning it as best we can, each to our own ability, care what
> Peter says?
> 
> And I don't know what Hebrew or other schools you attended, or what
> they taught you, or what their strengths or deficiencies in education
> were, or that of your family, or what college, or what rabbis you
> talked to, that is not my responsibility.
> 
> And what, are you asking ME to give you exact sources, verses, in all
> of Talmud, Midrash, Mishna, Kabbala, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Radak,
> Zohar, Ramchal, Arizal, and all of the Neviim, and Shoftim, and
> Tannaim and Rishonim and Acharonim, etc., etc., etc., all of the
> transmitters of Mesorah, which we know exactly who each and every one
> of them were, in every generation, - you are asking ME to prove to
> you that there is Torah She'B'al Peh which was given to Moshe
> together with Torah She'B'chtav, and was even given to Adam HaRishon,
> after he repented for three days, and transmitted from him to every
> worthy person in every generation (How did Noach know which were the
> "clean, ie' kosher, animals before the Torah was given to us formally
> as a People, which the Torah records that he took seven of those, and
> two of all the rest into the Teiva? - and how, by the way, do you
> think that he managed all of them, without being able to communicate
> with them, and in order to do that, from Whom do you think he got
> that little bit of information?) just because of the deficiency of
> your Jewish education?
> 
> If you truly want to know, you will seek til you find the answer, it
> is not my job to educate you.  Or maybe you can just read Torah and
> some basic Commentaries seriously.
> 
> They didn't have to claim it - they didn't have to prove themselves
> to ignoramuses like me and you - they were living, breathing,
> sleeping Torah!  They were working to perfect themselves, their
> personal attributes, their devotions, etc. for this one and only
> purpose - to become worthy to know Torah, in its depths, as deep as
> they were qualified to learn.  Who would EVER question them as you
> are?
> 
> If you want to know, you have to study Torah, it is not MY burden of proof.
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Shoshanna Walker
>> 
>> Romans is not the word of G-d, it doesn't even allege that.
> [Steve Miller]
> 2 Peter 3:16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture.
> 
> Shoshanna,
> Thank you for writing. Where do the Talmud, Mishnah and Rashi commentaries
> claim to be the word of God?
> 
> I was raised Orthodox and went to Hebrew school and Hebrew college, and I
> was not taught that the Talmud, Mishnah or Rashi were part of the word of
> God. My mother told us that the Talmud was written by sages much wiser than
> us, but we did not believe that it was the word of God like the Tanach is.
> I have talked to many rabbis, and I have never met any who believe like you
> seem to, that Rashi's commentary is the authoritative explanation of the
> Tanach.
> 
> Here is a previous post on the subject by Yitzhak Saphir:
>>> The idea that there is an oral law equally as authoritative as the
>>> written law is highly dubious to me. You say that this prevents
>>> mistranslation, but it allows the importation of every kind of merely
>>> human idea and even perversion of God's word. God warns against adding
>>> to his word, and a proposed "oral law" does just that. It presents
>>> something as having the same authority as the written word, from what
>>> you say, and thereby adds to God's word.
> 
>> However, Shoshanna's interpretation of Rashi and Midrash as part of this
>> oral law is not shared by all Jews.  It is an extreme interpretation that
>> essentially says that Rashi or the Rabbis of the Midrash whom he often
>> quotes was not a great scholar but simply a scribe who wrote something
>> handed down to him from the days of Moses.  While that may describe
>> much of his work (much of Rashi is effectively quotes from the Midrash),
>> he was also a great scholar and a true understanding of Rashi can only
>> be achieved by seeing all his quoted sources (which are many!) and
>> identifying which parts he chose to quote, which he chose not to quote,
>> what he chose to add of his own, and answering why he chose to do what
>> he did.
>>> 
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:54:10 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 1:19,21
> To: "'Yigal Levin'" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>,    "'b-hebrew'"
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <044001c77bf5$75fbf900$240110ac@dell2>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
>> From: Yigal Levin
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:06 AM
>> 
>> Dear Steve,
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I'll manage to answer your questions, but Karl has already
>> addressed them. As he wrote, in a sequence such as "Judah, Israel and
>> Jerusalem", there is no need to insert "and" between every item. My
>> additional question would be - to what "Israel" is the author referring?
>> Presumably, Zechariah lived in Persian-period Judah. There was no
>> "Israel".
>> He could have been using "Israel" to mean Judah, but the "Judah" is
>> redundant.
> [Steve Miller] Yigal. Thanks. This is exactly what I was thinking. "Israel",
> as the northern kingdom separate from Judah, had ceased to exist. (the 10
> tribes still exist, but not as the northern kingdom called "Israel"
> anymore.) After the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, "Israel" is
> Judah, which now includes the people of the 10 lost tribes who joined
> themselves to Judah. So "Israel" and "Judah" are redundant, which is why I
> thought "Israel" should be in apposition to "Judah", rather than as another
> item in the list. Then when I saw no waw attached to "Israel", I wanted to
> know if that was what was meant.
>> 
>> 
>> As far as "yadu", the verb is not the same as the one that means "praise",
>> "give thanks", or "confess". Like in Jer. 50:14 and Lam. 3:53, it means
>> "to
>> throw". It seems to be derived from "yad", "hand", literally "to hand"
>> (although not meaning, as in English, "to give").
> [Steve Miller] Yigal, can you explain why the verb leyadot here is a
> different verb than yadah, to praise? Thanks very much.
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:01:19 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 1:19,21
> To: "'Isaac Fried'" <if AT math.bu.edu>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <044401c77bf6$75ab4b80$240110ac@dell2>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
>> From: Isaac Fried [mailto:if AT math.bu.edu]
>> 
>> Steve,
>> 
>> I think that MAH ELEH BAIM LAASOT of Zechariah 2:4 (in the HB) refers
>> to the XARASHIM, the metal or wood cutters, who are destined to come
>> (VAYABOU ELEH) to rock loose (LeHAXARID), then cast away (LeYADOT)
>> the battering horns of the war machines brought to bear upon Israel.
>> 
> [Steve Miller] 
> Thanks Isaac. Yes, I agree that "eleh" refers to the 4 xarashim, which I
> would translate as 4 workmen. I like that you translate into correct
> English. I think that your translation ", then cast away" would require a
> waw attached to leyadot.
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:17:58 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
> To: "'Shoshanna Walker'" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <044801c77bf8$ccbe06e0$240110ac@dell2>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
>> From: 'Shoshanna Walker'
>> 
>> So what do I, or any of us Jews who spend our time observing Torah
>> and learning it as best we can, each to our own ability, care what
>> Peter says?
> [Steve Miller] your statement was that Romans does not claim to be the word
> of God. I said that the New Testament does say it is the word of God.
>> 
>> 
>> They didn't have to claim it - they didn't have to prove themselves
>> to ignoramuses like me and you - they were living, breathing,
>> sleeping Torah! 
> [Steve Miller] Then you admit that the oral law never claimed to be the word
> of God.
> 
> Also, I don't think these people were living, breathing and sleeping the
> Torah. They were more likely living, breathing and sleeping commentaries
> about the Torah, which is very different, and endless.
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Shoshanna Walker
>>> 
>>> Romans is not the word of G-d, it doesn't even allege that.
>> [Steve Miller]
>> 2 Peter 3:16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture.
>> 
>> Shoshanna,
>> Thank you for writing. Where do the Talmud, Mishnah and Rashi commentaries
>> claim to be the word of God?
>> 
>> I was raised Orthodox and went to Hebrew school and Hebrew college, and I
>> was not taught that the Talmud, Mishnah or Rashi were part of the word of
>> God. My mother told us that the Talmud was written by sages much wiser
>> than
>> us, but we did not believe that it was the word of God like the Tanach is.
>> I have talked to many rabbis, and I have never met any who believe like
>> you
>> seem to, that Rashi's commentary is the authoritative explanation of the
>> Tanach.
>> 
>> Here is a previous post on the subject by Yitzhak Saphir:
>>>> The idea that there is an oral law equally as authoritative as the
>>>> written law is highly dubious to me. You say that this prevents
>>>> mistranslation, but it allows the importation of every kind of merely
>>>> human idea and even perversion of God's word. God warns against adding
>>>> to his word, and a proposed "oral law" does just that. It presents
>>>> something as having the same authority as the written word, from what
>>>> you say, and thereby adds to God's word.
>> 
>>> However, Shoshanna's interpretation of Rashi and Midrash as part of this
>>> oral law is not shared by all Jews.  It is an extreme interpretation that
>>> essentially says that Rashi or the Rabbis of the Midrash whom he often
>>> quotes was not a great scholar but simply a scribe who wrote something
>>> handed down to him from the days of Moses.  While that may describe
>>> much of his work (much of Rashi is effectively quotes from the Midrash),
>>> he was also a great scholar and a true understanding of Rashi can only
>>> be achieved by seeing all his quoted sources (which are many!) and
>>> identifying which parts he chose to quote, which he chose not to quote,
>>> what he chose to add of his own, and answering why he chose to do what
>>> he did.
>>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Steve Miller
>> Detroit
>> www.voiceInWilderness.info
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:26:55 -0400
> From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
> To: "'Shoshanna Walker'" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <v04210157c24220d5249f@[64.3.184.5]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> 
> OK, Steve, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Please quote to me where in the NT, G-d is directly speaking, or says
> He is directly speaking.
> 
> And you misquote me
> 
> I do not admit that the Oral Law never claimed to be the word of G-d
> - excuse me, yes I do - the Oral Law has no ontological being in
> order to proclaim itself the Word of G-d.  But it is the Word of G-d,
> ie; that G-d gave a written and Oral Torah to Moshe, and I can prove
> it from the Torah itself, but we have had that conversation on this
> list, look it up in the archives.
> 
> And re your last sentence - read some of their biographies.
> 
> The Arizal's for instance.
> 
> Shoshanna
> 
> 
> 
>> From: 'Shoshanna Walker'
>> 
>> So what do I, or any of us Jews who spend our time observing Torah
>> and learning it as best we can, each to our own ability, care what
>> Peter says?
> [Steve Miller] your statement was that Romans does not claim to be the word
> of God. I said that the New Testament does say it is the word of God.
>> 
>> 
>> They didn't have to claim it - they didn't have to prove themselves
>> to ignoramuses like me and you - they were living, breathing,
>> sleeping Torah!
> [Steve Miller] Then you admit that the oral law never claimed to be the word
> of God.
> 
> Also, I don't think these people were living, breathing and sleeping the
> Torah. They were more likely living, breathing and sleeping commentaries
> about the Torah, which is very different, and endless.
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Shoshanna Walker
>>> 
>>> Romans is not the word of G-d, it doesn't even allege that.
>> [Steve Miller]
>> 2 Peter 3:16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture.
>> 
>> Shoshanna,
>> Thank you for writing. Where do the Talmud, Mishnah and Rashi commentaries
>> claim to be the word of God?
>> 
>> I was raised Orthodox and went to Hebrew school and Hebrew college, and I
>> was not taught that the Talmud, Mishnah or Rashi were part of the word of
>> God. My mother told us that the Talmud was written by sages much wiser
>> than
>> us, but we did not believe that it was the word of God like the Tanach is.
>> I have talked to many rabbis, and I have never met any who believe like
>> you
>> seem to, that Rashi's commentary is the authoritative explanation of the
>> Tanach.
>> 
>> Here is a previous post on the subject by Yitzhak Saphir:
>>>> The idea that there is an oral law equally as authoritative as the
>>>> written law is highly dubious to me. You say that this prevents
>>>> mistranslation, but it allows the importation of every kind of merely
>>>> human idea and even perversion of God's word. God warns against adding
>>>> to his word, and a proposed "oral law" does just that. It presents
>>>> something as having the same authority as the written word, from what
>>>> you say, and thereby adds to God's word.
>> 
>>> However, Shoshanna's interpretation of Rashi and Midrash as part of this
>>> oral law is not shared by all Jews.  It is an extreme interpretation that
>>> essentially says that Rashi or the Rabbis of the Midrash whom he often
>>> quotes was not a great scholar but simply a scribe who wrote something
>>> handed down to him from the days of Moses.  While that may describe
>>> much of his work (much of Rashi is effectively quotes from the Midrash),
>>> he was also a great scholar and a true understanding of Rashi can only
>>> be achieved by seeing all his quoted sources (which are many!) and
>>> identifying which parts he chose to quote, which he chose not to quote,
>>> what he chose to add of his own, and answering why he chose to do what
>>> he did.
>>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Steve Miller
>> Detroit
>> www.voiceInWilderness.info
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:56:18 +0100
> From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17
> To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <461CBED2.6040703 AT qaya.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> 
> On 11/04/2007 03:09, Harold Holmyard wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> Is. 56:6-7 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him,
>> to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the
>> Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant ? these
>> I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of
>> prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my
>> altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.?
>> 
>>   
> It is interesting that you and Shoshanna agree on the futurity of this
> passage, at least relative to Isaiah - although I suppose that you take
> it as fulfilled in Christ although Shoshanna as still future. But the
> verb forms here (in fact right through vv.4-8) are WEQATAL and YIQTOL.
> And there is nothing in the context to show clearly that this passage is
> future rather than timeless present, a general principle that such
> people, gentiles who come to YHWH, are at all times accepted in his
> house. It is certainly stretching the exegesis to insist that this
> principle applies only in the future and not already in Isaiah's time.