• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The time of Judeo-Christian writings

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I reviewed some of Harry Orlinsky's work to improve the English translation of the Old and New Testament. I consider his work impressive, but with one proviso his work with the new RSV and later work on translation in the NT preserved the Christian context for the prophesy of Christianity and the citations that were flawed by the old translations. I will look into this further.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
This is the reason that The Old and New Testament are specifically Christian scripture. Many may claim there writing is accurate, because they believe they were inspired by God. This is ok, but it represents inspired Christian scripture and not Jewish scripture.
Strawman.

No one is claiming that the NT or OT is Jewish scripture.

The term is Judeo Christian. It is equivalent to saying Abrahamic, excepting Abrahamic includes groups like B'Hai and Islaam. Do you object to the term Abrahamic?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I agree with the Amy-Jill Levine source and the past two sources I cited questioning the translations and described specific problems related to the Septuagint and Biblical translations in the Old and New Testament.
Then you should be willing to create a thread based on that reference and making your argument step by step.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Let's get back to the origin and timing of the Hebrew scriptures.

Source: Torah, Ugartic Bible

The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script and cuneiform; thus it is a unique blending of two styles of writing. Most likely it came into being as cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were making their rise. Ugaritic is thus a bridge from one to the other.

One example of this is found in Proverbs 26:23. In the Hebrew text Mygys Psk is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does "silver lips" mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as Mygysps k which means "like silver". This makes eminently more sense in context than the word mistakenly divided by the Hebrew scribe who was unfamiliar with the second word; so he divided into two words which he did know even though it made no sense.

Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word rz is usually translated "help" but the Ugaritic word "gzr" means "young man" and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. For example, in Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women. This means that when the Hebrew wisdom teacher instructed his students on these matters, he was drawing on material that was commonly known in the Phoenician environment (for Ugarit was Canaanite/Phoenician). In point of fact, KTU 1,7 VI 2-45 is nearly identical to Proverbs 9:1ff. (The abbreviation KTU stands for "Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit", the standard collection of this material. The numbers are what we might call the chapter and verse). KTU 1.114:2-4 says-


hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn
ilm w tstn. tstnyn `d sbí
trt. `d. skr. yí.db .yrh

"Eat, o Gods, and drink,
drink wine till you are sated,
Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;
"Come, eat of my food and drink wine that I have mixed".

Ugaritic poetry is very similar to Biblical poetry and is therefore very useful in interpreting difficult poetic texts. In fact, Ugaritic literature (besides lists and the like) is composed completely in poetic metre. Biblical poetry follows Ugaritc poetry in form and function. There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit. In short the Ugaritic materials have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of the Biblical materials; especially since they predate any of the Biblical texts

© Copyright Original Source
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Strawman.

No one is claiming that the NT or OT is Jewish scripture.

The term is Judeo Christian. It is equivalent to saying Abrahamic, excepting Abrahamic includes groups like B'Hai and Islaam. Do you object to the term Abrahamic?

No it is not equivalent, because Judeo Christian describes that the Bible contains both Hebrew and Christian scripture. The Old Testament as linked in the Bible is a Christian context, interpretation and translation that is directly linked to the Christian Revelation.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
<yawn>

^ someone found something else to thoughtlessly cut-n-paste​

</yaw>

As usual, no response. <yawn> when all you have offered is cut and paste from Wikipedia <yawn>. It is a legitimate source describing the direct link and origin of Canaanite language and texts with Hebrew scripture.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And I have multiple texts behind me that do so as well. Therefore?

Note the bold conclusion, which I support in the reference from: Torah, Ugartic Bible

You have not referenced 'these multiple texts' references (?) that support an alternate view of origin and timing. Neither, as with other issues, nor made you view clear. Except you appeared at one point to reject the Babylonian, Canaanite/Ugarit origin of the Genesis Creation myth? I might add without alternate academic references to justify an alternate source.

Are you proposing an independent Revelation of the Pentateuch?
Who are the authors?

Are you proposing an earlier first authorship (Moses or others?) of the Pentateuch as do those who support Biblical Maximalism?
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Prophecy for the virgin birth of Jesus.
Your dancing around and unwillingness, or inability, to give concrete answers is becoming increasingly tiresome. Now, again, please give me a specific reference (book, chapter, verse) of Christian mistranslation in the NSRV Old Testament.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
No it is not equivalent, because Judeo Christian describes that the Bible contains both Hebrew and Christian scripture. The Old Testament as linked in the Bible is a Christian context, interpretation and translation that is directly linked to the Christian Revelation.
No it doesn't. It means that they are related. It means of or related to aspects that they share in common. So, that the scriptures have a common origin is enough to use the term. Now people can make arguments that they share ethical views etc. As well. But referring to the old testament as a Judeo Christian text is not wrong because they have the same origin.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Your dancing around and unwillingness, or inability, to give concrete answers is becoming increasingly tiresome. Now, again, please give me a specific reference (book, chapter, verse) of Christian mistranslation in the NSRV Old Testament.

Previously posters have referred to the mistranslation of the Hebrew 'young woman' for virgin to support the prophesy. The NSRV still maintains this view of prophesy in the NT regardless of the translation in the OT creating a conflict among many Christians who will than reject the NRV and NSRV,

Luke 26-38 NSRV

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”29 But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Never mind,@shunyadragon. I've wasted way too much time on your sophomoric nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list.

Your so welcome! Your personal insults and failure to provide coherent references perpetuates your sophomoric nonsense.

You have failed to answer . . .

You have not referenced 'these multiple texts' references (?) that support an alternate view of origin and timing. Neither, as with other issues, nor made your view clear. Except you appeared at one point to reject the Babylonian, Canaanite/Ugarit origin of the Genesis Creation myth? I might add without alternate academic references to justify an alternate source.

Are you proposing an independent Revelation of the Pentateuch?
Who are the authors?

Are you proposing an earlier first authorship (Moses or others?) of the Pentateuch as do those who support Biblical Maximalism?

The translation problems is actually a side issue and never the focus of origin and timing of Hebrew scriptures, which you have avoided responding to.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No it doesn't. It means that they are related. It means of or related to aspects that they share in common. So, that the scriptures have a common origin is enough to use the term. Now people can make arguments that they share ethical views etc. As well. But referring to the old testament as a Judeo Christian text is not wrong because they have the same origin.

Sharing some common attributes between Judaism and Christianity will not convince the Jews reject a relationship with the Christian Bible. Actually I could care less, but many Jews reject this description of scripture. Take up your beef with them.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Sharing some common attributes between Judaism and Christianity will not convince the Jews reject a relationship with the Christian Bible. Actually I could care less, but many Jews reject this description of scripture. Take up your beef with them.
That was, perhaps, an impressive use of the word relationship.
 
Top