1. 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!

Featured To my Jewish friends on this forum...

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Ashoka, Nov 20, 2022.

  1. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    רמב"ן כתב

    upload_2022-11-24_0-42-36.png

    אז, רמב"ן הסביר מה הוא חשב היה הכבנה של כמב מחכמינו, לכן הא כתב והנראה אלי מדעת רבותינו

    אני צטטתי את הרמב"ם ממשנה תורה (גם במורה הנבוכים כתוב משהו באותו צורה) והוא כתב יותר קרוב למה רמב"ן כתב בניגוד מה "אולי" היה הכבנה של רש"י מהמדרש

    משנה תורה
    upload_2022-11-24_0-54-11.png
    upload_2022-11-24_0-53-50.png
    upload_2022-11-24_0-55-6.png
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    בעבור שהרמב"ם עבר דברים האלה במקום אחר. למשל הוא כתב יותר על הדברים האלה במורה הנבוכים. רמב"ן כלל כמה עמדות על העניי שזה מסויים להפרשה.​
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    upload_2022-11-24_1-1-56.png
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Alien826

    Alien826 Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2022
    Messages:
    750
    Ratings:
    +677
    Religion:
    Horizontalist
    But. I am quite prepared to trust that you will honestly and accurately translate the Hebrew into English, and where there is no exact word for word translation (common to all translations from one language to another I imagine) you will point that out and attempt to convey the meaning, using more words as necessary. Also, where there is no way to convey the meaning in English, you state that clearly and I will have to live with it. You may not wish to take the time out of your no doubt busy day, and that's OK, though I suspect you have taken longer telling me why you won't do it than it would have taken to do it. More later about why I'm pushing this.

    Incidentally you gave me most of what I asked for above. It "more or less says what he stated". That's fine, and pretty much satisfies my curiosity. My Rabbi friend didn't just pull it out of his ... ear. I must say I was expecting some very different words to have been interpreted differently from the literal meaning, but so be it.

    Incidentally, another thing he says is that the phrase translated as "an eye for an eye" is in fact a reference to monetary restitution for injury. That would seem to have come from a cultural usage of the translated phrase, and I have no reason to doubt him. Such things happen all the time in language. For example, "in the cat bird seat" is understood by most English speakers to mean "from a high vantage point". But there is no cat or bird or (necessarily) seat involved. Once you know that cat birds (a variety of birds) tend to perch on the very highest branches of trees the meaning is clear.

    I still don't see why the translation wouldn't suffice, in this limited example. For example I don't see how "it was a cube" is going to be that much different in Hebrew. The frustrating thing is that, I predict, you will simply assert that it isn't exact and that the only way for me to understand it is to learn Hebrew. I'm 81 years old! There's no way I'm going to learn a new language now.

    But if someone doesn't translate it for me, I have zero chance of being able to form any opinion on it. It's just a load of squiggles and dots to me. So you're not taking anything away from me. I don't have it to take! And, I don't see why a good translation with notes as I described above, wouldn't give me that opportunity. If it says that tablets looked like gravestones and your notes say that's literally what it means, I don't see why i would be mistaken in concluding that the "cube" hypothesis was not supported by the text (that's unlikely of course, but hopefully you get the idea).

    I am investigating it. I'm asking an expert (you) to help me.

    Understood, but in general that's not available to me. Also, there's a general point that I've been leading up to.

    There are many disciplines where an intimate inside knowledge of something is required to fully understand it totally. I'm trying to find a good example. Your skilled mechanic that you used as an example doesn't need to know the way gasoline is made. It suffices that he has an understanding of octane ratings and how they apply to different makes of car. Even a layman can understand it enough not to put the wrong grade in his car. A chemist designing equipment to refine oil into gasoline is a different example. He needs to know a lot about the chemistry of oil and gasoline. What I'm trying to show is that though the mechanic and the layman doesn't have full knowledge, they can be told enough to avoid error.

    What worries me about your approach is that you are effectively shutting the door on all but a few where understanding the Torah is concerned. Are there really no "good enough" explanations?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,503
    Ratings:
    +8,278
    Religion:
    Judaism
    ?? מה הקשר לאברהם בכלל הזה ??
     
    #185 dybmh, Nov 23, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2022
  6. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    upload_2022-11-24_6-43-10.png

    upload_2022-11-24_6-42-49.png
     
  7. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    זה מסביר את המשמעות של המילה מינהג והקשרה שלה לחוקים ומשפטים בחברה תורני​
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    You are in luck. I did a comprohensive video on this topic. See below.

     
  9. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    If there is a "safety related" reason that he must know that, in order for me to be "safe" then I would ONLY go to an skilled mechanic who knows, understands, and is "certified" to be able to address that issue on my vehicle. Again, someone else may decide that their safety means something different to them. Yet, I work in hi-tech in a very specific area that deals with international law and safety. A skilled expert who knows the area in question is always a matter of safety and also liability.

    It depends on the situation. Remember, my example was dealing with "safety." When it comes to "safety" liability is a part of the picture. So, personally, if the person I go has the pontential to put my safety at risk by not knowing how gaseline is made I would not go to such a person. Maybe someone who doesn't take safety the way do, based on my experience in the field of safety and liability, would let anyone who tells them what they want to hear do whatever.

    Again, as I stated before:

    I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would never go to a layman for, as I stated "serious auto-work done on my car which will either make my car safe to drive or dangerous to drive." I would place my safety, and the safety of my family, only in the hands of a proven expert in auto-safety. Further, besides excluding a layman I would most definately not place my safety in the hands of someone, as I stated, "who by their own admission, knows nothing about cars - has never driven one and has no idea where the engine is."
    Further, I stated:

    This may be a national cultural difference between us. The Torah, for Torath Mosheh Jews, is not a "scripture" in the way you describe. It is like how the Constitution works in American culture. I.e. the American Constitution is the basis of all historical and current national and state laws in the USA.

    The Torah is the same in Torath Mosheh Jewish society/culture/etc. It doesn't rely on abstruse intepretations. Ancient Israeli/Jewish society received the Oral Torah in order to maintain how to do what is in the written Torah. That is why ALL ancient Jewish communities 100% agree on what the basis of halakha is and how we derive. Where Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews differ, modernly, is in areas that are not halakha from the Torah based Supreme Court, called the Sanehdrin.

    So, in terms of expertise on any Torah level, you must understand one simple rule.

    According to Torath Mosheh, ALL Jewish parents are supposed to be rabbis of their households and be experts in Torah, including the language our ancestors, who taught us Torah. That is the way that for thousands of years a large majority of the Jewish population were able to manage knowing the language of the Tanakh even after we were exiled and our language was no longer a "national language." Thus, when we deal with the Torah we are dealing with it legally, socially, philosophically, and if you will spiritually all at the same time because Jewish communities have always been made up these various elements, for thousands of years. Nothing has changed that.
     
  10. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    I, and all Torath Mosheh Jews, are commanded by Hashem to only approach Torath Mosheh Jews who a) are experts in the Ivrith language (throughout the generations), b) who learned Torath from reliable sources, c) whose information can be challenged/questioned/verified and d) who themselves have a proven track record of keeping the Torah has the halakha dictates it. As always I did a video about that.



     
    #190 Ehav4Ever, Nov 23, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2022
  11. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,503
    Ratings:
    +8,278
    Religion:
    Judaism
    ?חקותי" ללכת בדרכי השם"
    ?בדרך הכסד
    זה ידוע
     
  12. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Then concider the Hebrew language to be like chemistry. The Torah is what you stated (refining oil into gasoline) the a chemist is a Torath Mosheh Jew who knows what the Hebrew text of the Torah commands leaders of the Jewish people, including all fathers, to know as a baseline to teach Torah (chemistry).

    There is no concept here of "full knowledge" because put together all of the chemist of the world have all the knowledge needed to (refine oil into gasoline). If they don't, then what they do is put all of their expertise together and work out the areas that they lack.

    Laymen, who especially by their own admission don't know even the fundamentals of chemistry, don't count as someone that "I" and most people who learned university level chemstry would ever listen to about chemistry.

    Further, to this the following laymen (in Jewish history) have been the source of massive problems, and in some cases loss of Jewish life.
    1. The mixed multitude.
    2. Menashe ben-Hhezqiyahu
    3. Ahha'av ben-Omri
    4. Yorav'am ben-Ahh'av
    5. Tzaduqqim
    6. Yeshu ben-Pantera
    7. Hiwi Al-Balkhi
    8. Uriel Da Costa
    9. Shabatai Tzvi
    10. Pablo Christiani
     
    #192 Ehav4Ever, Nov 23, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2022
  13. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    בשבע מצוות כדי לעשות דינים

    משנה תורה
    upload_2022-11-24_8-11-26.png
    upload_2022-11-24_8-10-18.png
    upload_2022-11-24_8-8-16.png
    upload_2022-11-24_8-7-9.png
    upload_2022-11-24_8-9-55.png
     
  14. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    2,688
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Because, I gave you a type of translation of it by explaining that what I posted is the basis of what the rabbi told you. I also provided a video that explains the challenges of translating an ancient text from a culture that is not similar to the target language. Also, doing in this type of medium is very impersonal, if that is a word, and I have seen people on forums like this argue about a translation rather than the actual text.

    Lastly, my personal experience has been that when a person is face to face with the text, with a Jew who knows the language and the culture around the text, and is surrounded by Jewish access to thousands of years of Jewish discussion about said text it provides a quick and more expansive way for the questioner to get the point faster and then form their own opinion about the experience.

    For example, I once hosted an American Christian who came to visist Israel in 2008 when I lived between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. When he arrived he went on and on about Christians know and how often Christians pray, as a way to say they are doing something more authentic to Jews. I let him make his statements w/o much response.

    Then, on the Sabbath I took him to my synagogue and he was visiably blown away and overwhelmed with awe. He shocked to see that everyone in the synagogue knew ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic fluently. He was shocked that even little kids knew ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic fluently. He was shocked that everyone could read from a Torah scroll themselves without vowels and punciation. He was shocked by the love that everyone had for Hashem and what we were doing. He was also in shock when the community asked him to return the Torah scroll to its place.

    After that experience he asked me if I could take one line of his KJV and tell him the translation was correct. I showed him, when compared to ancient Hebrew texts, that his KJV changed various words and placed punciation in places that don't match the Hebrew. His exact statement was, "If that is the case then that means my KJV is correct because the changes in the punciation alone change the meaning." I told him yes.

    After that he did not appear to be the same person. He didn't want to leave my place when I took people out, he only wanted to sit in library and read what few English books I had on Jewish topics. After he returned to the states I was told by someone that he did not go back the same person.

    This is why I push the zoom or face to face. Literally, in 10 minutes most topics can be settled without all the tennis elbow from typing.
     
  15. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,503
    Ratings:
    +8,278
    Religion:
    Judaism
  16. Kenny

    Kenny Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,896
    Ratings:
    +7,296
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    As long as what he taught was correct. :)

    Sometime God uses foolish things and the simple to confound those who think themselves wise.

    (Within the context of my signature)
     
  17. Kenny

    Kenny Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,896
    Ratings:
    +7,296
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Any example of twisting would be a good example..
     
  18. Kenny

    Kenny Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,896
    Ratings:
    +7,296
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    I think that is myopic. Anyone, inside and outside, can use those parameters.

    I disagree thought you may have some truth to it. Not that one can't have some good questions as one who is searching but you are equating that someone who is learning arithmetic is more objective than a physicist.

    Yes, but I am a judge also. ;) One isn't the judge of all judges.

    Native speaker? Do you read Hebrew and Greek? And, yes, there are errors in the translations. Notice that I can be just as objective as you.

    Finding one person to validate your position doesn't qualify what you are saying.

    We have people who say Jesus is a myth and, at one point, that even King David wasn't a real person.

    Objectivity is not a "one side only". Both can be objective.
     
  19. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,843
    Ratings:
    +11,385
    Religion:
    None
    Anybody who tells me that the scriptures contain no errors or gives arguments why a day is not a day is evaluating the words differently that the group who conclude otherwise. A believer cannot read scripture with the objectivity and skepticism of an unbeliever, just as parents who believe by faith that their children are angels - it's never Johnny's fault - can't see what others see there.

    I don't see how that is an apt analogy. Is the skeptic meant to be the one learning arithmetic? The skeptic isn't learning anything here. He's telling you what the words he reads mean to him. I understand that believers believe that there a deep layers of meaning there to be ferreted out over a lifetime of study, and that those who have done that like you are more advanced in some learning process, but that's because you believe the words are divinely inspired and therefore coherent and wise. But that's just more confirmation bias by the believer based in faith. What I'm saying is that it is very different looking at scripture and deciding what it says than looking at scripture and deciding what it must mean if a deity wrote it.

    Yes, you are, and that's my point. You had written, "Are you the judge of what are failed prophesies at the expense of what believers interpret the prophecies to mean?" to which I answered yes.

    No. English. That's the language the Bibles I read is written in. When I read words like, "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good," I can tell you what they mean in English. What it says is that unbelievers are fools. Worse, they're horrible people - corrupt and vile. Not surprisingly, not a one does good. Beautiful words, no? I'll bet they are to you - beautiful, truthful, and wise simply because of where you found them. That's the difference. I am free to tell you how ugly that passage is. You are not. You are not free to see how bigoted and hateful that is. You might if unbeliever were changed to black person - all vile, not one any good - and Ibet you'd howl if I wrote something like that about Christians. But I can rest assured you will sanitize the passage to make it good and pure and godly, because you assume it is and read from that perspective.

    The statement was correct, or you would have rebutted it. You didn't try to rebut it, so one must assume that you can't, which is always the case with a correct statement. The argument was that it is the faith-based thinker who is closed-mined by definition, and in the manner I just described for a believer reading scripture. The faith-based thinker BEGINS with a belief - a guess, like Ham, who has guessed that his Bible was written by an infallible god. The critical thinker ENDS with one using a process that generates sound conclusions like Nye.

    The rules for determining truth are different for these two types of people. The faith-based thinker is often aware of the rules of dialectic and academic debate, but the process involves two or more critical thinkers trying to resolve the truth or falsity of a proposition by showing one another why they must be wrong. The last one to present a plausible argument that the other cannot successfully rebut has arrived at the correct form of the statement.

    Think of two attorneys debating in front of a jury. The prosecutor makes a case for guilt, say of murder. Suppose it is plausible - believable to jury beyond reasonable doubt if it can't be contradicted. The defense must provide a rebuttal - a counterargument that if correct, makes the prosecutor incorrect. If he can't or doesn't, he loses the case. Verdict: guilty.

    An offered alibi would be a rebuttal. If the defendant wasn't near the scene of the crime, he couldn't have committed the crime. Perhaps his phone was pinging off a cell tower far from the crime scene at the time of the murder. Do you see why this is a rebuttal? If sound, it makes the rebutted claim impossible. An alibi does this. If it is accurate, and the prosecutor cannot discredit the claim, the defense wins. Debate over. Verdict: not guilty. Other forms of dissent are useless, like the kinds we're used to seeing here in these discussions, often strings of sentences that don't address the claim at all much less show why it must be wrong.

    However, the prosecution may be able to rebut the claim of an alibi with a counterclaim, that if true, makes that alibi invalid. Perhaps closed circuit television shows that the defendant was in the vicinity of the crime after all. Alibi rebutted, and if this is not successfully rebutted in return, the prosecution wins. And back and forth it goes until the last plausible argument goes unrebutted. I think of this as similar to a game of ping-pong, with prosecutor and defense attorney rallying for several shots back and forth until finally a shot is made that can't be returned. Debate over.

    In discussions with those not engaging in dialectic, generally because they are unaware of the rules or even the value, the discussion generally goes believer's claim followed by a skeptic's rebuttal followed by nothing but empty dissent. Using the ping-pong analogy, the believer serves (makes a claim), the critical thinker rebuts it (returns the serve) and then the ball goes past the original claimant and off the table. Volley over after one hit each. It's like the prosecution presented an opening argument, the defense rebutted it, and the prosecution ignored the rebuttal and just began expressing dissent: "This is unfair, I don't see it that way, yeah well that's just your opinion, everybody's lying." This form of dissent accomplished nothing, that trial is over and ready for a jury verdict.

    So did you want to rebut my definitions of open- and closed-mindedness and the examples given in support, or just go with the kind of comment you did, a perfect example of dissent without rebuttal. If the later, I think we've reached the last plausible, unrebutted claim - mine - and we're ready for a verdict.
     
  20. Kenny

    Kenny Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,896
    Ratings:
    +7,296
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    I respectfully disagree.

    I'm not saying you don't have the right to come to a conclusion that has every effort of being objective. I'm just saying that your premise that a believer cannot read scripture objectively is wrong.

    With a jury of 12 objectively listening to all the facts doesn't always translate that their verdict is right. It may seem right within the context of the information that they have, but they still could be wrong.

    That's what I'm trying to get across. You are objective in as much as what information and the interpretation you give it, but not necessarily right.

    And, yes, in some cases Christians can come to different conclusions but not all are right.

    this can be interpreted as "not a skeptic but rather a biased unbeliever". If he/she is telling me what the words he reads mean to him is subject to his/her bias, subject to be out of context, for lack of knowledge subject to misunderstand (as someone learning arithmetic is trying to teach a physicist) and so many other mishaps.

    To which I respectfully disagree (or at least in some cases)

    I see the broad brush of the bias in these statements.

    Notice how you hyper-jumped from fools to including all unbelievers. Not all unbelievers are fools.

    From there you jumped from unbelievers to "horrible people - corrupt and vile". Not all unbelievers are corrupt and vile. For that matter, not all fools are corrupt and vile.

    Incidentally, if someone said, "you are a murderer" having taken an innocent life, would the person declaring that be vile and evil or that statement be an ugly statement? Or just a statement of fact without any evil intent?

    Additionally, if you are only reading in English you can misinterpret it. For that matter, if you don't know the culture and idioms of the one who wrote it, you can also misinterpret it.

    Not saying you can't understand some of it but knowing the original definition brings it into high-definition.

    But I did address it. You didn't rebut my statement, more like ignored it.

    Again, I am not saying there can't be some who are closed minded but to make a blanket statement that only skeptics can be unbiased is wrong.

    .
    I believe I did rebut your definitions. :) But can you see it?
     
Loading...