Shotgun Buddha
Brown Belt
Alot of this stemming from the fact that Emperor Constantine trying to make up for the persecution of Christians under his predecessor Diocletian as well. Who was more than just a little opposed to it.
Last edited:
Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
Alot of this stemming from the fact that Emperor Constantine trying to make up for the persecution of Christians under his predecessor Diocletian as well. Who was more than just a little opposed to it.
I shall resurrect the Historical Jesus for your perusal.
This old thread is locked, so we can't comment on any of the presented material. However, I can say that I learned more about Jesus by reading this thread and suggested material then I ever have learned before.
This is mind blowing stuff.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #64
For various reasons there are many of us who aren't actually interested in or even believe in Jesus lol. I, for one don't know enough about him to have a conversation let alone a debate on him. I do know that the Romans wiped the Druids out and blackened their faith though.
I do know though that "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy" and that one should always look on the bright side of life. :ultracool
I dont really have any faith. I have however made observations. The new testament in my opinion is tosh, (rubbish) IMHO. Of course that is one mans opinion. Disagree all you like.
The old testament though, I read a book giving scientific grounds to explain the evidence around us which tells us that the events probably did happen. The parting of the sea. The locusts. Eqyptian history and what was possibly Moses within that history. Cant remember the name the book. Convinced me though. I will admit that I can be gullible at the best of times. When faced with scientific evidence that these events happened it seems difficult to refute them. I also am not of the opinion that science and religion go against each other. If there is scientific evidence and reasons for these events, that to me proves how science provided these miracles and in no way detract from the value of them. They were afterall perfectly timed. The Jews at the time wouldnt have known what was causing the strange happenings. If anyone is interested I will attempt to dig out some more details of the causes of these events. If memory serves me the book claims it was due to a massive volcanic eruption that the sea first parted, then fell back, the sent locusts, etc. Didnt the sun blot out or something? Cant remember all the details. Anyway, such an eruption was found to be probable when examining cores of ice in the arctic, which forms layer upon layer quite reliably, sort of like the layers of a tree. The book even gave a rough time line due to the evidence.
The old testament though, I read a book giving scientific grounds to explain the evidence around us which tells us that the events probably did happen. The parting of the sea. The locusts. Eqyptian history and what was possibly Moses within that history. Cant remember the name the book. Convinced me though. I will admit that I can be gullible at the best of times. When faced with scientific evidence that these events happened it seems difficult to refute them. I also am not of the opinion that science and religion go against each other. If there is scientific evidence and reasons for these events, that to me proves how science provided these miracles and in no way detract from the value of them. They were afterall perfectly timed. The Jews at the time wouldnt have known what was causing the strange happenings. If anyone is interested I will attempt to dig out some more details of the causes of these events. If memory serves me the book claims it was due to a massive volcanic eruption that the sea first parted, then fell back, the sent locusts, etc. Didnt the sun blot out or something? Cant remember all the details. Anyway, such an eruption was found to be probable when examining cores of ice in the arctic, which forms layer upon layer quite reliably, sort of like the layers of a tree. The book even gave a rough time line due to the evidence.
Brother John
Senior Master
When it comes to 'belief' about what the New Testament is or isn't, where it came from or HOW it came about.... what it means or what those who compiled it 'intended'... there are TONS of Opinions.
those who oppose it or resist it's claims to be an actual message from God to mankind; or even resist the claims that the content it purports to record actually happened....will never be convinced through persuasive argument. Period.
Bear in mind that those who state that "The New Testament is.....", have their own agenda.... myself included. I'd love to be able to come here and demonstrate in some ultra-convincing way the veracity of all that it contains... but in the end it's a personal investigation that anyone needs to make (or avoid) on their own.
That's why I'd rather not go on working to convince anyone, UNLESS you'd like me too. In which case, please E-mail or PM me. I'd be glad to help anyone gain a better understanding if that's what they'd really like. BUT: as with ANY subject, those who claim they already "KNOW"... can't be "told". It's not that the argument Cannot be made, it most certainly can; but those who dig their heels in and refuse to open their hearts and minds to a truth....cannot be "MADE" to accept it. Nor should they be.
Have a Great Holiday Season, no matter what it is.
Merry Christmas
Your Brother
John
those who oppose it or resist it's claims to be an actual message from God to mankind; or even resist the claims that the content it purports to record actually happened....will never be convinced through persuasive argument. Period.
Bear in mind that those who state that "The New Testament is.....", have their own agenda.... myself included. I'd love to be able to come here and demonstrate in some ultra-convincing way the veracity of all that it contains... but in the end it's a personal investigation that anyone needs to make (or avoid) on their own.
That's why I'd rather not go on working to convince anyone, UNLESS you'd like me too. In which case, please E-mail or PM me. I'd be glad to help anyone gain a better understanding if that's what they'd really like. BUT: as with ANY subject, those who claim they already "KNOW"... can't be "told". It's not that the argument Cannot be made, it most certainly can; but those who dig their heels in and refuse to open their hearts and minds to a truth....cannot be "MADE" to accept it. Nor should they be.
Have a Great Holiday Season, no matter what it is.
Merry Christmas
Your Brother
John
You had a great post going until I read this part. Perhaps I'm being a wee bit sensitive tonight, but I put forward an alternate hypothesis, that those who refuse to open their minds to the truth cannot be made to accept it. Nor should they be.
Have a great christmas...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #69
If we had 'proof' it wouldn't be called faith would it? If everything was provable how easy it would be, bit like being given your black belt on your first day in the dojo instead of having to work for it.
Brother John
Senior Master
Isn't saying that you know what something ISN'T comparable to saying what something IS?
1. Do you think that your "ancestry" has much to do with it? Knowledge and understanding of scripture, history or anything else isn't hereditary.
2. I'm not sure that anyone here has told you how you must behave or that you need to get in line with Their interpretation. In my opinion people have simply offered up their 'take' on the issue that was asked about. That doesn't seem arrogant. It's conversation.
I don't think it's unusual at all for people to take the bible, new and/or old testament, as a book for guiding our conduct and behavior. In fact, I'd dare to say that that's one of it's most common applications for Christians and Jews alike. So if that's true, then a conscientious christian who feels the Bible is meant for this purpose would be right in using it to determine if something, anything is right to do. I think that's pretty logical.
So if one cares deeply about what the Bible says and studies it deeply and comes to a strong conviction about what they fully believe it says... can they not posit their position and share their conviction without offending others? It's a very very tricky and sticky situation to be sure. But I think that if you're going to participate in a discussion where the subject is God or the Bible we've got to have a bit thicker skin and be ready to be both forthright and humble when paricipating.
Hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Your Brother
John
Brother John
Senior Master
That is actually an excellent point, and a good analogy to illustrate it. There's a lot that archaeology or other things can give proofs for, but in the end, the core issues are a matter of faith. What a crucial distinction.
Your Brother
John
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Wow, this is a fun one. Without going into the technical level a number of other posters have (incredibly interesting, by the way), let's see if we can agree on a few basic timeline details.
The Torah (making up the majority of the Old Testament in the cannonical Bible in all modern Christian forms) is the Holy Book and writings of the Jewish peoples and their faith, containing within it the history and teachings that guide them to this day. It was originally written (and continues to be in Jewish faiths, synagogues, and houses) in Hebrew, and was later translated into Greek, as that was the official "language of learning" common to the Ancient World. This brought us to the time of Jesus.
Jesus was a teacher and leader of Jewish religious followers. He spent his time teaching according to the traditions and knowledge of his time, with his emphasis being different to the orthodoxy of the Pharisees etc. However, he was known and refered to as "rabbi", meaning "teacher'. The term does not specifically mean religious (the same way that "sensei" does not necessarily refer to a martial art teacher), however at the time religious teachings guided all other teachings, so you can read into that quite easily.
So my big issue here is when people are talking about "Christians of Jesus' time". There weren't any. They were Jews who followed Jesus, as there were Jews who followed many other Messianic Prophets at the time. Christians came later.
In terms of contemporary writings (I think maunakumu was saying that there are none for us to check...), there are quite a variety of writings from the time of Jesus, most famously the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as a number of books that have been preserved in texts such as the Ethiopian Bible, and the Koran, and a number of other known "apocryphal" texts. So we can check them if we want to.
The translation issue, of Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English, or straight to English without going to Latin to begin with, well, the issues with translating from the original Hebrew has been covered very well. But I would add one more point, I beileve it was Brother John who said that his copy has three lines in various transliterations? Well, that's all well and good, but the job of a translation is far more than just "this word equals this other word". Context must be taken into account, as must personal idioms, particular (unique) phrases, cultural beliefs and practices which may or may not still be known or practiced, and more. And this is doubly important when dealing with a document such as this.
If there are there lines, with the first being the original Hebrew/Greek in the original lettering, and the second being the phonetic sounding of the text, that's all good. If you can understand it and read it. The third line is where we get a bit of trouble. If it is a direct word-for-word translation, then you are probably missing a great deal of information (as indicated above). A better (and more reliable) translation method is to translate in the context of the original, with it's spirit and heart. Every foreword I have ever read by a translator stresses that fact whether it is Homer, or Hatsumi.
By the time Constantine turned the Roman Empire Christian (and employed the Council of Nicea to address the issue of an official cannonical Bible), there had been a variety of texts moving throughout Christian circles for a few Centuries. Some of these stayed, others were taken out of the equation, and others survived in other sources (as earlier stated). Those that were kept were kept for a variety of reasons, including established authenticity, and congruence, as well as supporting a certain agenda of the new regime (for example, the anti-Roman sentiment which was a big selling point in the time of Jesus and directly following such was downplayed, and the new scapegoats used were the Jewish peoples themselves... I always found that rather ironic, the Jewish people gave the Romans their new religion [in a manner of speaking], although it was the Roman's who were directly responsible for the excecution of Jesus, and in return, the Jewish people get blamed and distanced from the new religious movement, in order to bring it more palatability to the Roman people. Go figure). Those that were removed were taken out for much the same reasons, although there were a few taken out because of simple story-telling rules (a lot of the stories about Mary, Jesus' mother are removed, including the fact that she is in fact the Immaculate Conception, rather than Jesus), as it takes the focus of Jesus. They have survived in the Koran, though, where Mary is mentioned far more than in the Christian Bible. Others were denied placement due to not going with desired ethics and values (in an extended version of the story of Genesis, for example, the question of Cain's wife is answered... the original [and I'm paraphrasing here] has Cain and Abel being the sons of Adam and Eve, and after Cain slays Abel, he goes off into the wild. Later he "knows" his wife, and she bears him a son. At this point, most astute and aware readers say "Hang on, Cain and Abel are the only children of Adam and Eve, where did the wife come from?". Well, this longer version has Cain and Abel simply being the two eldest of many children... and Cain's wife was therefore his sister. Although many other sins are demonstrated and allowed throughout the Bible in various forms, incest is a definate no-no. So the book couldn't be included).
Now, if we are to look at the Bible as being written by God Himself, then we may have an issue. Which books did He write? The ones we kept, or the ones we put aside? And did He write them Himself, or through people? Personally, I am not religious, but I believe that for a religious writer, the feeling is that God is writing through them, not that God is writing (the only case I can think of off the top of my head for God actually physically writing is on Mount Sinai when He incribed two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments for Moses to carry down to the People of Israel).
For those of faith, I have nothing but respect for you. If you believe the Bible is the literal Word Of God, that is your right and prerogative. However, if you are seriously researching the histories of these writings, you have no alternative but to acknowledge the role of human beings in the composition of the texts. And really, people, The Old Testament (the Torah) is the history and teachings of the Jewish People. End of story. It is a proud history of a proud people, the fact that it is downplayed in Christianity in lieu of the New Testament in no way diminishes or denies this very simple fact. It is theirs. We can study it, interpret it for lessons we can take with us, but unless you are Jewish, it is not your history. Okay?
The Torah (making up the majority of the Old Testament in the cannonical Bible in all modern Christian forms) is the Holy Book and writings of the Jewish peoples and their faith, containing within it the history and teachings that guide them to this day. It was originally written (and continues to be in Jewish faiths, synagogues, and houses) in Hebrew, and was later translated into Greek, as that was the official "language of learning" common to the Ancient World. This brought us to the time of Jesus.
Jesus was a teacher and leader of Jewish religious followers. He spent his time teaching according to the traditions and knowledge of his time, with his emphasis being different to the orthodoxy of the Pharisees etc. However, he was known and refered to as "rabbi", meaning "teacher'. The term does not specifically mean religious (the same way that "sensei" does not necessarily refer to a martial art teacher), however at the time religious teachings guided all other teachings, so you can read into that quite easily.
So my big issue here is when people are talking about "Christians of Jesus' time". There weren't any. They were Jews who followed Jesus, as there were Jews who followed many other Messianic Prophets at the time. Christians came later.
In terms of contemporary writings (I think maunakumu was saying that there are none for us to check...), there are quite a variety of writings from the time of Jesus, most famously the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as a number of books that have been preserved in texts such as the Ethiopian Bible, and the Koran, and a number of other known "apocryphal" texts. So we can check them if we want to.
The translation issue, of Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English, or straight to English without going to Latin to begin with, well, the issues with translating from the original Hebrew has been covered very well. But I would add one more point, I beileve it was Brother John who said that his copy has three lines in various transliterations? Well, that's all well and good, but the job of a translation is far more than just "this word equals this other word". Context must be taken into account, as must personal idioms, particular (unique) phrases, cultural beliefs and practices which may or may not still be known or practiced, and more. And this is doubly important when dealing with a document such as this.
If there are there lines, with the first being the original Hebrew/Greek in the original lettering, and the second being the phonetic sounding of the text, that's all good. If you can understand it and read it. The third line is where we get a bit of trouble. If it is a direct word-for-word translation, then you are probably missing a great deal of information (as indicated above). A better (and more reliable) translation method is to translate in the context of the original, with it's spirit and heart. Every foreword I have ever read by a translator stresses that fact whether it is Homer, or Hatsumi.
By the time Constantine turned the Roman Empire Christian (and employed the Council of Nicea to address the issue of an official cannonical Bible), there had been a variety of texts moving throughout Christian circles for a few Centuries. Some of these stayed, others were taken out of the equation, and others survived in other sources (as earlier stated). Those that were kept were kept for a variety of reasons, including established authenticity, and congruence, as well as supporting a certain agenda of the new regime (for example, the anti-Roman sentiment which was a big selling point in the time of Jesus and directly following such was downplayed, and the new scapegoats used were the Jewish peoples themselves... I always found that rather ironic, the Jewish people gave the Romans their new religion [in a manner of speaking], although it was the Roman's who were directly responsible for the excecution of Jesus, and in return, the Jewish people get blamed and distanced from the new religious movement, in order to bring it more palatability to the Roman people. Go figure). Those that were removed were taken out for much the same reasons, although there were a few taken out because of simple story-telling rules (a lot of the stories about Mary, Jesus' mother are removed, including the fact that she is in fact the Immaculate Conception, rather than Jesus), as it takes the focus of Jesus. They have survived in the Koran, though, where Mary is mentioned far more than in the Christian Bible. Others were denied placement due to not going with desired ethics and values (in an extended version of the story of Genesis, for example, the question of Cain's wife is answered... the original [and I'm paraphrasing here] has Cain and Abel being the sons of Adam and Eve, and after Cain slays Abel, he goes off into the wild. Later he "knows" his wife, and she bears him a son. At this point, most astute and aware readers say "Hang on, Cain and Abel are the only children of Adam and Eve, where did the wife come from?". Well, this longer version has Cain and Abel simply being the two eldest of many children... and Cain's wife was therefore his sister. Although many other sins are demonstrated and allowed throughout the Bible in various forms, incest is a definate no-no. So the book couldn't be included).
Now, if we are to look at the Bible as being written by God Himself, then we may have an issue. Which books did He write? The ones we kept, or the ones we put aside? And did He write them Himself, or through people? Personally, I am not religious, but I believe that for a religious writer, the feeling is that God is writing through them, not that God is writing (the only case I can think of off the top of my head for God actually physically writing is on Mount Sinai when He incribed two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments for Moses to carry down to the People of Israel).
For those of faith, I have nothing but respect for you. If you believe the Bible is the literal Word Of God, that is your right and prerogative. However, if you are seriously researching the histories of these writings, you have no alternative but to acknowledge the role of human beings in the composition of the texts. And really, people, The Old Testament (the Torah) is the history and teachings of the Jewish People. End of story. It is a proud history of a proud people, the fact that it is downplayed in Christianity in lieu of the New Testament in no way diminishes or denies this very simple fact. It is theirs. We can study it, interpret it for lessons we can take with us, but unless you are Jewish, it is not your history. Okay?
Far be it from me to wade into a religious discussion .
Analogy.
I am Canadian, I was born here. My Dad came from N. Ireland and my Mom from Scotland 50 years ago. I can go back to the UK to work or live as I choose. 95% of my family is in the UK, it is like a second home when I visit. But I am Canadian.
Am I Canadian? Most of the history we studied, the politics, the institutions were created all before my family came here, do I have a right to claim all that stuff as mine? My family never contributed to the historic growth and development of this country, but I proudly say I am a Canadian.
Am I a Canadian? Do I have a right to be proud of the history of this country?
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hey Ken, good to see you. Yeah, I thought the same about entering into another religious thread, but here we are again, I guess. And so long as we're here...
I would say you have a personal history of the various ethnic histories that make up your family tree, in this case form the UK primarily. You do also, however, have an inherent interest in the history of your country and culture, which is Canadian.
In the context of this thread, the Jewish history for Christians is like your Canadian citizenship. It is part of the history of your identity, and shapes you from a cultural standpoint, even though the actual history precedes your involvelment (or your families). Make sense?
I would say you have a personal history of the various ethnic histories that make up your family tree, in this case form the UK primarily. You do also, however, have an inherent interest in the history of your country and culture, which is Canadian.
In the context of this thread, the Jewish history for Christians is like your Canadian citizenship. It is part of the history of your identity, and shapes you from a cultural standpoint, even though the actual history precedes your involvelment (or your families). Make sense?
Hey Chris, I actually love the historical part to religion. I would love to travel to that part of teh world and see all it has to offer. Just don't expect me to pray or believe...
Correct, that was my purpose in the analogy. I don't see why folks get hung up on these little things. Its like a koryu argument about who is teaching the "real" line. Who cares? as long as it gets you to where you need to be!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #76
Brother John, I think you may have missed some posts on here when someone was telling me exactly what to do and where I was going wrong etc, it certainly wasn't conversation it was actually abusive, nasty and insulting which is why I assume the poster was banned and you missed mine telling how there's always people telling me how I should behave ie convert to Christianity.
You are assume I'm talking about the Bible I'm not, I'm talking about what you call the Old Testament and the parts referring to Jewish history. That bit is straightforward and plain, it's history. I'm not talking about the law or commandments, I'm talking about history. What I obviously can't seem to make people understand is that you keep calling it the bible, it's not that to me, I don't know this bible, it's alien to me, I can't judge it not having read it. What I have is the Torah and the Talmud. We are talking about almost very different things from my perspective. I can say nothing about your New Testament, I haven't read it, I can't discuss it as I have no knowledge of it. It would be like me discussing knowledgably CMA, it has some similiarities I can recognise to my karate but is a very different thing in practice.
I don't know if people can understand the wish for our history to be ours and not shared as a world wide asset, I am in the Diaspora, I hope to go up to Eretz Israel one day but the longing is always there and has been for our people for centuries. I don't think I can make you understand how it feels, I'm at a loss to explain. I can't explain how we constantly feel insecure even in countries that appear to be 'safe' Perhaps you have heard Jerry Springer talk about his father? He was called by his mother to go and speak to his father about him giving up his car as he was getting on and was finding it hard to see and therefore drive. His father listened and then told him that he could never give the car up as they may need it one day to escape again. My mother kept a small bag of diamonds and her passport always handy, I have the diamonds now and yes my passports with it because who knows? Jerry Springer did a programme here where he went back to Germany and found out what happened to his family, he managed to trace both his grandmothers, elderly ladies at the time of the war, the both died in the camps. Stripped of their clothes, their dignity and then their lives. Perhaps it can only be understood when one has nothing and comes from nowhere yet what was uniquely ours what you call the Old Testament, a history of our people is claimed by all as belonging to all and can be translated as one wishes. If as people say it speaks to all and is G-ds word to all why then is so much ignored? why no celebrating Pesach, eating clean foods, circumcising boys etc etc. some things people want others they don't, it's turned into a pick and mix for people.
"I have lost everything... I have lost my native land; do you know what that means for a poet? .. I have lost the cities where I have worked and where I made an impression for a whole life-span... I have had to become my own world, my own mental space, the cradle of words."
Karl Wolfskel ( from a letter to a friend after 14 years in exile from Germany)
On the subject of translations and different versions look at this and how many different 'Bibles' translate something. I think losing the skill to play a harp is hardly the momentous loss the original phrase was trying to portray and the horrendous notion of forgetting Jerusalem is downplayed in many of these. I have also had the word 'cunning' used against me to prove that Jews are in fact sly and cunning, well it says so in the Bible, must be true.
New International Version (©1984)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill].
New Living Translation (©2007)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget how to play the harp.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, May my right hand forget her skill.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [how to play the lyre].
King James Bible
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
American King James Version
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
American Standard Version
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget her skill .
Bible in Basic English
If I keep not your memory, O Jerusalem, let not my right hand keep the memory of its art.
Douay-Rheims Bible
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten.
Darby Bible Translation
If I forget thee, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill;
English Revised Version
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
Webster's Bible Translation
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill. World English Bible
If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill. Young's Literal Translation
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, my right hand forgetteth!
Thank you Chris, elegantly and eloquently put. My emotional attachment makes me unable to post in such a scholarly way. You have my gratitude.
You are assume I'm talking about the Bible I'm not, I'm talking about what you call the Old Testament and the parts referring to Jewish history. That bit is straightforward and plain, it's history. I'm not talking about the law or commandments, I'm talking about history. What I obviously can't seem to make people understand is that you keep calling it the bible, it's not that to me, I don't know this bible, it's alien to me, I can't judge it not having read it. What I have is the Torah and the Talmud. We are talking about almost very different things from my perspective. I can say nothing about your New Testament, I haven't read it, I can't discuss it as I have no knowledge of it. It would be like me discussing knowledgably CMA, it has some similiarities I can recognise to my karate but is a very different thing in practice.
I don't know if people can understand the wish for our history to be ours and not shared as a world wide asset, I am in the Diaspora, I hope to go up to Eretz Israel one day but the longing is always there and has been for our people for centuries. I don't think I can make you understand how it feels, I'm at a loss to explain. I can't explain how we constantly feel insecure even in countries that appear to be 'safe' Perhaps you have heard Jerry Springer talk about his father? He was called by his mother to go and speak to his father about him giving up his car as he was getting on and was finding it hard to see and therefore drive. His father listened and then told him that he could never give the car up as they may need it one day to escape again. My mother kept a small bag of diamonds and her passport always handy, I have the diamonds now and yes my passports with it because who knows? Jerry Springer did a programme here where he went back to Germany and found out what happened to his family, he managed to trace both his grandmothers, elderly ladies at the time of the war, the both died in the camps. Stripped of their clothes, their dignity and then their lives. Perhaps it can only be understood when one has nothing and comes from nowhere yet what was uniquely ours what you call the Old Testament, a history of our people is claimed by all as belonging to all and can be translated as one wishes. If as people say it speaks to all and is G-ds word to all why then is so much ignored? why no celebrating Pesach, eating clean foods, circumcising boys etc etc. some things people want others they don't, it's turned into a pick and mix for people.
"I have lost everything... I have lost my native land; do you know what that means for a poet? .. I have lost the cities where I have worked and where I made an impression for a whole life-span... I have had to become my own world, my own mental space, the cradle of words."
Karl Wolfskel ( from a letter to a friend after 14 years in exile from Germany)
On the subject of translations and different versions look at this and how many different 'Bibles' translate something. I think losing the skill to play a harp is hardly the momentous loss the original phrase was trying to portray and the horrendous notion of forgetting Jerusalem is downplayed in many of these. I have also had the word 'cunning' used against me to prove that Jews are in fact sly and cunning, well it says so in the Bible, must be true.
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill].
New Living Translation (©2007)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget how to play the harp.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, May my right hand forget her skill.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [how to play the lyre].
King James Bible
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
American King James Version
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
American Standard Version
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget her skill .
Bible in Basic English
If I keep not your memory, O Jerusalem, let not my right hand keep the memory of its art.
Douay-Rheims Bible
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten.
Darby Bible Translation
If I forget thee, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill;
English Revised Version
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
Webster's Bible Translation
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill. World English Bible
If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill. Young's Literal Translation
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, my right hand forgetteth!
Thank you Chris, elegantly and eloquently put. My emotional attachment makes me unable to post in such a scholarly way. You have my gratitude.
Brother John
Senior Master
You are RIGHT.
I did forget that that jerk had been.... well....... a Jerk, I tend to shut things like that out. Sorry that I wasn't paying better attention.
I understand what you're saying about being in the diaspora and the yearning you feel to return to the promised land of God's covenant with his people; though....like you said, I can't possibly FULLY understand it. Several of the brothers in my masonic lodge have talked to me about this yearning and the passion in them was Very moving. I hope you get the chance some day and that you get to fully enjoy the experience w/out the interuption of violence that tends to plague that region. Israel and God's people remain in my prayers.
Happy Hanukkah!
Your Brother
John
Brother John, Tez said it well. But it is also more than that. The reason that we ar so sensitive on the subject is more than Xtians appropriating our history. It's Xtians misreading our Holy books, and then teling us that we are wrong. That we should 'see the way' and convert. That we should abandon a 4,000 year old culture, history and faith and just become one more extinct civilazation.
Not going to happen.
It's pehaps fitting that this onversation is spanning Chanukkah.
Not going to happen.
It's pehaps fitting that this onversation is spanning Chanukkah.
What I'm trying to say (and probally not saying it very well) is that in Christianity and Judaism, there are many common topics that are important, and held in high esteem.
But the emphasis and interpretation behind the topics are not always the same, and there is a lot more to being Jewish than just understanding what is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and I think this dynamic is aggravated demographics (Christians are an overwhelming majority compared to Jews in the western world), and this creates misunderstandings and tensions.
Another example, amongst the fewer-numbered Sikhs and the greater-numbered Hindus, and having once been an orthodox Sikh, I can attest firsthand that it is very aggravating when someone from another religion tells you what you should believe, or what you are. I think a very similar dynamic exists in the west between Christians and Jews....and even perhaps even Protestants and Catholics. I do have to admit that my blood pressure goes up a bit whenever I hear the phrase "Catholics and Christians".
I don't know if I'm being more clear, or more confusing. But I hope you have a a very Merry Christmas good brother.
Xinglu
Black Belt
I have always found Christians telling Jews that they don't understand the Old Testament to be incredibly arrogant. It is akin to a first year music student telling Bob Dylan that he doesn't understand the meaning of his own music.
They (as a people) wrote it. They have taught it fairly consistently for the past four thousand years.... I think they know what it means and how it applies.
I want all the Christians to sit back and consider how they would feel if another religion started using the New Testament, began interpreting it in an fashion to suit their doctrines, and then began telling Christians that they are ignorant of the meaning of their own scriptures. It's like a Russian telling and American that they have no idea what it means to be American, or an American telling a Japanese that they have no clue what it means to be Japanese. After all the old testament is more than just spiritual books, it is a historical account of a group of people. of the Jews themselves.
Jesus (if he actually existed [I don't care to debate that, nor do I have an opinion as to weather or not he did]) lived and died a practicing Jew and Rabbi. Looking at what words are actually attributed to him (not spoken/written by Paul and the likes) he never contradicted Judaism. He contradicted the contemporary interpretations of the laws from the leading sects.
In fact, I assert that until Christians can get their first rule right (to treat others with pure love and compassion that Christ professes) that they abstain from telling others how wrong their religion is. Something about removing the "beam" from one's own eye before pointing out the "rod" in another's...
Almost every Jew (with few exceptions) I have ever met has embraced me and treated me with more kindness and tolerance than I probably deserve. I cannot say the same for Christians. In fact, in my experience tolerance and friendship of those outside "the faith" is most uncommon. Sooner or later I'm expected to convert or cut off from friendship or attacked for not believing what they do. And what boggles my mind, is that Christianity is a fractured religion filled with infighting. They can't even agree on the littlest of things from one denomination to the next, and proclaim each-other to be heretics! Yet demand to be considered the religion of tolerance and love...
It seems like the Jews (the mother of all Abrahamic religions) have been betrayed and set upon by her children (Christians and Muslims) and it just baffles me.
- In peace
They (as a people) wrote it. They have taught it fairly consistently for the past four thousand years.... I think they know what it means and how it applies.
I want all the Christians to sit back and consider how they would feel if another religion started using the New Testament, began interpreting it in an fashion to suit their doctrines, and then began telling Christians that they are ignorant of the meaning of their own scriptures. It's like a Russian telling and American that they have no idea what it means to be American, or an American telling a Japanese that they have no clue what it means to be Japanese. After all the old testament is more than just spiritual books, it is a historical account of a group of people. of the Jews themselves.
Jesus (if he actually existed [I don't care to debate that, nor do I have an opinion as to weather or not he did]) lived and died a practicing Jew and Rabbi. Looking at what words are actually attributed to him (not spoken/written by Paul and the likes) he never contradicted Judaism. He contradicted the contemporary interpretations of the laws from the leading sects.
In fact, I assert that until Christians can get their first rule right (to treat others with pure love and compassion that Christ professes) that they abstain from telling others how wrong their religion is. Something about removing the "beam" from one's own eye before pointing out the "rod" in another's...
Almost every Jew (with few exceptions) I have ever met has embraced me and treated me with more kindness and tolerance than I probably deserve. I cannot say the same for Christians. In fact, in my experience tolerance and friendship of those outside "the faith" is most uncommon. Sooner or later I'm expected to convert or cut off from friendship or attacked for not believing what they do. And what boggles my mind, is that Christianity is a fractured religion filled with infighting. They can't even agree on the littlest of things from one denomination to the next, and proclaim each-other to be heretics! Yet demand to be considered the religion of tolerance and love...
It seems like the Jews (the mother of all Abrahamic religions) have been betrayed and set upon by her children (Christians and Muslims) and it just baffles me.
- In peace
