Orthodox Jewish Bible

[Yosef_m]

ive read it a couple of times, but there is just to much hebrew in it, if you dont know hebrew this is actually not so good of a translation, and the autor seems to take some liverties as nachson said before.

[Nachshon]

golfnerd said:

nachshon said:

Oyi va'avoyi! All caps started making my head spin after a bit. lol. That's what I call overkill.

I looked all over and never could find what texts he was using. I was hoping to find translation information like that in the introduction, but there was none.

I could never use this translation for one reason: He uses Ashkenazi pronunciations. I'm sorry, maybe living in Texas has ruined me, but I greatly preferr "Mashiakh" to "Moshiakh." *shudders* <G>

Shalom,
Nachshon

Where are you at in Texas?

West Texas. Why?

[tonga]

Mar 13, 2007 7:54:43 GMT -8 Nachshon said:

I really don't like that translation of it. It's just that they're trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text from the Greek text, and they're taking certain liberties.

It seems to make no sense to translate Greek to Hebrew to English.
Each translation is bound to lose something.

My understanding is the NT was written in Greek, so why not just
translate from that to English? Translating it into Hebrew first is
not going to make it any more "authentic".

[alon]

Jun 3, 2010 12:17:43 GMT -8 tonga said:

Mar 13, 2007 7:54:43 GMT -8 Nachshon said:

I really don't like that translation of it. It's just that they're trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text from the Greek text, and they're taking certain liberties.

It seems to make no sense to translate Greek to Hebrew to English.
Each translation is bound to lose something.

My understanding is the NT was written in Greek, so why not just
translate from that to English? Translating it into Hebrew first is
not going to make it any more "authentic".

Actually, it does make sense. Many Bible and language scholars are coming to think the "New Testament" was written in Hebrew, not Greek. I've heard many scholarly proofs, most of which went right over my head and few of which I can even begin to remember. However here are some easy ones. I was raised hearing that the NT was written in Koine Greek like that was the nadir of the Greek language! However I later learned it is one of the lowest forms of Greek, used mostly for translations!

The one I always use on my Christian friends is I have them open their New Testament to any page. I challenge them to find a single place where there is not a sentence beginning with the word "and". This is called the "vav connector", and is common in Hebrew but is extremely poor Greek. To date no one has found a page in any version which doesn't have the vav connector.

Consider too the early believers in Yeshua were just another sect of Judaism. Even In the Diaspora and after the split over the 70 CE rebellion, these people kept theit Jewish traditions, form of worship and language. The New Testament is mostly a collection of letters, the Kethuvai Shelachim, or Apostolic Writings. These men would have preferred to write in Hebrew to the leadership in their synagogues. The recipients would have also preferred Hebrew. Letters of the Christian Church Fathers acknowledge these letters existed in Hebrew and that the Nots'rim kept their Hebrew customs and language.

I wouldn't use the OJB as my primary Bible as I do not speak Hebrew, so it would be difficult for me to read. But as a study tool it is outstanding. When I have to look up a Hebrew word, I get all the nuance and connotations that word carries. So it helps my understanding greatly. I also often find out that the English translation chose the poorest contextual translation.

As for nachshon's criticism that the back-translators are taking liberties, even without proof I can agree there would have to be some license in some cases. After all, some meaning would have been lost when originally translated into Greek. Factor in as well there are hundreds of different Greek versions, and a lot of disagreement in these. So I would submit there is no more license taken back-translating to Hebrew than there is translating to English. But, as I said, we get far more meaning out of the Hebrew words. Furthermore the idioms make more sense in Hebrew and things like the parables come to life. What does not make sense is translating from Hebrew to pagan Greek, then to English.

edit: consider as well that the majority of the OJB wouldn't have to be back-translated, as the TNK is unquestionably written in Hebrew. That some modern English translations use the LXX is a travesty.

Bottom line, it is just another translation which can help our understanding.

Dan C

[jimmie]

[quote author="alon" source="/post/19010/thread" timestamp="1433535991
edit: some modern English translations use the LXX is a travesty.
Dan C[/quote]

Doesn't the LXX predate the Christian era by 200 to 300 years? And isn't it much older than surviving Hebrew text(s)? Didn't Jew's make that translation? Haven’t the Jew's translated the OT into many other languages: Arabic, Aramaic, German, Spanish, and English to name a few? When the NT quotes the OT, doesn't it read more closely to the LXX than the Masoretic text, which postdates the Christian era by 400 to 500 years?

[alon]

Jun 5, 2015 14:49:19 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Doesn't the LXX predate the Christian era by 200 to 300 years?

Yes ... so?

And isn't it much older than surviving Hebrew text(s)?

You refer to "it" like "it" still exists in its original form, and the Hebrew texts like the originals have disappeared. You are half right. All source documents we have are copies of copies of ... ad infinitum.

Didn't Jew's make that translation?

Yes, however they translated it into another language, so the argument that was made earlier that some things are lost in translation would still apply. So does my argument it is a pagan language, and not the language of God's people. Not the language of the people entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom 3:2).

Haven’t the Jew's translated the OT into many other languages: Arabic, Aramaic, German, Spanish, and English to name a few?

I would imagine so. And they probably used Hebrew text as their base when making those translations. I see no problem with Jews translating scripture.

When the NT quotes the OT, doesn't it read more closely to the LXX than the Masoretic text, which postdates the Christian era by 400 to 500 years?

Well, you are asking a scholarly question there, and I can only go on what I've been told. Sometimes yes, there are quotes that are closer to the Septuagent than other Hebrew source texts. But not always. And more, I doubt it. You do realize though you've just admitted there are differences in the Hebrew and LXX texts? And with all the hundreds of differing Greek source texts for the NT, who's to say that those used were not redacted versions chosen by translators (who were most decidedly NOT Jewish) due to their own prejudicial misunderstanding.

Furthermore Yeshua and Rav Sha'ul taught from the Mishna as well. No original Greek copies of that anywhere ...

I know it upsets many people to hear that the "New Testament" was not new, and was not written in Greek as they have always been told in church. I had one pastor scream in my face that "Jesus spoke Greek!" He may or may not have understood Greek, but I am quite certain that Yeshua, a Jew, spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Anything other than that is speculation; but to say His primary language was one of the most pagan languages of this or any time borders on heresy. I'd say outright heresy, except that people have been so brainwashed they are just parroting what they've been taught. However I think the reason they get so angry is they see the truth in what I say and it challenges their entire belief system. Remember the thread on de-Judaizing the Galil (Galilee)? If you can make Yeshua's life experiences and language to be other than Hebrew, you can recreate Him in your own image! Then you can have your Christian Jesus remade as a catholic (universal) religious figure.

Dan C

[jimmie]

alon,

Let me start by saying I neither believe what you argue against nor do I believe what you argue for.

In Luke 23:38 and John 19:19-20, the inscription placed over Jesus was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. I am guessing that the person who wrote the inscription(s) received it in Latin as it came from Pilate. At any rate, the Jewish leaders understood what was written. There was nothing lost in the translation. What was written, could be expressed in the three languages without misunderstanding. In Acts chapter 2, people from sixteen languages heard in their native tongue what was spoken, by the Galileans. Since God created languages, at the tower, he can speak them all. Paul spoke and read Greek as seen at Mars Hill in Acts 17. In Acts 21, Paul speaks to the guard in Greek then to the crowd in Hebrew. In chapter 22 Paul said that he was born a Roman, so he may even have spoken Latin.
The name of the King of the bottomless pit was recorded in both Greek and Hebrew, Rev 9:11.
I could go on and on, but will conclude with:
Matt 27: 33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
John 19: 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
It appears that Matthew and Mark were written in Hebrew or at least from an Hebrew prospective while John presents the Greek prospective and most likely Greek language.
To say the NT was entirely composed in Hebrew is just as ludicrous as saying the NT was entirely composed in Greek. Neither position fits the evidences that we have at hand.

[alon]

OK, well, let's look objectively at your evidence. I'll start by saying that there are scholars who agree with your position. In brief talks with R Reuel, I believe he agrees with you that some of the NT was written in Greek, though I don't know where he'd stand on the specificities’ of your arguments here. (Arguments, btw are statements which can be proven true or false, not just like the common usage of verbal fighting). At any rate, I had thought you were arguing for an all Greek NT. Glad you cleared that up.

Jun 8, 2015 7:01:38 GMT -8 jimmie said:

In Luke 23:38 and John 19:19-20, the inscription placed over Jesus was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. I am guessing that the person who wrote the inscription(s) received it in Latin as it came from Pilate. At any rate, the Jewish leaders understood what was written. There was nothing lost in the translation. What was written, could be expressed in the three languages without misunderstanding.

Well, yes, I'm sure they understood it, as it was in their native tongue (Hebrew). And there are always some things which can be adequately expressed in translating between any two or even three languages. Most things however loose at least some of the nuance if not much of the meaning when translating. Even thought processes, the way a culture thinks, is reflected in its language. So while the three languages could adequately express the very short title inscribed above Yeshua's head, they could not as a direct translation express why He was hung there in the first place.

In Acts chapter 2, people from sixteen languages heard in their native tongue what was spoken, by the Galileans. Since God created languages, at the tower, he can speak them all. Paul spoke and read Greek as seen at Mars Hill in Acts 17. In Acts 21, Paul speaks to the guard in Greek then to the crowd in Hebrew. In chapter 22 Paul said that he was born a Roman, so he may even have spoken Latin.

Shavuot, the time written of in Acts 2, was one of the shelosh regalim. All Jewish men were commanded to be there. At the time there were Jews living in many other countries, their families having lived there for centuries. So the native tongue of many of these Jews was not Hebrew. They probably understood some Hebrew, since where there were Jews there were yeshivas; and the readings each Shabbat were in Hebrew. But the native tongue of these people was that of the nation and even region where they lived. So, just as at Sinai, God spoke to those gathered in every language.

God can certainly speak all languages, and I am sure that Yeshua, through the working of the Ruach HaChodesh could speak any language had the need arisen. However He was a Jew, and Hebrew and Aramaic would have been the primary languages, His native tongues. It would have been what He spoke daily, how He communicated to the Jews around Him, and the language of His thoughts. Yeshua thought like a Hebrew, NOT like a Greek, and this is a VERY important distinction!

Also a note: the Gallileans were overwhelmingly Jews, and they spoke Hebrew and Aramaic as primary languages as well. Recent archeological evidence shows that they kept to themselves outside of business and they kept their traditions intact. Many of the merchants of that region did speak other languages as a business necessity. But at home and in their synagogues they were Jewish, not pagans.

Rav Sha’ul did have dual citizenship as both a Jew and a Roman. The name Paul would have been given to him at birth, along with the name Sha’ul. (He did not get the name “Paul” at his conversion, as most assume). Sha’ul was a very well educated man and spoke numerous languages, as you point out. This however was no more the norm in that time as it is today when we meet someone who is a linguist. I once met a man (in passing) who worked for the government and he spoke over 20 languages fluently. Would you conclude from that that even most gov’t employees are multilingual? Let alone the entire nation. According to my wife, who is British, most Americans struggle mightily with just the one language!

The name of the King of the bottomless pit was recorded in both Greek and Hebrew, Rev 9:11.

Again, this is not uncommon when the “original” Greek translators ran into trouble, or when there was a significantly important reason to leave it in the original Hebrew or the Aramaic, which would mean they were already working from a translation if indeed the original was Hebrew. (I realize there is disagreement on that point- so be it). For example:

Consider the words of Yeshua Himself on the cross at the most poignant time in His life; “eli eli lema sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34, which uses eloi instead of eli). The sentence is then translated into Greek in Matthew and Mark, and now of course into English: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This is a quotation from Psalm 22:1, which in Hebrew reads “eli ‘eli lama ‘azavtani.” (note the extreme similarity between Aramaic and Hebrew here). The fact that Matthew and Mark quote Yeshua speaking Aramaic suggests this line was commonly remembered by the Nots’rim in either Aramaic or Hebrew. This would have been too powerful a quotation for even the early Christian Church to mess with.

Matt 27: 33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
John 19: 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
It appears that Matthew and Mark were written in Hebrew or at least from an Hebrew prospective while John presents the Greek prospective and most likely Greek language.

Again, not uncommon to leave the original Hebrew term with a Greek explanation instead of a direct translation from the original Hebrew to Greek.

To say the NT was entirely composed in Hebrew is just as ludicrous as saying the NT was entirely composed in Greek. Neither position fits the evidences that we have at hand.

Well, you are welcome to that opinion. And as I indicated at the beginning you are certainly not alone in that view. I think you are wrong, and even the evidence you give points to the original being Hebrew; but won’t even say that with absolute certainty as I am neither a linguist nor a scholar. However your stance in this post is much more agreeable than the earlier one which led me to believe you thought the entire NT was Greek. You are only a little bit pagan ...
Dan C

[jimmie]

Jun 8, 2015 19:54:50 GMT -8 alon said:

Yeshua thought like a Hebrew, NOT like a Greek, and this is a VERY important distinction!
Dan C

Which Hebrew did Jesus think like? Was it Nadab, Abihu, Korah, Dathan, Abiram …?
It’s not how one thinks. Rather it’s what one thinks that matters. Many Hebrews have broken God’s laws and many Greeks have endeavored to keep it.

Romans 3: 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

The advantage of the Hebrew/Israel/Jew is not their language/culture/philosophy but rather the oracles of God. Regardless what nation or tongue keeps the oracles of god, doing so brings blessings.

Romans 2: For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

To elevate the Hebrew language above all others seems to be getting dangerously close to worshiping a creation of God instead of Him.
Romans 1: For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Psalms 19: 1{To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

If God’s Glory and handy work can be expressed in any and all speech and language, then his oracles can too.

[alon]

Jun 9, 2015 7:00:55 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Jun 8, 2015 19:54:50 GMT -8 alon said:

Yeshua thought like a Hebrew, NOT like a Greek, and this is a VERY important distinction!
Dan C

Which Hebrew did Jesus think like? Was it Nadab, Abihu, Korah, Dathan, Abiram …?

That is a ridiculous question. You’ve mixed the meanings of Hebrew as a language with the meaning of the word as a specific person of Hebrew descent, neither one the relevant meaning. The Hevrew he thought like was the Hebrew nation, of which He was a part. Nations, meaning the people of a nation as a whole, have strong tendencies to think alike; and this is reflected in their language. Not to say they will all do or say the same things. These are tendencies and methods of thought, not mind control.

It’s not how one thinks. Rather it’s what one thinks that matters. Many Hebrews have broken God’s laws and many Greeks have endeavored to keep it.

Yes, basic human nature plays a part too. When we get too much of the blessings of God, we tend to take it for granted it will always be that way. The Jews as a whole often turned away. And it’s true that many Greeks were converted to the Nots’rim. But the closest they came as a nation to keeping God’s laws lies with the Greek Orthodox Church, a very pagan, Catholic church. They nowhere near keep the Oracles of God.

How one thinks does matter when expressing ideas. Euphemisms, expressions, turns of speech, wordplay, and the way our speech is structured all play a part in how we talk, how we write- how we express ourselves. These thought patterns come across as meanings; meanings that are often lost when translated to another language.

Romans 3: 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

The advantage of the Hebrew/Israel/Jew is not their language/culture/philosophy but rather the oracles of God. Regardless what nation or tongue keeps the oracles of god, doing so brings blessings.

Keeping God’s laws does bring blessings. Messing with His Word brings a curse. God chose the Hebrew people and language through which to express Himself. He chose the Hebrew nation through which to reveal HaMoshiach. Christianity typically believes the Jews brought a curse upon themselves when “they crucified Jesus.” The truth is, even if they had done it (some Jews and some pagans were involved in the act, and it was the sins of the entire world that put Yeshua on that cross); we Gentiles brought a much worse curse upon ourselves when we remade Him from a Semitic Jew to a fair skinned pagan Greek whose very words we changed to suit our new religion. Pastors get incensed when we tell them Yeshua taught from the Oral Tradition. Scripture is quoted to us out of context because this is the way the church is trained to think; its meaning twisted and distorted so as to mean something totally different than what is written there. The words of Paul, already difficult, become so convoluted they can mean anything the pastor tells you. How can the Greeks keep the Oracles of God when they have lost so much meaning in the translation? And how does Greek hermeneutics, which teaches that what is written can be changed to fit the storytellers’ needs keep the Oracles of God, who meant every word He said as He said it?

Romans 2: For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

To elevate the Hebrew language above all others seems to be getting dangerously close to worshiping a creation of God instead of Him.
Romans 1: For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

If you have the law and you transgress the law, then yes, unless you repent circumcision does you no good. In fact, you are worse off for having the truth and refusing it. But your quote from Romans 2 says nothing about anyone else being entrusted with the oracles of God; just that those who are responsible are to abide by them.

To elevate the Hebrew language to its proper place in order to better understand what is being said is far from worshiping “the creation.” To seek the truth in its’ proper expression is NOT to worship “the creation.” What is dangerous is being so bound up in a Greek New Testament, the Greek hermeneutical method, and Greek thought processes that you are offended by the word as expressed by God’s own methods and His people who He chose to write it. You accuse me of worshiping the Hebrew language, but you are wrong. I’m telling you that you are exchanging the truth of the word of God for lies of a Greek document corrupted by the catholic church when made into a pagan Greek tome, with all that implies.

Psalms 19: 1{To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

If God’s Glory and handy work can be expressed in any and all speech and language, then his oracles can too.

You’ve taken this out of context and once again applied the Greek hermeneutical method to make it say what you want. You say this means God’s oracles can be expressed in any language. But read:

Psalm 19 (ESV)
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David.
19 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

This obviously speaks of nature “speaking” of God’s glory, not our speech or languages. If you look it up and read the entire Psalm, you’ll see that this was a prelude to compare the perfection of God’s Law as being as perfect as the rest of His creation. Both proclaim His glory.

So, let’s back up a bit here:

If God’s Glory and handy work can be expressed in any and all speech and language, then his oracles can too.

While your “if-then” expression is poorly constructed, it does contain a truth which needs exploring. The oracles of God can be translated into other languages and used effectively. I never said they could not. I did agree with another poster that corruption unavoidably occurs with translation. What I am saying is we need to start from the right base language to get the proper perspective for our translation. When trying to express the nuances of Hebrew, it is best to start with Hebrew and not Greek. Such a translation "Hebrew to Greek to another language" would be twice corrupted. And there is the issue of what language you go back to when researching the words of a difficult passage. Hebrew, even from a back-translation, is more telling and accurate than Greek for understanding God’s word.

I do not worship the Hebrew language or people. I do respect both as the language and people through which God chose to reveal Himself to the world.

Dan C

[alon]

For reference, a description of Hebrew Hermaneutical methods can be found here:

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3386/hebrew-hermaneutics

And the very pagan Greek Hermaneutical method of thought and interpretation here:

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3385/greek-hermaneutics

Both of these threads are worth reading if you want to understand the differences in thought and application to not only the Bible but our culture as well. Being Christian, our forefathers were a mix of both methods. But a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, and today we hear things like "the Constitution is a living document" parroted by politicians and people with no idea what they are really saying, or why. We are schooled in the Greek method, our churches use the Greek method to interpret scripture; is it any wonder we've come to the point where we as a nation are becoming more pagan with each passing generation?


Hos 4:6 (KJV) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.


Dan

[jimmie]

Alon,
I am glad you seen my rhetorical question right off.
It is never my intention to accuse anybody of anything, for there is one that accuses the brethren and it ain’t me. I do try to look at actions (overly elevating the Hebrew language in this case) and express why they appear wrong to me. I generally use scripture to support my thought process. If that thought process is Greek/pagan, I’m guilty as charged. If I have to become an Hebrew to understand God’s laws, that seems to me to make void Gal. 3:28. Have I taken Gal 3:28 out of context? Not from my prospective! What makes us one? Christ Jesus. Who or what is Christ Jesus? The Word. And what is the Word? Law and Grace. As both are in the Word.

[alon]

Jun 9, 2015 12:27:07 GMT -8 jimmie said:

… I do try to look at actions (overly elevating the Hebrew language in this case) and express why they appear wrong to me. I generally use scripture to support my thought process.

Yes, you do that; and that is a good thing. I am simply pointing out where those thought processes go awry.

If that thought process is Greek/pagan, I’m guilty as charged.

Yes! We all have been taught in the classical Greek method in our schools and in our churches. It is this thinking I am advocating we work to change!

If I have to become an Hebrew to understand God’s laws, that seems to me to make void Gal. 3:28. Have I taken Gal 3:28 out of context? Not from my prospective! What makes us one? Christ Jesus. Who or what is Christ Jesus? The Word. And what is the Word? Law and Grace. As both are in the Word.

Galatians 3:28 (ESV) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

You have misinterpreted the meaning, a direct result of your being bound to and by the Greek hermeneutical method. It says whatever you want it to say- onlyit doesn’t. That verse speaks of our all being of equal standing in regards to our salvation. It says absolutely nothing of languages, let alone the language God chose for His word. Yes, Yeshua was the Word made flesh, and that flesh and the language He used for speech, writing and thought was Hebrew.

Dan C

[jimmie]

alon,

As I see it, we are engaged in a “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” type discussion. As I understand your position, you believe that language tends to control thoughts. Whereas, I believe that language expresses thoughts. As you know, I have a habit of expressing thoughts in hyperbole. So here is another. You mentioned that you met a person who spoke 20 languages. Now let’s say he could also juggle 20 balls while speaking his mother tongue. Now when he started learning another language, did he have to relearn how to juggle in the new language? No. But he would have to express the process of juggling in a different way/language. What if he wanted to show his juggling abilities to an audience/language that doesn’t have balls but has knives? Now he has to introduce balls into the new language and create a term for it (or transliterate ball) or he can juggle 20 knives.

[alon]

Jun 11, 2015 9:52:50 GMT -8 jimmie said:

As I see it, we are engaged in a “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” type discussion. As I understand your position, you believe that language tends to control thoughts. Whereas, I believe that language expresses thoughts.

Not at all. Language does express thoughts. Go back to my statement “The Hevrew he thought like was the Hebrew nation, of which He was a part. Nations, meaning the people of a nation as a whole, have strong tendencies to think alike; and this is reflected in their language. Not to say they will all do or say the same things. These are tendencies and methods of thought, not mind control.” To an extent, language does tend to influence the way we think, yes. But you must factor in the myriad influences of environment. Eskimos, for example, have numerous terms for what we just call “snow”. Did you know it takes a particular type of snow to build an igloo? They know snow, and that familiarity is passed on in their language, itself developed in the snow. And when I say the know snow- not just what it is and its properties in different stages; but how to work with it, how to use it, and how to survive in it.

If your juggler wanted to show his art to an Eskimo, he’d just have to make snowballs. Does that mean he’d know snow? No. But to truly learn about snow, he’d have an easier time of it if he learns to speak their language. Especially if he was, say, an Arab.

What I am saying is it’s all related. Neither language nor religions nor customs nor thought processes, patterns and tendencies can or will develop in a vacuum. While gods may be “borrowed” or exchanged between pagan cultures, each gives these gods its own flavor and characteristics. That is part of the flexibility of paganism; it can be repackaged to fit the way any culture thinks. And there are undeniable tendencies for particular cultures to think alike; tendencies mirrored in their language.

Yeshua was nor is He a pagan. He did not speak a pagan tongue as His primary language. His religious message was not in any way meant to be malleable to the whims of His audience. Which came first?

Revelation 1:8 (ESV) “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

And the Almighty chose to reveal Himself as a Hebrew and through the Hebrew nation and tongue. That is the benefit of having to look up Hebrew terms when studying a text. You get all the nuances of meaning of the original language; the true meaning that makes things work. When I was younger and a member of the Spokane Mountaineers, we used to do silly things like build snow shelters and igloos and camp in them. There is no sorrier sight than a couple of Mountaineers woken by the collapsing of their igloo, unless it is someone misled enough by scripture they miss the mark because their understanding of the original meaning of the Word is skewed, lost in translation.

Dan C