Pesach 5778 coming up!

[IshChayil]

You kind of only pushed mw farther in my direction Ish. You say you forbid men to hunt? That just flies all over me for a whole host of reasons most of which admittedly aren't scriptural.
Look, David killed a lion and a bear with a slingshot.

Are Lion and Bear kosher? So do you think David was hunting them? Of course we are allowed to kill dangerous animals to protect our lives

Samson tore a lion in half with his hands.

Since when is Samson the model of virtue?

I'm being a little absurd to illustrate a point though, you can't get hard fast rules from traditions and asides. Hard fast rules are unequivocal. You can't argue with them. There's no denying them.
Traditions and leaps of logic and principles end up elevating men to positions of authority they can't fulfill. We've seen it in Christianity, we've seen it Judaism.
I would love to learn the traditions and the reasoning behind them. But they have to be taught as traditions, as principles that help us obey actual Laws. If ever the traditions become laws, or are used to obscure Laws, then we're in a dangerous place.

Ok but before we over generalize what's wrong with traditions which help us "play it safe"?
In the case of my recommending to people not to slaughter their own lambs for passover unless they know how to do it "in the way I have shown you" - Moses
where is the harm? Assuming people can afford to have the kosher butcher kill their animal for them. This also presupposes that with Messiah as our Passover lamb that we are still obligated to kill a lamb for passover at all.

You frequently hear that pride was the original sin but that seems pretty vague to me. Specifically what happened is that Eve was tempted to know right and wrong and so be like God. Now that's prideful for sure, it's the ultimate pride. But how many people do we know, from all faiths, that think their words should carry the weight of God's Words? That they know right and wrong and so can make pronouncements that must be obeyed?
It's a slippery slope sir and one I hope to stay off of.

I would just like to ask are you doing your sacrifices? Your wave offerings of grain? There are sacrifices which are not for sin, are you doing those?
it's easy to say we want to be literal etc in our observance of scripture but the plain truth is some commands contradict others in certain scenarios and that's why we had/have a system of judges as perscribed by Moses in the very literal book of the law. So who is the judge you will go to when you need to ask if it's ok to kill your own lamb?
Why don't you have a judge? It's LITERALLY (not yelling just emphasis) in the torah.
To instruct students, who come to the more learned, older, etc. (not talking about myself btw) who have been keeping torah for decades and decades, it is the command of G-d to give them interpretations.
I mentioned it earlier maybe in a different post, the literal command "yachoakh tikoach et achikha" also applies. "You shall indeed correct your brother"... the correction in context is in how to live Torah.
There will always be those who are new to torah and there will always be those who have been doing it, studying hardcore, for a long time.
It's simply not true when preachers say the bible is super clear and super basic and so easy to understand. it's not.
We have to get inside the head of the writers, the cultural context, the time frame, the linguistic nuances. There are hundreds of hebrew words we aren't sure of their meanings even!
So scholars must rely on cognate languages, how the pagans neighboring Israel used those words as we find them in Ugaritic literature and such.
It is not prideful to deeply desire to help brethren to not sin. I have seen the error of slaughter in modern times by newbies to torah so my intent in my original post was to try to put a stop to what I see as sin. I see a whole lot of the same spirit as the "king james only" guys in some leadership in the Hebrew roots movement and I just want to do my part to stamp out those ignorances or fear mongering regarding the tradition of the culture of the kingdom as passed down through the generations.
I hope you'll take my posts in love as that's how they are meant. I kind of assume that you'll still kill your own lamb because you feel that's the right thing to do but maybe someone else will see our back and forth and decide they better not; maybe that someone else is less qualified than you are to do a kosher slaughter.
I guess what I'm really hoping for is to stir up at least some curiousity among the Hebrew roots folks that maybe their guys don't have it all figured out and there are actually answers out there and sometimes, it's the brothers who have been doing it for a long time, and sometimes it's not.
Thanks for taking the time to give me thoughtful answers; I'm pleased with our new level of discourse.

Oh one more thing, on the "It's a slippery slope sir and one I hope to stay off of." regarding traditions or legal decisions made by guys who studied biblical legal issues for decades...I think you can argue that having knee-jerk reactions against such authorities is equally if not more dangerous. "
it's also an untrue accusation made by Rood and other leaders in Hebrew roots.
Rabbinical decisions are never equated to the level of written torah. People ask each other all the time "is that torah or tachinot?" Is it torah command or just rabbinical/judicial decree?
everyone understands there is a huge difference

"those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So, was it ok for Isaac to tell Esau to go hunt and bring him back some savory venison?

Gen 27:3&4
Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; †;
And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

So I realize that this may end up needing its own thread but it seems to me that it wasn’t wrong pre Torah for Isaac to tell his son to bowhunt and yet apparently at some point after Torah it’s unacceptable because of humane reasons. While I do accept your statement that it is currently taught and has been for some time, I think it’s preposterous to extrapolate no hunting from “kill it like this”, or that this was actually taught even within Moses’ lifetime.

I personally have multiple stories of deer that were bow shot and pretty much stood there until they started fainting from bloodloss and then expired. One only took a couple of steps and stood there wondering what just happened until it started wobbling and then laid down and expired less than 30 feet from me. Though I wouldn’t even think to substitute venison for lamb for a Pesha meal, there’s very little difference between dying from blood loss due to an arrow in the vitals or dying from blood loss from a sliced jugular.

And it seems to me that if being inhumanely slaughtered disqualifies a lamb for Passover, then I guess we’re still waiting on a Lamb.

 

[PeteR]

Just a gentle reminder that AP speaks for himself in this matter, and this is not the position of Biblical Families.

Yes, I'm sorry... in my opinion...

 

[PeteR]

I Kings 4:23.... were those deer, gazelles and roebuck domesticated?

@Verifyveritas76 has a good reference and I believe Isaac had and abided by the whole Torah. Many proofs to demonstrate Torah in Genesis....

My position is about between Zec and Ish. Like @IshChayil , there is much we can learn from brother Judah, but like @ZecAustin, much of the oral tradition has unfortunately been elevated to binding law, and that violates written Torah....

At the end of the day, we are brothers and the best lesson I learned from a dear Rabbi friend, Eliyahu Berkowitz: We are all on a spiritual journey and we must be careful not to assume we know what Hashem is trying to accomplish in someone else's life.

Paul (I think) said something similar when he said, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Nothing about working out someone elses salvation....

 

[The Revolting Man]

Are Lion and Bear kosher? So do you think David was hunting them? Of course we are allowed to kill dangerous animals to protect our lives


Since when is Samson the model of virtue?


Ok but before we over generalize what's wrong with traditions which help us "play it safe"?
In the case of my recommending to people not to slaughter their own lambs for passover unless they know how to do it "in the way I have shown you" - Moses
where is the harm? Assuming people can afford to have the kosher butcher kill their animal for them. This also presupposes that with Messiah as our Passover lamb that we are still obligated to kill a lamb for passover at all.


I would just like to ask are you doing your sacrifices? Your wave offerings of grain? There are sacrifices which are not for sin, are you doing those?
it's easy to say we want to be literal etc in our observance of scripture but the plain truth is some commands contradict others in certain scenarios and that's why we had/have a system of judges as perscribed by Moses in the very literal book of the law. So who is the judge you will go to when you need to ask if it's ok to kill your own lamb?
Why don't you have a judge? It's LITERALLY (not yelling just emphasis) in the torah.
To instruct students, who come to the more learned, older, etc. (not talking about myself btw) who have been keeping torah for decades and decades, it is the command of G-d to give them interpretations.
I mentioned it earlier maybe in a different post, the literal command "yachoakh tikoach et achikha" also applies. "You shall indeed correct your brother"... the correction in context is in how to live Torah.
There will always be those who are new to torah and there will always be those who have been doing it, studying hardcore, for a long time.
It's simply not true when preachers say the bible is super clear and super basic and so easy to understand. it's not.
We have to get inside the head of the writers, the cultural context, the time frame, the linguistic nuances. There are hundreds of hebrew words we aren't sure of their meanings even!
So scholars must rely on cognate languages, how the pagans neighboring Israel used those words as we find them in Ugaritic literature and such.
It is not prideful to deeply desire to help brethren to not sin. I have seen the error of slaughter in modern times by newbies to torah so my intent in my original post was to try to put a stop to what I see as sin. I see a whole lot of the same spirit as the "king james only" guys in some leadership in the Hebrew roots movement and I just want to do my part to stamp out those ignorances or fear mongering regarding the tradition of the culture of the kingdom as passed down through the generations.
I hope you'll take my posts in love as that's how they are meant. I kind of assume that you'll still kill your own lamb because you feel that's the right thing to do but maybe someone else will see our back and forth and decide they better not; maybe that someone else is less qualified than you are to do a kosher slaughter.
I guess what I'm really hoping for is to stir up at least some curiousity among the Hebrew roots folks that maybe their guys don't have it all figured out and there are actually answers out there and sometimes, it's the brothers who have been doing it for a long time, and sometimes it's not.
Thanks for taking the time to give me thoughtful answers; I'm pleased with our new level of discourse.

Oh one more thing, on the "It's a slippery slope sir and one I hope to stay off of." regarding traditions or legal decisions made by guys who studied biblical legal issues for decades...I think you can argue that having knee-jerk reactions against such authorities is equally if not more dangerous. "
it's also an untrue accusation made by Rood and other leaders in Hebrew roots.
Rabbinical decisions are never equated to the level of written torah. People ask each other all the time "is that torah or tachinot?" Is it torah command or just rabbinical/judicial decree?
everyone understands there is a huge difference

"those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them

The Bible is super clear. The Bible is super easy to understand. If I needed a judge to tell me if I was qualified to kill a lamb the God would have told me so. He didn't. If He wants to tell me something He can. He doesn't need interpreters or emissaries. He can speak and write quite clearly. He can publish and edit a book.

And I can read a book. I don't need someone to read it to me. Throughout history people who want to control the text and issue permits or licenses to read or interpret the Bible have been the bad guys. Don't be the bad guy.

God didn't deliver us the Bible in Hebrew or even Aramaic for very good reason. He didn't want it anchored to an archaic language like the Koran is or the solely the province of approved "scholars" like the Catholics attempted to do.

If the Bible is too dangerous or I'm too stupid or it all is just too complex then it casts serious doubt on the faith. Certainly there are complex matters in there and legitimate areas for debate and scholarship but the fundamental things we need to live in a manner pleasing to God are clear and accessible so that no one can claim ignorance or accuse God of being unfair.

If He can't write a book the He can't save my soul and if He can't save my soul then I have other things to spend my time on.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So, was it ok for Isaac to tell Esau to go hunt and bring him back some savory venison?

Gen 27:3&4
Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; †;
And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

So I realize that this may end up needing its own thread but it seems to me that it wasn’t wrong pre Torah for Isaac to tell his son to bowhunt and yet apparently at some point after Torah it’s unacceptable because of humane reasons. While I do accept your statement that it is currently taught and has been for some time, I think it’s preposterous to extrapolate no hunting from “kill it like this”, or that this was actually taught even within Moses’ lifetime.

I personally have multiple stories of deer that were bow shot and pretty much stood there until they started fainting from bloodloss and then expired. One only took a couple of steps and stood there wondering what just happened until it started wobbling and then laid down and expired less than 30 feet from me. Though I wouldn’t even think to substitute venison for lamb for a Pesha meal, there’s very little difference between dying from blood loss due to an arrow in the vitals or dying from blood loss from a sliced jugular.

And it seems to me that if being inhumanely slaughtered disqualifies a lamb for Passover, then I guess we’re still waiting on a Lamb.

Mic drop. Perfect.

 

[PeteR]

And in the red corner, coming out swinging, fire and brimstone, hailing from North Georgia, heeeerres @ZecAustin !!

 

[Mojo]

I have no dog in this fight, and I'm woefully unqualified to add much in the way of Hebrew study. I'm not Hebrew roots, messianic, or any of those things, but...if you are inclined to want to delve into that realm...I think looking to the ancient traditions for guidance is not a bad place to start, realizing that they are subject to fallibility. Responsible curiosity would at least lead one to seek the answers to "why" and "how" the tradition developed into what it is today. Some traditions get started for very good reasons.

@IshChayil connecting the Passover lamb to humane kosher butchering, how do you reconcile that with a rather inhumanely slaughtered sacrificed Messiah?

 

[IshChayil]

Regarding hunting...
when there are real case

So, was it ok for Isaac to tell Esau to go hunt and bring him back some savory venison?

Gen 27:3&4
Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; †;
And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

So funny brother, when I dropped a blurb about hunting I knew it would stir you up as I remembered it did in the past (I told my wives "this guy is a hunter for sure b/c he's so pissed b/c he thinks Esau is great and Jacob is the putz"). Later on it came out you are a hunter! point for the ENFP (smiling for real as I write this just want to telegraph that)

In short, it doesn't really concern you because you are not Hebrew roots or Messianic; you don't believe in keeping the law so I think I'll wait for Zec's answers to my points about slaughtering as that's the topic at hand (not the tertiary hunting allowed or not).

If you decide you'd like to first have a discussion about if Gentiles should keep the Law or not then I'm sure Zec or @Ancient Paths or @Kevin will be happy to have that debate with you.
I'm not in the business of making Gentiles keep torah here so I don't want to go down that path with you. Ask a Hebrew Roots guy

If you DO decide you should be keeping torah, I'll be happy to get into all the nitty gritty issues like how the law was not yet given in Isaac's life, how Abraham could marry his sister, etc. and how Esau is generally regarded by Jews as evil and he's hardly a "hey look that guy did it" go to guy for anything. The guy wanted to murder his brother for real for crying out loud...

I'm happy to leave hunting off the table for now, like I said it was only a weakly related example of animal suffering not allowed among Judah and Levi to this day.
Subject at hand: killing your own Passover lamb, not kosher among Judah and Levi and IMHO not necessary for those who believe in Yeshua as our Passover lamb.

I'm still waiting to hear who does the other sacrifices and offerings which are quite literal...

 

[IshChayil]

I Kings 4:23.... were those deer, gazelles and roebuck domesticated?

For sure they were...

@Verifyveritas76 has a good reference and I believe Isaac had and abided by the whole Torah. Many proofs to demonstrate Torah in Genesis....

nothing Verify wrote addresses self-slaughter in a post-Yeshua age of a lamp for Passover.

My position is about between Zec and Ish. Like @IshChayil , there is much we can learn from brother Judah, but like @ZecAustin, much of the oral tradition has unfortunately been elevated to binding law, and that violates written Torah....

Paul (I think) said something similar when he said, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Nothing about working out someone elses salvation....

Yes so let us sin that grace may abound!

With all due respect, I'm waiting for Zec's answers to my comments/questions.
Zec will you be making your shelamiym offerings soon? What about your tenufah offerings? Why is it so important to slaughter a lamb for Passover but not keep any of the other sacrifices commanded literally in written torah? Let's be consistent guys, if you just must kill that lamb then why aren't you killing the other things commanded and bringing the other offerings?

If we must continue on the secondary hunting topic, Why is killing a bear or lion equivalent to hunting for food?

@Ancient Paths , There is nothing wrong with an older member in Torah educating the newbies.
Causing an animal unnecessary suffering is clearly indicated as a sin in the written torah; while it is part of the Gentile culture in the Southern US, sometimes a right of passage for some, it's not a biblical tradition.

there is a prevalent air among many Hebrew roots leaders (and some errantly calling themselves Messianic who are not) that the traditions are useless and dangerous yet nobody can ever quote a single dangerous sages-instituted hedge to me.
The ONLY thing they know is sabbath candles and maybe 2 other things out of thousands of hedges; Hebrew roots love to talk about those candles don't they?
Like I said, I've seen this same thing among "king james only" pastors; it seems often rooted in unwillingness to learn new things (Greek for example).

Zec I'm not labeling you this way but I think you may victim to these errant teachings; I know you are new to torah so I'm trying to help as I wrote this is in brotherly love for you and others who may be led astray by folks dressed up in silly costumes and their pals pretending to be "Hebrew scholars". Just writing "mic drop" doesn't get you out of the discussion.

To all the attempting torah-keepers here, irrational fear of traditions born out of bible observance is nowhere near the same playing field as escaping Roman Catholic invented traditions. it's a false equivalence to attempt to put them all and I'm a bit tired of hearing it as an excuse to not learn new things.

It seems to me, the Hebrew Roots movement is producing people who are staunch about one commandment but ignorant of another and there is an ever increasing propensity to implicitly distrust Judah/Levi on these matters because we have scary traditions.

spoooookyyyyyyyyy

 

[IshChayil]

I have no dog in this fight, and I'm woefully unqualified to add much in the way of Hebrew study. I'm not Hebrew roots, messianic, or any of those things, but...if you are inclined to want to delve into that realm...I think looking to the ancient traditions for guidance is not a bad place to start, realizing that they are subject to fallibility. Responsible curiosity would at least lead one to seek the answers to "why" and "how" the tradition developed into what it is today. Some traditions get started for very good reasons.

Well put Mojo. This is exactly the tide I'm trying to turn. A handful of charismatic leaders in the Hebrew roots movement have consistently maligned Messianic Jews (and regular Jews) and have promoted an irrational fear about the way we have observed Torah for eons. I find your perspective refreshing and reasonable.
Nobody is saying everyone must keep Torah the way Jews do; I often encourage Hebrew Roots folks to find their own way if they like on things like Tefilin (phyllacteries which are super expensive) and tsit-tsit (fringes on garments which can also be quite costly if you want the rabbinically approved blue ones).
But these are all areas where it seems there is no question of sin by changing the traditional way of looking at things. Animal suffering is a gently recurring theme in the bible and is consistently put down so it seems to me clearly a sin to cause extra suffering when not required to do so.
Where is all the fear coming from? (rhetorical I know the clown "teachers" promoting fear of JUdah/Levi style observance).

@IshChayil connecting the Passover lamb to humane kosher butchering, how do you reconcile that with a rather inhumanely slaughtered sacrificed Messiah?

Not a connection that needs to be made. It was never tradition or a command to make the lamb suffer. Ancient Israelites were shepherds... they knew how to slaughter and if they didn't they were permitted to join for Passover a larger family that did.
Being our Paschal lamb signifies the true meaning of "Easter" called "Pascha" in the Greek; We drink the cup of redemption remembering Him, He's blameless, He saves us from death, etc. but of course the analogy does not cover all aspects of his life. The Lambs were not born from virgin ewes either were they?

 

[IshChayil]

The Bible is super clear. The Bible is super easy to understand.

With all due respect Zec, in one breath you didn't even realize that the story of the adulteress brought before Yeshua was not likely even a real bible story (according to most scholarship) and in the same breath you'll declare how the bible is "super easy to understand"?

Let's have a little humility; if you didn't know for sure what IS bible and what is NOT bible (or at least that these things should be investigated), how can you claim it's all "super easy to understand?" when you don't know you're reading something as scripture which is rejected by the vast majority of scholarship? Just because it's your tradition?

I've personally been studying Psalms for years now (started as a 6 month "Psalms Mastery" study plan, yeah right) and it's only after I've been studying more of the cognate languages I'm realizing I didn't even have a clue about what many of the psalms really said until now. Just because you have a translation you like doesn't mean they got it all right. Heck before 1929 we didn't even know anything about the lost Canaanite dialect of Ugaritic (basically a dialect of Hebrew) so any translations before 1945 or so are sorely lacking in linguistic insight to the actual meanings and nuances of many Hebrew words and thoughts.

All of the Messianic prophecies were even intentionally encrypted by G-d and then we have goofy preachers today telling us "those silly Jews couldn't see when it's so obvious" yeah in hindsight. Yet even the genius spiritual rulers of the world had no clue of His mission.
As Paul informs us "otherwise they would not have crucified the King of glory". So the super genius demonic entities and devil himself who knows scripture had no clue, but for you it's "super clear" and "super easy to understand".
Heck, please go back and reread your book of Revelations and report back to us how it's "super easy to understand".

You are way off base here brother.
Only teachers who don't' know the original languages make such claims; oversimplifying.
There are hundreds of "hapax legomemna" in the bible (words which occur only one time) are these also "super easy to understand?" Often translators are forced to lean on traditional understanding in such instances or they are forced to study Canaanite, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Akkadian, and other cognate languages or obscure Greek medical texts just to get a closer glimpse of what that precious word means. If you are reading a bible translation, you are already adopting other peoples' traditions guys perhaps in a much more sinister fashion than the scary traditions of Judah. (does your bible say "He therefore declared all foods clean?")

God didn't deliver us the Bible in Hebrew or even Aramaic for very good reason. He didn't want it anchored to an archaic language ...

I'm not even sure where to begin, sigh. Zec you do realize that G-d most certainly DID deliver us the bible in Hebrew, He did bro. Every single prophet old testament and new knew Hebrew. English did not even exist. The bible has been passed to us in Hebrew/Aramaic and archaic Greek.... your statement is kind of absurd.

-"ALL translation is commentary" - Rabbi Rashi

Since you didn't answer any of my questions may I assume you cede those points?

P.S. Special request fellas, can we refrain from "mic drop" or sports analogies and have an intelligent discussion instead? Thanks; just trying to make this a little scholarly in here without the divisive cheerleading... we should all be on the same side, finding truth. your buddy will still know you are pals. Thanks

 

[IshChayil]

Hey guys, I started a new thread on the hunting issue for anyone who's interested.
@Verifyveritas76 you are certainly welcome to participate, I don't mean to scare you off just because you're not a torah keeper. I value your insights and think you'll add some good perspective to the discussion.
This current thread is about keeping the Passover though so I'd like to keep the discussion here about that and how to properly do that.
Here's the Biblical Families thread on is hunting kosher or not?

shabbat shalom!

 

[IshChayil]

...Specifically what happened is that Eve was tempted to know right and wrong and so be like God. Now that's prideful for sure, it's the ultimate pride. ...

Just a fun aside to get the rhetoric tuned-down a bit.
Technically, Eve was not trying to be like G-d "big English G", she was trying to be like elohim, gods "little g".
Divine council gods, i.e. the sons of G-d who visited Eden like the nachash (serpent / shiny one).

A popular modern advocate of this opinion is Dr. Michael Heiser.
Check him out on youtube: Dr. Michael Heiser Divine Council to learn more.
He's a scholar who brings things down for the rest of us to understand. @FollowingHim has referenced him before in other threads regarding the giant clans extermination. Also check out his awesome book, The Unseen Realm
$10 for kindle on Amazon... He's a great Scholar, not a torah keeper, but wonderful Christian scholar...

 

[steve]

In the case of my recommending to people not to slaughter their own lambs for passover unless they know how to do it "in the way I have shown you" - Moses
where is the harm? Assuming people can afford to have the kosher butcher kill their animal for them.

Because, in my opinion, complicating things to the point where it is just best to sit back and let the experts (rabbis, priests, whatever) be the only ones to carry out these things is always the plan of the enemy.
It discourages people from trying to walk this walk.
Teach people how to do it, rather that teaching them not to do it because they might do it wrong.

Butchering the Passover lamb was required of EVERY household leader.

 

[IshChayil]

Because, in my opinion, complicating things to the point where it is just best to sit back and let the experts (rabbis, priests, whatever) be the only ones to carry out these things is always the plan of the enemy.
It discourages people from trying to walk this walk.
Teach people how to do it, rather that teaching them not to do it because they might do it wrong.

this is a strawman,
nobody every said we should turn everything over to rabbis.
I was wondering why many Hebrew Roots types are fearful to learn how an actual surviving tribe of Israel does things.
It's the knee-jerk fearmongering I don't get. Why the fear?
Sometimes the traditions are right, sometimes they may be off a bit, and many of them do go all the way back to Moses (like slaughtering).

Nobody ever said to blindly follow rabbis, priests, etc. not in any way shape or form an honest representation of my clearly stated position.

In my understanding, slaughtering your own animal is a sin, so it's my obligation to discourage that. I'm not discouraging the walk, I'm discouraging willful ignorance.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Oh yikes I missed a lot here. I'm sorry Ish. I didn't realize that you addressed all of those questions to me.

No, I do not offer any sacrifices. My understanding is that the sacrifices were done away with. If I'm wrong I will address that.

Look, I don't accept most of what you say. I believed God delivered us the Bible as He meant us to have it. Is there value in studying ancient Canaanite dialects? Of course. Is it going to change scripture? No.

God didn't deliver to us the original texts. He has given us translations of translations and preserved each one. He has given us His Word in our own languages. And He did that for a reason and its an amazing miracle. Your study and expertise could be reinforcing people's faith in that Word but instead you're trying to undermine it and cause people to doubt it. Whether you mean to or not you're using secular academic traditions to make null the Word of God. Have faith that He can communicate without your help and you may find that He really desires your help.

 

[IshChayil]

Oh yikes I missed a lot here. I'm sorry Ish. I didn't realize that you addressed all of those questions to me.

No, I do not offer any sacrifices. My understanding is that the sacrifices were done away with. If I'm wrong I will address that.

Look, I don't accept most of what you say. I believed God delivered us the Bible as He meant us to have it. Is there value in studying ancient Canaanite dialects? Of course. Is it going to change scripture? No.

God didn't deliver to us the original texts. He has given us translations of translations and preserved each one. He has given us His Word in our own languages. And He did that for a reason and its an amazing miracle. Your study and expertise could be reinforcing people's faith in that Word but instead you're trying to undermine it and cause people to doubt it. Whether you mean to or not you're using secular academic traditions to make null the Word of God. Have faith that He can communicate without your help and you may find that He really desires your help.

OK so you actually believe, that G-d Himself inspired English translations of the bible?
Is that correcdt? And you think that He did NOT preserve the original language versions of the bible?
So when, for example, the King James translators were translating the Hebrew, and they had NO IDEA what certain words meant, you think that G-d breathed the translation into their quills so they got it right in English?
I'm not mocking you, I'm seriously trying to understand your position because it's bizarre to me.
If this is true, if you believe it was G-d and not men who gave us translations (remember they were looking at something when they translated), then the next question is which English translations are allowable by you and which ones are evil/broken?

So Let me guess, KJV is golden right?
What about ESV? Is that one OK?
NASV? NRV? ASV? Which English translations of HEbrew/Aramaic/Greek are "G-d inspired" in Zec's view?
Next question; how do you know which translations are accurate / G-d breathed?

What do we do when we want to give the word of G-d to a tribe in Africa which does not have the bible in their language? Do we base it on the original languages, or on KJV?

I'm probing you to learn where you are coming from. When I preach to Filipinos here who speak English but not perfectly, should I read to them from the KJV and make them learn middle English? Or is it OK to use another translation?

 

[The Revolting Man]

You can use whatever version you want Ish. I do love the beauty of the KJV version but frequently use ASV and because I'm indicated I like the Bible in Basic English . When I'm feeling pretentious I go for Young's Literal Translation and I frequently end up in the NASB because that seems to be what a lot of the websites use with their various study tools. If I was preaching to Filipinos I assume I would use one in their language. God will preserve His Word for them the same as He will for me.

There are certainly translations I am not as comfortable with as others (I'm looking at you NIV) and others that severely test my faith (JW and Mormons) but I am confident that God preserves His Word from generation to generation. Things like The Message are not translations but merely really strange Bible studies. When people do violence to the text we can know it very easily, as in the case of the JWs and Mormons. Who are modern versions of what Samuel was talking about with the majority versus minority texts. As you well know.

 

[IshChayil]

You can use whatever version you want Ish. I do love the beauty of the KJV version but frequently use ASV and because I'm indicated I like the Bible in Basic English . When I'm feeling pretentious I go for Young's Literal Translation and I frequently end up in the NASB because that seems to be what a lot of the websites use with their various study tools. If I was preaching to Filipinos I assume I would use one in their language. God will preserve His Word for them the same as He will for me.

Ok regarding "Mormon translations" being based on the later Greek texts? No, check again. Mormons use the King James bible...so that's textus receptus again.

Filipinos have 7 different languages so English wins often in church contexts.
So we can agree KJV is right out. Especially since the Tagalog bible is a Catholic translation and heavily biased in that direction and full of errors in translation.
So let's select NASB which you like.
The forward in NASB says "These publications shall betrue to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek."
so the translators themselves endeavour to be true to the original languages, i.e. the bible in perfect, untranslated form.
In Addition, the NASB which you trust, is based on the CRITICAL TEXT of Nestle Aland!!!
In other words, the adulteress story is marked with you guessed it, BRACKETS [] in Good 'ol NASB with a footnote warning the reader (assuming they like to read those pesky footnotes):
"Later manuscripts add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53–8:11"
So we get to keep it because of tradition (insert Tevya the Milkman singing)

Maybe start checking your footnotes, then I don't have to get labelled a liberal and you'll see it's just modern scholarship based on Archeology. Let's get more curious about things.

There are certainly translations I am not as comfortable with as others (I'm looking at you NIV) and others that severely test my faith (JW and Mormons) but I am confident that God preserves His Word from generation to generation. Things like The Message are not translations but merely really strange Bible studies. When people do violence to the text we can know it very easily, as in the case of the JWs and Mormons. Who are modern versions of what Samuel was talking about with the majority versus minority texts. As you well know.

Textus Receptus is pretty much King Jimmy; there's another translation Sam mentioned which I never heard of.
This is because Greek scholars (men of G-d who love the word so much they dedicated their lives to learn the original Greek of the New Testament), don't trust the textus receptus (with the exception of Robinson).
As is natural, older is often perceived as better when it comes to original language bible stuff.
That's one reason the Dead Sea Scrolls were such a big deal. Everyone was so excited because they are the oldest extent manuscripts we have for the Hebrew bible (as well as other cool stuff like Aramaic for I Enoch , War Scroll [spookily similar to book of Revelation] etc.)
This is why we are excited about discoveries with OLD Greek New Testaments; the older it gets the closer to the time of the Apostles which means fewer copies made to get to that final copy, so it's very exciting and good for Christian apologetics to have these old Greek copies!

So if you'll allow me to adjust things a bit. A translator is NOT on the level of a prophet and by extension a translation is NOT on level of original language (as written by a prophet) text, and that my friend, is about as conservative as you can get when considering reverence for the text and not the works of men (i.e. translations by committee).

You can hold on to your adulterous woman story if you really like it; it's a nice story. But that doesn't mean you get to label the rest of us liberal, or having some evil motive to tear down G-d's word. The tradition of the story is a nice tradition and sometimes it's hard to part from traditions...