Torah and Old Testament

[robocombot]

Is the Christian Old Testament the same as the Jewish Torah?

I know the Christians have changed the order of the books (to suit the Septugaint) and split some books into 2 parts (like Chronicles).

BUT, aside from this, are the books exactly the same? How about translations? Would a rabbi be ok reading from the Old Testament or has it been "christianised"?

ALSO, do Jewish scholors except translations, does it HAVE to be in the original Hebrew or Aramaic to be used? Is something lost in translation?

Thankyou in advanced

[dauer]

Originally Posted by robocombot

Is the Christian Old Testament the same as the Jewish Torah?

The Torah is the first book of the Tanach, which is the Torah, prophets, and writings. The Old Testament is the Christian equivalent to the Tanach. The order change I'm familiar with is Daniel being moved from Writings to Prophets. But depending on which Christian Old Testament you're using, there could be additional books added.

BUT, aside from this, are the books exactly the same? How about translations? Would a rabbi be ok reading from the Old Testament or has it been "christianised"?

Well the Christian volumes are translations (Septuagint, Vulgate). The Jewish ones are not. There are important differences. Some things do not translate well. Other things are as you say "Christianized." so that a word for young woman now means virgin and words for a human lord now become capitalized as referring to God (and there are no capitals in Hebrew anyway.) The Hebrew is ultimately the only thing that is good enough, but in lieu of the Hebrew Jews use translations directly from the Hebrew.

A Jewish scholar would certainly be working directly from the Hebrew, and might also make use of the Targums, which are early translations into aramaic. They'd also have access to commentaries. But it's the Hebrew which will be most important.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

i am sure a lot of the answers to basic questions can be found at http://www.jewfaq.org if you want to have a look there.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[human1111]

Originally Posted by robocombot

Is the Christian Old Testament the same as the Jewish Torah?

I know the Christians have changed the order of the books (to suit the Septugaint) and split some books into 2 parts (like Chronicles).

BUT, aside from this, are the books exactly the same? How about translations? Would a rabbi be ok reading from the Old Testament or has it been "christianised"?

ALSO, do Jewish scholors except translations, does it HAVE to be in the original Hebrew or Aramaic to be used? Is something lost in translation?

Thankyou in advanced

Yes there are huge differences. Hebrew language cannot be adequately translated into English (or others) and the translation is always a rougher version of the original. There are PLENTY things in Hebrew Torah that was not translated properly into English. The way words are built, the connection between words and so on. Few things to take into consideration: Hebrew language has no vowels. How is that important? Well in hebrew 2 different words can be written in the same way. Translator could EASILY translate the wrong word. Hebrew numeral system uses letters (not arabic numerals like we do, go figure), so a word can also mean a number. When it comes to meanings. I believe that Torah DOES NOT TALK about God in a theistic sense of the word. Word God is not mentioned anywhere in the Torah. The word frequently used is Elohim which is numerically similiar to Tevah (nature). Also if you take the commandmend about no graven images, phrases such as "there is none but him", the fact that it is forbidden to draw "God" and so on you could easily put pieces of the puzzle together... For example Paradise (Heaven) is Pardes. Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod.

• Peshat = Literal meaning; the contextual, philological level
• Remez = Allegorical meaning; cross-reference to other texts; rational or philosophical level
• Derash = Moral or homiletic meaning; aggadic level; midrashic [= interpretation via derash] level
• Sod = Mystical or anagogic meaning

Torah by the way is from the word Ohr (light) or Oraa, instruction... Manual of enlightment perhaps...

[dauer]

In addition to Elohim, the word El is used. Elohim is simply the plural form of El. While it is possible to support the believe that God is all or that all is a part of God based on the biblical text, it's also much easier to support the belief that God sits on a throne supported above the dome of the sky.

Pardes is a persian word originally. I had read Torah is from ?.?.?.

And if that doesn't show up it's yod reish hei.

[human1111]

Originally Posted by dauer

In addition to Elohim, the word El is used. Elohim is simply the plural form of El. While it is possible to support the believe that God is all or that all is a part of God based on the biblical text, it's also much easier to support the belief that God sits on a throne supported above the dome of the sky.
Pardes is a persian word originally.

My humble 2 cents,

Yes you are right that there are more names of G-d in the Torah. But don't forget that great Rambam has said that thr entire Torah are the names (qualities) of G-d.

2) Remember as I've said, a line from Torah ("Old" testament) says that "There is none else but him".

3)It is forbidden to draw G-d or angels.

4) All divine attributes attributed to G-d would logically be impossible if we consider "G-d" as a being or a creature.

And about Pardes and its "persian" origin. Abraham the founder of Jewish people, was from Persia or atleast lived there.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by human1111

My humble 2 cents,

Yes you are right that there are more names of G-d in the Torah. But don't forget that great Rambam has said that thr entire Torah are the names (qualities) of G-d.

Rambam lived at a much later time. While he's a brilliant man, if you're looking for a historical source you might as well quote the Chofetz Chaim.

2) Remember as I've said, a line from Torah ("Old" testament) says that "There is none else but him".

This is the first time you've said that. That is your understanding of the verse out of context. And just so you know, Torah does not equal old testament. That would be Tanach(Torah, neviim, ketuvim.) And they're still not exactly the same. Now I will supply verses.

...Have you not discerned
How the earth was founded?
It is He who is enthroned above the vault of the earth,
So that its inhabitants seem like grasshoppers;
Who spread out the skies like gauze,
Stretched them out like a tent to dwell in.

Isaiah 40:21-22 says that God is enthroned above the vault of the sky. This vault appear synonymus with the dome or firmament.

The shades tremble
beneath the waters and their denizens.
Sheol(or the grave) is naked before Him:
Abaddon has no cover.
He it is who stretched out Zaphon(used for heaven cf: Isa.14.13;Ps 48.3) over chaos,
Who suspended earth over emptiness.
He wrapped up the waters in his clouds;
Yet no cloud burst under their weight.
He shuts off the view of His throne,
Spreading His cloud over it.
He drew a boundary on the surface of the waters,
At the extreme where light and darkness meet.

Job 26:5-10 again mentions that God has a throne up where we can't see.

3)It is forbidden to draw G-d or angels.

What's your point? There's a difference between banning idols and not believing God has a form in the heavens. Banning idols forces all of the people who want to worship God in their own way to obey the centralization and only pray at the Beit hamikdash. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's more likely than any theory that encorporates triumphalist supernaturalism.

4) All divine attributes attributed to G-d would logically be impossible if we consider "G-d" as a being or a creature.

Nope. You forget that God is still God. He's not a creation. He's the Supreme Creator who sits above the clouds and can be met only at the hight places, like the Temple Mount and Mount Sinai. Isn't it miraculous for a God to meet His people in the high places like that? You're also probably forgetting that the attributes didn't fall into place all at once based on the order in which they appear. They developed over time.

And about Pardes and its "persian" origin. Abraham the founder of Jewish people, was from Persia or atleast lived there.

Then why doesn't he speak Persian? Why does he speak Hebrew instead? Incorporating Persian is a corruptian of the holiness of the Torah. Lashon kodesh only please.

Understand before speaking with me any further that I am a far left liberal Jew. I reject supernaturalism (defined as God interfering with the laws of physics) and doubt the historicity of the events of the Tanach. I don't believe it's necessarily true that Abraham was a real individual, but I don't believe he has to be in order for me to find meaning. I tend to keep kosher and Shabbos in my own liberal way, but I don't feel commanded to do so. I reject finite revelation. I just want to make sure you know what my position is before you engage me further. I don't want you to expect I'll give certain answers when in reality I won't.


Dauer

[human1111]

Originally Posted by dauer

And just so you know, Torah does not equal old testament. That would be Tanach(Torah, neviim, ketuvim.) And they're still not exactly the same. Now I will supply verses.

I know that, but I've said that not to confuse people who do not know. Maybe I made it more confusing that way, pardon me.

Then why doesn't he speak Persian? Why does he speak Hebrew instead?

Maybe he did, until he created Hebrew.

Also, I believe that there are MANY idioms in the Torah, Old testament, Bible, etc. Some phrase that does not make any sense to us may be a simply idiom that was as clear as day to people living in those times. See how much English has changed in the last 500 years....

"All languages have idioms."
"In English, we say “Let’s take a walk!” What are you taking? In Spanish, that becomes “Damos un paseo,” which literally means “Let’s give a walk!” What are you giving? Neither makes much sense but both are correct. Both are idioms. Some English idioms, at random, are: at first blush, at one’s wits end, axe to grind, beat around the bush, break the ice, chip off the old block, crack a joke, fit as a fiddle, forty winks, get in one’s hair, give a piece of one’s mind, keep the wolf from the door, red tape, and with flying
colours."
(quote from how to learn any language and enjoy it by Barry Farber)

Now imagine 2000+ years and a language such as Hebrew where any word can have double meaning, something that cannot be duplicated with English as well as in Hebrew.


My humble 2 cents...

[dauer]

Human,

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say. If the Torah is the holy word of God which came from Sinai and existed before creation, if every letter is sacred, then there can be nothing but the lashon kodesh. If it contains Persian, then it's corrupt.

[human1111]

Originally Posted by dauer

Human,

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say. If the Torah is the holy word of God which came from Sinai and existed before creation,

I don't believe that book called "Torah" existed before it was written by a Human.

if every letter is sacred, then there can be nothing but the lashon kodesh. If it contains Persian, then it's corrupt.

Also I see no reason why having a word that was also used in Persian would corrupt the Torah. The sacredness of every letter is probably in the informational sense, not mystical/magical. You can express information in any language, hebrew was the best for Spiritual information (or so they say). And also, some languages may share some words...

[dauer]

Originally Posted by human1111

I don't believe that book called "Torah" existed before it was written by a Human.

According to tradition it is the blueprint for creation. If you don't believe this, then I made too many assumptions about what you believe. Baruch Hashem.

Also I see no reason why having a word that was also used in Persian would corrupt the Torah. The sacredness of every letter is probably in the informational sense, not mystical/magical.

Probably, at what time? It is taken even in the non-mystical sense, at the origin of the teaching, that every letter is sacred. If you look look at midrash or even halachah each letter was held as having a value of its own. Meaning could be drawn out of one single letter.

And also, some languages may share some words...

Sharing words isn't random. Do you believe Hebrew is a language divinely given or a language that developed over time?

[human1111]

Originally Posted by dauer

According to tradition it is the blueprint for creation.

I believe that it is an instruction manual for enlightment (Ohr, Oraa), a very valuable one.

Probably, at what time?

At commonly accepted time, 1000s of years ago.

It is taken even in the non-mystical sense, at the origin of the teaching, that every letter is sacred. If you look look at midrash or even halachah each letter was held as having a value of its own. Meaning could be drawn out of one single letter.

I agree with that every letter is a powerful symbol. But I think that sacredness comes in its value as an informational tool, not as some holy magickal "object".

Sharing words isn't random. Do you believe Hebrew is a language divinely given or a language that developed over time?

It depends upon what you mean by "Divine". It could be a language developed for spirituality by a person called Abraham (who according to some was from Persia)

Sharing words can be selective, mindful and effective IMHO.

Respectfully yours.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by human1111

I believe that it is an instruction manual for enlightment (Ohr, Oraa), a very valuable one.

The Torah alone, or only when understood through the lense of Kabbalah?

I agree with that every letter is a powerful symbol. But I think that sacredness comes in its value as an informational tool, not as some holy magickal "object".

I never implied it is a magickal object. There is a difference between mysticism and magic. Are you in this statement rejecting the possibility that the Torah was received by supernatural means? Are you also rejecting that Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and saying instead that Abraham wrote it?

It depends upon what you mean by "Divine". It could be a language developed for spirituality by a person called Abraham (who according to some was from Persia)

So are you saying that you believe Avraham Avinu developed on his known the language known as Hebrew specifically for spiritual purposes? Does this include gematria? The word gematria is clearly not Hebrew in origin.

Sharing words can be selective, mindful and effective IMHO.

That's one way of understanding it.

Dauer

[human1111]

Originally Posted by dauer

The Torah alone, or only when understood through the lense of Kabbalah?

Today I think that it is required for most people to study Torah through the lense of Proper Kabbalah. You know, I really don't think that a person can understand deep concepts today using the language and the style that worked 3000+ years ago. I mean all the deep layers of meanings and other complexities cannot be dug up by simple literal reading. Look a very good english speaker will have some trouble reading Shakespearing text without help. Now imagine the difference not being few hundred, but few THOUSAND years and the text is not some romantic novel but a very complex very confusing sacred text. What is worse is not when it makes no sense, but when it SEEMS to be easy to comprehend. Atleast when it doesn't make sense, you inquire and seek for deeper answers rather than settling for simple and wrong answers.

Are you in this statement rejecting the possibility that the Torah was received by supernatural means? Are you also rejecting that Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and saying instead that Abraham wrote it?

I am not an expert so, many things could have happened. I'd like to expand on what you said about supernatural. Possible what we call by "supernatural" is yet-undiscovered NATURAL processes. Abraham,Moshe, and others could have existed. Were they writers of sacred texts or merely authors who taught others who later wrote it down - I don't know..

So are you saying that you believe Avraham Avinu developed on his known the language known as Hebrew specifically for spiritual purposes? Does this include gematria? The word gematria is clearly not Hebrew in origin.

Yes to first. After all Hebrew used to be sacred language which was not supposed to be used in ordinary conversations as it is used today...
About who developed it gematria, that I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if Abraham or Moshe or one of the wisemen did. But then again, letters=numbers so a person who is not fluent in Hebrew and all the details of sacred texts might not know where word = number or word = word AND a number or either, or, neither, etc.

My 2 cents.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by human1111

Today I think that it is required for most people to study Torah through the lense of Proper Kabbalah. You know, I really don't think that a person can understand deep concepts today using the language and the style that worked 3000+ years ago... Atleast when it doesn't make sense, you inquire and seek for deeper answers rather than settling for simple and wrong answers.

1. Are you saying the pshat is the wrong answers?

2. Is it possible kabbalah reads answers into Torah that were not initially there?

Yes to first. After all Hebrew used to be sacred language which was not supposed to be used in ordinary conversations as it is used today...

How do you know?

Dauer