Ian D. Mecantie said:
One thing I started doing, so that I might be better able to understand the Jewish people and how they relate to the original Christian faith, is to not read from my King James Version anymore. I went out to a local bookstore and bought a Jewish Bible, one that was done by a Messianic Jew in Jerusalem. It contains the Tanakh and the (I hope I spell this right) B'rit Hadashah, which have not been intermingled with each other, but that also have not been separated by the usual NT and OT designations.
Ian..
The reason I did not reply earlier is indeed you did sound as if you were trying to take this thread into some type of evangelical path. Thus I desisted from answering, as such a path though sadly would not have come as a surprise to me, but there is just no need to get into these discussions on a place like AW. l am glad you kind of explained yourself.
Now to what you worte and what I bolded above.
If you want to read the OT in English and you want to get a "Jewish" view of it then you certainly have picked the wrong way to go about it. Reading an English rendition created by "messianic" jews is actually much worse than reading the KJV. Indeed you must know that even the chapters used in OT and the division has ancient Christian influence (not getting into this here.) Jews divide the Torah (Five Books of Moses) according to "Parsha Petucha" and "Parsha Setumah" (and again this is not for discussion here.) A bible produced by a Messianic Jew, for a Jew to be brutally honest, is much much worse than using the KJV. It is simply wrong from every possible viewpoint and simply a hodgepodge of "belief" inserted willy-nilly upon words.
And now let me explain:
Polemics, Biblical Scholarship & Religious debate between Christian and Jew when entering into the Bible - specifically the OT - is very dependent upon verse structure and word meaning. Indeed it is the focal point of how things are looked at in many cases. Thus a "messianic" Jew (and since this is a fringe group I will assume I am familiar with the text you are using as there are not many) will interpret these words according to his needs and desires. That is NOT Judaism. That is Christianity clothed in yet another shroud of Turin.
Let me give you a real live example. The Virgin Birth. And before I give this one example among hundreds if not thousands, let me state unequivocally this is not meant as an attack or in any disrespectful manner upon beliefs of a Catholic. This is to simply explain some things in how verse reading goes on and it subsequent re-interpetation.
Scholars will tell you that the Virgin Birth actually finds its roots in Roman gods and Idol Worship. It was not a strange concept to the pagans at that time. And this is something that early Christianity incorporated into its religious centrality for a myriad of reasons.
There was almost a pathological need on the part of the Church (sometimes even until today) to show that these things were "prophesied" in the OT. And thus the early leaders of the Church scoured the OT for clues. Some knew the original Hebrew, some were already a couple of generations removed from Judaism and thus had no ability to read the original.
And thus the verse from Isaiah was adopted (totally taken out of context and totally lifted from anything surronding it but hat is another discussion) for the virgin birth.
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman (almah) is with child, and she shall bear a son and call his name Immanu'el." (The name means "God is with us".)
This is the famous "virgin" birth predicted as Christians beleave in the OT.
The inherent claim here is that the Hebrew word Almah means "virgin" and thus the Virgin Birth is predicted in the OT. (And I have no doubt your version translates this word as Virgin.)
Well as they say someone made a big boo-boo. Because simply put Almah does not only NOT mean virgin - it actually means "a strong vigorous woman" or "strong vigorous man". "Elem" (m) and Almah (f) Actually to put it starkly - Almah means the exact oppisite of a virgin!
It kind of gets more complicated. Because the way we know terms and definitions is through their use in the OT. The context of the word being used and why and how. The root of the word. (this is a critical study in the roots of any language).
I must turn your attention to "Proverbs" in the OT for a minute. Now whether you ascribe to the theory that it was written by King Solomon or whether you ascribe to the theory that Proverbs is a compendium of knowledge - all theories are clear about one thing. It was written and redacted into the OT way before, (hundreds of years before) Mary and Jesus ever existed. Thus seeking in Proverbs is a legitimate way to define certain words such as "Almah" for Polemics.
But since you are a "believing" Christian, then there would be no need to express any sort of doubt in the authenticity of King Solomon's authorship here. Thus we are looking at one of the three books written by the King who is called "the wisest man upon the earth". Therefore it should be safe to assume that his parables do make sense!
In a section of Proverbs, where Solomon enters into parables based upon the number three and four we read:
Proverbs 30 18-20
"Three things which are too wondrous for me, and four which I know not;
The way of the vultures in the sky; the way of a snake upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea - and the way of a man with a young woman ("almah"). Likewise the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth and says I have done nothing wrong".
Solomon compares three things which essentially have something in common to a forth - 'the way of a man with an almah' and then to a FIFTH an adulteruous woman.
So what is this "Almah" we keep on referring to? Well let us look at the context of this parable.
There are three types of possiblities: 1) Virgin 2) Young Woman 3) Adulterous woman
What is the common denominator between the first three things.
1. When a vulture flies through the sky (or any bird) after it is gone is there a trace of it? Answer is no.
2. When a snake goes upon the earth - after it is gone it leaves a trace, markings in the earth - BUT when a snake travels upon a rock is there a trace of its passage? Again no.
3. When a boat travels in the sea - after it disappears upon the horizon is there any trace upon the water that it was once there? Again no.
Thus when a man is with an almah - so too
afterwards there is no trace that he was there. This is compared to the adulterous woman who "wipes her mouth and says I have done nothing wrong".
If this word "almah" meant virgin - there would be a trace! We would know that a virgin was deflowered simply because she once had a hymen and there was blood and now there is no longer a hymen (remember this is in context of parable not in medical context).
There is no sense in comparing the man with the young woman - in this parable - to the adulterous woman who can essentially hide what she has done like the snake, the vultures, the ship - unless this "almah" is NOT a virgin. A virgin will leave a sign - forever. Because once she was a virgin and now she is no longer!
Not only can "almah" NOT mean a virgin - but it means exactly the opposite.
It means someone who is NOT a virgin.
The word for virgin in Hebrew is "betulah" (f) and "betul" (m)
Thus this whole "virgin birth" prophecy in Isaiah makes no sense whatsoever to the Jew. And indeed Almah and Elem are used in the OT again and again.
NEVER DO WE FIND IT REFERS TO A VIRGIN.
This is just one very small example of how words are interpreted differently and in the wrong context or even taken out of context from the original. Indeed I can point to a place where a comma is purposely misplaced and thus changes all the meaning of poetic verse!
So be careful. If you want to read a Jewish translation of the Bible, and understand how Jews see the OT then the lesson here is to stay far away for any "messianic" interpretation of the Bible by messianic Jews.
All that being said it comes down to a matter of belief. And as I have said again and again, Jews simply do not believe in Jesus or any messianic idea coming from him.
