TomboyMom

Thank you Julian, now we can proceed in Half-Life's absence.

The glaring problem with that assertion is that the passage is missing two key pieces:
1. Jesus
2. Crucifiction.

Other than that it's brilliant.

TomboyMom

How is this different from the Koran? No one disputes that the ancient Jews existed. It doesn't follow that a whale swallowed Jonah.
Actually, a lot of biblical allegations are not supported by the archeological evidence...
Oh really? Seen any talking snakes lately? Is there enough water to cover the entire planet? Do you really think there are thousands of languages in the world because God destroyed the tower of Babel? That a woman was turned into a pillar of salt? C'mon, pull the other one.
Well, other than that trifle about the world being flat, the sky dividing the waters above from the waters below, and the the sun stopping in the sky that one time. Other than that it's spot on.

Like showing a spotted stick to a cow so it would give birth to a spotted calf? Like 4-legged insects, and the bat being a type of bird? What about those cud-chewing rabbits?
You think the bible is brilliant because it recognizes that bleeding too much is fatal?
I'd like to pit Half-Life against one of those "The Koran contains all truth" guys.
Please cite a psalm that mentions crucifixion in any way. Psalm 22 mentions piercing, but not a word about crucifixion. Or, come to mention it, death.
And if the bible is shown to be inaccurate about the many things that we can verify, can we afford to believe it when it comes to life and death?

Surely you realize that number of copies has nothing to do with accuracy, right? Otherwise Gone With the Wind Would be a history book.

Not really, since we've heard it all before and you will disappear as soon as effetively challenged.

Julian

I am pretty sure that some wars start like that...
Actually, the word pierced is exactly what the Rabbi I was reading was contesting. I really wish I could find that website. According to him it was not pierce but something else.

Julian

Amaleq13

IIRC, it should be read in the context of the dogs (or lions as I believe it is sometimes translated) and understood to refer to teeth tearing into the flesh.

Notsri

The answer to this question was already given here.

I think I may be done with this conversation, noah. You continue to press the same points to which I've already responded, acting almost as though I've said nothing. Take, for example, your continued insistence that Rashi does not apply the "you" to Bethlehem. I've already answered to that objection, and yet you're still arguing the same point. Rashi paraphrases: "You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you." Now please read that again, only replace the you's with David; and then do it again with Bethlehem Ephrathah. If you can do that, and still come away with the impression that Rashi speaks of or to David in that sentence, then I'm afraid there's nowhere to go from here. I mean, his language there seems plain enough. But if you're unwilling or unable to grapple with it, as well as anything I may personally have to say, then there seems no sense in continuing this discussion. (I'm sorry to be rude.)

Regards,
Notsri

noah

Notsri, you ended your section ambiguously. After all your extrapoloations you said
That means you have not committed yourself to a position on the issue. It's still open to debate. The Jewish text is clear. Jewish exegesis is clear on this issue.The verse is not referring to a town or city. Do you agree? If you do not respond to this question, which is the original question, I will assume you have conceded the debate, something you should have done almost from the outset. One hint: relying on one or two Christians is not enough for a debate like this.

In any case my post following this short one of mine deserves your attention.
For your benefit I post it here again in its entirety:

Now that we can come from the point that there is this gender problem, something you did not know, we can look at the Rashi in a new light (or my original one that you missed):

Rashi wrote:
This is why I think Matthew dropped "Efratah", because of the "SHE" association in the Torah, which would cause a problem with "You" in the masculine.

Rashi is commenting on the term "Efratah". Why include it at all?

1) Why is Efratah significant? It is in the Torah and address as SHE and that atah does not refer to her.
2) Why would David, whom atah speaks of be called a Tza'ir? Because of the question of Moabites and Jews.
3) Where do we know that David called himself a Tza'ir? In Psalm 119:141 - "I am a Tza'ir and dispised..."
4) Which Bet-Lechem is in the text?? The one from which David came from (there were more than one).

If you think that Rashi is saying that "You" is speaking of Beth-Lechem, you missed the nuances. To see otherwise is based on a predisposition imposed by Matthew, who hid the name that has a SHE associated with it, which Rashi was kind enough to point out.

Notsri stated:
My friend had this to say:
Notsri stated:
Hold on a minute Notsri. So now you are saying that "YOU" is not being addressed to a town, but to a "clan" and is saying:
So now, after all of this, you're saying that "OF" or "A RESIDENT OF" that he accused my friend of taking liberties with is actually correct, but you wantsto just use a different direct object to make it masculine?


If C. F. Keil did say this, he has less than a leg to stand upon. One of the problems is that "YOU" is obviously addressing "tza'ir", which is the ineffectual youth, which is followed by the infinitive of "to be" followed a prefix of what is being translated as "clan" which is "within, or among". ("a youth who was to be among")

Also, C.F. Keil in his commentary (Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 480.) states that "He who is to be born in time at Bethlehem hath an eternal existence.". Obviously, this commentator (about 100 years ago) believed that this verse was speaking of Beth-Lehem, and not of a collection of groups.

Furthermore, he also says in his commentary of the "12 minor prophets" (Volume 2, pages 480-481):

Keil wrote:
In other words, he believes in the pre-incarnate Christ ("angel of the Lord) as well as holding that "You" refers to Beth-Lechem in Micah 5:2, and not to a collection of groupings of people in Yehudah. I cannot find the reference where he says that the direct object of "You" is "al'phei", but I might have missed it. If he does say it, then he is trying to do a shotgun shoot - stating contradictory statements in hopes of hitting a target.

Nice try though.

Now, let's take the smichut of al'fiyim which becomes al'fey which is still a plural (the Christian texts usually call it "princes" or "chiefs" in the plural, which isn't bad). The smichut form only appears in the Tanach less than 2 dozen times. And the rare instances when it speaks of them directly it uses the plural term ("they"), but when it speaks of a membership, it speaks of the singular ("you of")

The direct object here is "a youth (male) who was to be among" and the direct object is not "the myriad of groupings within Yehuda". How do you attach "you" to that which the direct object is to be part of?

You can't.

Then you have tza'ir. As I have said repeatedly, it is male, singular, and indicates something young, semi-capable, and so forth. It is certainly never translated by Jew or Christian as being attached to a collection of groups within a tribe. And that is one big BIG problem: it cannot be a town because of the gender, and it is not a collection of clans. It is a term that David applied to himself, and Rashi applies David back to it by giving a reason for the term.

So here is what we need to nail down Notsri:

1) Do you still believe that Bethlehem is the direct object? If so then there is nothing more say since you are just being stubborn.

2) But if you don't believe that anymore, and you do believe now that it is actually the so called "clan of Judah" which is the direct object, then please comit yourself to it. Please declare without ambiguity that you now hold that "YOU" is 100% absolutely speaking of the clan of Judah of Beth-Lehem". If he refuse to do so, then you're just being being stubborn. If you are willing, then we can keep going and address some related issues.

BTW, my Jewish friend who has been helping me with this discussion had this to say:
I think you are debating illogically and dishonestly here Notsri.

When I said "And you of Beth-Lechem", where "of" means residency/inhabitant you came back with:

And when I press the point further you come back with:

In other words, I (my friend) was wrong in my translation, but when you a Christian, use it, I am still wrong, but the way the Christian uses it in a similar fashion is right!

Furthermore, and here is the kicker, you admitted that you don't know Hebrew. You are being stubborn and holding onto the belief that I must be wrong. Why? You cannot verify if what you are told by Christians is true because you don't know the language. And when my friend recommends that you take what his translation to an expert in Semitic language to deteromine the accuracy of his translatio,, you refused, saying you wouldn't want to bother that fellow. That is lazy and dishonest Notsri. You are obliged to exercise due dilligence in backing up your arguments and refuting the arguments of others. You can not sit in your insular ivory tower of ignorance huddled together with one or two inadequate resources and expect to convince anyone of either the integrity of your arguments and your conduct in this or any other debate. I at least know enough and am honest enough to ask the proper authorities when I debate these topics. I learn in the process. You are content, in your ignorance, to keep challenging the word of an expert, a Jewish expert no less, on issues which you don't understand citing no Jewish authorities, incorrect translations and outdated scholars.

So spare me the sanctimony of your irritation with my rehashing a point, the original point, that you would now like to retreat from. Try arguing honestly and put a little effort into your next response to me or your next discussion with someone.

Notsri

You've misunderstood me. My "though" was not directed back toward the case I had just laid out on the 'eleph=mishpachah=clan/village issue; it was directed towards what followed. It was if to say, now hopefully we can finish arguing, though (come to think of it) … there are a few additional things you bring to the table that will surely generate further debate (and then I went on to comment briefly). Perhaps I was somewhat unclear on that point, and so I apologize.

However, what I was not unclear about, was my stance on the clan/village issue. The fact that you still wonder at my position at all suggests to me that you haven't considered that post—the 'eleph/mishpachah one—carefully. That impression is further compounded by the fact that you've since spent not a word on the issues I raised there. Why is that? All this time we've been seeking after the meaning of Micah's "clans," and when I'm finally able to address that question, instead of wrestling with my response you instead turn your focus to the targum, and what your friend has to say about its translation, etc. Even in my last post—I asked again for you to consider Rashi's words more carefully, to see why they undoubtedly refer to Bethlehem. Have you responded to that request? So far as I can tell, you haven't. The fact that you've re-posted your reiteration of Rashi's application of the verse to David, says to me that surely you have not grappled with that request. What am I to do, noah, if you will only engage me selectively, ignoring some of the more important replies and requests? Am I supposed to just chase you around? Is this discussion about seeking sound answers to questions raised, or holding out the longest and/or ignoring the other's responses, hoping to frustrate or exhaust the opponent? It's beginning to seem like the latter.

My position on Micah 5:2 is this: In my opinion Micah speaks to Bethlehem Ephratah: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah ... " (so Stone Ed. Tanach). The Jewish website you cited yesterday tells us: In my opinion an obvious corollary of the above is that, the verse is not addressed to David (and so far I've found no dissenters among scholars).

In my opinion the verse treats Bethlehem as a clan, hence the use of the masculine atah. From the Jewish site: In my opinion, in the light of the additional terminology used in Micah, as regards the 'eleph, and the relation of that terminology to the word mishpachah, which the scholars tell us "often pointed to a village consisting of several farm households," it would be erroneous to suggest the village was beyond Micah's purview—as even the Jewish website implies (despite the fact that it, too, seeks to show the error of Matthew's interpretation): In my opinion Micah tells us the expected ruler would or will arise from the clan of Bethlehem, the clan whose home was the village Bethlehem, in the land of Judah: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah, but from you someone will emerge for Me to be a ruler ... " (so Stone Ed. Tanach). Thus, when Matthew has the birth of Jesus fulfill this verse, he does so because, in his estimation, Jesus was born in the village Bethlehem, the locale in which one found or was at least established by the clan Bethlehem. Furthermore, Jesus was, in Matthew's estimation, a direct descendant of David, a member of the clan and village of Bethlehem. Matthew has therefore, so far as this point is concerned, not misused or misconstrued the verse.

The above is the argument I've maintained since at least this post, where I addressed the question of the 'eleph/mischpachah.


I'm a little reluctant to comment on the remainder of your post, as I'm concerned it will only distract you from directly engaging what I've just now said. Nevertheless:

I would tend to doubt it. Ephrat and Bethlehem are very clearly identified as one and the same in the Hebrew Bible, as is done in Rashi's verse from Gen 48:7. In Matthew's quotation he had already mentioned Bethlehem, and more probably felt at liberty to drop Ephratah due to its seeming redundance. Furthermore it seems unlikely that he would've been concerned with a feminine pronoun in the Hebrew text of another book altogether, Genesis, as he was quoting Micah; especially since he and evidently his primary readership were using Greek.


First, I think you're making far too much of the feminine pronoun in Genesis. Rashi initially cites the verse from 1Sam to show that the Bethlehem there is the same from which David emerged. He then cites the verse from Genesis to illustrate that Bethlehem and Ephratah are being used appositionally; he says, "And Bethlehem is Ephrat," and then cites Genesis—the verse proves the premise. That's all he's trying to show; the "she" is beside the point. Second, my limited knowledge of Hebrew notwithstanding, your treatment of the word tza'ir seems doubtful. Every translation and commentary that I've been able to consult, as well as the lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs (859a), treats the word as an adjective: "little," or "small," or "young." Cf. (e.g.) the Stone Ed. Tanach's rendition of Pss. 119:141: "I am young and despised ... " Obviously that doesn't agree with your "I am a Tzair and despised ... " Cf. also (again) the Stone Ed. Tanach's rendition of Micah 5:1(2): "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah ... " Obviously that doesn't agree with your "And you of Beth-Lechem by Efrat, an ineffectual-youth who was to be among the clan of Yehudah ..." Third, the clan/village/Bethlehem question has obviously been addressed above, and Rashi's insights present no difficulty to what I've said thus far on that subject. Doubtless Rashi has the clain in mind; but given the conceptual coalescence or synonymy, no doubt he had the village in mind as well, and that is why he cites, first, a verse from 1Sam and, second, a verse from Genesis, both of them mentioning the village. Fourth, if in fact Rashi thinks the verse speaks to not Bethlehem but David, then the following remark of his is rendered incoherent: "You should have been the lowest of the clans of Yehudah because of the stigma of Ruth of Moab that is within you." Please take that into consideration.


To this you also added: For my part, this was not at all about laziness, nor dishonesty; it was about propriety—from my perspective. At the time, I didn't feel it appropriate to write a professor of Semitic languages, calling into question (if not explicitly than certainly implicitly) his competence of Aramaic. Furthermore, it was and is my assumption that a professor does not have the time at hand to give what would have to be a detailed and involved response to a complete stranger, on a question that probably is or would be to him of little to no consequence in the moment. Like I said, he probably has got better, more important things to do, and for those with whom he has immediate and everyday contact. Now if I am mistaken on this, if you think I'm wrong and should write him anyway, then perhaps I'll give it more consideration. Feel free to say so. But for the time being I am content with the fact that his translation of the targum agrees with every Jewish and Christian English version of the Tanakh that I've been able to consult, where yours disagrees.


Touché. I failed to consider carefully some of the implications of what I'd said. Obviously there was a bit of inconsistency there. :notworthy


On this I've commented above.


Keil treats the term 'eleph (and mishpachah ) the same as I've proposed here. That's why he can say: "In the little town the inhabitants [i.e. the clan] are addressed ... the prophet had them in mind when describing the smallness of the little town ... "


First, I'd like it if you would elucidate this comment a little more. Where are these "2 dozen times"? or the "rare instances when it speaks of them directly"? Second, I've already commented on the latter portion of this statement: so far as scholarly sources go, tza'ir is an adjective (that modifies the subject): "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small … "


See above.


So much has passed between us at this point that I'm not sure what gave you this impression. I don't know if I (mistakenly) implied as much, but I certainly never made an explicit statement. In any case I do not believe that Bethlehem is the object. Every translation treats it as a vocative term: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small ... " (so Stone Ed. Tanach); or: "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah ... " (so JPS). When I argued that the verse is addressed to Bethlehem and not David, it was in the light of that vocative case.


Here's the Judaica Press's translation of Rashi's commentary: Please feel free to pass that on to your friend. There's nothing there that conflicts with my interpretation, or allows for his (or your) insistence that Rashi thinks the antecedent of "you" is David. (Notice also their translation of tza'ir: "lowest".)


Much of what I've said thus far can be applied to your friends targum. At this point I don't have too much to add. Two points of note: (1) His rendition of tza'ir obviously runs into the same problem that I mentioned before. (2) His comment "לי - to Me [most Christian texts leave this part out]" fails to actually engage most Christian versions. The RSV, NASB, ASV, and so on all translate the term. Obviously, though, this is of no great importance to our discussion.


First of all, you're speaking in absolutes here, and that certainly belies the situation. I may not be an expert in Hebrew, but neither am I so completely ignorant of the language as to be unable to assess or verify any aspect of your assertions. Even if that were the case, I am able and have done what anyone could do, and that is to avail themselves of the treatment of the texts by those who are experts, such as those who of course stand back of the standard Christian and Jewish versions, such as the RSV or the JPS.

I have pointed to the fact now that your translation does not comport with both Jewish and Christian renditions; it does not comport with the definition given certain words in a standard Hebrew lexicon; it does not comport with the explicit exegesis of certain Jewsish commentators, such as Rashi, or the probably implicit exegesis of certain rabbinic texts, such as the one from Yerushalmi Berakhot. If those are not valid criteria by which to assess your assertions, then surely nothing will be.


I'm not sure where to begin, noah. Perhaps I should comment just on the special pleading?—I have relied on "no Jewish authorities," used "incorrect translations," "outdated scholars," "inadequate resources." In so doing I am dishonest, lacking integrity, unwilling to learn, content in my ignorance, reluctant to exercise due dilligence. You, on the other hand, are privileged to have the backing of a "Jewish expert"; evidently your translations are correct; apparently your resources, adequate. While you "know enough," you're nevertheless willing to "learn in the process." You're "honest enough to ask the proper authorities." Of course, such language simply represents your own biases, and not the reality of things.

Regards,
Notsri

noah

Nostri,

First you say that rashi says "And Bethlehem is Ephrat" rather than the correct translation "And Bethlehem SHE is Ephrat" which might seem picky, but it leaves out the fact that Rashi was focusing on the gender by picking one of any other instance where "she" might not be used, but simply inferred.

You then say that "she" is beside the point." when it is the point.

The funny thing is you say l. and then proceed to use a Christian lexicon as a proof, while a simple secular Hebrew-English dictionary with no religious Agenda (Like the one from Bantam) would be very enlightening. (Please bring it to this debate Nostri). you then quote Rabbi Artscroll who renders is as "too small", which is still in line with the meaning, that tza'ir is a youth, one of limited capabilites, one of non-important stature, and it is a noun! But you missed that.

You says Which means you missed the point of the Rashi, the 4 points which I outlined above. You see, he indicates that Bet-Lechem, She who is Efrat is feminine. He indicates that this object of "YOU" has a Moabite ancestry. He speaks of Bet-Lechem as the place where David came from. All of these add up to DAVID.

You is focusing on the translation of Alfei, but it is obvious that alphei is not even the object so one could care less how he translates it.

I will outline the nouns in blue, the pronouns in green and the verbs in red. Masculine will be normal and feminine will be italics, adjectives in orange.

And YOU of Bet-Lechem [she who is by] Efratah, a small-youth who was to be among the clusters/princes/segments/etc. of Yehudah it is from you he will come forth to me to be...

Now, if you look closely, you star out with a green word. You then match it up to the first blue word. But since the first blue word is slanted and the first green word is not, then you go to the first blue word that is not slanted.

It's really very simple. The only way that you can have "You" then skip to the "thousands/clans" blue word is if you make the first male blue word into a pink word. But you cannot do that because the pink word is not slanted and the first blue words are.

Do the colors help?

Get yourself a Hebrew-English dictionary from the local library and look up the non-agenda meaning of tza'ir. Also you will see a zayin next to it. indicating that is male. That gender will not change. You will also see a tav next to it meaning that it can become an adjective if one applies it to a noun of the same gender.

noah

Notsri. I am going to give you a list of Jewsih websites, Rabbis and Jewish forums. I am going to give you their email and web addresses. So as to make this discussion meaningful rather than a tired old process of fielding unqualified Christian bias, I ask you now to take one or two of the main points here in this debate to one or two of these Rabbis, websites and Jewish forums and come back here to this debate with their replies to you. OK?

Forums:
Ask A Rabbi

Messiah Truth

The Global Yeshiva

Rabbis

judaism@staff.beliefnet.com

Barry Dov Lerner
judaism.guide@about.com

Michael Skobac
toronto@jewsforjudaism.org

Tovia Singer
toviasinger1@aol.com

Ezekiel Rox
ravrox@aol.com

Websites

Ask Moses

Ask The Rabbi

Chabad.org

Aish

Mechon Mamre contact them by email:
jewfaq@mechon-mamre.org

I mean let's skip the Christian commentaries and interprative translations and get right down to it. If you want to be honest about this debate then find out for yourself what Jews believe.

noah

So, if Beth-Lechem is not the direct object, how can it be speaking of Beth-Lechem? Most likely you are speaking of the error which turns tza'ir followed by a verb into an adjective and then attaches it to Bet-Lechem, which is an error (wrong gender and type) making Bet-Lechem "small", "little", etc when the spelling is a boy. And, as I have shown, one Christian states that the verb "to be" needs to be thrown away to make it an adjective, and then respell Efrat to attach it, but forgets about the gender and tza'ir needs to become tza'irah, and so a heh needs to be added.

You are focusing on "clan" which makes no difference how it is translated. I am willing to call it "clan" just to get it out of my hair. I am focusing on the singular male noun that is being rejected as insignificant, when, in reality, it is the most significant thing in the sentence.

You say that you have "scholarly" proof that tza'ir is an adjective. Great. Then explain how a male adjective is attached to a female noun. Second, if it truley were connected to Efratah and you changed tza'ir to tza'irah with an extra letter, which your scholarly people seem to forget about.

As far as showing you the smichut for alphei, I did a CD-ROM search in Hebrew for it and scanned it visually to look at the hits. I invite him to do the same thing. I won't post every instance since it simply clouds the problem.

So you're calling a male noun a male adjective that is attached to a female indirect object.
Interesting. And I am sure there are Christian scholars who would accept it.

My Jewish friend had this to say:
You want a noun to be an adjective and to forget the gender and to somehow put all of the clans of Judea into Bet-Lechem and have the Moshiach come from them in that town and to forget the verb that makes the town a member of the tribe (there are three words typically dropped/modified in the Christian translation: tza;ir, lihiyot, and li).

Not altogether logical Notsri...