Do Jews believe Christianity alters Torah according to Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 11/4. Isn't it the same old testament Jews and Christians believe in, how would it be altered?
Asked
Active
Viewed 276 times
0
-
3Some translations are a bit off. Christians like to see Jesus in the Bible for whatever reasons. Other than that, I cannot see anything altered about it. They have the same Bible (If you leave out the New Testament), same G-d (if you only count the Father), and almost same religion (Christianity grew out of Judaism). Of course, Christianity's three gods is incompatible for Judaism. For this reason, Rambam referred to it as idolatry. I agree with Rambam. – Turk Hill Apr 16 '21 at 00:29
-
Do you mean nothing altered about it by christians? You mentioned three gods I assume you mean trinity, for example if we say holy spirit(god) is in Genesis 1:2 would it be same for jews? – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 03:45
-
I don’t understand your question. Could you try to reword it? Thanks. – Turk Hill Apr 16 '21 at 03:54
-
You should quote (in the question) the part of Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 11/4 that you are referring to, as in many printed editions it only says: "ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו. כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה. ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה. וילחם מלחמות ה'. הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח. אם עשה והצליח ובנה מקדש במקומו וקבץ נדחי ישראל הרי זה משיח בודאי. ויתקן את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה' ביחד שנאמר כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה' ולעבדו שכם אחד" ... – Tamir Evan Apr 16 '21 at 03:59
-
1...("If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach. If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach... – Tamir Evan Apr 16 '21 at 04:01
-
1...He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as it states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'") – Tamir Evan Apr 16 '21 at 04:01
-
Turk hill Christians say Holy Spirit is passed in old testamant and holy sprit is part of trinity as god, i ask is it same for judaism – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 04:11
-
Tamir Evan I used this link to read it:https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188356/jewish/Melachim-uMilchamot-Chapter-11.htm – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 04:19
-
I saw this and questioned what it is about:"Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered" – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 04:19
-
You should still quote (in the question) the part you are referring to, for context. – Tamir Evan Apr 16 '21 at 04:35
-
Yes you are right. – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 04:38
-
My question is what Maimondes is referring to by saying "torah to be altered" – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 04:39
-
They deliberately mistranslate or misquote the Torah to push their idol worship. The most obvious example is virgin instead of young woman. Another example in modern times is kill instead murder in the ten commandments. They also pretend that Jews no longer need to keep kosher. – sabbahillel Apr 16 '21 at 14:24
-
@AlexTaylor Yes, I mean the trinity. – Turk Hill Apr 16 '21 at 17:04
3 Answers
4
Alteration does not necessarily have to be in the wording, but in the interpretation. I believe Maimonides was referring to the Christians when he wrote at the end of Ch. 11
The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.' Others say: 'Implied in the mitzvot are hidden concepts that can not be understood simply. The Mashiach has already come and revealed those hidden truths.'
He is referring to the Christian claim that the commandments either no longer apply or were not meant literally, specifically as a result of a claimed Messiah (Jesus).
In fact, in the original Hebrew, Maimonides writes להחליף התורה. IMO a better translation of the source word חלף is "exchange". Maimonides is saying that the Christians exchanged the New Testament for the Torah, and their new religion for the commandments of the Torah.
N.T.
- 8,653
- 9
- 32
-
1+1 I especially agree that Eliyahu Touger's translation of 'להחליף' is unfortunate (and somewhat misleading). – Tamir Evan Apr 16 '21 at 09:16
-
1
0
How can Christianity alter the Hebrew Bible? the answer is clear to all the world (including the non-Jews) except Christians ..
unfortunate exegesis
just one example:
the original Tanakh says :
Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
The altered Tanakh says:
Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a miracle. Look, the virgin who never been touched by a man will be with child, without sexual intercourse and shall bear a son, and they will call him Immanuel(which means God the almighty will be himself with us in the flesh). 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before Jesus knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
there are hundreds of similar cases ,of such non-acceptable exegesis . and that's what Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 11 refers to.
Aaron
- 10,861
- 1
- 25
- 62
capri reds
- 428
- 3
- 6
-
Are there other examples thus i can figure it out better(I would appreciate it), I am not good at understanding about torah or tanah but I am trying to. – Alex Taylor Apr 16 '21 at 03:37
-
I will edit my answer to be greatly detailed with other examples ,and then notify you. – capri reds Apr 16 '21 at 17:31
-
Neither "young woman" nor "virgin" is truly accurate. It's a stage of life term that cannot be fully translated into English - we just don't have a word that matches the concept. All translation involves trade-offs. – curiousdannii Apr 17 '21 at 22:03
-
-
@curiousdannii is christian or jewish view of the verse valid? point of this discussion is; is torah altered or not by those translations. How close this word "virgin or young woman" can be translated for you. – Alex Taylor Apr 17 '21 at 22:35
-
How close it (virgin or young woman) can be translated fit for it's meaning – Alex Taylor Apr 17 '21 at 22:39
-
@AlexTaylor Both Jews and Christians want accurate un-biased translations. It's readily acknowledged by Christians that the Hebrew of Isaiah 7 doesn't literally refer to virginity, but I feel like "young woman" is the poorer translation as it could easily refer to a young married mother. Isaiah 7 is describing something unusual - either a virgin giving birth, or the scandal of a young pregnant unmarried woman - not the common event of a young married woman giving birth. And also, don't forget that the ancient Greek Septuagint translation, done by Jews, translates it as "virgin". – curiousdannii Apr 17 '21 at 22:44
-
1We live in a different world, where pre-marriage sex is common and people readily admit to it. No doubt plenty of unmarried people were having sex in Isaiah's day, but they'd try to keep it secret. So a stage of life word like almah can imply virginity without meaning it. This makes it a difficult word to translate into modern English which does not have these stage of life terms, while culture has also changed. – curiousdannii Apr 17 '21 at 22:48
-
-
It's more verbose, but I'd probably choose "young unmarried woman" as the best English option. – curiousdannii Apr 17 '21 at 22:54
-
@AlexTaylor even if the meaning of the word was : that the prophet Isaiah said to his listeners (עַלְמָה ‘almāh) means exclusively" the virgin who has never been touched by a man" will be with child, that will by no mean support the Christian misuse of the text ,because every virgin will be pregnant one day ,and will be with child! not without sexual intercourse though ,(and there is no hint in the text that there is something unusual will happen related to her pregnancy.) – capri reds Apr 17 '21 at 23:39
-
and the best English translation that (highly respected among scholars)and makes sense is the New Revised Standard Version ( Isaiah 7:14)Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel... yet the biggest problem with the christian exegesis of Isaiah 7:14 ,isn't the meaning of the word, but the context itself. – capri reds Apr 17 '21 at 23:39
0
Christians always want to know "the truth" about the Bible. But unfortunately they have multiple "truths" that they've come to believe, and then feel a need to re-insert those "truths" into the text.
Most of the time the changes they make to the Hebrew Bible is to insert Jesus places, or add comments or doctrines that reflect Jesus or Trinity, even when the text doesn't really support it.
Some of the time there are other theological "truths" Christians have come to believe that they re-insert into the Hebrew Bible. Such as their belief in Lucifer and therefore inserting the name Lucifer into Isiah 14:12. They've similarly taken the virgin birth concept of the Christian Scriptures and mistranslated it into the Hebrew bible. Even more vague concepts such as Christianity's opposition to abortion leads them to mistranslate Exodus 21:22-23.
At the end of the day I believe Christians always want to understand the truth of the Hebrew Bible. But Christians aren't taught to realize that "the truth," doesn't exist. Hebrew as a language is word poor, which means words often have various meanings. So it's a rare event that a verse in the Hebrew Bible has only "one true meaning." Instead, there are often multiple truths to every verse, which is why we encourage people to learn and read Hebrew directly rather than rely on translation. But because Christians insist that they can derive "one true meaning" of the text in translation, they usually make the mistake of inserting "their truth" into the Hebrew text, even when it doesn't belong there.
Aaron
- 10,861
- 1
- 25
- 62
-
1Could you clarify the last paragraph? When you say that Christians ‘aren’t taught to realise that “the truth” doesn’t exist’ do you mean that they do not know that what they take to be the Truth is not the Truth? Or that the JC-man - whom Christians believe to be Truth itself - did not actually exist? – Tom W Apr 16 '21 at 12:24
-
-
thanks, I understand now. I would still argue that multiple meanings do imply the existence of ‘the Truth’ - just that the Truth is multi-faceted... Anyway, we can pick this up another time. Shabbos shalom :) – Tom W Apr 16 '21 at 17:21