PDA

View Full Version : Why the Christian Bible is not the same as the Tanakh (don't quote it for jews)



therebbe
09-06-2006, 08:01 PM
CHRISTIAN "PROOF TEXTS" and why the Christian Old Testament is NOT the Tanakh.

So don't quote the Christian Old Testament to so called 'refute' Judaism, or in a discussion with a Jew.

While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bull's-eye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."

When examining Christian "proof texts" that claim to point to Jesus as the promised Messiah, we should always ask the following question. "Has an arrow been shot into a circle or has a circle been drawn around an arrow?" In other words, has the passage been mistranslated, misquoted, taken out of context or fabricated?

Here are examples of several ways that missionaries "draw a circle around the arrow" to prove their point.

THE VERSE HAS BEEN FABRICATED AND DOES NOT EXIST IN the HEBREW SCRIPTURES

The easiest prophecy to fulfill is one you yourself have invented. The New Testament certainly bears witness to this principle, fabricating a number of "prophecies" out of thin air and attributing them to our Hebrew Scriptures.
The New Testament book of Matthew claims that Jesus was the Messiah since he lived in the city of Nazareth. The New Testament utilizes the following "proof text" to make its point: "He [Jesus] came and resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled. "He shall be called a Nazarene.'" (Matthew 2:23) Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated out of thin air.

THE VERSE IS MISTRANSLATED

An effective missionary will work with crude English retranslations of earlier Greek mistranslations, and will avoid looking at the original Hebrew.

In Romans 11:26, the Christian Bible quotes Isaiah 59:20 as saying, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob," thus attempting to establish scriptural support for the Christian belief that the Messiah will take away our sins. How-ever, a careful examination of the Hebrew original reveals a powerful dilemma. Isaiah 59:20 actually says the opposite: "A redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord." The Messiah's role is not to take away our sins; rather, when we turn away from our sins, the Messiah will then come! It is also noteworthy that many New Testaments translate this verse correctly in Isaiah and incorrectly in Romans.

THE PASSAGE IS MISTRANSLATED AND READ OUT OF CONTEXT

In an attempt to prove the concept of the "virgin birth," the book of Matthew 1:22-23 states: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which translated means, G-d with us." Missionaries claim that this is the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14, that actually reads: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

There are numerous inaccuracies in the Christian translation. For example:

1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars1;
2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and
3) The verse says "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call."
Even apart from these inaccuracies, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, from which this verse is taken, it is obvious that Christians have taken this verse out of context.

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims).
Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.


THE PASSAGE IS NOT A PROOF


Missionaries incorrectly claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. They attempt to utilize Michah 5:2 as their proof text:
"But you Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are small among the thousands of Judah, out of you will come to Me one who will be ruler in Israel, whose goings out are from ancient time, from days of old."
This verse is not a prophesy that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. The passage simply states it has been preordained that the Messiah would be able to trace his roots back to Bethlehem. This is consistent with the Biblical statement that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David, who was from Bethlehem, as seen in I Samuel 16:18.

There is another problem with this missionary proof text. A major distinction must be made between a scripture that serves as a proof that someone is the Messiah and a scriptures that simply states a requirement of the Messiah. A proof must be something so exclusive that only one individual can fulfill it.

For example: One criterion of the Messiah is that he must be Jewish. If an individual is Jewish, he has fulfilled this particular requirement; however, in and of itself, this is obviously not a proof that the individual is the Messiah since millions of individuals are Jewish and they all meet this criterion. Therefore, the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem would not prove a thing, since thousands of children were born there.

SUMMARY

These examples demonstrate the confusion created when missionaries shoot an arrow first and then draw a circle around it. Our advice is to always take the time to examine and read passages carefully and in their entirety. If you follow this advice, the correct interpretation will be abundantly clear.

1 Some missionaries argue that in an ancient translation of the Bible called the "Septuagint," 70 great rabbis translated the word "almah--" in Isaiah 7:14, as "parthenos--," and that this Greek word means a virgin. This claim is false for several reasons: 1) The 70 rabbis did not translate the book of Isaiah, only the "Pentateuch," the five books of Moses. In fact, the introduction to the English edition of the Septuagint states concerning the translation, "The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst;" 2) In Genesis 34:2-3 the word "parthenos" is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman who had been raped; 3) The entire Septuagint version that missionaries quote from is not the original, but from a later, corrupted version.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Zulkiflim
09-06-2006, 08:12 PM
Salaam,

Umm so even when the word are the same verse for verse you still wont accept it?

I remember where you or lavikor posted duetronmy about the where to build the temple...and you siad duet ...and when i posted froma bible website ,,,you claim it was wrong..

then i went to a judaic website,,and it word are the same..

So do you say that every vertse is wrong or just becasue it comes from bible sites or the bible itself.

Perhaps you or lavikor can give us a webiste that has your tanakh,and let us use it when we have a discussion,one recognized by you and lavikor..
Reply

therebbe
09-06-2006, 08:28 PM
Umm so even when the word are the same verse for verse you still wont accept it?
Which verse are you refering to? All the verse posted up there are not the same as you have said. They have been mistranslated or taken out of context and not understood through the hebrew meanings. I thought with Quran misinterpretation you might realize where I am coming from, but obviously you really have no respect for Jews which does not bother me. Think whatever you want.

Let me ask you... did you even read the post?

The only way to truly understand and interpret the Torah is by the Hebrew version anyway because there are many words in Hebrew that cannot be described to someone who doesn't know hebrew.

Your lack of understanding of the Ark and the Temple as you have read is clearly because you go to a site and get information that mistranslates verses, and then you come here without having any knowledge of the Oral Law, Talmud, or Torah.

Go to: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-07-2006, 02:47 AM
Salaam,

Umm i think i did read the post and replied to you asking if you consider only those verse as different or are you using that to disprove the entire OT in the bible?

And i highlighted about a discussion i had with one of you about the temple and he quoted duet...i then posted those verses from the bible which to my great surprise he say do not use the bible..

Just so you know the discussion on the temple ended with a half hearted promise to ask the rabbi about the exact location and what makes the temple holy...

And you say if i dont respect jews it dont bother you then ...why write about your feeling to me??Do you presume to think i care?

Hmm curious..

well anyway thank for the link and inshallah,hopefully will get to use it..
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
therebbe
09-07-2006, 03:00 AM
Just so you know the discussion on the temple ended with a half hearted promise to ask the rabbi about the exact location and what makes the temple holy...
The argument I believe ended with you continually being told the facts and how the ark is only a substitution for the temple. and the temple must be build on the mount and you continually posting false verses and arguing when you were given the Jewish side of the opinion. You don't have to accept it just like I do not have to accept the quran as anything more then a fiction. It is really irelevant.


Do you presume to think i care?
Of course not. To hate an entire religion takes someone without much of a heart.


Now any questions on what I wrote above or are you going to continue to post off topic irrelevant things?
Reply

dougmusr
09-07-2006, 03:40 AM
In Romans 11:26, the Christian Bible quotes Isaiah 59:20 as saying, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob," thus attempting to establish scriptural support for the Christian belief that the Messiah will take away our sins. How-ever, a careful examination of the Hebrew original reveals a powerful dilemma. Isaiah 59:20 actually says the opposite: "A redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord." The Messiah's role is not to take away our sins; rather, when we turn away from our sins, the Messiah will then come! It is also noteworthy that many New Testaments translate this verse correctly in Isaiah and incorrectly in Romans.
Please elaborate on the Jewish concept of a redeemer and redemption as it relates to the coming of the Messiah.

1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars1;
2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and
3) The verse says "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call."
If this was a particular woman known to Isaiah, who was she, and what historical record do we have to back up your claim?

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims).
There are other instances where God made a promise, and offered proof which came to pass following the death of the person to whom the proof was offered.

Ge 15:7 Then He said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." 8 And he said, "Lord GOD, how shall I know that I will inherit it?" ...

Ge 15:12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 "Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
Reply

therebbe
09-07-2006, 07:18 PM
Please elaborate on the Jewish concept of a redeemer and redemption as it relates to the coming of the Messiah.
In the Messianic era, people will study Torah and try to find more knowledge of G-d.

If this was a particular woman known to Isaiah, who was she, and what historical record do we have to back up your claim?
Not sure exactly who she is. I can ask someone who might know, but it certainly does not mean "virgin" which many Christian bibles say it does.

Go to a Book store and look up "almah" in an Hebrew dictionary. It means young women.

Virgin is "BETHULAA"

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.

Ha'almah
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-07-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by therebbe
The argument I believe ended with you continually being told the facts and how the ark is only a substitution for the temple. and the temple must be build on the mount and you continually posting false verses and arguing when you were given the Jewish side of the opinion. You don't have to accept it just like I do not have to accept the quran as anything more then a fiction. It is really irelevant.




Of course not. To hate an entire religion takes someone without much of a heart.


Now any questions on what I wrote above or are you going to continue to post off topic irrelevant things?
Heya

Umm i did nto psot false verses,i posted the verses amd the websites that i got them from...If it was false perhaps lavikor forgeot to mention it.

and my question to lavikor is simple,what makes the wailing wall holy?
My understading is that it is becasue it is close to the Arc of Covenat,and the Holies of Holy,and the seat of Mercy.

But does that make the wall itself holy? Or is it holy becasue of what it used to house?

Lavikor also agreed that before the temple was built,Holies of Holies moved where ever the jews went,and it was the holies of holies becasue of the arc of the covenant.

So perhaps you can say with clarity if the wailing wall is holy becasue of itself or becasue of the Arc of covenant,or is it as lavikor said,a link to a once glorious past...


And i do not think it is off topic since you are actually digressing about the bible and tanakh,and thus this is a relevant point for us to compare how much different the bible and tanakh is thru discussion,and not tru choiced selection.

And by the way,the presumtion is your's the pride is oyur.
next time read the word carefully before answering..
Reply

therebbe
09-08-2006, 01:29 AM
Umm i did nto psot false verses,i posted the verses amd the websites that i got them from...If it was false perhaps lavikor forgeot to mention it.
Actually, I read the posts you speak about and what you did was you tried to justify your point using a Catholic website, and then posting the verses in latin translation. If you don't understand, those verses are worthless to us Jews.

what makes the wailing wall holy?
?
The First Temple or Solomon's Temple was built in the 10th century BC. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, the Second Temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in AD 70 as a result of the First Jewish-Roman War. Each Temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

According to Judaism's religious texts, when the legions of Titus destroyed the Temple, only a part of an outer court-yard "western wall" remained standing. Jewish texts teach that Titus left it as a bitter reminder to the Jews that Rome had vanquished Judea. The Jews, however, attributed it to a promise made by G-d that some part of the holy Temple would be left standing as a sign of G-d's unbroken bond with the Jewish people in spite of the catastrophes which had befallen them.

But does that make the wall itself holy?
It is a sign of our unbroken bond with G-d. He promised the Jewish people that a part of the temple would be left standing to remind the Jews that G-d was with them even though there temple was destroyed. The Western Wall is the holiest place on earth to Jews that we have access to.
Reply

dougmusr
09-08-2006, 01:42 AM
In the Messianic era, people will study Torah and try to find more knowledge of G-d.
I still would like to know what it means for the Messiah to be a redeemer. If He delays His coming until people have studied God's Word and begun to follow it, what is His purpose in redeeming them?
Reply

therebbe
09-08-2006, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
I still would like to know what it means for the Messiah to be a redeemer. If He delays His coming until people have studied God's Word and begun to follow it, what is His purpose in redeeming them?
No. I don't think you understand. Many jews will not follow Torah when he comes and Moshiach will redeem them by helping them to come back to the ways of Torah.
Reply

dougmusr
09-08-2006, 02:03 AM
Originally Posted by therebbe
No. I don't think you understand. Many jews will not follow Torah when he comes and Moshiach will redeem them by helping them to come back to the ways of Torah.
Here's the definition of redeem. How does Judaism define the word redeemer and redeem as used in Isaiah 59:20.

1 a : to buy back : REPURCHASE b : to get or win back
2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as a : to free from captivity by payment of ransom b : to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR d : to free from the consequences of sin
3 : to change for the better : REFORM
4 : REPAIR, RESTORE
5 a : to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b (1) : to remove the obligation of by payment <the United States Treasury redeems savings bonds on demand> (2) : to exchange for something of value <redeem trading stamps> c : to make good : FULFILL
6 a : to atone for : EXPIATE <redeem an error> b (1) : to offset the bad effect of (2) : to make worthwhile : RETRIEVE
Reply

therebbe
09-08-2006, 02:13 AM
3: to change for the better
Jews will change for the better by becoming imersed in Torah study. They will be redeemed as in (changed for the better)
Reply

north_malaysian
09-08-2006, 09:47 AM
Maybe Christians should choose a language to make their bible Standardized... and no mistranslation...

Christians are proud of their association with the Jews by claiming Jewish Old Testamanent is part of their holy book...

...but I've seen that Jews are disassociate themselves from this Christian statement..
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-08-2006, 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by therebbe
Actually, I read the posts you speak about and what you did was you tried to justify your point using a Catholic website, and then posting the verses in latin translation. If you don't understand, those verses are worthless to us Jews.



The First Temple or Solomon's Temple was built in the 10th century BC. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, the Second Temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in AD 70 as a result of the First Jewish-Roman War. Each Temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

According to Judaism's religious texts, when the legions of Titus destroyed the Temple, only a part of an outer court-yard "western wall" remained standing. Jewish texts teach that Titus left it as a bitter reminder to the Jews that Rome had vanquished Judea. The Jews, however, attributed it to a promise made by G-d that some part of the holy Temple would be left standing as a sign of G-d's unbroken bond with the Jewish people in spite of the catastrophes which had befallen them.



It is a sign of our unbroken bond with G-d. He promised the Jewish people that a part of the temple would be left standing to remind the Jews that G-d was with them even though there temple was destroyed. The Western Wall is the holiest place on earth to Jews that we have access to.
Salaam,

Actually perhaps you read part of my extensive discussion with lavikor.
I did post some verses from a chrisitan site and when he said he does nto accept those,i posted one from a judaic background,but aftert that he choose to ignore the matter.

And for the verse thank but that is just it,there is no mention in your tanakh that the wall is holy is it?


[PIE]The Jews, however, attributed it to a[/PIE]

you see this verse carries more weight,casue it show not what is but what man want to beleive.everyone wnat to have hope and this wall is the hope of judasit who want to return to former glory.

So perhaps you can provide us with the relevant verses that say god kept the wall standing as a sign for the jews of coming glory.
Then we can compare the verses from a biblical and the judaic wesbite that you have provided,and examine any difference..

And finally,i would just like to point this out..
Previously wihout the temple,the Judaist used the Sepulcher,a moving temple,but is the cloth housing the covenant holy?Is the land on which the temporary temple was erected holy?

I say YES,,but only when the Covenant was there.

So,the wall is not Holy,it is man desires to see a link to past glory and to a future glory.

Do any Judaic figure try to search for the covenant?
Reply

therebbe
09-08-2006, 08:02 PM
man want to beleive.
No, I'm sorry but it is incorrect. It was said that there would be something left standing when the temple was destroyed. The Western Wall is holy because it is the sign of our covanent with G-d.

Believe whatever you want. You can argue all you want. I really don't care. I have noticed your continued stereotypes of Jews in your posts, I have noticed that you think low of Jews, and you continue to argue and speak about what you think, yet that is irrelevant.

Your a Muslim. Of course you think the wall is unholy. That is great.

I believe Mecca, and Medina to be the least of signifigance to G-d, and I believe the Quran was man made. Just my opinion. I entitle you to yours and do not argue out of hate.
Reply

QuranStudy
09-08-2006, 08:35 PM
The Western Wall is holy because it is the sign of our covanent with G-d.
Western wall?? isnt it called Wailing wall??
Reply

therebbe
09-08-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by QuranStudy
Western wall?? isnt it called Wailing wall??
Western Wall, Wailing Wall, Kotel. It has many names.
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-08-2006, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by therebbe
No, I'm sorry but it is incorrect. It was said that there would be something left standing when the temple was destroyed. The Western Wall is holy because it is the sign of our covanent with G-d.

Believe whatever you want. You can argue all you want. I really don't care. I have noticed your continued stereotypes of Jews in your posts, I have noticed that you think low of Jews, and you continue to argue and speak about what you think, yet that is irrelevant.

Your a Muslim. Of course you think the wall is unholy. That is great.

I believe Mecca, and Medina to be the least of signifigance to G-d, and I believe the Quran was man made. Just my opinion. I entitle you to yours and do not argue out of hate.
Salaam,

Like i say,it is not my beleif that matter but yours right.

As for this discussion,you are trying to prove the authencity of the tanakh and the disrepute of the bible.

And so as a ideal discussion you can provide the verses in the tanakh that show why the wailing wall is important ,,,and then we can compare it to the same verses found in bible..

Would not that be killing 2 birds wiht one stone..

For me,you dont need to beleive me or the quran but for my faith in my HOly Book there are verses that say the Kaabah and Mecca is Holy..

Thus you cant question the importance of Mecca in Islam..

But now i am quesitoning you about your desire to see the wall as holy.

As you say it is my desire to say Mecca is Holy BECAUSe the quran say so.
How about you,what does your tanakh say about the wall being holy?
You refer to it as a sign,a pact a Covenant,care to provide the verse,and that it refer to the wall specifically..thanks...


Unless you are saying that it is your desire to see the wall as holy.

By the way,you ahve not answered my other question,is there any judaic movement to actually search for what is trully holy in the tanakh? the Arc Of Covenant?

And I am a muslim,and it is not for me to say the wall is holy or not,it is for you to prove the wall is Holy to other not of your faith thru your holy book.
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-08-2006, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by therebbe
No, I'm sorry but it is incorrect. It was said that there would be something left standing when the temple was destroyed. The Western Wall is holy because it is the sign of our covanent with G-d.

Believe whatever you want. You can argue all you want. I really don't care. I have noticed your continued stereotypes of Jews in your posts, I have noticed that you think low of Jews, and you continue to argue and speak about what you think, yet that is irrelevant.

Your a Muslim. Of course you think the wall is unholy. That is great.

I believe Mecca, and Medina to be the least of signifigance to G-d, and I believe the Quran was man made. Just my opinion. I entitle you to yours and do not argue out of hate.
Salaam,

And by the way,just as you rpesume that i hate you now presume that i stereo type..

Can you tell me how do you see you in me?

And when i argue and speak about what i think..it is irrelevant..i wodner whose words then i should mouth ...perhaps fox news?

Afraid of quesiton will never set one free.
Reply

therebbe
09-09-2006, 01:46 AM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

And by the way,just as you rpesume that i hate you now presume that i stereo type..

Can you tell me how do you see you in me?

And when i argue and speak about what i think..it is irrelevant..i wodner whose words then i should mouth ...perhaps fox news?

Afraid of quesiton will never set one free.
What? I cannot even tell what your trying to say. Something about fox news, what you should mouth and stereo types... Right. :rollseyes


And so as a ideal discussion you can provide the verses in the tanakh that show why the wailing wall
Midrash is where the Wall is mentioned.


“Behold, He standeth behind our wall.” (Song of Songs 2:9). Wall alludes to the Western Wall of the Temple which will never be destroyed. Why? Because the Shechinah is in the west.
Numbers Rabba 11:2

R’ Eleazar says: The Shechinah did not depart from the Sanctuary … for although it is laid waste, it still retains in holiness. R’ Aha said: The Divine Presence will never depart from the Western Wall as it is said: “Behold, He standeth behind our wall.” (Song of Songs 2:9)
Exodus Rabba 2:2

When Vespasian had subdued the city, he assigned the destruction of the four ramparts to the four generals, and the western gate was allotted to Pangar. Now it had been decreed by Heaven that this should never be destroyed because the Shechinah is in the west. The others demolished their sections but he did not demolish his.

Vespasian sent for him and asked, “Why did you not destroy your section?”
He replied: “By your life, I acted so for the honour of the kingdom; for if I had demolished it, nobody would [in time] know what it was you destroyed; but when people look [at the western wall] they will exclaim, Perceive the might of Vespasian from what he destroyed!”

He said to him, “Enough, you have spoken well, but since you disobeyed my command, you shall ascend to the roof and throw yourself down. If you live, you will live; and if you die, you will die.”
He ascended, threw himself down and died.
Lamentations Rabba 1:31

Thw wall is clearly mentioned in Hebrew scripture. Also by oral law and prophecy told to us by Hashem about how he would leave 1 part of the temple standing, to show we were still in covanent with him.

Either way, Shabbat Shalom. Sundown is here in Denver where I am staying right now so I must go. Have a good weekend.
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-09-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by therebbe
What? I cannot even tell what your trying to say. Something about fox news, what you should mouth and stereo types... Right. :rollseyes




Midrash is where the Wall is mentioned.


“Behold, He standeth behind our wall.” (Song of Songs 2:9). Wall alludes to the Western Wall of the Temple which will never be destroyed. Why? Because the Shechinah is in the west.
Numbers Rabba 11:2

R’ Eleazar says: The Shechinah did not depart from the Sanctuary … for although it is laid waste, it still retains in holiness. R’ Aha said: The Divine Presence will never depart from the Western Wall as it is said: “Behold, He standeth behind our wall.” (Song of Songs 2:9)
Exodus Rabba 2:2

When Vespasian had subdued the city, he assigned the destruction of the four ramparts to the four generals, and the western gate was allotted to Pangar. Now it had been decreed by Heaven that this should never be destroyed because the Shechinah is in the west. The others demolished their sections but he did not demolish his.

Vespasian sent for him and asked, “Why did you not destroy your section?”
He replied: “By your life, I acted so for the honour of the kingdom; for if I had demolished it, nobody would [in time] know what it was you destroyed; but when people look [at the western wall] they will exclaim, Perceive the might of Vespasian from what he destroyed!”

He said to him, “Enough, you have spoken well, but since you disobeyed my command, you shall ascend to the roof and throw yourself down. If you live, you will live; and if you die, you will die.”
He ascended, threw himself down and died.
Lamentations Rabba 1:31

Thw wall is clearly mentioned in Hebrew scripture. Also by oral law and prophecy told to us by Hashem about how he would leave 1 part of the temple standing, to show we were still in covanent with him.

Either way, Shabbat Shalom. Sundown is here in Denver where I am staying right now so I must go. Have a good weekend.

Salaam

First off thank for a new verse to justify your desire to see the wall as holy.

Let see what the verse is about from it pre and post quote.

[PIE]King James Version: Song of Solomon (Canticles) Chapter 2
1 I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.


2 As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.


3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.


4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.


5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love.


6 His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.


7 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.


8 The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.


9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.

10 My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.


11 For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;


12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;


13 The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.


14 O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.


15 Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.


16 My beloved is mine, and I am his: he feedeth among the lilies.


17 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be thou like a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether.
[/PIE]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/sol002.htm
english version


http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/sol002.htm#009
Hebrew version.

Hope i got the right one..

I dont see any mention of wall,the wailing wall, and it is a love story about a woman pining about her man,is that right.

So i guess for you that one line in affect proves for you that the wall is Holy,but for me as always ,reading the full Song,it is about not a wall,but about a man and a woman in love...

:heated: :D :giggling: :hiding:
Reply

duskiness
09-09-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
I dont see any mention of wall,the wailing wall, and it is a love story about a woman pining about her man,is that right.
I think that therebbe said it's in the COMMENTARY (Midrash) to Song of Salomon 2;2.:rollseyes
n.
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-09-2006, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by duskiness
I think that therebbe said it's in the COMMENTARY (Midrash) to Song of Salomon 2;2.:rollseyes
n.
Salaam,

Commentary...

Is the song i posted the correct one? Or is it wrong??

And the commentary talks about the wailing wall,when the entire song is about missing her man.

I wonder how does both link?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 04:30 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 12:08 PM
  3. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-25-2006, 06:57 PM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 03:10 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!