General Category > Ask Posters Show Threads
Ask MUMAN613! almost live!
muman613:
--- Quote from: Irish Zionist on March 17, 2010, 06:29:13 AM ---Muman can you explain these versus:
From TEHILLIM (The Book Of Psalms)
Psalm 2
8. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Now by my understanding G-d is giving the Gentiles most of the earth for ther possession.
9. Thou shall rule them with a rod of iron and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
I have no idea what this means and hope that you can explain.
--- End quote ---
This is very interesting...
Obviously there are some translation issues in the translation you give. Chabad has these lines translated as follows:
8. Request of Me, and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them.
I dont think the word Goyim means gentiles in this context. The word Goyim is translated as Nations {which is the correct translation}.
I believe what this Psalm is saying is that if the Jewish people pray earnestly to Hashem that he will hear our prayers and deliver the enemies of the Jewish people, the nations which have risen against it, into our hands.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16223/showrashi/true
Rashis comments:
--- Quote ---8. Request of Me, and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession. ח.
Request of Me: Pray to Me whenever you come to battle your enemies.
9. You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them." ט.
You shall break them: Heb. תרעם [like] תרוצצם. :
with an iron rod: That is the sword. :
you shall shatter them: Heb. תנפצם, you shall break them, and that is the expression of נפוץ throughout the Scriptures, a potsherd that is bro ken into fine pieces.
--- End quote ---
I will continue to research this question because there is possibly more to discuss about this.
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/bar-mitzvah/02.htm
--- Quote ---A Day To Make A Request
The Talmud[43] relates that King David died on the festival of Shavuos. The books Tvuos Shor and Binyan Ariel state that since "the A-lmighty completes the days of the righteous exactly, from day to day" - for we find that many righteous people died on the very day that they were born - it follows that Shavuos is also the birthday of King David.
On the verse in Tehillim 2:7, "You are My son, I have begotten you this day", the Zohar[44] comments that this is the verse King David composed on the day of his Bar Mitzvah.[45]
In addition to that which at the Bris Milah the Nefesh Elokis entered the body, as the Alter Rebbe states in the beginning of his Shulchan Aruch, that is only the level of nefesh, ruach and neshamah. Thereafter, however, if one's mode of service is correct and as it should be, at the moment of Bar Mitzvah there is also drawn down the level of Atzilus.
This is the reason why Rabbi Shimon made a feast and simchah when Rabbi Elazar his son became Bar Mitzvah, a simchah similar to that of a wedding.
Since, as stated above, Shavuos is King David's birthday, it follows that the Bar Mitzvah of King David was also on Shavuos and the verse, "You are My son etc.," was spoken on Shavuos.
Since King David wrote this verse in Tehillim, a book read by every Jew, each according to his level (and particularly following the directive of my father-in-law the Previous Rebbe that one should recite the Book of Tehillim as it is divided into the days of the month - and this institution is applicable to all - and even those who recite the Tehillim in a different order should also recite them as they are divided monthly - and in fact this mode of reciting Tehillim is becoming more and more widespread), it therefore follows that all the things that King David said in Tehillim for Knesses Yisrael are openly revealed to each Jew according to his level, including this verse and its contents, "You are My son, I have begotten you this day, Only ask it of Me and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession."
The sense of the verse is: what we will ask from G-d He will fulfill - each Jew his heart's requests.[46]
--- End quote ---
muman613:
More about Psalm 2 which appears to have been misinterpreted by the Christians:
http://www.oztorah.com/2010/02/david-kimchis-response-to-christianity-in-his-psalm-commentary/
...
The Hebrew text of Psalm 2, with a translation by myself, accompanies this paper. There are many problems in the text, including the relationship of Psalm 2 to Psalm 1, but we will not be examining those matters which do not appear germane to Kimchi’s anti-Christian polemics. We do, however, need to ascertain the context of the psalm.
The overall theme of the psalm is the struggle of a Divinely-appointed king to establish his authority against hostile rulers. The Hebrew calls the king’s opponents goyyim and le’umim, “nations” and “peoples” – led by melachim and roz’nim, “kings” and “princes”. One possibility is that this points to a historical event in which tribes or regimes seek to overthrow an actual king, probably David, at the beginning of his reign (see Psalm 89:21-38; II Sam. 5:17 depicts the Philistines opposing David’s assumption of the throne). Others see it as a prophecy of the problems the future Messiah will have in establishing himself. Both approaches are found in Jewish commentary, though Rashi rejects the messianic theory, saying, “Our rabbis expound it as relating to King Messiah, but according to the plain meaning it is proper to interpret it in connection with David”. Some writers see the psalm as a combination of the historical and the messianic.
A third possibility is that the psalm reflects an internal Jewish struggle between a righteous king appointed by G-d and a group of nobles whose interests are under threat. Samuel Daiches says that “no foreign nations and no foreign kings are mentioned in it. Psalm 2 is… entirely Jewish, that is, it deals only with the land and the people of the Psalmist” (Studies in the Psalms, 1930, page 38).
In considering the third theory, we need not be too concerned by words like kings and princes, since ancient modes of speech use monarchical terms for people of power and substance, e.g. Kohelet 1:1, where “king in Jerusalem” may be merely a substantial land-owner.
Similarly, goyim in verse 1 need not be “nations” but can be haughty, prominent men (cf. Psalm 7:9-10, though verses 8-9 present a problem in this respect); eretz in verse 2 need not be “the earth” but can denote “the land”, i.e. the land of Israel. The reference to world domination need not be taken literally; Gunkel (Die Psalmen, 1905) says the terminology comes from the king-talk of the ancient empires. Note that many other psalms also echo internal tension between the righteous and their opponents.
Kimchi adopts the historical theory: “Some interpret this psalm of Gog and Magog” (who wage war against the Messiah) “but the better explanation is that David uttered it concerning himself… He composed and recited this psalm at the beginning of his reign, when the nations gathered against him”. Whilst Kimchi admits that the messianic theory has support, the introduction to the book warns against regarding the psalms as prophecies. They manifest the Holy Spirit, but this differs from prophecy. Even if the psalm is messianic, Kimchi indignantly refutes the possibility that it can refer to Jesus.
In handling christological interpretations, his responses appear conventional, but we have the advantage of hindsight after many centuries in which the claims he rejects became the stock-in-trade of the conversionists whose tracts tended to be full of quotations and short on scholarship. The following are the christological issues he deals with in interpreting Psalm 2, followed by a selection of additional topics dealt with in other psalms.
Psalm 2 (translation by Raymond Apple)
1. Why do the powerful rage,
The nobles utter worthless rants?
2. The princes of the land set themselves up,
The rulers conspire together
Against the Lord and His anointed.
3. (Saying,) “Let us snap their cords
And throw off their ropes from upon us!”
4. He who sits in heaven laughs –
The Lord mocks them.
5. Then He rebukes them in His anger,
He frightens them in His wrath:
6. “It is I who established My king
On Zion, My holy mountain!”
7. I relate the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are My son:
This day I have given birth to you.
8. “Ask it of Me,
And I will make the peoples your inheritance,
The ends of the earth your possession.
9. “You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like an earthern pot.”
10. Now, O princes, be sensible –
Be chastised, O judges of the land.
11. Serve the Lord with awe,
Rejoice with trembling.
12. Worship (Him) in purity,
Lest He be angry, and you perish in the way
When His anger flares up in a moment -
Happy are they who take refuge in Him!
Christological issues
1. G-d has appointed a king and calls him “My son” (verse 7). Kimchi says no-one can literally be G-d’s son. Metaphorically, whoever serves G-d is His son. Israel are called G-d’s son (Exodus 4:22). Even the stars are called sons of G-d (Job 38:7).
2. The king is begotten of G-d (verse 7). Again this cannot be true literally. G-d is not flesh and blood. “Begotten” is a metaphor and means appointed or anointed.
3. G-d says, “Ask of Me and I will give the nations for your inheritance” (verse 8). If Jesus is G-d, how can he ask anything of G-d? And if G-d gives the son power, does this not reduce the Almighty’s own power?
4. G-d intends the king to have power over the world (verse 8). If it means earthly power it cannot apply to Jesus since he was not a political figure. If it means spiritual power, even centuries after his death not all peoples accept him.
5. Even if nash’ku bar (verse 12) means “kiss the son”, the most it indicates is “pay homage (as a servant kisses his master’s hand) to the chosen one (the king)”. Bar can mean to choose, as in I Samuel 17:8. The usual word for son is ben (as in verse 7). Bar is son in Aramaic but the only Biblical instance is Proverbs 31:2. A better translation is “Pay homage in purity”, since bar is pure or clear in other places in the Psalms (e.g. 24:4, 73:1). In any case the verse tells us to worship G-d, not the son, whoever he may be.
...
muman613:
Also there appears to be confusion in this Psalm where Christian translations include this line
12. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him.
The mistranslation is "Kiss the son"...
http://www.messiahtruth.com/psal2.html
--- Quote ---
The verse Psalms 2:12 is a significant item in the portfolio of Christian apologists and missionaries. The rendition of the Hebrew phrase (nashqu var), which means do homage in purity, as Kiss the Son by Christian translators is designed to line up this psalm by King David with Christian theology and messianic paradigm.
The analysis presented in this essay will demonstrate how this so-called "proof text" has been fashioned with a manipulation of Hebrew text from the Hebrew Bible that aims to "retrofit" Christianity into it. When the Psalm is read in the Hebrew text, or in an accurate translation thereof, the true and entirely different perspective unfolds.
Excepting two revisions from the Hebrew, one obvious and the other subtle, the two translations are reasonably consistent. The obvious revision occurs at Psalms 2:12, where the two translations disagree on the opening phrase, and where the Christian rendition imputes a heavy dose of Christology into the context of King David's words. The subtle change is at Psalms 2:7, where the KJV translators have replaced the term "son" with "Son", an action that enhances the Christological appeal of this psalm ("Son" is also used as part of the revision in Psalms 2:12). In addition, tenses of some verbs were changed, but these do not have a serious impact the context.
--- End quote ---
TruthSpreader:
Dear Muman, have you ever eaten hummus or falafel?
muman613:
--- Quote from: YimachShemotoIslam on March 19, 2010, 07:04:22 AM ---Dear Muman, have you ever eaten hummus or falafel?
--- End quote ---
Thats a question?
Of course I have... Everyone I know tries to get me to eat their hummus... I am not the biggest hummus fan but I have it on occasion. I also have had Falafel on occasion also. I do not have these foods regularly though.
I suspect it may be because I am Ahskenazic in heritage and these foods are more Sephardic {I think}... I am more inclined to eat Gefilte Fish and Cholent...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version