I agree with this. The question, however, is what is the criterion we would use to determine what is true and what is counterfeit?
Please beaglelady, I appreciate your willingness to engage. Please allow me to try to expalin once again. “Commentaries” help us decipher and understand the Word of God. The Word is inspired, the commentaries not necessarily so. Let us consider a situation where I write a “false” commentary. It has to be assessed in the light of the Word.
My understanding is that the Word in OT, Torah, Quran and Hindu is mutually consistent and non-contradictory. But the commentaries interpret certain verses in a way that they become contradictory. In particular, I do not find support in the scriptures for the idea that the Jews, Christians and Muslims have any exclusive right to anything. So I engaged, and am thankful for the opportunity, with the idea whether the Torah tells of exclusivity. To make clear, the interpretations of the Word by the commentaries appears to me to be the problem. I am open to myself being wrong too. NO affront. No accusations. Only trying to figure outthe way forward.
The Christian-Hindu and Muslim-Hindu conflicts are rooted in Abrahamic religions’ claim of exclusivity. About Africa, I am open to study if there is a specific point. Thanks.
How about some examples?
Read more carefully
Again, which commentaries are the problem? Be specific.
The idea that religious strife is caused by commentaries is just bonkers.
So when it is the Hindu that are the aggressors it is because of the other parties religion? Don’t think so. What is it about the Hindu religion that would cause them to be the aggressor(since this seems to be your thesis)?
The point is simply that they fight just like the conflicts you blame on the Abrahamic religions. So there must be another reason for the fighting.
You need to study a little harder then. The Bible and Quran are certainly contradictory.
J1 My understanding is that the Word in OT, Torah, Quran and Hindu is mutually consistent and non-contradictory. But the commentaries interpret certain verses in a way that they become contradictory
B1 How about some examples?
J1: Elohim=Allah=Brahman. Yahweh=Allah=Devta.
xxx
J2 In particular, I do not find support in the scriptures for the idea that the Jews, Christians and Muslims have any exclusive right to anything.
B2:Read more carefully
J2: Maybe you, too.
xxx
J3: To make clear, the interpretations of the Word by the commentaries appears to me to be the problem.
B3:Again, which commentaries are the problem? Be specific.
J3: Let us see what the commentaries say about the word Zera in Isaiah 6:13. All are either non-committal or they tell of biological seed. This leads to exclusive biological inheritance and arrogance and negativity towards other.
New International Version
And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste. But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
New Living Translation
If even a tenth—a remnant—survive, it will be invaded again and burned. But as a terebinth or oak tree leaves a stump when it is cut down, so Israel’s stump will be a holy seed.”
English Standard Version
And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.
Berean Standard Bible
And though a tenth remains in the land, it will be burned again. As the terebinth and oak leave stumps when felled, so the holy seed will be a stump in the land.”
King James Bible
But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
New King James Version
But yet a tenth will be in it, And will return and be for consuming, As a terebinth tree or as an oak, Whose stump remains when it is cut down. So the holy seed shall be its stump.”
New American Standard Bible
“Yet there will still be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is cut down. The holy seed is its stump.”
NASB 1995
“Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.”
NASB 1977
“Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.”
Amplified Bible
“And though a tenth [of the people] remain in the land, It will again be subject to destruction [consumed and burned], Like a massive terebinth tree or like an oak Whose stump remains when it is chopped down. The holy seed [the elect remnant] is its stump [the substance of Israel].”
Christian Standard Bible
Though a tenth will remain in the land, it will be burned again. Like the terebinth or the oak that leaves a stump when felled, the holy seed is the stump.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Though a tenth will remain in the land, it will be burned again. Like the terebinth or the oak that leaves a stump when felled, the holy seed is the stump.
American Standard Version
And if there be yet a tenth in it, it also shall in turn be eaten up: as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remaineth, when they are felled; so the holy seed is the stock thereof.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And those who remain in it will be one out of ten, and you shall return and you shall be for burning like the oak and like the oak that fell from its stump; the seed that is selected is its planting”
Brenton Septuagint Translation
And yet there shall be a tenth upon it, and again it shall be for a spoil, as a turpentine tree, and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk.
Contemporary English Version
If only a tenth of the people are left, even they will be destroyed. But just as stumps remain after trees have been cut down, some of my chosen ones will be left.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And there shall be still a tithing therein, and she shall turn, and shall be made a show as a turpentine tree, and as an oak that spreadeth its branches: that which shall stand therein, shall be a holy seed.
Good News Translation
Even if one person out of ten remains in the land, he too will be destroyed; he will be like the stump of an oak tree that has been cut down." (The stump represents a new beginning for God’s people.)
International Standard Version
Even though a tenth of its people remain in it, it will once again be burned, like a terebinth or an oak tree, the stump of which, though the tree has been felled, still contains holy seed."
JPS Tanakh 1917
And if there be yet a tenth in it, it shall again be eaten up; as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remaineth, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the stock thereof.’
Literal Standard Version
And yet a tenth in it, and it has turned, And has been for a burning, As a teil-tree, and as an oak, that in falling, Has substance in them, The holy seed [is] its substance!”
New American Bible
If there remain a tenth part in it, then this in turn shall be laid waste; As with a terebinth or an oak whose trunk remains when its leaves have fallen. Holy offspring is the trunk.
NET Bible
Even if only a tenth of the people remain in the land, it will again be destroyed, like one of the large sacred trees or an Asherah pole, when a sacred pillar on a high place is thrown down. That sacred pillar symbolizes the special chosen family."
New Revised Standard Version
Even if a tenth part remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains standing when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.
New Heart English Bible
If there is a tenth left in it, that also will in turn be consumed: as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remains when they are felled. The holy seed is its stock."
World English Bible
If there is a tenth left in it, that also will in turn be consumed: as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remains when they are felled; so the holy seed is its stock."
Young’s Literal Translation
And yet in it a tenth, and it hath turned, And hath been for a burning, As a teil-tree, and as an oak, that in falling, Have substance in them, The holy seed is its substance!
That is circular. What is reality? [The Pilate asked "What is truth?]. And whose perception of the reality?
J21: The Christian-Hindu and Muslim-Hindu conflicts are rooted in Abrahamic religions’ claim of exclusivity.
B21:So when it is the Hindu that are the aggressors it is because of the other parties religion? Don’t think so. What is it about the Hindu religion that would cause them to be the aggressor(since this seems to be your thesis)?
J21: Hindus have not been agressors precisely because they see God in everyone and do not claim any exclusivity.
xxx
J22: About Africa, I am open to study if there is a specific point.
B22: The point is simply that they fight just like the conflicts you blame on the Abrahamic religions. So there must be another reason for the fighting.
J22: Tribal warfare is at the material level as the political conflict between two countries. That is different than the same conflict for theological purposes. It is not my case that conflicts ONLY take place due to theology of exclusiveness. I see around me that most conflicts today are rooted in this. Let us not ignore the mountain by pointing to a mole hill.
xxx
J23: My understanding is that the Word in OT, Torah, Quran and Hindu is mutually consistent and non-contradictory.
B23: You need to study a little harder then. The Bible and Quran are certainly contradictory.
J23: Maybe you need to point out the alleged contradictions.
You have given samples of different translations. Don’t you know the difference between a translation and a commentary? I asked for examples from commentaries. As for arrogance and negativity towards other, you are the one being arrogant and negative toward the Abrahamic faiths.
Um, the caste system? A system of discrimination that pits Hindus against each other
Abraham sees
I love the Latin anagram. It is no accident:
Quid est veritas? “What is truth?”
Est vir qui adest: “It is the man who is here.”
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/17-8.htm
OK. I thought repetition of seed in the translations would be sufficient. I correct myself. Here are some extracts from commentaries (Genesis 17:8 Commentaries: "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."). These say that the land was inherited by the biological descendants of Abraham:
As the land of Canaan was secured to the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh;
The land of promise is made sure to the heir of promise, “for a perpetual possession,” and God engages to “be their God.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,… To him in right, and to them in possession, and for an inheritance:
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Verse 8. - And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, - literally, of thy sojournings (Genesis 12:9; Acts 7:5; Hebrews 11:9) - all the land of Canaan (vide Genesis 10:19), - for an everlasting possession.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
(3) that He would give them the land in which he had wandered as a foreigner, viz., all Canaan, for an everlasting possession.
Glad u raised it. It is debatable whether the system was sanctioned by our scriptures. The Upanishads, to my knowledge, do not sanction it. Yet it is true that the practical Hinduism sanctioned it (past tenses). Rama killed a sudra (low caste) because he was undertaking penance. The caste system as abhorrently practiced was rsult of misinterpretation of the scriptures. (I have written a book on this denying hereditary inheritance). So we have corrected ourselves. Our Constitution has not only denied this but gone the opposite way of affirmative action. The difference with Abrahamic religions is that they hold on to the misinterpretations; continue to claim exclusivity; and continue to mindlessly fight with each other as if God is only their private possession.
Love it. Beautiful.
It’s way more important to love him. Truly.
No, that is not debatable.
The constitution of India is not Hindu.
In many places we get along quite well with each other, and even hold interfaith events. Open your eyes and stop fanning flames of discord.
Oh Oh. So what happened to the commentaries??? You wanted them so desperately. NOw that they have been provided to you in a platter, you have gone silent. There is more though. Now please read on the second part of the same commentaries:
The beauty, beaglelady, is that the same and other commentaries support my view:
so heaven is secured to all his spiritual seed for a possession truly everlasting.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
The covenant in question was one that involved great blessings for the world in all future ages.
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
and which was a figure of the heavenly inheritance, which is an eternal one, and will be enjoyed by all his spiritual seed to all eternity:
and I will be their God; as he was to all the natural seed of Abraham in a spiritual sense,
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
the earthly Canaan should be retained by them so long as the arrangement then instituted should continue, provided always they complied with the conditions of the covenant; and the heavenly Canaan should be the inheritance of Abraham’s spiritual children forever (vide Genesis 9:16; Genesis 13:15).
Isn’t it remarkable that beaglelady and @Bill_II, like the political Jews, Christians and Muslims, harp only on the biological and ignore the spiritual? Don’t you see the drama being played by you and before you?
Yes indeed, Abrahamics go get along well with each other. The Inquisitions, the forcible conquest of Canaan, the forcible conquest of Israel, the World Trade Tower–all these are not relevant. Only thing that is real is the silly and pretentious interfaith debates designed to only serve as a cover for their exclusive political pursuits?
So give me verses where caste system is not debatable.