[This is the final post in this series DISCOURSE between Sinaite VAN and Church Elder “CE” (not named). The reason this became “final”, i.e., CE no longer responded, is most likely because of the concluding conviction here . . . “there is no turning back”. On that statement, VAN rested his case and on his conviction, he rested. This reposting of VAN’s “apologetics for Sinai 6000” is our way of paying tribute to this admirable man of faith, who just like the rest of us, loved the God he kept seeking to know more of for all his life, way into his senior years. Little did he realize, just as all Sinaites did, that the way to the One True God was getting back on the old pathway leading to the Revelator on Sinai. And so he, just a we did, joined the Gentiles among the “mixed multitude” who today stand before Biblical Sinai to reply to YHWH, “yes we will . . . .!”—Admin1.]
———
Dear “HE”—
First, a quick reply on you inquiry regarding the discrepancy on the number of books in the Hebrew and Christian Bible: I am sure that in your studies you have also noticed how the Hebrew Old Testament grouped together several books that Christian Bible kept apart. The Hebrew canon grouped the 12 Minor Prophets into a single book. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the dual books of Kings and Chronicles were united in a single book as well. The 24 books in it are but the equivalent of the 39 in the Christian Bibles. I hope you were also able to notice the interesting symmetry found in the Christian arrangement of the OT books:
[Admin1: Sorry, we lost the image originally posted, we will try to retrieve it.]
However, consider these points :
- Why change borrowed original scriptures of another people?
- Is not the borrower obligated to be faithful in representing what is borrowed ‘as is’?
- Unless the original is found to be wanting, imperfect, needing improvement . . . but even so, isn’t it an insult to the Jews who are the custodians of the Sinai revelation?
Question: Should man dare to improve on God’s original revelation?
More related questions/answers from our website posts:
1. When the originators of the 2-part Christian Bible decided to tack on the Hebrew Scriptures to the NT, did they ask permission from the people whose Sacred Scriptures happen to reflect their national history?
2. If they did and were given permission, did they ask permission to not only rearrange the books in the original canon but also expand them by splitting them up in two parts? As far as we know, this happened in the translation from Hebrew to Greek, when the Septuagint was produced. It was a simple matter of scroll size, the longer books had to be split to fit the scroll, or so Robert Alter explains in his book Ancient Israel.
Understandably, at first the OT was based on the Latin (Vulgate) which was based on the Greek Septuagint, hence it was twice removed from the original Hebrew. That’s why the early English translations/versions had to be revised over and over and for later translations of the many varied versions we now have; to their credit, modern translators went to the original Hebrew TNK instead of the Greek Septuagint.
3. Is it proper to claim as ‘foundational’, the scriptures of a people, and yet teach that it is obsolete by calling it “old” and no longer applicable because new and updated scriptures have superseded it, justified by the Christian view of ‘progressive revelation’, i.e., from Genesis to Revelation?
4. Is it acceptable in literary and religious practice to borrow an original text but transform it in subtle ways (mistranslation, wrong translation, intentional or not) and use it to bolster the theology of a later religion?
5. Should not the people of God know best how to categorize their scriptures so that if they determine they have 3 major divisions and assign specific books to each, there must be good reason for such organization?
Take the 3 major prophets, should it not remain as 3—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel? Why should the Christian Old Testament add Daniel as a 4th ‘major’ prophet when his gift was merely one of interpreting dreams, just like Joseph; certainly not the gift of prophecy?
And when you read the background on how the books of the TNK were decided upon by the Jewish sages/scholars, Daniel almost did not make it into the canon, just like other apocryphal books, and so it was relegated to ‘inspired’ writings of Ketuviim. A major prophet, Daniel was not, at least not to the Jewish sages who decided on its canonicity.
6. Does a later religion such as Christianity have the right to tamper with the borrowed original text, particularly in the matter of translation which requires accuracy and faithfulness to the original meaning in Hebrew? It is understandable that certain words have no equivalent in English, but the closest synonym, even made-up phrases approximating the original should be the next recourse, not outright change in meaning.
Glaring example is Psalm 2, “Kiss the Son” when the original is “arm yourself with purity” or “yearn for purity” .
Ditto with Isaiah 9:6 —we have a post clarifying this,
Q&A: Who is the Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace in Isaiah 9:6.
7. When the God of Israel gives warning regarding adding and subtracting to His Torah as early as the last book Deuteronomy, should that warning be violated? The custodians of the Torah, the people of the Book, Israel, took that warning seriously. The subsequent books in Neviim and Ketuviim were records (historical narratives or inspired writings) of how they obeyed or failed to obey Torah. Should not a later gentile religion that borrows Israel’s ‘Scripture’ follow Israel’s lead?
There’s more but let’s stop here.
What right does any person or organization or religion have to do what Christianity did with the TNK, the Hebrew Scriptures, progressive revelation notwithstanding? Can you imagine the consequences if Christianity or any other world religion for that matter did exactly the same to the Sacred Scriptures of the Islamic faith?
Honestly, I would have no problem at all with the New Testament and all its doctrines; every religion is entitled to its core beliefs. As long as NT stands on its own, by itself, who will dare or bother to question its claims?
There are Christian bibles that have only the New Testament, perhaps that is the way it should be, a stand-alone-Testament to the development of historical Christianity, from its 4 gospels to to its last book of Revelation. Definitely it is true to its title, “New”!
What makes the Christian bible questionable, not only to us Sinaites but most likely to the Jews, is its tracing its roots to the Hebrew Scriptures and Judaism and yet it departs from its foundation in so many ways. To add insult to injury (specially to the chosen people from whom it borrows ‘foundational scriptures’), Paul of Tarsus who does claim to have studied under Gamaliel spins off from his Torah foundations and all but discredit his people, his nation, and the God of Israel. From his epistles originate most of Christianity’s doctrines.
We have done extensive studies on the origins and historical development of our former faith; our re-education on both OT and NT made us re-think the religion we were born in and embraced for decades of our lives. In the end, it really was not a tough decision to leave it behind and to return to the ‘roots’ claimed by that faith, that was the bigger eye-opener for us.
Our website has many posts explaining our journey back to the Sinai Revelation.
As you will conclude from our collective testimony,
there is no turning back for us . . .
not for the others and definitely . . .
not for me.
VAN@S6K
[In loving memory, with utmost respect,
the Sinai 6000 Core Community]
