The Talmud is not the word of God, though. Plus commentaries, unless it's done by Moses himself, are Subjective.

​@@truthhitman7473the "word of God" is the Torah only. You don't have the authority to determine what the word of God is.

@@truthhitman7473You’re right, the Talmud isn’t the word of G-D. The Torah & the Mishnah (Oral Torah) is the word of G-D. The Oral Torah is included in the Talmud. The reason Christians don’t believe in the Oral Torah is because it’s 30+ books. Christians like their nice, neat and cute little “One Holy Book.”

@@MinisterRedPill Yes I do. Because I'm a witness. The Most High 👑 gave Moses the Torah, not the Tulmad. The Torah is the ONLY book the Most High 👑commanded the Israelites to keep. And one of the commandments IN the Torah is not to ADD or to OMITT from the Torah, which is the book of the law. Deuteronomy 4:2. The books of the prophets are the prophecies and history of the children of Shem, hence the word Shemites and semites. The Israelites, not Europeans who descend from Japheth, but Israelites who descend from Shem.

Amen

But for really for Christians all you need is a bible, I just spent the money bc I wanted extra translation comparisons

@@firstroundboxing7649 Hi, any way you can tell me how Zechariah 12:10 is written in both? And is your JPS a 1917 version? Ty

@@permafrost7781 "But I will fill the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first born" - JPS (not 1917) and the Koren one says "But I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants Yerushalayim, the spirit of grace and of supplication: and they shall look towards Me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through. And they shall mourn for him (that is slain) as one mourns for an only son, and shall be in bitterness over him, as one that is in bitterness for a firstborn"

Oddly, maybe because it is the same publishing house (Oxford) but the JSB & the NAB study match up nicely; though with very different theological perspectives. They complement each other well & fill in the “gaps” in commentary from the other. The Artscroll has a completely different approach in its notes. It is a political book in as much as it is pro-Israel & thus more friendly to conservatives and even consolatory to literalist. I hope that helps.

@@alpha4IV Yeah sounds like it's worth a look then. I love my Oxford bibles, but far too often my JSB and New Oxford Annotated NRSV have word-for-word the exact same notes. If the Artscroll can provide a different perspective that's still strongly Jewish, that's great.

Artscroll English Tanach a.co/d/0sN7IZQ

The NJPS is much better than the JPS.

Not really. It is more of a “study bible”than a worship guide.

You don't stand when the Torah is read. You stand at the blessing before every aliyah, but sit during the reading. Also, this is a study/reference book, usually siddurim (prayer books) include the weekly portions, so you don't use this volume during prayer

When in a Synagogue and the Torah is removed from the Ark, one must stand until the Torah is placed back into the Ark, unless you suffer from a condition which would result in an issue if one stands or if one cannot stand at all. Also, these Tanakhs are what we refer to as a Chumash, which is a Torah that is not in scroll form and is typically only used for studying. Actual Torah scrolls are considered much holier than a Chumash, as everything must be handwritten in ink, no mistakes can be present in it whatsoever, along with other guidlines, this process typically takes many months sometimes a year to complete. Hope this helped.

​​@@bmpmvp6069interesting tradition. To my knowledge, "holiness" of the Ruache is not imbued by a scribe, but rather the inspiration that is imbued within the scribe by the Ruache. Printed or written, holiness is found in the meaning of the Ruache, not the meaning of the scribe. Careful... by using your metrics, another could also easily declare Helenistic Hebrew manuscripts are superior, when Jews know they are not.

2 corrupted versions, even according to Messianics.

@@MRUmmss i didn't know that.

@@moonglow7710 check my sight here for more info.

Only difference is size. the full edition is quite big.

@beig : is the text (specifically the hebrew) of a readable size in the student edition ?

At this size, readable. But there is a compact edition, that cost a bit less that is a bit harder to read.

@@alpha4IV what size is this koren bible called and does the hebrew text include the vowels?? Thanks for ur reply

In every Hebrew Tanakh the Hebrew is always published with the vowels.

I don’t know, but I bought it through Amazon.

Lehmanns sells it

I was easily able to buy one online that was pre-owned, but in "New Condition" and it was new. The Artscroll English/Hebrew Stone Edition is the way to go in my opinion. At my Shul we use the Koren Siddur "Prayer book" Lobel Edition, but when we discuss the Torah portion for the week we use The Artscroll Torah. I would order it online if I were you, you can find some great deals including Abe Books and many others.

???? as in it didn’t match the translation you use or as in I stuttered. I don’t know what you mean.

@@alpha4IV The JPS Study bible you have in front of the camera at 2:40 or so reads, "When God began to create heaven and earth", while you read, "When God created the heavens and the earth". Not a terrible mistake requiring you to be banished from the youtube kingdom -- but in all fairness, you are comparing the translations and therefore you need to be correct. In my humble opinion. I am a nobody-- probably without your credentials -- but I do love the scriptures. No harm meant. 🙂

​@@davidrutledge6215yeah they caught you there, buddy. Makes an excellent case for "mistakes in manuscripts," though!

​​@@MRUmmsshas absolutely nothing to do with the manuscripts but is based on how the first verse ought to be interpreted. The most literal is "in the beginning God created" but according to Rashi it should be "in the beginning of God's creating". The most literal is not always correct when translated.

Bradley Blowe 1 “You seem to be under the impression that the Masoretic texts are somehow better and not corrupted.” I never said nor implied that, I simply said that the leap in translation is less, which it is, and that reading a Jewish direct translation from the Hebrew is a good way to understand how they read the text and where and why their understanding differs from the Christian led translations. 2 “The reason why Christian biblical scholars use many different sources (many non-Hebrew), is because the Masoretic texts are late to the game. They're from the early medieval period when the masoretes added their vowelization.” This is a poor argument that I have seen destroyed by many Jewish apologists and rabbis on youtube. Even if I agreed with you, this argument does not hold water when speaking against a well versed rabbi. I’ve seen Trovi Singer humiliate people who try to use this line of reasoning. And Muslims will quickly jump on this argument to prove why they claim the Quran is more pure and thus less corrupt than our text. Next, many rabbis have started using your same argument against us, going after the Greek septuagint. I’m sure reciptus is next. 3 “They frequently contradict older manuscripts or even each other.” Again, Muslims will quickly jump on this argument to prove why they claim the Quran is more accurate. Also, many rabbis have started using this same argument against us, going after the Greek septuagint. I’m sure reciptus is next. 4 “And secondly, Aramaic is not a dead language and is still spoken by thousands in the Middle East and the US.” I’m aware, I’ve made a video on this, called the Bible should be sung. But, ancient Aramaic, that is the Biblical Aramaic that is found in the Bible is most definitely a dead language, unless you want to say as English Speakers we still activity use Old English? While modern Aramaic, just like modern Hebrew has little to do with its root language.

The real world.

The real one.

@@alpha4IV I know this is an old comment, but Tovia Singer is a charlatan and one of the last “scholars” I would cite.

​@@user-dj3is2qh2uThis.

knifeguru Thank you for the info. I was wondering why the JPS fit so well with my Christian Study Bibles, in wording.

So what's your opinion on Koren versions. I've got the artscroll stone edition but not a Koren edition. So is it truly a more accurate translation or is there another factor that determines which "version" is used in different places.

If its possible for accurate translations of the same text to have different political bents, then that is what I would say is the largest different between the major three translations. One has a pro-Israel nationalist “agenda,” one is more for Messianic-Jews & the so called crypto Jews of the Sephardic Diaspora, and one has a kinder tone for Reformed synagogs.

I like the Koren and the Keter Crown Bible by Ravi Shahar. They're the most literal and faithful to the Hebrew.

The Jewish Study Bible isn’t a Messianic Version. The Complete “Jewish” Study Bible by Hendrickson is Messianic.

That’s funny

Artscroll also has an interlinear version, though i find it very distracting. It also has the onkelos translation, in aramaic, which i believe is going to be older than greek translations.

its for reverence.

The name above all names is deliberately not pronounced as a form of respect and instead they say HASHEM(The Name) or ADONAI(My Lord)

The Talmud states that a Jew who speaks the name of God as it is written has no share of heaven.

These videos address your question: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qd6Pac6A19yccps.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aJynY91lutWYcmg.html

I agree YaHWeH should be learned by all adherents to TaNaK. The bogus arguments for reverence are out of ignorance and a lack to pursue Him altruistically.

It’s been too long since I posted this particular video, but I tend to prefer Hebrew in my language so as not to give any hint or “dog whistle” of antisemitism. I do this distinction in my public writing and well as my personal life. Is that an incorrect designator? Is there a boarder more inclusive term that would be applicable. I am genuinely asking as I have never been corrected otherwise.

​​@@alpha4IVdont listen to that person. Hebrews is fine. Israelites are also known as Hebrew. Jews is fine too. Dont get sucked into BS Rabbinical debates. You're fine.

@@MRUmmss It's not Rabbinical. And Rabbinic is not evil. You've been indoctrinated.

@@element2138 it is Rabbinical. It is Kabbalistic. It is also false. I didnt claim they are evil. The fact that you default to defensive posture indicates your own insecurity with this challenge to authority.

@@MRUmmss She prefers the name Jewish, over Hebrew. That's neither Rabbinic or Kabbalistic. Kabbalistic is not synonymous with the Rabbinic, and is irrelevant. But please share your source or link, for your claim. When will you learn to read Hebrew, so you won't have to rely on deceptive influencers?

Oh dear...

@@paulcaswell2813 why o dear?

...of paganism

Jesus loves you 😊

That’s funny. In a sad way.