Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paul! Crucial translation error! Matthew 5:17
In Matthew 5:17 you translate 0swmn as "law". Namusa is of course Torah and Torah is not law, more closer to "instruction". I believe this is crucial and should be changed to Torah. It is more accurate and fits 100% with the context as He says "Torah and the Prophets". Now this reading would fit more with the "anti Mosaic Law" stance that you and I share, as opposed to those Christians who keep the Mosaic Law.

But even AGR and Craig appreciate that namusa is Torah NOT law.

Hope you change it Akh <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Woops. Looks like namusa can be "law" and "Torah". Maybe you can put a footnote to mention its alternate meaning?
drmlanc Wrote:But even AGR and Craig appreciate that namusa is Torah NOT law.

Not nearly as simple as that. Only "Aurayta" means exclusively "Torah" and it is only used three times in Mattai (Matthew). Namusa on the other hand can mean, Torah, or it can mean Law in the sense of Torah + Halakhic rulings, or it can just mean Halakhic law alone. If this wasn't the case then the Torah would have been nailed to the cross (Eph. 2:15), but rather it was "Namusa" in the sense of "Oral/Halakhic law" that was.

Akh Paul Younan:

"So then we must let the context dictate the proper usage. In Ephesians 2:15, especially because Paul further qualifies it with D'poqda - it is not to be understood as Torah, proper. "

Shlama, Craig
yes I made a mistake. one of those words where context determines the outcome. I find the "torah" reading in regards to the tithing quite fascinating though. in other words, even though the Mosaic law is gone (if it's true) we should still gain from the Torah study no doubt Akhi

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)