|
Post by John on May 27, 2009 15:03:12 GMT -5
one note quikly- the book of Jasher is a misnomer. Jasher is actually a way of saying 'righteous.' so one person thought Jasher was a name, but even the bible calls it the 'book of the righteous' not jasher. Yasher means righteous.
now, this book is VERY accurate and seems to have been even a source for Mosheh in writing Torah, or vice versa. the only things that might concern me a little are there are a few rabbinic fables that are about mosheh- but they seem to be additions to the original.
i dont know when the book surfaced, but it is mentioned in y'hoshua and Shemuel. the contents have less disturbing things than enoch. they also help connect how people are related to each other in the bible, or tell more about how they knew each other. it also gives alot more of the story.
this is the source that the rabbis conclude that Shem son of Noach is Malki-tzedek (which was not a name, but a title for king of Yerushalayim.)
shalom- john
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on May 27, 2009 22:59:48 GMT -5
According to wikipedia, and this is in line with what I recall from my study of the OT, the historical book of Jasher references in the Torah is a "lost book". I believe the Jasher you are referring to is "Sefer haYashar (midrash): A book of Jewish legends covering the period from the creation of man to the first wave of the conquest of Canaan, not certain to have existed before 1625." That would be 1625 AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasher
|
|
|
Post by John on May 28, 2009 18:09:37 GMT -5
wikipedia is not a reliable source to me. sorry- i dont use it. i put stuff on wikipedia all the time, but others can put false info on it.
and the "legends" are very accurate. they are also based off of other texts, along with Torah. let me do more research in the History of the book- than i will tell you my thoughts.
shalom- john
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on May 28, 2009 22:37:12 GMT -5
I doubt wikipedia is the only source you'll find such information on.
|
|
|
Post by John on May 29, 2009 5:45:14 GMT -5
i know- which is why i have to look at the other sources. i personally dont trust wikipedia.
shalom- john
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jun 3, 2009 7:48:06 GMT -5
If something is from Jewish legends, it should be aquired by Jewish authorities. Other sources may be biased against and that's why I agree with you, John, concerning wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 3, 2009 14:43:02 GMT -5
i dont think that all jewish autorities are correct either, though.
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Jun 8, 2009 7:50:51 GMT -5
So who to trust and who not?
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 8, 2009 13:55:03 GMT -5
this should be done with wisdom and understanding from the higher heaven. we must allow the Ruach to wrok in us.; we must trust Yah, and only nim.
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Jun 14, 2009 22:02:19 GMT -5
Well, I think we need to use the historical and scientific method as much as possible.
Like Paul said, "Test everything. Hold on to the good"
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 15, 2009 17:19:17 GMT -5
nothing can contradict the peshat, and there are many ways to determine a peshat. i think the peshat should be interpreteed through the Contextual Grammatical Historical method.
and i follow the seven rules of Hillel for all levels of understanding
|
|