PDF The Bible Doesn't Say That: 40 Biblical Mistranslations; Misconceptions; and Other Misunderstandings by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman in History

Review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Too Heavy of a Reliance on RashiBy EphraimThis is a fairly interesting read; but that is because it borrows heavily from the teachings of men like Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi). The shortcoming is in taking Rashi's opinion as gospel. He too had his shortcomings that caused him to jump to elaborate twistings of the scriptures in order to fit his preconceived ideas."Rashi has a suggestion for reconciling the seemingly odd Hebrew. The details of why his suggestion solves the problem of the missing “the” are too complex to include here— readers who are interested should start by learning about a Hebrew grammatical form called s’michut— but Rashi’s conclusion is easy to understand. The verse should be understood; he writes; as though it says “In the beginning of God’s creating.” To make this work; Rashi has to change the verb “created” into the noun “creating.” For many; this already undermines his analysis; because; after all; what advantage is there to a better understanding of the first word if it relies on completely changing the second? A more substantial objection to Rashi’s analysis comes in his own explanation of it. For Rashi; the problem is that the purpose of Genesis couldn’t be to explain the order of creation; because the second verse refers to God’s spirit on “the water.” What water; Rashi wants to know? According to the text; it hasn’t been created yet. Therefore; Rashi concludes; the point of the text can’t be to explain the order of things; because; after all; water was created before heaven and earth."The logic presented to justify changing בָּרָא from a verb to noun can be found in the unstated; but apparent; Jewish predicate that creation was ex nihilo. But; if you take the view that I do of creatio ex materia; then indeed the order of creation is not a mystery. In the Genesis 1:2; there could be God's spirit on the water because God did not make the Earth ex nihilo.But; let's grant creatio ex nihilo as the right view; for the sake of argument. Per the above quote; on the second day; the water "hasn't been created yet." Whoa! Where does this come from? Clearly; the water was created on the first day. Re-read Genesis 1:6-10! Note that the only thing stated subsequently is about separating the waters above from the waters below. Then; God gathered the waters below. This separation and gathering were done on days two and three. Given that there is no mention of creating the water at the time of separating them; the only inference to be made is that the water was already there - made on the first day. Therefore; God's spirit could indeed hover over the waters.It begs the question of how much we should defer to Rashi's commentary; given such a poor reading of Genesis? There is no need to change the Bible to fit beliefs. So; yes! Indeed; the bible doesn't say what you said; Rashi. When your first inclination is to change the Bible; rather than simply reading what is in front of you; you've got it wrong. And; so does this book.Since this book is basically a regurgitation of Rashi's thinking; I recommend buying Rashi's commentary on the Torah: https://www..com/Sapirstein-Rashi-Commentary-Translated-Deuteronomy/dp/1578193303/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1507777141sr=8-2keywords=rashi+commentaryDon't get me wrong. I refer to Jewish commentary often; even though I'm a Christian. I have many of their works included in my logos software. But; get it straight from the horse's mouth - so to speak.0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Carleta JGreat reference bbok0 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Good Read.By Irv18Good read. I have been a fan of this author for some time.