“We
can't judge or re-interpret our Bible based upon modern "sky-chart" software!
After all, no such software can explain Joshua's "long day" - or the possible
shift from a 360 day year to our modern 365.25 day year, it is not even
addressed based upon the assumption of "continuity", which is an assumption
flatly rejected by the Bible (2
Peter 3:5-6) . We
should just believe the Bible as written and not try to change it where
it does not make sense to us. God is always right.
However, some things are just unclear. What is clear is that passover's
month ("Abib") seems to become the "first month" in Exodus 12:2
as a special designation celebrating the exodus, not the creation. This
makes sense, as in the Jewish people were being called out of Egypt and
they would no longer celebrate a common "new year" with the rest of mankind,
but have their own special new year. Therefore, one would assume that
the regular seventh month ("Rosh hashanah") was the new year. However,
this point has been disputed even among the ancient rabbis, as this statement
from the chabad website suggests:
|
|
|
The
Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 10b-11a) cites two opinions as to the date
of G-d's creation of the universe: according to Rabbi Eliezer:
"The world was created in Tishrei" (i.e., the sixth day of creation--the
day on which Adam and Eve were created--was the 1st of Tishrei,
celebrated each year as Rosh Hashanah); according to Rabbi Joshua,
"The world was created in Nissan." As interpreted by the Kabbalists
and the Chassidic masters, the deeper meaning of these two views
is that the physical world was created in Tishrei, while the "thought"
or idea of creation was created in the month of Nissan. (http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?tdate=3/30/2006) |
They
seem to "cut the baby in two" and say that God thought about it, and then
did it 6 months later! That really seems like a bogus explanation, but
that's what they do to try to make sense of it.
So the divergence in opinion about the date of creation makes Noah's dates
disputed also:
The
following is a chronology of the Flood, as indicated by the dates and
time periods given in the Torah's account and calculated by Rashi:
Cheshvan 17: Noah enters ark; rains begin.
Kislev 27: Forty days of rain end; begin 150 days of water's swelling
and churning, during which the water reaches a height of 15 cubits above
the mountain peaks.
Sivan 1: Water calms and begins to subside at the rate of one cubit
every four days.
Sivan 17: The bottom of the ark, submerged 11 cubits beneath the
surface, touches down on the top of Mount Ararat.
Av 1: The mountain peaks break the water's surface.
Elul 10:Forty days after the mountain peaks becom visible, Noah
opens the ark's window and dispatches a raven.
Elul 17: Noah sends the dove for the first time.
Elul 23: The dove is sent a second time, and returns with an olive
leaf in its beak.
Tishrei 1: Dove's third mission. Water completely drained.
Cheshvan 27: Ground fully dried. Noah exits ark.
(This chronology follows the opinion of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eliezer;
according to Rabbi Joshua's interpretation, the Flood began on Iyar 17,
and all above dates should be moved ahead six months.)
Total time that Noah spent in the ark: 365 days (one solar year; one year
and 11 days on the lunar calendar).
http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?AID=150114
As the saying goes, "I don't have a horse
in this race" and so I won't venture to guess which interpretation is
correct. St. Paul
didn't want the gentile church to get hung up on these types of disputes
that plagued Judaism for centuries.
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
an holyday,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Some may think the key to figuring this out will be by means of a "vertical
word study" and then venture to pronounce whether or not certain old
texts are more "inspired" than others because they tend to prove one viewpoint
or the other (i.e., does the Aramaic Bible spell out the months with names,
while other versions don't?). The Bible says that "ALL scripture" is given
by inspiration of God (2
Timothy 3:16). So
the question to ask is "what constitutes "scripture"? Whatever that "scripture"
is it must then follow that "it" is given by inspiration of God. Now notice
this fact about the context of this verse, the "scriptures" are mentioned
in 2 Timothy 3:15- "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is
in Christ Jesus."”.
The
Talmud (composed of Mishna and Gemara) is “composed” of numerous “schools”
I.E. Akiva, Rashi, Hillel, Eliyahu & many others, thus Talmudic texts
reflect mainly Mishnaic, Halakkic & Haggudic traditions. By employing
the Aramaic Bible, I was not attempting to make an appeal to PARDES –
PARDES (plain/literal interpretation), REMEZ (exegetical/hermeneutic interpretation),
DRASH (the interpretations insightful/”inspired” interpretation) and SUD
(mystic/Secret interpretation) of Bible verses.
It was not my intent to enter into “horizontal” and/or “vertical”
word/passage studies. The
Talmud is renowned as an interpretative text.
However the Aramaic Bible serves as a vorlage for emendations and
redactions to the diplomatic Masoretic Text (MT). Biblical Scholars do
not view the Aramaic Bible as commentary, but rather as expansions which
help to emend the MT.
Talmud
ROSH HASHANAH: “Tishri (the
seventh month) is the beginning of years for non-Jewish kings, should
not the Text read "in the third year of Darius" instead of the second
year? R. Abbahu answered: Cyrus was a most upright king, and the Hebrews
reckoned his years as they did those of the kings of Israel
(beginning with Nissan).”.
In addition Rashi was far removed from the time of the Aramaic
Bible’s recension; “Rashi
øù"é, a Hebrew
acronym
for Rabbi
Shlomo Yitzchaki (øáé ùìîä éöç÷é), or Rabbi Shlomo Yarchi (øáé
ùìîä éøçé), who lived February 22,
1040
– July
17, 1105,
wrote the first comprehensive commentaries on the Tanakh
(the Hebrew
Bible) and Talmud,
and is one of the classic Jewish
meforshim
(commentators). Sources variously give his surname as Yitzchaki,
deriving from his father's name, Yitzchak, or as Yarchi, indicating
that his family came from Lunel
(Yareach, in Hebrew).”.
Thus Rashi’s “DRASH” has no impact on the Aramaic Bible. I am unaware
of any Biblical scholars considering the contents of the Aramaic Bible
to be erroneous or fraudulent.
SHALOM TEFE