Response to Rabbi Tovia Singer - which Bible if any does he use?

[@madeirafonseca6383]

You need to learn to read Hebrew before you even think about going head-to-head with Tovia Singer. The verse numbering systems for BOTH the Tanach and the Christian Bible are a MAN MADE reference system. There's not some big conspiracy going on here. Whenever you want to know the real meaning of a text, any text, you go to the original language it was written in because you always lose some of the original intent when you translate a document. In addition to that, there are numerous places where the English translators intentionally mistranslated the original Hebrew into the English Old Testament. If you can't read Hebrew, you have NO business writing books about the Bible. The important issue in this section of text is WHO is the new covenant made with? The house of Israel and the house of Judah! Not the Gentiles. Not the Christian Church. Not 21st century Americans that can't read Hebrew. If you want a legitimate version of the Tanach with a legitimate English translation, get a "Stone Edition of the Tanach" by Artscroll. My advice is: NEVER take someone else's word for it when your eternal security is on the line. Learn Hebrew!!!

[@andyfairchild]

Thank you, Madeira, for taking the time to reply. The more I research Rabbi Singer's views, the more I see he does not agree with the rest of Judaism. This is most saliently demonstrated by the fact that he uses his own interpretation of the Tanakh upon which he bases his teachings (and he does not provide his primary source). I will continue to compare what he teaches and implies is in the Tanakh with what is in authorized Judaic translations of the Tanakh to show the differences. I believe anyone would be wise to consider the definition of cultish behaviour: "a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion" (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cult#google_vignette). Rabbi Singer is much alone in his views compared to the Tanakh. Believer beware!

[@madeirafonseca6383]

@@andyfairchild Whenever you're reading an "authorized version", you should question who is actually authorizing it, and what is their background. Hebrew is Tovia Singer's primary language; therefore, he makes his own "interpretation" because he is very qualified to do so. I watch videos of other Rabbis and find very little difference between other Orthodox Rabbis and Tovia. When I earned a Master's degree in Theology, the first thing I had to learn was how to read Hebrew, and that was so I could translate the text for myself and not have to rely on someone else. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there in academia and religious circles that have an agenda other than discerning the truth. That corrupt practice goes as far back as mankind. Believer beware indeed.

[@avnerstein4776]

​​@andyfairchild Rabbi Singer's primary source is the original Hebrew Scriptures. If you're concerned about the traditional Jewish view, it is that the Messianic era is not yet here, as there is neither universal peace (Isaiah 2v4) nor universal knowledge of God (Habakkuk 2v14). Nowhere in Tanach does it say that to be right with God, we must believe the Messiah is God incarnate and dies for our sins.

[@johnkumah3095]

You say the New Covenant is made with the "house of Judah and the House of Israel". Of course the New Covenant is made with them because they were the bearers of the Old Covenant. Gentiles cannot claim a New Covenant when they never had an old one to begin with. However, the New Covenant for the Jews is the same Covenant with the same Terms and Conditions, as the Gentiles will inherit as a first Covenant. God promised the Messiah will be a covenant to the gentiles. Isaiah 42:1,4,6 [1]“Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. [4]He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law.” [6]“I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, Is the same Messiah we see in Daniel's vision in the end of Days. Daniel 7:13-14 [13]“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. [14]Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. The Messiah is the King of God's Kingdom given dominion and glory, where ALL PEOPLE, NATIONS AND LANGUAGES SHOULD SERVE HIM. Clearly this includes both Jews and Gentiles. The Covenant the Messiah brings to humanity is what will usher those he justifies into his kingdom. Without the Messiah no one enters the kingdom of God, not even the Jews. The purpose of the Messiah is to atone for the Sinful transgressions committed by the Jews under the old covenant and establish a New Covenant God promised. Isaiah 53:8,10-11 [8]He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. [10]Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. [11]He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. .."FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE HE WAS STRICKEN".. "My people" here is the Jews. The Messiah dies for the sins of the Jews. Or in other words atones for the Jews breach of the covenant with God. And it's by him the Messiah does one have justification before God or counted as righteous, for both Jews and Gentiles. The Messiah is not the covenant only to the Jews. He's the covenant to the whole world. That's why he's the king of all humanity.

[@madeirafonseca6383]

@@johnkumah3095 Nice try, but Isaiah 53 is not about JC; read Isaiah chapters 1 through 52 first, and you will see plainly the suffering servant is Israel. vs. 10 "...he shall see his seed..." Did JC have children? vs. 11 "...by his knowledge My righteous servant shall justify many...". JC was a human sacrifice which HaShem considers abhorrent. Deut. 24:16, Jer. 19:5, Ps. 106:37-39, Eze. 16:20-21. Ezekiel chapter 18 tells you what to do to be forgiven of your sins; no blood sacrifice, no vicarious atonement, no Messiah, no Savior needed. Zech. 8:23 makes it obvious the Jews have the truth, not the church.

[@joshuasoferstwomilliondoll472]

Have you ever seen the video of Tovia Singer entitled "Jesus Cannot be the Messiah because of His Cursed Lineage!" -Rabbi Tovia Singer? I would love to hear your response to that..

[@avnerstein4776]

Rabbi Tovia (accent is on the first syllable) Singer is fluent in Hebrew and English. The translation may well be his own; he doesnt need to refer to an existing translation to convey the accurate meaning. Chabad explains: "The division of the Scriptures into chapters (perakim) was done by non-Jews in the thirteenth century." Chabad's Tanach also has "Behold..." as verse 30.

[@andyfairchild]

Thank you for the correction on the pronunciation of his first name.

[@avnerstein4776]

@@andyfairchild you're welcome

[@andyfairchild]

Yes, several of us have tried to find out from outreach Judaism what version of the Tanakh Rabbi singer is using as of yet we have no response. If I hear from them, I will let you know. It is important to know which Bible any teacher is using so that you can see for yourself.

[@c.a.martin3029]

I don't know what this video is trying to prove, but I do know Singer's problem is with The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament changing the end of Jeremiah 31:30-31 to say "I disregarded them" instead of saying "I was a husband unto them". He is right, the author of Hebrews does change what "Tanach" (the O.T.) says, read it for yourself. The bigger problem for Christians with Jeremiah 31 is proving Jesus ushered in the New Covenant 2000+ years ago. Jesus claims he is the New Covenant fulfillment of those verses, but the issue is where are the signs of the New Covenant? It clearly says nobody will teach another about how to know God, and everyone will know God from the least to the greatest, and God will write his laws on their hearts (Israel and Judah). Obviously none of these signs of the New Covenant have taken place yet, nor did they 2000+ years ago. There is no evidence of a New Covenant period. These issues are what Tovia is talking about in his videos. I can say without any doubt that Jesus didn't fulfill any Old Testament promises or prophesies literally. ONLY if you are applying some type of Midrash or Pesher to the Old Testament prophesies, or using some type of vague typology can you say Jesus fulfilled anything, but then again you can find anything your heart desires in scripture if you apply those techniques. I'm not sticking up for Tovia, I see just as much wrong with the Old Testament as I do with the New.

[@avnerstein4776]

What do you see "wrong" with the Hebrew Scriptures?

[@c.a.martin3029]

@@avnerstein4776 Where to start should be the question. First off the creation stories, flood myth, exodus, the character of Moses and Noah, and so many others are taken from older stories of different people and so they are copycat stories that are just tweaked and made a little different. Secondly for me is the cosmology of the Bible, whether you want to accept it or not, the Bible describes a flat circular disc shaped Earth with a solid dome over top, kind of like a snow globe if you ever had one of those as a child, and the sun, moon, and stars are inside the dome, and birds fly in the same space, need I say more about that? The Hebrew scriptures claim that rabbits and rock badgers chew the cud like a ruminant animal such as a cow would. There are just way too many issues to list here, I'm just scratching the surface and having a little fun. All the prophesies are bust and never happened, for example Ezekiel says Nebuchadnezzar will conquer the Island of Tyre, but he doesn't. Ezekiel goes on to say Tyre will be submerged under water by God so that only fishermen will cast nets there, that never happened, Tyre is still there even today, the old pillars are still there, you can vacation there. Ezekiel goes on with another failed prophecy where he says Egypt will be made desolate by Nebuchadnezzar for 40 years, and that never happened, Egypt fought back and story has it old Neb ran out of money and went home empty handed. Daniel is yet another failed prophecy, the statue represents Babylon, Meads, Persians, and the Greeks. Rome is not mentioned in Daniel at all. The little horn is Alexander the Great. The abomination that makes desolation took place when Antiochus IV killed Onias III the high priest and offered a pig on the Temple altar, The fifth and final kingdom that crushes the statue is supposed to be God's kingdom, this was to take place after the fourth kingdom which is the ten toes of Iron and clay, which was the Greek empire after the death of Alexander, the 10 toes of the statue represents the 10 generals who took over after Alexander dies. But the fact that Rome came next demonstrates the failure of the prophecy, God's kingdom should have came next. Even today how many world empires have come and gone since Rome and yet the fifth kingdom should have been God's kingdom. I could go on for hours and hours with this stuff. I'm not an atheist, I see a complicated creation that evolution doesn't fulfill for me. I suppose I'm a Deist in the classic sense. I just don't believe in the slavery supporting God of the Bible who doesn't know that rabbits don't chew the cud and is defeated by iron chariots, he is not worthy of worship and adoration because he is not real.

[@avnerstein4776]

​@c.a.martin3029 You may be interested in Dennis Prager's _The Rational Bible._ He explains that in order for the Bible to have been relevant to people 3,000 years ago, it used familiar stories to convey Divine wisdom. He calls it "putting new wine in old bottles." For example, in an earlier version of the flood story, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods are annoyed with humanity for making too much noise, and Utnapishtim is saved because he's handsome. By contrast, in the Bible's flood story, God destroys humanity because it is evil, and Noah is saved because he is righteous. Dennis has said he doesn't understand people dismissing the flood story based on other societies having them. He reasons maybe everybody had a flood story because there was a flood. The Hebrew word for Bible is Torah, which comes from the root that means "teaching." It teaches lessons that were relevant 3,000 years ago and are still relevant today, primarily, to be good. Regarding slavery, Dennis notes it was universal. It was the Bible-based West that fought to abolish it. The Bible made owning a slave so burdensome that it would not be worthwhile. Dennis explains that the Bible's morality was revolutionary, but the laws to implement it were _evolutionary._ Had the Bible forbidden slavery, the prohibition would have been ignored. Dennis has also said he doesn't know how anyone in America who took the Bible seriously could have owned slaves, because one of the Ten Commandments - not to steal - forbids kidnapping. You may also be interested in the following: - _Patterns of Evidence_ series - _The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom_ by Gerald L. Schroeder, PhD - _The Coming Revolution: Science Discovers the Truths of the Bible_ by Zamir Cohen - Videos by Dr. Jason Lisle - Zachary R.J. Strong

[@c.a.martin3029]

@@avnerstein4776 One day as a good Southern Baptist I was trying to support my belief of a Pre-trib Pre-millennial Rapture to someone, and I couldn't do it without chopping off the 70th week of Daniel and placing it somewhere in the future. You see Christians will do anything to protect their faith, but the Bible doesn't chop off the last 7 years of Daniel's 70 weeks of years to make a 7 year tribulation in the future. But that's what dispensational Christians are taught. The reality is Daniel was a failed prophecy, but how do Christians fix this 490 years until the Kingdom of God was supposed to arrive in Daniel's 70 weeks? They stop the clock, chop off the last 7 years and postpone it indefinitely. This teaching isn't found anywhere in scripture. I began searching even deeper into what Christians believe, what I believed, and ended up being a Partial Preterist Post Millennialist, only because it made sense to me, and because Jesus said he would return before some of them died, and before they got done going all over the towns of Israel. Sadly Jesus lied. Sadly Jesus didn't know in Psalm 110 that the first LORD is different from the second lord, and a whole bunch of other stuff Jesus said was wrong too, since Jesus must have been a Greek guy and didn't know Hebrew. Just like the two donkeys fiasco where it's actually one donkey, but that doesn't stop Matthew from embellishing that story with lies. I took off my Jesus googles and found that a Greek guy must be making up these stories, that's what the New Testament was, a Greek story writing competition for a free bucket of figs to the first place winner. The Old Testament was written by men too, that's why even God sounds like a man and doesn't know or say anything that a superior being would say. This is why we have flat earthers even today on You Tube.

[@c.a.martin3029]

@@avnerstein4776 Dr Michael Heiser (deceased) said the same thing as D. Prager apparently. Heiser said God wasn't writing a science book and so he didn't bother to set the ancient Israelites straight on the real cosmology of the Earth. I have to wonder why anyone would propagate a blatant lie and feel that's the best way to go. Same goes for slavery, how easy would it be for a loving God to say to his people, "Don't own slaves, I brought you out of slavery so don't enslave anyone it's not righteous to own slaves" But we know that never happened, God even made up rules to define the different types of slavery. Same goes for abortion, Numbers chapter 5 the test for a cheating wife involves causing her to have a miscarriage to see if she was cheating on her husband. What an incredibly unscientific moronic way to check if your wife is unfaithful. Yet Christians believe God cares about the unborn and abortion, when Numbers chapter 5 is a God sanctioned abortion, and not for a legitimate reason. The Bible is an incredibly stupid book that should be used as kindling to start fires.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Jeremiah 31 read entire Orthodox Tanakh in Hebrew. It dies NOT mean Torah laws are to be replaced 1500 years in future with a man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins and replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament which curses Torah laws and Jews.. So absurd The Messiah must come from king David's father biological father and fulfill Isaiah 2 and 11 Ezekiel 37 first time he comes no second coming of Messiah in Hebrew scripture sources. Jesus failed all these requirements to be the Messiah. Period .

[@David-j8v5p]

True. If Jesus nor the writer's of the New Testament didn't ("write,") or ("say,") anything about Jeremiah then that means that what is written on in the Old Testament is correct

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@David-j8v5p Nowhere in Hebrew scripture sources does God say he would send a man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary to die and replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament.

[@BiigFigJ]

tovia singer always encourages people to learn hebrew. he says you're a prisoner to the translater. like you are showcasing right now. also, jesus is only in "the jewish bible" if you insert him there, with context you've learned from the christian bible. jesus belongs no where near tanakh. christianity andd judaism are completely separate religions. no matter how much you want to use the credibility of judaism to back up christianity.

[@andyfairchild]

If what you say is correct, then you are a prisoner to someone whose interpretation of the Tanakh does not match anyone else's.

[@DeltaRoots]

Covenant simply means promise. The new covenant was not referring to the New Testament book. House of Yisrael was given a promise by their Elohim, in Jeremiah. All your arguments are strawman.

[@andyfairchild]

Covenant, like the covenant of circumcision, means that the Israelites had to do something.

[@joshuasoferstwomilliondoll472]

The problem that Tovia Singer raises among other anti-missionaries is in verse 31 where in Jeremiah it says "although I was a lord over them" the Hebrew word is וְאָֽנֹכִ֛י בָּעַ֥לְתִּי בָ֖ם "And I was lord over them" specifically the word בָּעַ֥לְתִּי - Ba'alti. Now when Hebrews quotes that verse from Jeremiah in Hebrews 8:9 that word is apparently mistranslated to "I disregarded them" here is the verse in Hebrews that quotes Jeremiah.. "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.. "I regarded them not" does not show up in the Jeremiah text of 31:31.

[@joshuasoferstwomilliondoll472]

"Ba'alti" can mean "I was a husband to them" as an alternative to "I was lord over them" but Hebrews does not use either as you can see. This is the verse from Jeremiah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:" See the difference between the two?

[@joshuasoferstwomilliondoll472]

From the way I'm seeing this - this is a valid point that needs to have a valid answer and if you go "head to head" with Tovia he will press you on this. To be quite honest, I'm not 100% sure what answer I would give that would sound plausible to those who challenge the New Testament, but it is a continual area of research and study for me and I would welcome any imput that you have on the subject. May God bless your work. Josh.

[@David-j8v5p]

The New Testament writer's misquoted Psalms 69:25 verse simple as that if apostle Peter didn't say what he said on in Acts 1:20 verse about Judas

[@David-j8v5p]

The writer of the book of Acts wrote what apostle Peter had said on in the Greek language but even Psalms 69:25 verse on in the Greek language doesn't have the word, ("his,") on in it

[@David-j8v5p]

Original writing on of Psalms 69:25 verse: 'May ("their,") place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in ("their") tent's.' Acts 1:20 verse Apostle Peter says ("his,") by saying, 'May "his" (meaning Judas's) place be deserted let there be no one to dwell in it.' Fact is if Psalms 69:25 verse was written about 1 person then it would have had to have been written about 1 person originally on by the writer of the Psalms 69 psalm

[@David-j8v5p]

Apostle Paul uses that same verse line of Psalms 69 written on in the Greek language but says that king David who wrote it uses the plural word's, ("their,") and ("them.") Read Romans 11:9-10 verse

[@David-j8v5p]

Apostle Peter in Acts 1:20 verse misquoted or the writer of the book of Acts wrote Psalms 69 wrong mentioning it on in a singular way while Apostle Paul wrote it on in a plural way in Romans 11:9-10 verse

[@David-j8v5p]

Acts 1:20 verse was written differently based on the writer having written it on in the wrong way that it was written on in Psalms 69:25 verse

[@David-j8v5p]

Same thing with Luke 4:18 verse that has the two words added, ("the blind,") written on in Luke 4:18 verse but Isaiah 61-1 verse doesn't have those two words, ("the blind,") originally written on in it

[@timmersonwhite2631]

If you predate the majority, text abs read from the Septuagint with does say blind in Esias 61.

[@David-j8v5p]

The New Testament writer's took Septuagint verses and wrote them on into the New Testament as they saw fit to do. Look up the history of the New Testament and you will see where it shows that

[@David-j8v5p]

Psalms 69:25 verse (if the Jews had what was written back then the same thing that they had today (the Tanahk aka. the Hebrew Bible) then apostle Peter wouldn't have took and misquoted in Psalms 69:25 verse what was originally written on in it

[@johnvanmanen3149]

Is not the claim that all bibles are from god? So it would not matter which one a person uses as none can be manipulated by humans.. in contrast to Jeremiah 8:8.

[@andyfairchild]

The issue is that Rabbi Singer does not say which Bible, if any, he is using. He provides a chapter and verse number but he does say which Bible he is using. Furthermore, if you try to find a Bible that contains a verse the way Rabbi Singer is showing it on the screen, you can't. There is no match. So I conclude that Rabbi Singer is not using an existing Tanakh. Most comments say that Rabbi Singer is providing his own interpretation from the original Hebrew. But the question remains: what primary source is he using to define the Hebrew words into English. He doesn't provide that info

[@johnvanmanen3149]

@@andyfairchild did you send him a mail to ask him? Sometimes things can be as simple as that... He was born and raised with the hebrew language with english as his second language, what reason does he have to use and english bible?

[@craiglittle7367]

Dude. Stay in your lane. Tovia Singer would destroy you in a debate.

[@МихаилАндроновИзраиль]

The so-called rabbi Tovia is an ignoramus, someone who is consciously ignoring the Knowledge of Tahakh.