Isaiah 53:8

[Sleeppy]

But He's not the one having this discussion with you!



I don't understand why I would try to control or defend Isaiah's words. They are what they are, I am only interpreting them according to what seems to me to be the most logical interpretation.

And I'm reminding you of God's name, "I Will Be What I Will Be". His plan functions irrespective of our discussion.

 

[Tumah]

And I'm reminding you of God's name, "I Will Be What I Will Be". His plan functions irrespective of our discussion.

Yes, but with that logic, what need do we have of Scriptures?

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, but with that logic, what need do we have of Scriptures?

The Scriptures speak of God, according to human perception (through prophets and prophets' sons). The Most High is evident, irrespective of any individual thing. It isn't a hard thing, to divide a man from his wife, or to misunderstand the Torah, or to defile and destroy temples. These things are done continually.


Our need is God, but God is never deprived.

 

[Tumah]

The Scriptures speak of God, according to human perception (through prophets and prophets' sons). The Most High is evident, irrespective of any individual thing. It isn't a hard thing, to divide a man from his wife, or to misunderstand the Torah, or to defile and destroy temples. These things are done continually.


Our need is God, but God is never deprived.

I don't understand the relevance of G-d's "nature" to a discussion on the correct interpretation of a verse in Isaiah.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't understand the relevance of G-d's "nature" to a discussion on the correct interpretation of a verse in Isaiah.

Who told Isaiah to speak to, and for, Israel?

 

[Tumah]

Who told Isaiah to speak to, and for, Israel?

Of course G-d did, but that is not the point. The point is to understand what it was that G-d spoke through Isaiah.

 

[Sleeppy]

Of course G-d did, but that is not the point. The point is to understand what it was that G-d spoke through Isaiah.

So then, God is the one giving understanding, not Isaiah. God's name should be remembered.

 

[Tumah]

So then, God is the one giving understanding, not Isaiah. God's name should be remembered.

If G-d "teaches" a person an understanding that is outside the confines of the structure that He built, He is negating the purpose of that structure. It follows, if a person misinterprets a Scripture, it is because the Adversary is leading him astray and not because G-d revealed something to him. The best way to prevent misinterpretation is by sticking to the grammatical rules and translations that G-d Himself incorporated in the Scriptures. He didn't use that grammar by accident.

 

[Sleeppy]

If G-d "teaches" a person an understanding that is outside the confines of the structure that He built, He is negating the purpose of that structure. It follows, if a person misinterprets a Scripture, it is because the Adversary is leading him astray and not because G-d revealed something to him. The best way to prevent misinterpretation is by sticking to the grammatical rules and translations that G-d Himself incorporated in the Scriptures. He didn't use that grammar by accident.

The Adversary is not put against God, is he? God willing, the sword awakes even against His own shepherds, as Zechariah knew. And God willing, mankind is gathered together again.

Jacob divided himself into twelve sons, who in turn divided themselves into twelve tribes. These twelve are now sown among the seed of man and beast, as Jeremiah accurately predicted.

 

[Tumah]

The Adversary is not put against God, is he? God willing, the sword awakes even against His own shepherds, as Zechariah knew. And God willing, mankind is gathered together again.

Jacob divided himself into twelve sons, who in turn divided themselves into twelve tribes. These twelve are now sown among the seed of man and beast, as Jeremiah accurately predicted.

I'm sorry, I'm really having trouble with your responses here.

 

[dantech]

I'm sorry, I'm really having trouble with your responses here.

And there we go... every thread about scripture ends up exactly like this... I thought i was the only one that always gets confused and doesn't understand what they are saying but now i see that it's not the case.

If you can follow through the Ha'Almah hara thread or the For The Christians thread, the I would be shocked. It seems like nothing makes sense.

It's like you say this pen is red, someone else says it's blue, and then comes this one person who decides to use as an argument that the pen contains ink, which has nothing to do with anything...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a hard three words to translate honestly:
The first word ישפק is used to mean "clap" or "stomp" or "enough". Oddly, I found that in Job 34:37 mechon-mamre puts a ישפוק and translates it as "clap" where the Rabbinical Bible puts a יספוק and translates it "more than enough". On the other hand, both put ישפק in 1 Kings 20:10 and translate it as "enough." And that was just the first word.

The next word עלימו comes from על which can mean "on" or "about". It could be a derisive clapping or a stomping with the hands (ie. punching) on either him or them.

The last word is כפימו. It is the word כף or palm/hand with the suffix that would render it either his or their.

So if the suffix means "him", Then it would be something like, "he claps his hand at him." If it means them, it would be "they clap their hand over them(selves with the remainder of the verse telling you that there is someone they are doing it to)."

The him/them his/their depends on how you are translating that "מו" suffix.

Because עלימו they are translating as "at him" and כפימו they are translating as "their hands". They are using the same suffix "מו" in one case to mean "him" and in the other to mean "them."

I appreciate your input … here and in general.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's like you say this pen is red, someone else says it's blue, and then comes this one person who decides to use as an argument that the pen contains ink, which has nothing to do with anything...

:clap

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry, I'm really having trouble with your responses here.

Think of them as random shards left over from the tower of Babel.

 

[Avi1001]

And there we go... every thread about scripture ends up exactly like this... I thought i was the only one that always gets confused and doesn't understand what they are saying but now i see that it's not the case.

If you can follow through the Ha'Almah hara thread or the For The Christians thread, the I would be shocked. It seems like nothing makes sense.

It's like you say this pen is red, someone else says it's blue, and then comes this one person who decides to use as an argument that the pen contains ink, which has nothing to do with anything...

The problem I see here is with Tumah. He has an agenda, or ulterior motive that he is trying to push forward.

In the case of this thread it is that Isaiah 53 is plural not singular. This approach is designed to discredit the Christian belief that Ishiah refers to Christ.

In the Somali terrorist thread it is that missionaries are evil. So Jews for Jesus is an evil group trying to "murder" innocent Jews.

Do you think either of these premises are supportive of interfaith dialogue ? I don't, and I believe that is why Tumah has received a lot of negative feedback.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem I see here is with Tumah. He has an agenda, or ulterior motive that he is trying to push forward.

In the case of this thread it is that Isaiah 53 is plural not singular. This approach is designed to discredit the Christian belief that Ishiah refers to Christ.

He is arguing a position. It's called debate.
You are attacking a person. It's called ad hominem.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm sorry, I'm really having trouble with your responses here.

Words and beliefs mean very little, until they are manifest. God will decide what manifests, when, and where.

You don't understand what God has planned for this time, so you question His creation. Ignorance causes the perceptions of mankind, so that we may think and learn, and have emotion.. So that out of God's all-knowing soul, are countless individual, ignorant, diverse souls, some of which occupy similar space. There is no Scripture to tell of the things being done, in any entirety. No Scripture can be understood in the exact same way, by even two people! No thing or Scripture can be an adequate representation of the Creator, and so His name is called, "I Will Be What I Will Be". It is the same for you, an Israelite, as it is for me and the Christians.

 

[Tumah]

Words and beliefs mean very little, until they are manifest. God will decide what manifests, when, and where.

You don't understand what God has planned for this time, so you question His creation. Ignorance causes the perceptions of mankind, so that we may think and learn, and have emotion.. So that out of God's all-knowing soul, are countless individual, ignorant, diverse souls, some of which occupy similar space. There is no Scripture to tell of the things being done, in any entirety. No Scripture can be understood in the exact same way, by even two people! No thing or Scripture can be an adequate representation of the Creator, and so His name is called, "I Will Be What I Will Be". It is the same for you, an Israelite, as it is for me and the Christians.

As much as I understand your response here my retort is that G-d created a system for understanding Scriptures. It's called Biblical Hebrew grammar. IF he wanted it to be a free-for-all, he wouldn't have created the grammatical rules that are there. If you read the first verse in Genesis as "In the lobby a horse formulated a pencil blue" then you are not reading the text, you are making up your own Scriptures. The grammatical rules are there for a reason.

 

[dantech]

The problem I see here is with Tumah. He has an agenda, or ulterior motive that he is trying to push forward.

In the case of this thread it is that Isaiah 53 is plural not singular. This approach is designed to discredit the Christian belief that Ishiah refers to Christ.

In the Somali terrorist thread it is that missionaries are evil. So Jews for Jesus is an evil group trying to "murder" innocent Jews.

Do you think either of these premises are supportive of interfaith dialogue ? I don't, and I believe that is why Tumah has received a lot of negative feedback.

You lost me at:

The problem I see here is with Tumah

Go ahead. Call me bias...

 

[allright]

Based on these facts, it is difficult to understand how the Christian translators arrived at the translation they did for this verse. Do you perhaps have any explanation for it?

Christian translators?

Maimonides the greatest of the Rabbis taught Isaiah 53 is speaking of the Messiah

Which are you claiming ? He didnt know Hebrew or didnt know how to interpret scripture