The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[metis]

The people who translated my bible know Hebrew better than the people who translated yours. So there.

If you are reading it in Hebrew, they did not translate it into Englihs, so there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I use the New American Standard Bible. It doesn't say who the scholars are, but it is considered one of the most accurate Bibles in translating the Hebrew and the Greek into English.

So you wrote, in part ...

The soul is not mentioned in Isa 53.

It would help; if you stuck to Isa 53.

The NASB would not be my first choice, but thank you for clarifying.

The online NASB has Isaiah 53:11 rendered:

As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.

So, would mind explaining your assertion quoted above?

 

[rosends]

Another term you don't understand. It is not about physical appearance. The sacrifice havint no spotd or blemsihs, symbolized sinlessness.

An idea you don't understand -- sacrifices are physical and the blemishes are too. If you want to invoke the torah concept, you should be honest about it. To choose, midstream, that the offering is a sacrifice but suddenly it is bound only by symbolism is ridiculous.
]

If you are reading it in Hebrew, they did not translate it into Englihs, so there.

2 problems -- I am reading it in Hebrew based on the education of Hebrew speakers and the commentaries of Hebrew speakers. And I am using translations into English to support my position.

Is reading comprehensions level so low you think I claimed to be God? No wonder you can't understand that passage.

Well, you insisted that I tell God he is wrong, and yet YOU are the one who is wrong, so then you are putting yourself in the position of God since I have to tell YOU that you are wrong.

"guilt offering is there. Logic is not needed.

I checked the JPS translation and they do have soul and not guilt offering. As much as I respect their translations, I will stick with what my Bible says.

So another translation shows that in 2 ways your version is wrong. But you want to stick with it anyway. Got it.

 

[MHz]

Ouch.

If Christ making appearances in the OT is part of the thread then when God walked wit Adam it would have been Christ in the form of the Angel from Revelations. That would mean that is who Abraham saw in the times he had an experience with 'God'. Abraham was blessed by God so that anybody who cursed him had the curse turn onto themselves, the same will apply to the two witnesses of Revelations:11. When Christ 'stopped by' on the way to Sodom and the saving of Lot Abraham may no have jumped with joy in the first second he saw the man that had stopped him from killing his son so it was a 'you again' moment.

Proverb:8:30:
Then I was by him,
as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him;
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.
Now therefore hearken unto me,
O ye children:
for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction,
and be wise,
and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me,
watching daily at my gates,
waiting at the posts of my doors.
For whoso findeth me findeth life,
and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul:
all they that hate me love death.

That would certainly fit with the end of the passage that tells us that Christ's wisdom is from being with God before any of creation existed and the verse above picks it up from Adam until the verse was written down in a book would be the time that would apply to it. The rest is included to show the identify is Christ, Jesus in a glorified body that has it's 40 days of 'time in the wilderness' and the action part is able to begin at the moment that happens and the first sign that Christ is in control is the two witnesses are resurrected back the same way Jesus was. Jesus went to the temple in Re:4 to be glorified, the two witnesses will descend to the earth they just left and their glorification will take place at the River Jordan as it looks like in Ezekiel:47. Christ alone will put up a stone Tabernacle that is the 'house' from verse 1 of that chapter. The 'far off people' would be the remnant of the nations from Zec:14 and Jer:25. The temple would be constructed in the 1/2 hour of silence that puts an end to the 7 vials of wrath. The fire that removes Satan's Babylon lasts less than 1 hour.

The Church is part of a construction crew hired to build stuff for the temple as the 12 Tribes are busy clearing the land of all signs of Satan's forces are removed from the land. That is how the first 7 years of the 1,000 year reign goes. The bones that are gathered in the next 7 months belong to the 200M horsemen that 4 fallen angels manifest themselves into.

Zec:6:12-15:
And speak unto him,
saying,
Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying,
Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
and he shall grow up out of his place,
and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD;
and he shall bear the glory,
and shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and he shall be a priest upon his throne:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
And the crowns shall be to Helem,
and to Tobijah,
and to Jedaiah,
and to Hen the son of Zephaniah,
for a memorial in the temple of the LORD.
And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD,
and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.
And this shall come to pass,
if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The people who translated my bible know Hebrew better than the people who translated yours. So there.

 

[omega2xx]

You missed the part about that version had to make many changes to get it's own copyright due to the 1611KJV Bible being translated out of Hebrew for the NT (by Jews in Jerusalem) and out of Greek for the NT.

All new translation get a copyright, but not for the reason you mentioned. Also the 1611 KJV was not copyrighted.

That alone makes your version a flawed translation.

What is flawed is your information.

Let me guess, it is promoted as the 'easy to read and understand' version.

Guess again. It;s main goal was accuracy.

 

[omega2xx]

So you wrote, in part ...



The NASB would not be my first choice, but thank you for clarifying.

Why not?

The online NASB has Isaiah 53:11 rendered:

​

So, would mind explaining your assertion quoted above?

Right. I missed that, but it does not change that the prophecy is Messianic and many of its comments point to the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

 

[omega2xx]

An idea you don't understand -- sacrifices are physical and the blemishes are too. If you want to invoke the torah concept, you should be honest about it. To choose, midstream, that the offering is a sacrifice but suddenly it is bound only by symbolism is ridiculous.

I am invoking the Torah concept---the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish comes from the Torah. The Levitical sacrifices requiring the death of the offering are an allegory of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. All Biblical allegories are based on literal historical events and not only an acceptable way to interpret a passage, it is also a necessary way to understand it.

Luke 24:27 - Then beginning with Moses and ALL of the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in ALL the "Scriptures.
Luke 24:44 - Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,that ALL things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

2 problems -- I am reading it in Hebrew based on the education of Hebrew speakers and the commentaries of Hebrew speakers. And I am using translations into English to support my position.

Well, you insisted that I tell God he is wrong, and yet YOU are the one who is wrong, so then you are putting yourself in the position of God since I have to tell YOU that you are wrong.

I am not wrong based on your say so.

So another translation shows that in 2 ways your version is wrong. But you want to stick with it anyway. Got it.

You saying my version is wrong also does not depend on your say so. It is you who disagrees with what the Bible clearly says, not me.

 

[rosends]

I am invoking the Torah concept---the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish comes from the Torah. The Levitical sacrifices requiring the death of the offering are an allegory of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

So you start with a literal and take a left into allegorical because you have to. It doesn't work that way.

All Biblical allegories are based on literal historical events and not only an acceptable way to interpret a passage, it is also a necessary way to understand it.

But the sacrificial system in all its detail is not allegorical. You say it is a necessary way because if you don't your entire theological structure fails. So for you, it is necessary, if intellectually dishonest.

Luke 24:27 - Then beginning with Moses and ALL of the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in ALL the "Scriptures.
Luke 24:44 - Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,that ALL things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

Are you trying to convince me of something about the Torah by quoting irrelevant and non-authoritative texts? Great! I'll explain to you about how to understand the gospels by quoting the American constitution.

I am not wrong based on your say so.

Of course not. You are wrong based on the say so of all the experts who created the JPS translation (remember your statement, "I checked the JPS translation and they do have soul and not guilt offering." And you are wrong because you "missed" the word for soul in the text (as you said, "Right. I missed that"). I'm just pointing out these things, not passing the judgment.

You saying my version is wrong also does not depend on your say so. It is you who disagrees with what the Bible clearly says, not me.

I'm not the one saying it. The JPS which you checked is saying it. I can show you other translations which say it. Now, remember, you can't cite who the experts are who translated your version (remember, "It doesn't say who the scholars are") but you are willing to accept their point even though I have shown you the Hebrew and there are other translations (for which I can provide names of scholars) which show you are wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why not?

The NASB has a clear conservative Protestant bias which taints their translation effort (clearly indicated by their rendering of Isaiah 7:14).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you trying to convince me of something about the Torah by quoting irrelevant and non-authoritative texts? Great! I'll explain to you about how to understand the gospels by quoting the American constitution.

More like explaining the American Constitution by quoting Harry Potter.

BTW, I've very much appreciated your tireless (albeit it useless) efforts in this thread.

I'm not the one saying it. The JPS which you checked is saying it. I can show you other translations which say it. Now, remember, you can't cite who the experts are who translated your version (remember, "It doesn't say who the scholars are") but you are willing to accept their point even though I have shown you the Hebrew and there are other translations (for which I can provide names of scholars) which show you are wrong.

Wikipedia notes:

According to the Lockman Foundation, the committee consisted of people from many Protestant, predominantly conservative, denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Nazarene, American Baptist, Fundamentalist, Conservative Baptist, Free Methodist, Congregational, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Free, Independent Baptist, Independent Mennonite, Assembly of God, North American Baptist, and "other religious groups").

The foundation's Web site indicates that among the translators and consultants who contributed are conservative Bible scholars with doctorates in biblical languages, theology, "or other advanced degrees", and come from a variety of denominational backgrounds. More than 20 individuals worked on modernizing the NASB in accord with the most recent research.

While another source summarizes:

As its name implies, the NASB is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. This translation was begun as an alternative to the then-popular Revised Standard Version (1952 edition), which was perceived as too liberal in its translation style. Using the ASV as its English basis, the NASB's translators went back to established Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts and revised the ASV as literally as possible, deliberately interpreting the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament.

The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia was consulted for the 1995 revision. For Greek, Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.

Jews need not apply.

 

[omega2xx]

So you start with a literal and take a left into allegorical because you have to. It doesn't work that way.

I don't have to and that is the way allegories work. Did you forget hat I also said Biblical allegories are always based on a literal, historical event? If you accepted and understood the N.T., you would see that I am correct.

But the sacrificial system in all its detail is not allegorical. You say it is a necessary way because if you don't your entire theological structure fails. So for you, it is necessary, if intellectually dishonest.

You did forget or ignore what I said about allegories. What is dishonest is saying someone is dishonest about something they are ignorant of.

Are you trying to convince me of something about the Torah by quoting irrelevant and non-authoritative texts? Great! I'll explain to you about how to understand the gospels by quoting the American constitution.

I learned a long time ago that I do not have the ability to convince anyone of anything. I simply tell what I believe and why I believe it. If you reject what I say, fine, but it is not an excuse to go off on a rant.

Of course not. You are wrong based on the say so of all the experts who created the JPS translation (remember your statement, "I checked the JPS translation and they do have soul and not guilt offering." And you are wrong because you "missed" the word for soul in the text (as you said, "Right. I missed that"). I'm just pointing out these things, not passing the judgment.

You are right, the JPS does have soul and I did miss it in my Bible, but that does not change the FACT that Isa 53 is a Messianic prophecy. The prophecy is not dependent on verse 10. The main reason you are wrong is because no nation and no person is without spot or blemish. Israel lhas not been pierced through for our iniquities, not crushed form our iniquities. The Lord has not cause the iniquity of us all to fall on Israel. Israel has not been cut off from the land of the living. Israel can't justify any, let alone many, and Israel can't bear man's iniquities.

I'm not the one saying it. The JPS which you checked is saying it. I can show you other translations which say it. Now, remember, you can't cite who the experts are who translated your version (remember, "It doesn't say who the scholars are") but you are willing to accept their point even though I have shown you the Hebrew and there are other translations (for which I can provide names of scholars) which show you are wrong.

My Bible says it differently and if you think companies hire people who are not experts not only Hebrew, but also in O.T. history, you are naive. Some translations have "guilt offering". Most have "make his life an offering for sin." So guilt offering is not necessary to make it refer to a death. Any blood offering can carry the idea.

FYI - I could not find the names of the individuals who translated the NASB, I did find this comment by the Lockman Foundation in Wikepedia---The foundation's Web site indicates that among the translators and consultants who contributed are conservative Bible scholars with doctorates in biblical languages, theology, "or other advanced degrees", and come from a variety of denominational backgrounds. More than 20 individuals worked on modernizing the NASB in accord with the most recent research.

 

[omega2xx]

The NASB has a clear conservative Protestant bias which taints their translation effort (clearly indicated by their rendering of Isaiah 7:14).

Accurate translation are not biased. I can and have pointed to Scripture that indicates alma can refer to a young girl who is a virgin. The main reason is the verse says this birth would be a sign to Israel. I young girl having s son in Jerusalem would not be any kind of a sing, and the child could not be identified and given the name mentioned.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Accurate translation are not biased. I can and have pointed to Scripture that indicates alma can refer to a young girl who is a virgin.

And I can point to sources that indicate that pizza is a food. That is zero warrant for translating 'food' as 'pizza' because it serves your presupposition.

 

[omega2xx]

And I can point to sources that indicate that pizza is a food. That is zero warrant for translating 'food' as 'pizza' because it serves your presupposition.

It is not a presupposition. It come from a highly respected Jewish Christian.

You still have not explained how they would find this child if its mother was not la virgin.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Isaiah predicts coming of prophet Muhammad pbuh in such clear way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is not a presupposition. It come from a highly respected Jewish Christian.

You still have not explained how they would find this child if its mother was not la virgin.

There is so much pathetic and wrong with the above, but it's obvious that any attempt to address it would be wasted effort.

 

[omega2xx]

There is so much pathetic and wrong with the above, but it's obvious that any attempt to address it would be wasted effort.

You can't possibly make such a statement not knowing who I am referring to., and you still can't tell me how the child could be identified and give the name if the mother was not a virgin.

You got one things right. I is a waste of time unless you can explain the problems I mentioned.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You got one things right. I is a waste of time ...

OK

 

[rosends]

I don't have to and that is the way allegories work. Did you forget hat I also said Biblical allegories are always based on a literal, historical event? If you accepted and understood the N.T., you would see that I am correct.

I didn't forget what you said. But just because you say it doesn;t make it right, reasonable or rational. You have decided arbitrarily that this section suddenly becomes allegorical when you need it to. That's capricious at best. And it is intellectually dishonest. If you accepted the Quran, or the texts of the Raelians, you would see that they are correct. But you don't.

I learned a long time ago that I do not have the ability to convince anyone of anything. I simply tell what I believe and why I believe it. If you reject what I say, fine, but it is not an excuse to go off on a rant.

What rant? I'm just pointing out that you are trying to bring proof from a text which is meaningless.

You are right, the JPS does have soul and I did miss it in my Bible, but that does not change the FACT that Isa 53 is a Messianic prophecy. The prophecy is not dependent on verse 10. The main reason you are wrong is because no nation and no person is without spot or blemish. Israel lhas not been pierced through for our iniquities, not crushed form our iniquities. The Lord has not cause the iniquity of us all to fall on Israel. Israel has not been cut off from the land of the living. Israel can't justify any, let alone many, and Israel can't bear man's iniquities.

You keep insisting that there has to be a "without blemish" notion because the text is talking about a literal sacrifice. That's funny to me for 2 reasons:
1. You keep saying that the text is allegorical, so why do you insist that the obligation of a literal "no blemish" is still literal?
2. You demand that the text is talking about a sacrifice at all even though I showed you translations which have no mention of a sacrifice there. You are willing to concede that other translations have proven you wrong when it comes to "soul" but you keep wanting to insert something that hose translations omit because you think you know better. You don't.

My Bible says it differently and if you think companies hire people who are not experts not only Hebrew, but also in O.T. history, you are naive. Some translations have "guilt offering". Most have "make his life an offering for sin." So guilt offering is not necessary to make it refer to a death. Any blood offering can carry the idea.

I think that people who do translations very often have an agenda which has them make changes or make choices so that they fall in line with a theological preconceived notion. The text is clear.