The Mistranslation Argument

[savagewind]

Pay me and I'll tell you the answer. Or perhaps our resident smart guy @Revoltingest might tell you (I think he might charge you too)

 

[savagewind]

Teasing is evil. No?

 

[Revoltingest]

Pay me and I'll tell you the answer. Or perhaps our resident smart guy @Revoltingest might tell you (I think he might charge you too)

I'm bad at riddles, so I don't know the answer.
But I'll take the money.

 

[savagewind]

I'm bad at riddles, so I don't know the answer.
But I'll take the money.

Do you even know the riddle? I suck at riddles too, by the way and is why me telling one is evil.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you even know the riddle? I suck at riddles too, by the way and is why me telling one is evil.

I don't even know the riddle, so I can only guess at the answer.
42?
Marzipan?
Schadenfreude?
Deviated septum?

 

[savagewind]

I don't even know the riddle, so I can only guess at the answer.
42?
Marzipan?
Schadenfreude?
Deviated septum?

Now, tell me how I knew you didn't know what the riddle was.

Is it because I am most like you except that I believe in God and you don't.......and that I am female* and you are male?

*I am hearing it is the female human's job to make peace which seems like an odd requirement.

 

[allfoak]

It's a riddle and not a hard one.

ok

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, tell me how I knew you didn't know what the riddle was.

It's always safe to assume that I don't know something.

Is it because I am most like you except that I believe in God and you don't.......and that I am female* and you are male?
*I am hearing it is the female human's job to make peace which seems like an odd requirement.

Also, I didn't even read the thread.
I don't even know how I got here!
Oh.....the alert....that was it.

 

[omega2xx]

Though you define "open mind" as "willing to consider what you think of as the right translation." I would think you have an "open mind" if you would realize that "evil" is the "best" translation.

Not true. evil is not the opposite of well being and when your knowledge of Hebrew is better than the Bible trqanslators , get b ack to me.

Does one have to change in order for you to consider it correct? The translation dates back a long time as "evil." Why must it change if it is correct?

It doesn't have to change if it is correct.

The verse is listing things. One part of the list has what some people see as opposites. Why does that limit he rest of the verse?

The main objection is that God did not create evil., Evil is not a created thing. It came into being because of sin.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say the verse was listing opposites, maybe there is more to the verse than what you are saying.

May be, what do you suggest?

There must be a reason that Jews greet each other on the Sabbath by saying "shabbat shalom" and in English, Good Shabbos and not "peace Shabbos." Maybe "Shalom" doesn't mean just "peace" but means "Good" (as it is clearly being used) so the opposite of "ra" being evil.

Shalom does mean more than"peace? The root of the verb includes completeness, wholeness, harmony, fulfillment. It has the idea of an unimpaired relationship with others. It can refer to God's activity in covenant, and the result of righteousness. It can describe the state of fulfillment which is the result of God's presence. It has it source in God

There is even an eschatological element. Jesus is identified as the Messiah, David's greater Son identified as the Prince of Peace.


We use "tov" in reference to a day (yom tov) NOT to mean "good day" but "holiday." So one can't say "if he meant 'good' he would say 'tov.'"

In that case, the need for opposites, good vs. evil would be sustained via shalom and ra.[/QUOTE]

Let's stick to the Bible instead of Jewish customs.

 

[rosends]

Not true. evil is not the opposite of well being and when your knowledge of Hebrew is better than the Bible trqanslators , get b ack to me.

Well, at least more than those who don't translate the word as "evil." Consider me getting back to you.

It doesn't have to change if it is correct.

Which would explain why it hasn't changed.

The main objection is that God did not create evil., Evil is not a created thing. It came into being because of sin.

And that would be an error as it puts something out of the realm of "created by God." If there was a tree which conferred the knowledge of good and evil before the fruit was eaten, evil must have been a thing that it was possible to have knowledge of.

Shalom does mean more than"peace? The root of the verb includes completeness, wholeness, harmony, fulfillment. It has the idea of an unimpaired relationship with others. It can refer to God's activity in covenant, and the result of righteousness. It can describe the state of fulfillment which is the result of God's presence. It has it source in God

Therefore it can mean "good" which would keep the "opposites" argument intact as "ra" means "evil."

There is even an eschatological element. Jesus is identified as the Messiah, David's greater Son identified as the Prince of Peace.

Let's keep this to biblical discussion, not Christian traditions.

 

[omega2xx]

Well, at least more than those who don't translate the word as "evil." Consider me getting back to you.

Which would explain why it hasn't changed.


And that would be an error as it puts something out of the realm of "created by God." If there was a tree which conferred the knowledge of good and evil before the fruit was eaten, evil must have been a thing that it was possible to have knowledge of.

It was not possible to have knowledge of good or evil until they came into the world. The main thing that story tells us is the disobeying what God says, results sin evil and obeying what He says is good.

Therefore it can mean "good" which would keep the "opposites" argument intact as "ra" means "evil."

While "well being" is a good thing, the word does not mean good.

Let's keep this to biblical discussion, not Christian traditions.

Eschatology is a Biblical doctrine, not a tradition.

 

[rosends]

Eschatology is a Biblical doctrine, not a tradition.

Can you show me the sources in the bible then, that name Jesus as the messiah? I'll give you a resource to work with:

The Bible

 

[omega2xx]

Can you show me the sources in the bible then, that name Jesus as the messiah? I'll give you a resource to work with:

The Bible

There are many Messianic prophecies in the OT. Except for the ones He will fulfill when He returns, Jesus has fulfilled them

I am not about to go through all of them but Is 53 is the mountain top of Messianic prophecies.

You also have the prophecy of the Passover Lamb---not a bone shall be broken. Jn 20:38. Compare Psa 22:18 with Jn 19:24.

In addition to that Jesus told the men on the road to Emmaus that all of the OT spoke Him---Lk 24:27 & 44.

Your link neglects obvious Messianic prophecies Jesus fulfilled, and Jews do not accept the second coming of the Messiah.

 

[rosends]

There are many Messianic prophecies in the OT. Except for the ones He will fulfill when He returns, Jesus has fulfilled them

I am not about to go through all of them but Is 53 is the mountain top of Messianic prophecies.

Then you don't understand Is. 53. This has been explained time and time again. Instead of going through it, I'll just give you a resource so you can ignore it. Again:
A comprehensive anti-missionary counter-missionary book - 12. The Suffering Servant

You also have the prophecy of the Passover Lamb---not a bone shall be broken. Jn 20:38. Compare Psa 22:18 with Jn 19:24.

And the sacrifice is a lamb, not a person, and gets eaten, not scourged. Ps. 22:18 says that the speaker will tell of his bones, the ones that were broken in 22:17... "As though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth, and so did Hezekiah say (in Isa. 38: 13): “like a lion, so it would break all my bones.”

In addition to that Jesus told the men on the road to Emmaus that all of the OT spoke Him---Lk 24:27 & 44.

Hold on -- Jesus said so? Well then, it MUST be true. I mean, if some random guy claimed that an ancient text spoke about him, he couldn't be wrong. That's SO persuasive!

Your link neglects obvious Messianic prophecies Jesus fulfilled, and Jews do not accept the second coming of the Messiah.

Thing is, jesus fulfilled none of the required messianic prophecies and Judaism has no concept of a second coming. When the messiah comes, he does what he is supposed to do, including being anointed as a messiah.

 

[omega2xx]

Then you don't understand Is. 53. This has been explained time and time again. Instead of going through it, I'll just give you a resource so you can ignore it. Again:
A comprehensive anti-missionary counter-missionary book - 12. The Suffering Servant

And the sacrifice is a lamb, not a person, and gets eaten, not scourged. Ps. 22:18 says that the speaker will tell of his bones, the ones that were broken in 22:17... "As though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth, and so did Hezekiah say (in Isa. 38: 13): “like a lion, so it would break all my bones.”

Hold on -- Jesus said so? Well then, it MUST be true. I mean, if some random guy claimed that an ancient text spoke about him, he couldn't be wrong. That's SO persuasive!

Thing is, jesus fulfilled none of the required messianic prophecies and Judaism has no concept of a second coming. When the messiah comes, he does what he is supposed to do, including being anointed as a messiah.

I am only going to respond to your remarks about Isa 53, and I don need a source. Jews interpret the servant as the Jews. What Jew besides Jesus was pierced through for my sins and crushed form my iniquities?

What Jew was chastened for my well being? What Jews was scourged so I could be healed?
What Jew has the Lord cause my iniquities to fall on? What Jews grave was assigned with a wicked man? What Jew has offered himself up as a guilt offering.

The answer to all of those question is only Jesus. You have to twist the obvious to try and make it fit you theology.

 

[rosends]

I am only going to respond to your remarks about Isa 53, and I don need a source. Jews interpret the servant as the Jews. What Jew besides Jesus was pierced through for my sins and crushed form my iniquities?

What Jew was chastened for my well being? What Jews was scourged so I could be healed?
What Jew has the Lord cause my iniquities to fall on? What Jews grave was assigned with a wicked man? What Jew has offered himself up as a guilt offering.

The answer to all of those question is only Jesus. You have to twist the obvious to try and make it fit you theology.

So you didn't read the resource I provided (which deals with all those). What a surprise. You have a jerry-rigged religious system which tries to retrofit Jesus into text which predated him and had meaning well before he existed and still does have meaning without him. You can't find mention of him so you hijack a text and pretend. That's your right. It just reeks of ignorance.

You might want to consider this line
לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וּבָנִים לֹא-יוּמְתוּ עַל-אָבוֹת: אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ, יוּמָתוּ

I mean, you won't but you should.

 

[omega2xx]

So you didn't read the resource I provided (which deals with all those). What a surprise. You have a jerry-rigged religious system which tries to retrofit Jesus into text which predated him and had meaning well before he existed and still does have meaning without him. You can't find mention of him so you hijack a text and pretend. That's your right. It just reeks of ignorance.

You might want to consider this line
לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וּבָנִים לֹא-יוּמְתוּ עַל-אָבוֹת: אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ, יוּמָתוּ

I mean, you won't but you should.

I don't need a tutorial on the Jews interpretation of Isa 53 and I noticed you did not mention how any Jews fulfilled the verses i quoted, If you think you link answered my comments, cut and past them to me. I heard them before

 

[rosends]

I don't need a tutorial on the Jews interpretation of Isa 53 and I noticed you did not mention how any Jews fulfilled the verses i quoted, If you think you link answered my comments, cut and past them to me. I heard them before

So you don't want to read, but want me to cut and paste from the resource because you (without having read them) have heard them before.

Way to evade. When you decide to read something and think, let me know.

 

[omega2xx]

So you don't want to read, but want me to cut and paste from the resource because you (without having read them) have heard them before.

Way to evade. When you decide to read something and think, let me know.

't hold your breath. like i said I have ave heard it all before.

I will make it easy for you. How did it explain why Israel was the suffering Servant.

 

[rosends]

't hold your breath. like i said I have ave heard it all before.

I will make it easy for you. How did it explain why Israel was the suffering Servant.

I'll make it easy for you -- Is. 49:3. What more explanation do you need?
Wait...maybe it was 45:4. Or 48:20. Or either 44:1 or 44:21.