The Mistranslation Argument

[omega2xx]

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.

Being God's servant does not meant they are the suffering servant in Isa 53,. The Jews like Christians are not without spot of blemish and that is the only requirement for dying for another's sin. That is clearly taught in all of the Levitical sacrifices.

 

[rosends]

Being God's servant does not meant they are the suffering servant in Isa 53,. The Jews like Christians are not without spot of blemish and that is the only requirement for dying for another's sin. That is clearly taught in all of the Levitical sacrifices.

SO the text identifies them with the servant explicitly (one more than the claim for your Jesus guy) and you try to explain it away by invoking "dying for another's sin." You clearly didn't read the Hebrew I quoted then, did you.

Also, the Levitical sacrifices are of kosher animals not people. And Sometimes, not even of animals. And Jesus, scourged, was not without blemish. If you have heard all this before, why do you keep saying the same erroneous things?

 

[omega2xx]

SO the text identifies them with the servant explicitly (one more than the claim for your Jesus guy) and you try to explain it away by invoking "dying for another's sin." You clearly didn't read the Hebrew I quoted then, did you.

Isa 53:5-6 point to this servant dying for the sins of others, if you read what it says instead of twisting it to meed your flawed theology. All followers of God including Jesus are bondservants of God(Phil 2:7). To properly understand some of the OT, it is necessary to properly understand some of the NT.

Also, the Levitical sacrifices are of kosher animals not people. And Sometimes, not even of animals. And Jesus, scourged, was not without blemish. If you have heard all this before, why do you keep saying the same erroneous things?

Because what i say in not erroneous and I have never discussed this with you, and you need t know it. The levitical sacrifices taught a principle---Man does not have to die for their sins, a substitute can be offered. Jesus is the Lamb of God

It is not the outward appearance that God looks at to see if their is a spot or blemish, God looks on the heart, the inside(I Sam 16:7). Jesus did not sin. If the sinner brought a sacrifice out of duty and was not truly sorry for the sin, the sacrifice did not take way his sin.

Are you not familiar with "sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears have been opened; burnt offerings and sin offering You have not required.

Then in v7, the One who comes to do God's will is Jesus, the One who died for man's sin.

 

[rosends]

Isa 53:5-6 point to this servant dying for the sins of others, if you read what it says instead of twisting it to meed your flawed theology.

This just means that you don't understand the text and who is talking in 53, and what they are talking about. You also don't understand the idea of why Israel suffers. You might want to consider Is. 30:26 and Jer. 30:12. Instead, you just cobble together some weird stories.

All followers of God including Jesus are bondservants of God(Phil 2:7). To properly understand some of the OT, it is necessary to properly understand some of the NT.

Quoting "Phil" to a Jew and hoping it persuades? Not going to work. And according to you, the tanach couldn't be understood until after the common era began? It was given and studied but impossible to understand? Brilliant.

And wrong.

Because what i say in not erroneous and I have never discussed this with you, and you need t know it. The levitical sacrifices taught a principle---Man does not have to die for their sins, a substitute can be offered. Jesus is the Lamb of God

Actually, you ARE wrong. Only some sins could be expiated by certain sacrifices. Some sins require the death penalty no matter the sacrifice brought. And a person isn't a lamb. Or a bird. Or a handful of flour.

It is not the outward appearance that God looks at to see if their is a spot or blemish, God looks on the heart, the inside(I Sam 16:7). Jesus did not sin. If the sinner brought a sacrifice out of duty and was not truly sorry for the sin, the sacrifice did not take way his sin.

Actually, Jesus DID sin, but that's neither here nor there. You can wrestle with that some other time. It is black letter law. And, as stated, some sins can't be atoned for via sacrifice.

Then in v7, the One who comes to do God's will is Jesus, the One who died for man's sin.

Even despite the verse I quoted to you, you insist this? Wow.

 

[omega2xx]

This just means that you don't understand the text and who is talking in 53, and what they are talking about. You also don't understand the idea of why Israel suffers. You might want to consider Is. 30:26 and Jer. 30:12. Instead, you just cobble together some weird stories.

The truth is your false theology will not allow you o understand the text. I understands why Israel suffers better than you do. Still no Jew except Jesus has died for my sins ant that the Isa 53 clearly said that happened.

Quoting "Phil" to a Jew and hoping it persuades? Not going to work. And according to you, the tanach couldn't be understood until after the common era began? It was given and studied but impossible to understand? Brilliant.

I am not hoping to persuade you. I don't have that ability. I did not say it was impossible to understand but your lack of understanding Messianic prophecies shows you lack understanding in the area. That is why it is necessary t understand the NT, which teaches Jesus, the Messiah, is coming again.

Actually, you ARE wrong. Only some sins could be expiated by certain sacrifices. Some sins require the death penalty no matter the sacrifice brought.

The death penalty was never mandatory. The harmed party could always show mercy.

And a person isn't a lamb. Or a bird. Or a handful of flour.

You don't even understand the symbolism your own Bible uses.

Actually, Jesus DID sin, but that's neither here nor there. You can wrestle with that some other time. It is black letter law. And, as stated, some sins can't be atoned for via sacrifice.

Since you mentioned it, it is here and now. and I don't have to wrestle with it because it isn't true and you can't show where it is.

Even despite the verse I quoted to you, you insist this? Wow.

Even with the verses I quoted you, you still don't understand WOW

 

[rosends]

The truth is your false theology will not allow you o understand the text. I understands why Israel suffers better than you do. Still no Jew except Jesus has died for my sins ant that the Isa 53 clearly said that happened.

You claim that you understand better than the people to whom the text was given, the people who studied it before Jesus was born, and who continue to study it without having to translate it? That's called arrogance. Pride goeth before the fall. Enjoy the fall.

I am not hoping to persuade you. I don't have that ability.

True

I did not say it was impossible to understand but your lack of understanding Messianic prophecies shows you lack understanding in the area.

Actually, you did. You said that the "NT" was necessary to understand parts of the "OT" which means that before the "NT" existed, the "OT" could not be understood. That you don't understand the messianic prophecies just shows that even with all of your supposed studying, you don't get it.

The death penalty was never mandatory. The harmed party could always show mercy.

Not actually true. If the harmed party was dead, he couldn't. The death penalty is mandated when a court case proves guilt in capital crimes. Stop inventing stuff.

You don't even understand the symbolism your own Bible uses.

Sure I do. And the literal stuff which you can't even read.

Since you mentioned it, it is here and now. and I don't have to wrestle with it because it isn't true and you can't show where it is.

Sure it is, and sure I can. Jesus cursed a fig tree causing it to die. This goes against Jewish law. It is a sin. The funny part is seeing people try to defend this by saying either that the law in question was a rabbinic one (while Jesus said that people should follow the rabbinic commandments) or that it isn't actually a generalized law (while it is under Jewish law) and is a defensible act because of the rabbinic rule that action done in anger isn't sinful -- which is actually a blatant misquotation of the Rambam (I can give you the Rambam that is cited online and you can see it for yourself).

I could point to the fact that the turning over tables of money changers was sinful, or that adding to the laws (via the six antitheses) was sinful. I could even point out that defending people who plucked grain on the sabbath is sinful. You will twist and turn and try to explain how these aren't, but under Jewish law, they clearly are.

So, yeah. Sin.

 

[omega2xx]

You claim that you understand better than the people to whom the text was given, the people who studied it before Jesus was born, and who continue to study it without having to translate it? That's called arrogance. Pride goeth before the fall. Enjoy the fall.

True

Actually, you did. You said that the "NT" was necessary to understand parts of the "OT" which means that before the "NT" existed, the "OT" could not be understood. That you don't understand the messianic prophecies just shows that even with all of your supposed studying, you don't get it.

Not actually true. If the harmed party was dead, he couldn't. The death penalty is mandated when a court case proves guilt in capital crimes. Stop inventing stuff.

Sure I do. And the literal stuff which you can't even read.

Sure it is, and sure I can. Jesus cursed a fig tree causing it to die. This goes against Jewish law. It is a sin. The funny part is seeing people try to defend this by saying either that the law in question was a rabbinic one (while Jesus said that people should follow the rabbinic commandments) or that it isn't actually a generalized law (while it is under Jewish law) and is a defensible act because of the rabbinic rule that action done in anger isn't sinful -- which is actually a blatant misquotation of the Rambam (I can give you the Rambam that is cited online and you can see it for yourself).

I could point to the fact that the turning over tables of money changers was sinful, or that adding to the laws (via the six antitheses) was sinful. I could even point out that defending people who plucked grain on the sabbath is sinful. You will twist and turn and try to explain how these aren't, but under Jewish law, they clearly are.

So, yeah. Sin.

You don' t understand enough to continue this discussion. You don't even understand that turning over the tables was not a sin or that picking a few grains of wheat is not harvesting. For all you know the time of harvest was over and God requied some of the grain not to be harvested so the poor would have something to eat. The NT does not add any laws.

 

[rosends]

You don' t understand enough to continue this discussion. You don't even understand that turning over the tables was not a sin or that picking a few grains of wheat is not harvesting. For all you know the time of harvest was over and God requied some of the grain not to be harvested so the poor would have something to eat. The NT does not add any laws.

You claim I don't understand and yet you
1. Can't read the language
2. Have no knowledge of actual Jewish law
3. Deny the explicit words of your own texts

So run away. You have been shown as an arrogant and ignorant fool. If you ever want to learn something instead of insisting you know everything, feel free to ask.

 

[allfoak]

So run away. You have been shown as an arrogant and ignorant fool. If you ever want to learn something instead of insisting you know everything, feel free to ask.

Another crash and burn conversation for @omega2xx
Perhaps you do not understand your own religion.
Jesus said: "Love one another".

 

[savagewind]

Another crash and burn conversation for @omega2xx
Perhaps you do not understand your own religion.
Jesus said: "Love one another".

I'm confused.

 

[allfoak]

I'm confused.

I didn't think that was possible.

 

[savagewind]

I didn't think that was possible.

Am I wrong, @rosends is Jewish and not a Jesus believer?

 

[allfoak]

Am I wrong, @rosends is Jewish and not a Jesus believer?

No you are not wrong.
Surprise, surprise that the conversation didn't go well.

 

[savagewind]

No you are not wrong.
Surprise, surprise that the conversation didn't go well.

Maybe it went well.

 

[allfoak]

Maybe it went well.

 

[Torah4Yah]

Every so often when debating an issue that depends on the support of Biblical scripture someone will bring up the point that some critical word in the Bible is mistranslated, leading to the wrong impression of the scripture. However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it's untrustworthy.

One such case involves Isaiah 45:7 where God declares he creates evil.

(KJV)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."​

Those objecting to this translation of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) as "evil" say the proper translation should be something else (there are several notions as to what it should be* ). In any case, the Bible in which this supposed incorrect "evil" appears in Isaiah 45:7 continues to mislead hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Christians as to the true character of God. Hardly a decent thing to do.

Worse yet, it leads to the conclusion that if this one translation can be wrong and misleading, who's to say that the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite critical to one's theology. It does no good to argue, as has been done, that such errors in translation are insignificant or meaningless to the over all message, because one doesn't actually know this to be the case. It would be wishful thinking at its most desperate. It's also sometimes argued that a particular word has to be correct because it also appears in the same context in different passages. But this only points to a translator's objective to be consistent. One wouldn't expect different words to be used to describe the same subject.

Moreover, given the assertion that Biblical scripture was at least inspired by God, one has to ask why these mistaken translations appear in the Bible at all. One can only conclude that either God was only concerned with the faith of those people contemporaneous with the Biblical writings and that He doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations, OR he's incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings. Got your pick it seems.


*Translations of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 versions of the Bible.

"Bad times"........ 1.... 3%
"Calamity"...........3... 10%
"Disaster(s)"........5... 16%
"Discord".............1.... 3%
"Doom"................1.... 3%
"Evil"..................14.. 47%
"Hard times" .......1.... 3%
"Troubles"............2.... 6%
"Woe" ..................2.... 6%​

Am I right or am I right!


.

Translated from the dss
And yes I know what will be said about (bara) and you have to see how it was used in the writing to know what it means (bara) can mean to create and can mean to cut off depending on how it is used. You have to look at it in context. You can see that it is an option in strongs

 

[Skwim]

View attachment 15565Translated from the dss
And yes I know what will be said about (bara) and you have to see how it was used in the writing to know what it means (bara) can mean to create and can mean to cut off depending on how it is used. You have to look at it in context. You can see that it is an option in strongsView attachment 15566

Sorry, but your post is simply too confusing to make sense of. In any case, all of the 30 Bibles I looked at say, "I. . . create, or creating, make, making, cause, bring, brings, send x."


.

 

[Torah4Yah]

Sorry, but your post is simply too confusing to make sense of. In any case, all of the 30 Bibles I looked at say, "I. . . create, or creating, make, making, cause, bring, brings, send x."


.

Yes, and (bara) is the word in question. (Bara) in Hebrew concordance means to create but what is not being said about the word (bara) is that is can also mean (to cut off) (cut down) (to diasosiate with) depending on the context.

They want you to believe YHWH created evil but in context he disassociates from it.

The verse properly translated leaves you with a completely different mindset of God and what he did say.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, and (bara) is the word in question. (Bara) in Hebrew concordance means to create but what is not being said about the word (bara) is that is can also mean (to cut off) (cut down) (to diasosiate with) depending on the context.

They want you to believe YHWH created evil but in context he disassociates from it.

Well, all 50 of the Bibles I read agree that "bara" should be translated as a form of construction rather than destruction.

The verse properly translated leaves you with a completely different mindset of God and what he did say.

And you know that despite the unanimous agreement that "bara" denotes a constructive act, it is wrong. Care to tell us what your background in ancient Hebrew is that has you convinced you're translation is right and everyone else is wrong?


.

 

[Torah4Yah]

Well, all 50 of the Bibles I read agree that "bara" should be translated as a form of construction rather than destruction.

And you know that despite the unanimous agreement that "bara" denotes a constructive act, it is wrong. Care to tell us what your background in ancient Hebrew is that has you convinced you're translation is right and everyone else is wrong?


.

Me none, my three translater friends have about 70k collectively in logos programs and have been translating Hebrew for 20 years.

It is a known fact bara can mean create and can also mean to cut off.

But if you knew the nature of God you would notice the lying pen of the scribes. Since when has the truth been profitable? And since when do credentials given by man to man mean anything? My credentials are insignificant, and my lack thereof is equally insignificant. What matters is if the evidence show 4,000 years of corruption can be exposed, will you let reason and wisdom speak?

If you put the truth out there and it doesn't match the kjv who would buy it? I didn't know the truth was for sale either. The Towrah says without money or cost. The truth is free! But religion makes merchandise of men.

Example: NIV put out a bible referring to the "holy spirit" as feminine people were outraged.

Her name isn't "Holy Spirit" that is a insult.

Her name is Ruwach Qodesh.

Honor your mother and father, what if your mother is a satanist and your father is on death row what are you to honor? How will honoring earthly family prolong your life in the land?

Or does that mean honor your spiritual mother and father, Ruwach Qodesh and YHWH (Yahowah) ?

Strongs 1167,1168,1168a
Lord is English for Ba'al so tell me why YHWH was removed and replaced 7000 times with satans English moniker.

And the Lord said I will remove that name from their mouths no longer will they call me Baali (Lord).
Or
Did it say
YHWH (Yahowah) said I will remove that name from their mouths no longer will they call me Lord (Ba'al).