Unfortunately since you're the one who has used big text to emphasize your beliefs, this makes us at a bit of a stand still...
Actually, I never used big text. In one case, I did use a 2 letter word with both letters capitalized. If you confuse that with big text, then that's on you.
You then quote verses from Isaiah -- 53 5 through 11 (effectively, though you jump around and take things out of context) and decide that because there is language of one servant suffering because of the behavior of another group (the kingdoms of the world, introduced as those who are realizing Israel's place, at the end of 52) that this is the same as a sacrifice. That's an invention that you make -- an equivalence that you decide has to be there but which simply isn't.
I know it must be tough to hear -- it often is for Christians, especially those who insist they aren't Christian, but the text says what it says, not some fanciful allusion that you need in order to have any basis for your entire belief system. Isaiah uses all sorts of words to express the suffering of God's servant: ,חֹלִי , מְחֹלָל , חֳלָיֵנוּ הוּא נָשָׂא וּמַכְאֹבֵינוּ סְבָלָם , מְדֻכָּא , נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה and even לַטֶּבַח but not a single word to indicate sacrifice. In fact, the only word that you can cite that might be connected to any sacrifice is one which would point to the wrong sacrifice (not that, under Jewish law, any particular sacrifice would atone for what the verses talk about, but hey, what do Jews know about their own laws...you know better, I'm sure).
When applying only one translation on something, to make it fit with a presupposition, this is faulty logic; we should check how a word is used in contexts, and see if that applies to its meaning within the context.
When applying any translation, one must look at the word and how it is used including other words around it. To take a single meaning and be driven by the conclusion you need to apply is flawed reasoning. I quoted Gen 41:9 but you can't understand because it would undermine the essence of your theology.
When we go back to Leviticus, we find 'âshâm' used on its own to mean to give an offering for sin.... Can't then change the meaning of the word, so it no longer applies to suit an agenda.
You might want to tell that to Gen 26:10. In Lev it is never used "on its own to mean to give an offering for sin." It is always used in a verse which is already talking about sacrifices for specific categories of sin.
5:19 "and he shall bring an unblemished ram from the flock, of the proper value as an asham...an asham it is, he has become guilty before God"
7:5 "and the kohen will cause them to go up in smoke on the altar, a fire offering to God, an asham"
14:21 "If he is poor and his means are not sufficient, then he shall take one male lamb, an asham"
19:21 "he shall bring his guilt offering to God, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram asham."
(and these are just the instances which lack the definite article prefix which makes their meaning as a sacrifice even clearer)
I guess Proverbs 14:9 refers to a sacrifice also, and Sam 1, 6 which makes it clear that the restitution was mice and hemorrhoids. Not a sacrifice. Just restitution.
Stamp your feet all you want. You can't arbitrarily decide that the use of the word calls forth the particular meaning you need it to, regardless of use and context. Knowing Hebrew would really help you out here so you wouldn't keep insisting things which the text doesn't support.
