suffering servant = Messiah = Jesus!

[Metacrock]

Can we demonstrate that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Jesus?

(1) we can demosntrate that he is the Messiah and not just Israel

(2) we can demonstrate that it fits Jesus better than anyone else.


by saying ss is not Isreael I am not excluding the possiblity that since Messiah comes out of Israel that it is both Isreal and an idnivudal person called "Messiah."



I. close reading of chatper will follow.



II. Messiah Will be Light to the Gentiles


A. Israel's Original Mission.


B. Israel cannot accomplish its mission without Messiah.


Messiah is contrasted with wayward Israel in several places Isaiah. Is 50:1-3 "Where is your mother's cirtificate of divorce withwhich I sent her away? OR to which of my creditors did I sell you? Becasue of your sins you were sold, because of your transgressions your mother was sent away....do I lack the strength to rescue you?

To which Messiah responds "...I have not been rebellious, I have not drawn back..." (v5)


1) Messiah to be covenant for Israel

"will keep you," God tells the Messiah "and will make you to be a covenant for the land." (Is 49:8-


2) Messiah to bring Israel back to God


Is 49:5

And now says the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, And My God is My strength)

C. Messiah to bring Israel back AND be light to Gentiles.

49:6

He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."



D. What the Sevant does in 53 is exactly

what the book says Messiah will do.


1) Messaih emerges out of Israel

Is 43:10 "You are My witnesses," declares the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

"My witnesses" is plural, "My servant" is signular. The servant is part of the witnesses, coming out of Israel, produced by the line of David. Edersheim documents that Rabbical authorites recognize this verse as pertianing to Messiah.



2) Messiah rejected

Is. 50:6 "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard, I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting..." And we see a rejected servant in 53, a "man of sarrows accounted with greif." This is one who "was despised and rejected."


3) Messiah accomplishes his task

Is 41:4


"here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight, I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring jutsice to the nations." Or chater 11: 1 which is clearly marked out as the Messiah: "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jessey; from his roots a branch will bear fruit...(4) but with rigtheousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decsions for the poor...(10) in that day the root of Jessey will stand as a banner for the people, the nations will raly to him and his place of rest will be glorious."


Is, 42:6 (established as Messiah on previous page) "I will keep you and make you to be a covenat for the people and a light for the gentiles."

Compare: "(2)" He grew up before him like a tener shoot, and like a root out of dry ground....(12) "because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the trasngressors. For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."


We see that clearly throughout the book of Isiah, Israel is in no shape to be a redeemer, but itself must be redeemed. It cannot be a light to the nations without one from among it's people, Messiah, brining it back to God. In that process Messiah will be a light to the Gentiles, and the covenant for the land. Chapter 11 sasy explicitly that Messiah (the Branch) will do do this, he will be the light to the gentiles. And that is just what we see happening in 53, the servant is marked by the same, or close epithet, Branch, shoot, and is redeeming many. In fact in 52 we see that he will draw the nations to himself. This chapter (53) fits everything it says about Messiah, his mission, and his function, it does not fit anything about Israel.


III. The functin of the Passage in the overall book (s) of Isaiah.



A. Dialectical pattern of the book


1) God condemns Israel for waywardness

2) God calls Israel back and encourages her to be faithful.

3) The Messiah as Intsurment of God's plan

punctuates the pattern of dialogue



B. Chapter 53 as Crucial pivot in God's plan


1) Servant takes the rap for the many and redeems


2) After 53 Israel is seen in the blessed Kingdom in peace and prosterity.


3) The Servant's work as redeemed Israel.

The editor/redactor has placed this passage in the central location. After all the interwoven messages of confonfation and comfort, punctuated by expecations of the Messiah as redeemer, the suffering servant takes the balme for transgressions, it punished on behalf of the people, and than we see the people livng in the blessings of God . The editor used this passage as a means to express the hope and promise that as a result of the Lord's work Israel would return to God and live in peace and abanundance. Although the edtor probably invisioned this as looking forward to the return form exile, the work of Messiah in accmplishing redeemption, it does not necessarily mean that it refurs to a chronological event in that day priror to return from exile. But it looks forward to an event that would transpire at some point in the futre.


C. Israel as redeemer of Itself and others doesn't fit the pivital function.

There is no sense of how Israel was redeemed. Without the work of the SS being that of Messiah the work is incomplete. Irael would go from being wayward and weak to suddenly being strong enough to serve as suffering redeemer with no sense of how it got there and the interwoven strands of Messianich promise for this function would just be loose ends that are never tired up.

Note: this view works even better if one is determined to see the final chapters as eschatological (end times, Messianich Kingdom).

[Metacrock]

53:4-Surely he took up our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, afflicted.
53:4-(HEB)-Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains- he has carried them yet we regarded him plagued smitten by God and oppressed.

This is exactly what Jer 30:17 says about Israel-for I will bring healing to you,and of your wounds I will heal you. says the Lord, for they called you an outcast, "she is Zion for whom no one cares."

those are two totally different things. Isaiah is saying innocent guy who has NOT sinned takes punishment for sinners. Jeremiah is saying God heals wayward Isreael. he says nothing about Isreal healing itself or anyone esle. The next chapter he says Isreal broke the covenant so there will be a new one.

You appear to be trying to avoid the point. Although the context is a bit different, in both cases, you see Israel being wounded, as a metaphore. It appears that you are purposely avoiding the point.

I don't see how you can avoid the obvious. It's so clear, in both cases Israel is sinful and fallen away. God sends agents, Messiah and Prophet to bring her back. clear as day!

Keeping in mind the general Christian belief that Jesus is God, how can God be smitten by himself?

MEta:he had divine nature and human nature. he was a seperate human person in history not God in heaven.

That sounds like a very psychotic explaination. Something is god, or somethign isn't god. Something can't be god and not god at the same time.


I see you are not aware of the Christian doctrine. That is the true technical explaination of the doctrine as set forth in the Calcidonian creed. Chsrit has two natures and two wills. He is possessed of both a human nature and human will and divien nature and a divine will. The offical position.

He was truely a man not God appearing as a man.

53:5- But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed.
53:5- But he was wounded FROM our transgressions, crushed FROM our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon himand with his wounds we WERE healed.

The hebrew says "mi-" which properly translated means from. In other words, the prophet is saying that the actions of the Gentile nations , their sinful acts hurt the servant.

Meta:gentile is not speaking. Israel is spaeking, Isreal says "he took our iniquities" wayward sinful Israel had sins, the servant took them.

you haven't made it clear what different "mi" makes in that sentence.

I would have thought that was well explained. One is that a person was
wounded because of our actions... the other one is 'wounded' for us , but not because of us.

this is a problem in your understanding of grammar. The term means "on account of." This is even more clear in the Greek of the LXX. The doctirne says that Jesus has to be sacraficed becaue of or in response to the sins of humanity. So that is not any different. Either way he is wounded because of the transgretions of the people.. Their transgressions led him to be sacraficed. Besides, "wounded from our trnasgressions" is bad grammar, not grammatical. From or becasue of amounts to the same thing in either case.

An example. Someone pushes you out of the way of a car, but gets hit themselves, they got hurt FOR you.

You were driving the car and hit somesone.. They got hurt FROM you.

You would not say "from you" that's not grammatical.

Jesus was wounded because of the sins so that adds up to the same thing.

The Christian rendition which usually use "for" indicate the concept of human vicarious atonement ie the servant took on the iniquities of others causing their sins to be atoned through his suffering. The hebrew word for is "li-" or "beglal" and that is not used here. Furthermore this concept of human vicarious atonement is totally antithetical to what we find in the rest of the Tanach eg Ezek 18:4.20 and Ps 49:7-8 ("a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God")

you are quibeling. besides it's there in th LXX. the LXX is the supiorior text and its' the one the Chruch used.

Unsubstantiated claim. .

if you want to substantiate it, here:


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

A mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation

It's not a mistranaslation you need o study what the LXX is. The LXX is made from parent Hebrew ms that differ from those of the MT. The parents text is found at Qumran its' a thousand years older than the MT, it's Heberw and it reallys says "for" and it really says Perieced and all the other things the Jews say it doesn't say. Because the chruch used the LXX that's why they say that.




Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies

OT Dead Sea Scrolls.


Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

[Goat]

53:4-Surely he took up our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, afflicted.
53:4-(HEB)-Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains- he has carried them yet we regarded him plagued smitten by God and oppressed.

This is exactly what Jer 30:17 says about Israel-for I will bring healing to you,and of your wounds I will heal you. says the Lord, for they called you an outcast, "she is Zion for whom no one cares."

those are two totally different things. Isaiah is saying innocent guy who has NOT sinned takes punishment for sinners. Jeremiah is saying God heals wayward Isreael. he says nothing about Isreal healing itself or anyone esle. The next chapter he says Isreal broke the covenant so there will be a new one.

You appear to be trying to avoid the point. Although the context is a bit different, in both cases, you see Israel being wounded, as a metaphore. It appears that you are purposely avoiding the point.

I don't see how you can avoid the obvious. It's so clear, in both cases Israel is sinful and fallen away. God sends agents, Messiah and Prophet to bring her back. clear as day!

Keeping in mind the general Christian belief that Jesus is God, how can God be smitten by himself?

MEta:he had divine nature and human nature. he was a seperate human person in history not God in heaven.

That sounds like a very psychotic explaination. Something is god, or somethign isn't god. Something can't be god and not god at the same time.


I see you are not aware of the Christian doctrine. That is the true technical explaination of the doctrine as set forth in the Calcidonian creed. Chsrit has two natures and two wills. He is possessed of both a human nature and human will and divien nature and a divine will. The offical position.

He was truely a man not God appearing as a man.

53:5- But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed.
53:5- But he was wounded FROM our transgressions, crushed FROM our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon himand with his wounds we WERE healed.

The hebrew says "mi-" which properly translated means from. In other words, the prophet is saying that the actions of the Gentile nations , their sinful acts hurt the servant.

Meta:gentile is not speaking. Israel is spaeking, Isreal says "he took our iniquities" wayward sinful Israel had sins, the servant took them.

you haven't made it clear what different "mi" makes in that sentence.

I would have thought that was well explained. One is that a person was
wounded because of our actions... the other one is 'wounded' for us , but not because of us.

this is a problem in your understanding of grammar. The term means "on account of." This is even more clear in the Greek of the LXX. The doctirne says that Jesus has to be sacraficed becaue of or in response to the sins of humanity. So that is not any different. Either way he is wounded because of the transgretions of the people.. Their transgressions led him to be sacraficed. Besides, "wounded from our trnasgressions" is bad grammar, not grammatical. From or becasue of amounts to the same thing in either case.

An example. Someone pushes you out of the way of a car, but gets hit themselves, they got hurt FOR you.

You were driving the car and hit somesone.. They got hurt FROM you.

You would not say "from you" that's not grammatical.

Jesus was wounded because of the sins so that adds up to the same thing.

The Christian rendition which usually use "for" indicate the concept of human vicarious atonement ie the servant took on the iniquities of others causing their sins to be atoned through his suffering. The hebrew word for is "li-" or "beglal" and that is not used here. Furthermore this concept of human vicarious atonement is totally antithetical to what we find in the rest of the Tanach eg Ezek 18:4.20 and Ps 49:7-8 ("a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God")

you are quibeling. besides it's there in th LXX. the LXX is the supiorior text and its' the one the Chruch used.

Unsubstantiated claim. .

if you want to substantiate it, here:


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

A mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation

It's not a mistranaslation you need o study what the LXX is. The LXX is made from parent Hebrew ms that differ from those of the MT. The parents text is found at Qumran its' a thousand years older than the MT, it's Heberw and it reallys says "for" and it really says Perieced and all the other things the Jews say it doesn't say. Because the chruch used the LXX that's why they say that.




Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies

OT Dead Sea Scrolls.


Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Yes, yes yes, I know what the LXX is. I also know what the hebrew says. And, yes, a mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation.

And none of your 'sources', if I can call them that, said anyting about the LXX , or that passsage.

I mean, if youwnat to try to confuse the issue by changing the subject, by all means, try to confuse the issue.

[Metacrock]

53:4-Surely he took up our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, afflicted.
53:4-(HEB)-Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains- he has carried them yet we regarded him plagued smitten by God and oppressed.

This is exactly what Jer 30:17 says about Israel-for I will bring healing to you,and of your wounds I will heal you. says the Lord, for they called you an outcast, "she is Zion for whom no one cares."

those are two totally different things. Isaiah is saying innocent guy who has NOT sinned takes punishment for sinners. Jeremiah is saying God heals wayward Isreael. he says nothing about Isreal healing itself or anyone esle. The next chapter he says Isreal broke the covenant so there will be a new one.

You appear to be trying to avoid the point. Although the context is a bit different, in both cases, you see Israel being wounded, as a metaphore. It appears that you are purposely avoiding the point.

I don't see how you can avoid the obvious. It's so clear, in both cases Israel is sinful and fallen away. God sends agents, Messiah and Prophet to bring her back. clear as day!

Keeping in mind the general Christian belief that Jesus is God, how can God be smitten by himself?

MEta:he had divine nature and human nature. he was a seperate human person in history not God in heaven.

That sounds like a very psychotic explaination. Something is god, or somethign isn't god. Something can't be god and not god at the same time.


I see you are not aware of the Christian doctrine. That is the true technical explaination of the doctrine as set forth in the Calcidonian creed. Chsrit has two natures and two wills. He is possessed of both a human nature and human will and divien nature and a divine will. The offical position.

He was truely a man not God appearing as a man.

53:5- But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed.
53:5- But he was wounded FROM our transgressions, crushed FROM our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon himand with his wounds we WERE healed.

The hebrew says "mi-" which properly translated means from. In other words, the prophet is saying that the actions of the Gentile nations , their sinful acts hurt the servant.

Meta:gentile is not speaking. Israel is spaeking, Isreal says "he took our iniquities" wayward sinful Israel had sins, the servant took them.

you haven't made it clear what different "mi" makes in that sentence.

I would have thought that was well explained. One is that a person was
wounded because of our actions... the other one is 'wounded' for us , but not because of us.

this is a problem in your understanding of grammar. The term means "on account of." This is even more clear in the Greek of the LXX. The doctirne says that Jesus has to be sacraficed becaue of or in response to the sins of humanity. So that is not any different. Either way he is wounded because of the transgretions of the people.. Their transgressions led him to be sacraficed. Besides, "wounded from our trnasgressions" is bad grammar, not grammatical. From or becasue of amounts to the same thing in either case.

An example. Someone pushes you out of the way of a car, but gets hit themselves, they got hurt FOR you.

You were driving the car and hit somesone.. They got hurt FROM you.

You would not say "from you" that's not grammatical.

Jesus was wounded because of the sins so that adds up to the same thing.

The Christian rendition which usually use "for" indicate the concept of human vicarious atonement ie the servant took on the iniquities of others causing their sins to be atoned through his suffering. The hebrew word for is "li-" or "beglal" and that is not used here. Furthermore this concept of human vicarious atonement is totally antithetical to what we find in the rest of the Tanach eg Ezek 18:4.20 and Ps 49:7-8 ("a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God")

you are quibeling. besides it's there in th LXX. the LXX is the supiorior text and its' the one the Chruch used.

Unsubstantiated claim. .

if you want to substantiate it, here:


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

A mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation

It's not a mistranaslation you need o study what the LXX is. The LXX is made from parent Hebrew ms that differ from those of the MT. The parents text is found at Qumran its' a thousand years older than the MT, it's Heberw and it reallys says "for" and it really says Perieced and all the other things the Jews say it doesn't say. Because the chruch used the LXX that's why they say that.




Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies

OT Dead Sea Scrolls.


Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Yes, yes yes, I know what the LXX is. I also know what the hebrew says. And, yes, a mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation.

It's not a matter fo translation. Its' a different batch of texts. the texts themselves are different, the readings in Hebrew are diferent.

And none of your 'sources', if I can call them that, said anyting about the LXX , or that passsage.

I will [put the part where is says LXX in red. can you see red? I dont 'have a quote that spcifically talks about that Passage, but I read Greek and I've read it in there before. I know what it says.

I mean, if youwnat to try to confuse the issue by changing the subject, by all means, try to confuse the issue.

here it comes, open your eyes!

if you can't see he color red let me know




Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

[Goat]

53:4-Surely he took up our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, afflicted.
53:4-(HEB)-Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains- he has carried them yet we regarded him plagued smitten by God and oppressed.

This is exactly what Jer 30:17 says about Israel-for I will bring healing to you,and of your wounds I will heal you. says the Lord, for they called you an outcast, "she is Zion for whom no one cares."

those are two totally different things. Isaiah is saying innocent guy who has NOT sinned takes punishment for sinners. Jeremiah is saying God heals wayward Isreael. he says nothing about Isreal healing itself or anyone esle. The next chapter he says Isreal broke the covenant so there will be a new one.

You appear to be trying to avoid the point. Although the context is a bit different, in both cases, you see Israel being wounded, as a metaphore. It appears that you are purposely avoiding the point.

I don't see how you can avoid the obvious. It's so clear, in both cases Israel is sinful and fallen away. God sends agents, Messiah and Prophet to bring her back. clear as day!

Keeping in mind the general Christian belief that Jesus is God, how can God be smitten by himself?

MEta:he had divine nature and human nature. he was a seperate human person in history not God in heaven.

That sounds like a very psychotic explaination. Something is god, or somethign isn't god. Something can't be god and not god at the same time.


I see you are not aware of the Christian doctrine. That is the true technical explaination of the doctrine as set forth in the Calcidonian creed. Chsrit has two natures and two wills. He is possessed of both a human nature and human will and divien nature and a divine will. The offical position.

He was truely a man not God appearing as a man.

53:5- But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed.
53:5- But he was wounded FROM our transgressions, crushed FROM our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon himand with his wounds we WERE healed.

The hebrew says "mi-" which properly translated means from. In other words, the prophet is saying that the actions of the Gentile nations , their sinful acts hurt the servant.

Meta:gentile is not speaking. Israel is spaeking, Isreal says "he took our iniquities" wayward sinful Israel had sins, the servant took them.

you haven't made it clear what different "mi" makes in that sentence.

I would have thought that was well explained. One is that a person was
wounded because of our actions... the other one is 'wounded' for us , but not because of us.

this is a problem in your understanding of grammar. The term means "on account of." This is even more clear in the Greek of the LXX. The doctirne says that Jesus has to be sacraficed becaue of or in response to the sins of humanity. So that is not any different. Either way he is wounded because of the transgretions of the people.. Their transgressions led him to be sacraficed. Besides, "wounded from our trnasgressions" is bad grammar, not grammatical. From or becasue of amounts to the same thing in either case.

An example. Someone pushes you out of the way of a car, but gets hit themselves, they got hurt FOR you.

You were driving the car and hit somesone.. They got hurt FROM you.

You would not say "from you" that's not grammatical.

Jesus was wounded because of the sins so that adds up to the same thing.

The Christian rendition which usually use "for" indicate the concept of human vicarious atonement ie the servant took on the iniquities of others causing their sins to be atoned through his suffering. The hebrew word for is "li-" or "beglal" and that is not used here. Furthermore this concept of human vicarious atonement is totally antithetical to what we find in the rest of the Tanach eg Ezek 18:4.20 and Ps 49:7-8 ("a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God")

you are quibeling. besides it's there in th LXX. the LXX is the supiorior text and its' the one the Chruch used.

Unsubstantiated claim. .

if you want to substantiate it, here:


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

A mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation

It's not a mistranaslation you need o study what the LXX is. The LXX is made from parent Hebrew ms that differ from those of the MT. The parents text is found at Qumran its' a thousand years older than the MT, it's Heberw and it reallys says "for" and it really says Perieced and all the other things the Jews say it doesn't say. Because the chruch used the LXX that's why they say that.




Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies

OT Dead Sea Scrolls.


Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Yes, yes yes, I know what the LXX is. I also know what the hebrew says. And, yes, a mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation.

It's not a matter fo translation. Its' a different batch of texts. the texts themselves are different, the readings in Hebrew are diferent.

And none of your 'sources', if I can call them that, said anyting about the LXX , or that passsage.

I will [put the part where is says LXX in red. can you see red? I dont 'have a quote that spcifically talks about that Passage, but I read Greek and I've read it in there before. I know what it says.

I mean, if youwnat to try to confuse the issue by changing the subject, by all means, try to confuse the issue.

here it comes, open your eyes!

if you can't see he color red let me know




Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Repeating claims don't make them any more true. I mean, you got some guy that is seeing all these mysterious illusions to Jesus Christ in the Talmud that aren't there making cliams that the Greek translations are superior to the original hebrew.

Me, I don't buy that.

[Cathar1950]

I was messing around looking for something else and I remembered this passage.

Isaiah 45:7 (English Standard Version)
7I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 (Young's Literal Translation)
7Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.

Granted this is from a time when everything was thought to be from the gods.

But I did want to make a comment on the DSS. They had many versions and variations in their collection including books that did not make it in to any cannon but were used by NT writers.

I tend to think the 4 songs in Isaiah are just 4 songs not prophecies.
If Christians want to make them prophecies about Jesus they are welcome to do so but there is no way they meant Jesus at the time they were written and later edited.
Most scholars do not believe one person wrote it all and the work developed over hundreds of years.

[Metacrock]

53:4-Surely he took up our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, afflicted.
53:4-(HEB)-Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains- he has carried them yet we regarded him plagued smitten by God and oppressed.

This is exactly what Jer 30:17 says about Israel-for I will bring healing to you,and of your wounds I will heal you. says the Lord, for they called you an outcast, "she is Zion for whom no one cares."

those are two totally different things. Isaiah is saying innocent guy who has NOT sinned takes punishment for sinners. Jeremiah is saying God heals wayward Isreael. he says nothing about Isreal healing itself or anyone esle. The next chapter he says Isreal broke the covenant so there will be a new one.

You appear to be trying to avoid the point. Although the context is a bit different, in both cases, you see Israel being wounded, as a metaphore. It appears that you are purposely avoiding the point.

I don't see how you can avoid the obvious. It's so clear, in both cases Israel is sinful and fallen away. God sends agents, Messiah and Prophet to bring her back. clear as day!

Keeping in mind the general Christian belief that Jesus is God, how can God be smitten by himself?

MEta:he had divine nature and human nature. he was a seperate human person in history not God in heaven.

That sounds like a very psychotic explaination. Something is god, or somethign isn't god. Something can't be god and not god at the same time.


I see you are not aware of the Christian doctrine. That is the true technical explaination of the doctrine as set forth in the Calcidonian creed. Chsrit has two natures and two wills. He is possessed of both a human nature and human will and divien nature and a divine will. The offical position.

He was truely a man not God appearing as a man.

53:5- But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed.
53:5- But he was wounded FROM our transgressions, crushed FROM our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon himand with his wounds we WERE healed.

The hebrew says "mi-" which properly translated means from. In other words, the prophet is saying that the actions of the Gentile nations , their sinful acts hurt the servant.

Meta:gentile is not speaking. Israel is spaeking, Isreal says "he took our iniquities" wayward sinful Israel had sins, the servant took them.

you haven't made it clear what different "mi" makes in that sentence.

I would have thought that was well explained. One is that a person was
wounded because of our actions... the other one is 'wounded' for us , but not because of us.

this is a problem in your understanding of grammar. The term means "on account of." This is even more clear in the Greek of the LXX. The doctirne says that Jesus has to be sacraficed becaue of or in response to the sins of humanity. So that is not any different. Either way he is wounded because of the transgretions of the people.. Their transgressions led him to be sacraficed. Besides, "wounded from our trnasgressions" is bad grammar, not grammatical. From or becasue of amounts to the same thing in either case.

An example. Someone pushes you out of the way of a car, but gets hit themselves, they got hurt FOR you.

You were driving the car and hit somesone.. They got hurt FROM you.

You would not say "from you" that's not grammatical.

Jesus was wounded because of the sins so that adds up to the same thing.

The Christian rendition which usually use "for" indicate the concept of human vicarious atonement ie the servant took on the iniquities of others causing their sins to be atoned through his suffering. The hebrew word for is "li-" or "beglal" and that is not used here. Furthermore this concept of human vicarious atonement is totally antithetical to what we find in the rest of the Tanach eg Ezek 18:4.20 and Ps 49:7-8 ("a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God")

you are quibeling. besides it's there in th LXX. the LXX is the supiorior text and its' the one the Chruch used.

Unsubstantiated claim. .

if you want to substantiate it, here:


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

A mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation

It's not a mistranaslation you need o study what the LXX is. The LXX is made from parent Hebrew ms that differ from those of the MT. The parents text is found at Qumran its' a thousand years older than the MT, it's Heberw and it reallys says "for" and it really says Perieced and all the other things the Jews say it doesn't say. Because the chruch used the LXX that's why they say that.




Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies

OT Dead Sea Scrolls.


Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Yes, yes yes, I know what the LXX is. I also know what the hebrew says. And, yes, a mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation.

It's not a matter fo translation. Its' a different batch of texts. the texts themselves are different, the readings in Hebrew are diferent.

And none of your 'sources', if I can call them that, said anyting about the LXX , or that passsage.

I will [put the part where is says LXX in red. can you see red? I dont 'have a quote that spcifically talks about that Passage, but I read Greek and I've read it in there before. I know what it says.

I mean, if youwnat to try to confuse the issue by changing the subject, by all means, try to confuse the issue.

here it comes, open your eyes!

if you can't see he color red let me know




Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Repeating claims don't make them any more true. I mean, you got some guy that is seeing all these mysterious illusions to Jesus Christ in the Talmud that aren't there making cliams that the Greek translations are superior to the original hebrew.

Me, I don't buy that.

what is wrong with your reading comprehension?


(1) this has nothign whatsoever to do with the Talmud.

(2) this is not "some guy" talking about the Talmud, it's one of the top scholars in the world who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls he's talking about the Dead sea scrolls

(3) Obvously you don't understand what he's saying. Let me try to explain (btw I wasn't just repeating things, you said none of the quotes talked baout the LXX, I showed they did by putting it in red--can't you follow that?)

the issue is some words in the Is53 are suppossedly wrongly translated by christians I said the origin Hebrew shows they are not mistranslated, becaseu the Greek made from those orignial Ms is that word. The point being the original Hebrew is different than it appers in the Masoretic text. that is proven because its' different in the LXX and the LXX comes frm a batch of MS that are different from the Masoretic text.

do you see Now? the point is that the Hebrew ms that the LXX was made from were different and that difference favors the translation used in Christian bibles becuase the early chruch used the LXX.

now do you get it?

[Metacrock]

I was messing around looking for something else and I remembered this passage.

Isaiah 45:7 (English Standard Version)
7I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 (Young's Literal Translation)
7Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.

Granted this is from a time when everything was thought to be from the gods.

But I did want to make a comment on the DSS. They had many versions and variations in their collection including books that did not make it in to any cannon but were used by NT writers.

I tend to think the 4 songs in Isaiah are just 4 songs not prophecies.
If Christians want to make them prophecies about Jesus they are welcome to do so but there is no way they meant Jesus at the time they were written and later edited.
Most scholars do not believe one person wrote it all and the work developed over hundreds of years.

Qumran had four major recions of the Scritpure. The Heberw parent texts of the LXX was one of the four and the oldest of the four.

[Goat]

53:4-Surely he took up our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, afflicted.
53:4-(HEB)-Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains- he has carried them yet we regarded him plagued smitten by God and oppressed.

This is exactly what Jer 30:17 says about Israel-for I will bring healing to you,and of your wounds I will heal you. says the Lord, for they called you an outcast, "she is Zion for whom no one cares."

those are two totally different things. Isaiah is saying innocent guy who has NOT sinned takes punishment for sinners. Jeremiah is saying God heals wayward Isreael. he says nothing about Isreal healing itself or anyone esle. The next chapter he says Isreal broke the covenant so there will be a new one.

You appear to be trying to avoid the point. Although the context is a bit different, in both cases, you see Israel being wounded, as a metaphore. It appears that you are purposely avoiding the point.

I don't see how you can avoid the obvious. It's so clear, in both cases Israel is sinful and fallen away. God sends agents, Messiah and Prophet to bring her back. clear as day!

Keeping in mind the general Christian belief that Jesus is God, how can God be smitten by himself?

MEta:he had divine nature and human nature. he was a seperate human person in history not God in heaven.

That sounds like a very psychotic explaination. Something is god, or somethign isn't god. Something can't be god and not god at the same time.


I see you are not aware of the Christian doctrine. That is the true technical explaination of the doctrine as set forth in the Calcidonian creed. Chsrit has two natures and two wills. He is possessed of both a human nature and human will and divien nature and a divine will. The offical position.

He was truely a man not God appearing as a man.

53:5- But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed.
53:5- But he was wounded FROM our transgressions, crushed FROM our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon himand with his wounds we WERE healed.

The hebrew says "mi-" which properly translated means from. In other words, the prophet is saying that the actions of the Gentile nations , their sinful acts hurt the servant.

Meta:gentile is not speaking. Israel is spaeking, Isreal says "he took our iniquities" wayward sinful Israel had sins, the servant took them.

you haven't made it clear what different "mi" makes in that sentence.

I would have thought that was well explained. One is that a person was
wounded because of our actions... the other one is 'wounded' for us , but not because of us.

this is a problem in your understanding of grammar. The term means "on account of." This is even more clear in the Greek of the LXX. The doctirne says that Jesus has to be sacraficed becaue of or in response to the sins of humanity. So that is not any different. Either way he is wounded because of the transgretions of the people.. Their transgressions led him to be sacraficed. Besides, "wounded from our trnasgressions" is bad grammar, not grammatical. From or becasue of amounts to the same thing in either case.

An example. Someone pushes you out of the way of a car, but gets hit themselves, they got hurt FOR you.

You were driving the car and hit somesone.. They got hurt FROM you.

You would not say "from you" that's not grammatical.

Jesus was wounded because of the sins so that adds up to the same thing.

The Christian rendition which usually use "for" indicate the concept of human vicarious atonement ie the servant took on the iniquities of others causing their sins to be atoned through his suffering. The hebrew word for is "li-" or "beglal" and that is not used here. Furthermore this concept of human vicarious atonement is totally antithetical to what we find in the rest of the Tanach eg Ezek 18:4.20 and Ps 49:7-8 ("a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God")

you are quibeling. besides it's there in th LXX. the LXX is the supiorior text and its' the one the Chruch used.

Unsubstantiated claim. .

if you want to substantiate it, here:


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

A mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation

It's not a mistranaslation you need o study what the LXX is. The LXX is made from parent Hebrew ms that differ from those of the MT. The parents text is found at Qumran its' a thousand years older than the MT, it's Heberw and it reallys says "for" and it really says Perieced and all the other things the Jews say it doesn't say. Because the chruch used the LXX that's why they say that.




Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies

OT Dead Sea Scrolls.


Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Yes, yes yes, I know what the LXX is. I also know what the hebrew says. And, yes, a mistranslation is a mistranslation is a mistranslation.

It's not a matter fo translation. Its' a different batch of texts. the texts themselves are different, the readings in Hebrew are diferent.

And none of your 'sources', if I can call them that, said anyting about the LXX , or that passsage.

I will [put the part where is says LXX in red. can you see red? I dont 'have a quote that spcifically talks about that Passage, but I read Greek and I've read it in there before. I know what it says.

I mean, if youwnat to try to confuse the issue by changing the subject, by all means, try to confuse the issue.

here it comes, open your eyes!

if you can't see he color red let me know




Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.



Harpers Bible Dictionary


edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"

(visited 8/4/06)



It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.



discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversy


The Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)


"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish

"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

Repeating claims don't make them any more true. I mean, you got some guy that is seeing all these mysterious illusions to Jesus Christ in the Talmud that aren't there making cliams that the Greek translations are superior to the original hebrew.

Me, I don't buy that.

what is wrong with your reading comprehension?


(1) this has nothign whatsoever to do with the Talmud.

(2) this is not "some guy" talking about the Talmud, it's one of the top scholars in the world who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls he's talking about the Dead sea scrolls

(3) Obvously you don't understand what he's saying. Let me try to explain (btw I wasn't just repeating things, you said none of the quotes talked baout the LXX, I showed they did by putting it in red--can't you follow that?)

the issue is some words in the Is53 are suppossedly wrongly translated by christians I said the origin Hebrew shows they are not mistranslated, becaseu the Greek made from those orignial Ms is that word. The point being the original Hebrew is different than it appers in the Masoretic text. that is proven because its' different in the LXX and the LXX comes frm a batch of MS that are different from the Masoretic text.

do you see Now? the point is that the Hebrew ms that the LXX was made from were different and that difference favors the translation used in Christian bibles becuase the early chruch used the LXX.

now do you get it?

Don't you look up the reliablity of your own sources?? Look up the guy you were quoting..

Doh.

[Metacrock]

Don't you look up the reliablity of your own sources?? Look up the guy you were quoting..

Doh.

Do you mean John Allegro? I know all about him. He was not flaky when he wrote he book "Dead Sea scrolls" and the thigns he says there I have on my site backed by Frank Cross and Sanders and others. It's common knowledge really.


he was the only skeptic on the DSS committee. He became a Jesus Myher and was completely discredited years latter for his theory that Jesus was a cover story for a magic mushroom cult. His nickname is "the Muschroom man." I thought that make him totally acceptable to the Jesus mythers in the crowd.


most of the quotes I put up here are from

Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper's Bible dictionary

Harper/Collins publishing website says:

Paul J. Achtemeier is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. A widely respected authority on the Bible, he is the author or co-author of 14 books, former editor of the quarterly Interpretation, and New Testament editor of the Interpretation Biblical Commentary Series. Professor Achtemeier has also been chief executive officer and president of the Society of Biblical Literature, and president of the Catholic Biblical Association. The Editorial...

[Goat]

Don't you look up the reliablity of your own sources?? Look up the guy you were quoting..

Doh.

Do you mean John Allegro? I know all about him. He was not flaky when he wrote he book "Dead Sea scrolls" and the thigns he says there I have on my site backed by Frank Cross and Sanders and others. It's common knowledge really.


he was the only skeptic on the DSS committee. He became a Jesus Myher and was completely discredited years latter for his theory that Jesus was a cover story for a magic mushroom cult. His nickname is "the Muschroom man." I thought that make him totally acceptable to the Jesus mythers in the crowd.


most of the quotes I put up here are from

Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper's Bible dictionary

Harper/Collins publishing website says:

Paul J. Achtemeier is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. A widely respected authority on the Bible, he is the author or co-author of 14 books, former editor of the quarterly Interpretation, and New Testament editor of the Interpretation Biblical Commentary Series. Professor Achtemeier has also been chief executive officer and president of the Society of Biblical Literature, and president of the Catholic Biblical Association. The Editorial...

And randolph Parrish ..