The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[omega2xx]

No, the Levitical system does NOT have this concept. That's your central problem. A small subset of sins can be atoned for by a process that includes a sacrifice. But not all sins, and the sacrifice need not be an animal of any sort.

All of the offering except the grain offering and he peace offering were for atonement. They taught that man did not have to die for his sins, a substituee could be offered fore his atonement. They also had a drink offering that was not drunk, it was poured out symbolizing death.

The grain offering is picture of the Lords' supper. Although no blood was present in it, to make the bread, the grain had to be crushed---the Lord was pleased to crush Him(Isa 53:10a). It had a "memorial portion(Lev 2:3)---This do in remembrance of me. The memorial portion was offered on the bronze altar, which is where the other offerings were placed. The rest of this offering was food for the priest and Christians are God's priests(I Pet 2:9).

The peace offering was for fellowship with God, not for sin. It was the only offering in which God, the priest and the offeror ate.

]ALL sacrifices had to be unblemished (no scourge marks...)

That is why Israel can't qualify as the suffering servant of Isas 53. That is why no mere human can qualify.

but no man dies for the sins of another.

Because no man is sinless. The sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish and only Jesus could meet that requirement.

Now, there is a concept within Judaism of a death bringing about the repentance of others and thus leading to atonement, but that's an advanced idea and you may not be ready for it.

If you have Scripture to support it, bring it on. If not don't bother

As for Ps. 14:3, you should read 14:4 and see who the "all" refers to and what their relationship is to the Jews.

Verse 4 does not have an * eliminating "no one" and "not even one," in verse 3.

Do you really think some people have never sinned?

 

[wizanda]

If you have Scripture to support it, bring it on. If not don't bother

The statement is within Oral Tradition, and all of Christianity is built upon its precepts, "the death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation'.

Thus when Yeshua challenged the Pharisees for murdering the prophets as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

This concept about getting any atonement or inheritance is already within Isaiah 28:9-19, the Covenant with Death is disannulled before it was ever conceived by John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros).

Can understand the Jews getting confused, when they've got Christians and Muslims, defiling the text to prove a silly point a lot of the time.

Yeshua does fulfill Isaiah 53; yet it says, 'it makes him grieve when you've turned him into a sin offering', 'it is through his knowledge, that he turns many to righteousness'.

 

[rosends]

It means the sentence said 'we', as in 'we' can both look objectively at this by using that methodology....Then you turn it into 'your conclusions', 'your facts', etc....

The sentence you were commenting on only had the word "you" in it, not "we." I was responding to the statement you made "we've should examine all conclusions and facts" and pointing out that, were that accurate, YOU would have seen the flaw in your process. The direction was pretty clear.

This is your perception; not my methodology.

Which you admitted was to start with a conclusion. I quoted that part. Of course, I didn't quote everything. Some is either too bizarre or too irrelevant to comment on. I note you have omitted parts of my statements also. I don't make claims about your "ego driven" statements. I enjoy, though, how you say that my claims lack evidence when I have provided a lot of evidence which you have not addressed.

I do admit it is convoluted, as instead of just being able to explain my interpretation of the text; you dismiss everything, thus I'm not presenting how it fits together in one clear essay.

The Law of Parsimony seems relevant here. I have explanations which are not convoluted. Therefore, the system which you admit is convoluted is unnecessary.

It doesn't use the word 'Head', that is my own English phraseology to mean a person, which the text implies,

So you insert a word to represent an idea which you infer. A non-present word to call forth a non-present idea. Got it.

Well aware that some things have chapters placed around them, are not specifically as the author intended their own paragraphs; yet in the case of Zechariah 11 it is one context, shown by the continuing words within it all having specification.

That is based in your misreading of the text based on the conclusions you need to satisfy. And it is mired in your inability to see that a single paragraph can cover more than one idea or refer to more than one time.

Am aware of the two main ones.

So you can see that the chapter can, in 2 different places, be referring to two different events! Great!

Yeshua said tho the Pharisees think they sit in the seat of Moses, they're a bunch of hypocrites who have done away with the Torah, and who are going to Hell.

That's not exactly what Jesus said, but I assume a spate of your inferences...

Yeshua made prophecies, and they've all come to pass as well... The prophets all clarify each other, and Yeshua being the chief corner stone, shows how much of it fits together.

Noatradamus made prophecies. Edgar Cayce made prophecies. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh made prophecies. Since the era of the prophets had ended, they all amount to the same as Jesus and his "prophecies." No one needed him to show how the words of any actual prophets fit together.

Zechariah chapter 3 is his name specifically about him, Yehoshua is full version; yet we also know Yeshua was a shortened version of the name, that then fits with all the prophecy.

Actually, Zech 3 is about Yehoshua the high priest. That can't be Jesus because if Jesus is supposed to be a messianic figure, he had to be from the tribe of Judah. But a high priest has to be from the tribe of Levi. So it CAN'T be talking about Jesus. Also, your lack of Hebrew is showing through. If you want the nickname for Yehoshua, you should look in Ezra 3 (יֵשׁוּעַ, note the tzeirei under the yod)

Yes with the specifics of that prophecy in Zechariah 11, fitting with what happened to Yeshua exactly across the whole chapter.

No, they actually don't. You see them as fitting because you have to (and you support it with inferences and mistranslations).

Thank you, this just proves you're not interested in any conclusions other than your own, and have no interest in questioning other perspectives or to be shown that it could be wrong.

I note that you ignored when I pointed out your lack of Hebrew information and the errors that caused. I note that you haven't shown any of the citations and explanations which I provided to be wrong. So whose conclusions are being held on to in the face of counter-evidence? I have been questioning your perspective and showing how it is in error and yet you turn a blind eye, repeatedly. It doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to help you.

 

[rosends]

All of the offering except the grain offering and he peace offering were for atonement. They taught that man did not have to die for his sins, a substituee could be offered fore his atonement. They also had a drink offering that was not drunk, it was poured out symbolizing death.

Lev 5:11. A flour offering for sin. No blood. A wine libation is not drunk, nor is it a "drink offering."

That is why Israel can't qualify as the suffering servant of Isas 53. That is why no mere human can qualify.

Only because you think that the servant is a sacrifice. Since the servant isn't a sacrifice, and the servant is explicitly and repeatedly identified as the people of Israel, you are wrong.

Because no man is sinless. The sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish and only Jesus could meet that requirement.

Except A) no human sacrifice and B) he wasn't sinless.

If you have Scripture to support it, bring it on. If not don't bother

I have text that you wouldn't think of as authoritative and I respect that. The same way that I don't see anything in the gospels as authoritative. But since the question is about a Jewish system, I would suggest that texts within the Jewish system have a leg up whether or not you accept them.

Verse 4 does not have an * eliminating "no one" and "not even one," in verse 3.

No, verse 4 has an explanation of the word "hakol" (all) in verse 3. Try to follow the logic:

3. All have turned away; together they have spoiled; no one does good, not even one. 4. Did not all the workers of iniquity know? Those who devoured My people partook of a feast; they did not call upon the Lord.

Do you really think that every single person has done no good? Even though verse 4 separates the workers of iniquity from "My people"? OK then.

 

[omega2xx]

The statement is within Oral Tradition, and all of Christianity is built upon its precepts, "the death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation'.<<

I never accept oral traditions and Christianity is not built on the death of the rightreous can atone for the sins of that genereation. Christiasnsity is built on Jesus died for all sins for all men for all time.

Thus when Yeshua challenged the Pharisees for murdering the prophets as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

Jesus did not mention "atonement" in those passages. Killing a prophet would not atone for the sins of anyone.

This concept about getting any atonement or inheritance is already within Isaiah 28:9-19, the Covenant with Death is disannulled before it was ever conceived by John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros).

The Levitical sacrificial system for atonement was in effect long before Isaiah. I will have to do some study on the "covenant of death, before I comment on it. Where is the covenant of death mentioned in teh NT?

Can understand the Jews getting confused, when they've got Christians and Muslims, defiling the text to prove a silly point a lot of the time.

What text have Christians defiled?

Yeshua does fulfill Isaiah 53; yet it says, 'it makes him grieve when you've turned him into a sin offering', 'it is through his knowledge, that he turns many to righteousness'.

He made Himself the sin offering, not me---For the joy set before Him, He endured the cross(Heb 12:2).

 

[omega2xx]

Lev 5:11. A flour offering for sin. No blood. A wine libation is not drunk, nor is it a "drink offering."

Only because you think that the servant is a sacrifice. Since the servant isn't a sacrifice, and the servant is explicitly and repeatedly identified as the people of Israel, you are wrong.

If you don't see Isa 53 as a sacrifice, no wonder you can't understand it. 53:10b, If He would render Himself as a guilt offering...

Except A) no human sacrifice and B) he wasn't sinless.

The Bible says He was both. I will continue to accept God's word over yours.

I have text that you wouldn't think of as authoritative and I respect that. The same way that I don't see anything in the gospels as authoritative. But since the question is about a Jewish system, I would suggest that texts within the Jewish system have a leg up whether or not you accept them.

I would suggest that God inspired all of both testaments and their is not conflict in them.

No, verse 4 has an explanation of the word "hakol" (all) in verse 3. Try to follow the logic:

All means all, Logic is not needed.

[/QUOTE]3. All have turned away; together they have spoiled; no one does good, not even one. 4. Did not all the workers of iniquity know? Those who devoured My people partook of a feast; they did not call upon the Lord.

Do you really think that every single person has done no good? Even though verse 4 separates the workers of iniquity from "My people"? OK then.[/QUOTE]

It is not about NEVER doing good, it is about everyone never doing good all the time. That makes us all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God. If you read the minor prophets, you might agree with me that God's people quite frequently did not do good.

 

[wizanda]

That's not exactly what Jesus said, but I assume a spate of your inferences...

Sorry could have quoted each within the paraphrasing.

I have been questioning your perspective and showing how it is in error and yet you turn a blind eye, repeatedly. It doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to help you.

Thank you for the help, and you are right, i need to be more assertive at correcting all the mistakes, it just becomes overwhelming, as there are too many points to be made.

Like the aspect of the Hebrew grammar missed, which obviously you comprehend more than me, as you speak it...

Whereas I'm just learning the alphabet, so am limited to concordances, and dictionaries; yet within those simple references, we're left with the roots, which are also part of the basic comprehension, that is being overlooked by your highly precision way of looking at things.

Like the topic is why don't both see the text the same, and it is clear, because each only see's it from their own perspectives...

Like the Jews are looking at it so closely, they only see the wood and no trees; whereas Christians have gone and made it into a cross from some of the trees, and the Muslims are busy ranting, "that it should be chopped down".

Where is the covenant of death mentioned in teh NT?

What Paul puts forward, by stating that with jesus's death, you die to the flesh, and are resurrected with him to being incorruptible...
Within John, the idea that you believe God sent jesus to die for the sins of the world...
By Simon claiming jesus was our lord and savoir through his death, and not emphasizing his teachings.

The other part of it, is that Isaiah 28:9-19 is a bed of adultery that is stated within Isaiah 28:20; this is reaffirmed within Revelation 2:22, that the false churches are cast into it.

What text have Christians defiled?

By following what Paul, John and Simon put forwards...Christians automatically break all of the 10 Commandments, and a lot of the Laws in someway.

Small list: Accusing God of murder (Balaam teachings (Micah 6:5-8)), drinking the blood of the offering (Revelation 16:6), human sacrifice, covenant with death, etc...

This is one of the main tangents within the prophets, the idea that the false church will be established as an abomination to the ways of the God of the Living....

Christianity like its Pharisaic parents, has a morbid fascination with self pity, and death, more than life; which we can see Yeshua within the Synoptic Gospels was trying to correct.

 

[rosends]

If you don't see Isa 53 as a sacrifice, no wonder you can't understand it. 53:10b, If He would render Himself as a guilt offering...

If you DO see it as a sacrifice it is no wonder you misunderstand.
"And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

The talmud does discuss other meanings of this verse. Berachot 5a reads " I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly."

Maybe you prefer the Malbim: "גם אם תשים את נפשו כנפש אשמה וחייבת מיתה". Either way, there is no statement in the text that the soul is a guilt offering or sacrifice.

The Bible says He was both. I will continue to accept God's word over yours.

Your text says that (though it doesn't actually...he curses trees which is not allowed) and I would rather accept God's word than your texts.

I would suggest that God inspired all of both testaments and their is not conflict in them.

Suggestion noted. Rejected, but noted.

All means all, Logic is not needed.

Oh, what a relief...to be freed of the bonds and constraints of logic! Halleluyah! Anything is possible!

It is not about NEVER doing good, it is about everyone never doing good all the time.

Really? Because the text says "no one does good, not even one. "
Oh, wait...that would require logic and we don't need that. Got it.

 

[omega2xx]

Sorry could have quoted each within the paraphrasing.

Thank you for the help, and you are right, i need to be more assertive at correcting all the mistakes, it just becomes overwhelming, as there are too many points to be made.

Like the aspect of the Hebrew grammar missed, which obviously you comprehend more than me, as you speak it...

Whereas I'm just learning the alphabet, so am limited to concordances, and dictionaries; yet within those simple references, we're left with the roots, which are also part of the basic comprehension, that is being overlooked by your highly precision way of looking at things.

Like the topic is why don't both see the text the same, and it is clear, because each only see's it from their own perspectives...

Like the Jews are looking at it so closely, they only see the wood and no trees; whereas Christians have gone and made it into a cross from some of the trees, and the Muslims are busy ranting, "that it should be chopped down".

What Paul puts forward, by stating that with jesus's death, you die to the flesh, and are resurrected with him to being incorruptible...
Within John, the idea that you believe God sent jesus to die for the sins of the world...
By Simon claiming jesus was our lord and savoir through his death, and not emphasizing his teachings.

Sorry, but I don't see a "covenant of death" in what those folks said. If anything Jesus; death would be a covenant of life.

The other part of it, is that Isaiah 28:9-19 is a bed of adultery that is stated within Isaiah 28:20; this is reaffirmed within Revelation 2:22, that the false churches are cast into it.

I don't see it there eitgher.

By following what Paul, John and Simon put forwards...Christians automatically break all of the 10 Commandments, and a lot of the Laws in someway.

Breaking the commandments does not result in our death.

Small list: Accusing God of murder (Balaam teachings (Micah 6:5-8)), drinking the blood of the offering (Revelation 16:6), human sacrifice, covenant with death, etc...

This is one of the main tangents within the prophets, the idea that the false church will be established as an abomination to the ways of the God of the Living....

Still don't see it.

Christianity like its Pharisaic parents, has a morbid fascination with self pity, and death, more than life; which we can see Yeshua within the Synoptic Gospels was trying to correct.

Christianity is the very opposite of Phariseeism, we are not fascinated with self pity and death more than life and that is not what Jesus was teaching.

 

[omega2xx]

If you DO see it as a sacrifice it is no wonder you misunderstand.
"And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

What happened in the guilt offering? Even "crush Him" points to His death. The main thing you are missing is that no nation orf persone, except Jesus was without spot or blemish. The Jews are disqualified as being the servant.

The talmud does discuss other meanings of this verse. Berachot 5a reads " I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly."

Jn 10:18 - No one takes my life Me, butgI lay it down of my own initaitive...

Maybe you prefer the Malbim: "גם אם תשים את נפשו כנפש אשמה וחייבת מיתה". Either way, there is no statement in the text that the soul is a guilt offering or sacrifice.

The soul is not mentioned in Isa 53.

Your text says that (though it doesn't actually...he curses trees which is not allowed) and I would rather accept God's word than your texts.

It would help; if you stuck to Isa 53.

Really? Because the text says "no one does good, not even one. "
Oh, wait...that would require logic and we don't need that. Got it.

That verse does not require logic. All it require is about a 10th grade reading comprehension level.

 

[rosends]

What happened in the guilt offering? Even "crush Him" points to His death. The main thing you are missing is that no nation orf persone, except Jesus was without spot or blemish. The Jews are disqualified as being the servant.

Again, first, Jesus had spots and blemishes. Second, this all requires that the servant be sacrificed. But the servant isn't sacrificed. Do you see "the Lord made him ill"? Is that a description of a sacrifice? You are interpolating the idea of sacrifice. It isn't there. You are deciding that the use of the word "crush" points to his death. Giles Corey was crushed. Jesus was not crushed.

The soul is not mentioned in Isa 53.

You might want to reread verse ten. The Hebrew word is "nafsho" his soul.

It would help; if you stuck to Isa 53.

And if you stuck to the Hebrew and ditched the gospels.

That verse does not require logic. All it require is about a 10th grade reading comprehension level.

I'll ignore that you want to avoid logic. But a 10th grade reading comprehension level? You clearly don't have it if you can't see that it reads "no one does good, not even one. " Think about this "no one does good". That doesn't mean that one does some good, sometimes (or as you say, "It is not about NEVER doing good, it is about everyone never doing good all the time.") It means "no one does good." You can insert all of the qualifiers you want. That doesn't make them reasonable.

 

[MHz]

Again, first, Jesus had spots and blemishes. Second, this all requires that the servant be sacrificed. But the servant isn't sacrificed. Do you see "the Lord made him ill"? Is that a description of a sacrifice? You are interpolating the idea of sacrifice. It isn't there. You are deciding that the use of the word "crush" points to his death. Giles Corey was crushed. Jesus was not crushed.



You might want to reread verse ten. The Hebrew word is "nafsho" his soul.


And if you stuck to the Hebrew and ditched the gospels.



I'll ignore that you want to avoid logic. But a 10th grade reading comprehension level? You clearly don't have it if you can't see that it reads "no one does good, not even one. " Think about this "no one does good". That doesn't mean that one does some good, sometimes (or as you say, "It is not about NEVER doing good, it is about everyone never doing good all the time.") It means "no one does good." You can insert all of the qualifiers you want. That doesn't make them reasonable.

I should qualify as 4 of the best years of my life were spent in grade 10.

Before Jesus was given a glorified body these verses would describe how he looked to others.

Isa:53:2:
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,
and as a root out of a dry ground:
he hath no form nor comeliness;
and when we shall see him,
there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa:53:3:
He is despised and rejected of men;
a man of sorrows,
and acquainted with grief:
and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.

Thew term 'bruise' is a reference to the bruise to the heel in Ge:3:15. God

'Grief' in that same chapter is referencing when Jesus said, (to God) 'Why have you forsaken me?'

 

[MHz]

Again, first, Jesus had spots and blemishes. Second, this all requires that the servant be sacrificed. But the servant isn't sacrificed. Do you see "the Lord made him ill"? Is that a description of a sacrifice? You are interpolating the idea of sacrifice. It isn't there. You are deciding that the use of the word "crush" points to his death. Giles Corey was crushed. Jesus was not crushed.



You might want to reread verse ten. The Hebrew word is "nafsho" his soul.


And if you stuck to the Hebrew and ditched the gospels.



I'll ignore that you want to avoid logic. But a 10th grade reading comprehension level? You clearly don't have it if you can't see that it reads "no one does good, not even one. " Think about this "no one does good". That doesn't mean that one does some good, sometimes (or as you say, "It is not about NEVER doing good, it is about everyone never doing good all the time.") It means "no one does good." You can insert all of the qualifiers you want. That doesn't make them reasonable.

People do do good things all the time. The part that is missing is that they cannot do good things all the time.

 

[omega2xx]

Again, first, Jesus had spots and blemishes.

Not according to the Bible. Why should I believe you without having any evidence to support your accusation?

Second, this all requires that the servant be sacrificed. But the servant isn't sacrificed. Do you see "the Lord made him ill"? Is that a description of a sacrifice? You are interpolating the idea of sacrifice. It isn't there. You are deciding that the use of the word "crush" points to his death. Giles Corey was crushed. Jesus was not crushed.

Then take a dark highlighter and strike through "guilt offering," smitten, crushed, pierced through, and cut off. Then you might have a basis ford what you say. It is hard for me to believe you do not understand the guilt offering.

You might want to reread verse ten. The Hebrew word is "nafsho" his soul.

The Hebrew word for soul is "nepesh.," but it is irrelevant, That word is not in the passage.

And if you stuck to the Hebrew and ditched the gospels.

The scholars who translated my Bible know Hebrew much better than you do. If you understood what the guilt offering consist of, you would understand that passage.

I'll ignore that you want to avoid logic. But a 10th grade reading comprehension level? You clearly don't have it if you can't see that it reads "no one does good, not even one. " Think about this "no one does good". That doesn't mean that one does some good, sometimes (or as you say, "It is not about NEVER doing good, it is about everyone never doing good all the time.") It means "no one does good." You can insert all of the qualifiers you want. That doesn't make them reasonable.

It is such a comfort the have someone in the forum that is more intelligent than God. Have you told Him He got it wrong?

To have "guilt offering" in a passage and ignore it show a complete lack of logic.

 

[rosends]

Not according to the Bible. Why should I believe you without having any evidence to support your accusation?

Actually, I do have evidence, which I posted already. He was scourged which makes a disqualifying blemish and he cursed fruit trees which violates torah law.

Then take a dark highlighter and strike through "guilt offering," smitten, crushed, pierced through, and cut off. Then you might have a basis ford what you say. It is hard for me to believe you do not understand the guilt offering.

Well, since there is no "guilt offering" to cross out and sacrifices are not smitten, pierced or crushed, this doesn't seem particularly useful.

The Hebrew word for soul is "nepesh.," but it is irrelevant, That word is not in the passage.

1. The word is nephesh, not "nepesh"
2. The word IS in the verse. I quoted it. You can stick your fingers in your ears but the bottom line is that it is in there. אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ

The scholars who translated my Bible know Hebrew much better than you do. If you understood what the guilt offering consist of, you would understand that passage.

That's a lovely, yet baseless assertion. The people who translated my bible know Hebrew better than the people who translated yours. So there.

It is such a comfort the have someone in the forum that is more intelligent than God. Have you told Him He got it wrong?

Now you claim to be God? Because you are the one who got it wrong, not God. He made a clear statement and you refuse to see it.

To have "guilt offering" in a passage and ignore it show a complete lack of logic.

To claim that "guilt offering" is there when it isn't, and rely on that is a lack of logic, but since you have already said, "Logic is not needed" I guess this works for you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, I do have evidence, which I posted already. He was scourged which makes a disqualifying blemish and he cursed fruit trees which violates torah law.


Well, since there is no "guilt offering" to cross out and sacrifices are not smitten, pierced or crushed, this doesn't seem particularly useful.


1. The word is nephesh, not "nepesh"
2. The word IS in the verse. I quoted it. You can stick your fingers in your ears but the bottom line is that it is in there. אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ


That's a lovely, yet baseless assertion. The people who translated my bible know Hebrew better than the people who translated yours. So there.



Now you claim to be God? Because you are the one who got it wrong, not God. He made a clear statement and you refuse to see it.

To claim that "guilt offering" is there when it isn't, and rely on that is a lack of logic, but since you have already said, "Logic is not needed" I guess this works for you.

^ this

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The scholars who translated my Bible know Hebrew much better than you do.

Just out of curiosity, which is 'your' bible and who are these scholars?

 

[omega2xx]

Actually, I do have evidence, which I posted already. He was scourged which makes a disqualifying blemish and he cursed fruit trees which violates torah law.

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

Well, since there is no "guilt offering" to cross out and sacrifices are not smitten, pierced or crushed, this doesn't seem particularly useful.<<

You need a fee more lessons in Hebrew. Why don't you check the JPS and see it they use those words.

1. The word is nephesh, not "nepesh"

You can stick your fingers in your ears but the bottom line is t]אִם תָּשִׂים ]

That's a lovely, yet baseless assertion. The people who translated my bible know Hebrew better than the people who translated yours. So there.[/QUOTE]

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

Now you claim to be God? Because you are the one who got it wrong, not God. He made a clear statement and you refuse to see it.<<

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

To claim that "guilt offering" is there when it isn't, and rely on that is a lack of logic, but since you have already said, "Logic is not needed" I guess this works for you.

"guilt offering is there. Logic is not needed.

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

 

[omega2xx]

Just out of curiosity, which is 'your' bible and who are these scholars?

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

 

[MHz]

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

You missed the part about that version had to make many changes to get it's own copyright due to the 1611KJV Bible being translated out of Hebrew for the NT (by Jews in Jerusalem) and out of Greek for the NT.
That alone makes your version a flawed translation. Let me guess, it is promoted as the 'easy to read and understand' version.