The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[omega2xx]

Another miss for you. The phantom status is a function of knowing religious law. If one knows Jewish law then one knows that the two labels are mutually exclusive as a function of that law.

I am not interested in knowing some non-Biblical, man-made theory.

He did. And gave Jews the laws.

God gave the Jews the law. He used Moses to relay it to them. There really is not such things as the "laws of Moses."

So since you concede that I'm an expert is should be difficult for you to disregard my translation now.

Being an expert in the language does not mean you are an expert in interpretation.

This should call into question most everything you have asserted. The funny thing is, most every Jew starts on this level of expertise and you disregard the opinions of people who have a baseline knowledge that well surpasses yours.

Most Jews are not experts in Hebrew and I don't need their base line to understand the OT. My understanding trhe NT helps me better understand the OT. Everyone learns the same way---prayer---study---prayer---study until you die.

 

[omega2xx]

I am more than qualified to judge the translation of Isaiah 7:14 and the intention behind it.

What are your qualifications?

No. And when I do the first three entries that come up refer to the Jehovah's Witness NWT. For what it's worth, they apparently translate Isaiah 7:13-14 as ...

FYI, the NWT, is not a translation.

Isaiah then said: “Listen, please, O house of David. Is it not enough that you try the patience of men? Must you also try the patience of God? Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will name him Im·manʹu·el.

* or maiden

Now, what is your point?

Much of the NWT is just copying from other Bibles.

I see that childish retorts are getting you absolutely nowhere, but that was predictable.

I am not trying to get anywhee with you. You know everthing sao no one can teahy you anything


Thanks for sharing. In fact, I have have a bookshelf full of both.

By the way, if and when you become willing to actually avail yourself of the relevant scholarship, two excellent translations and commentaries are:

• Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Joseph Blenkinsopp, and, even more so
• First Isaiah (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) by J. J. M. Roberts

Since you have not tole me what they say, I can't comment on it.

I have a complete set of OT commentaries by Keil and Delitzsch who are considered 2 of the best OT interpreters in Christianity. I also have commentaries on Isaiah by H.A Ironside, Albert Barns and J. Alec Motyer,also considered 3 of the best interpreters of the Bible.

 

[omega2xx]

I very much appreciate discovering that you respect scholarship, and I have no doubt that many respected (albeit anonymous) scholars were behind the development of the NASB.

But you then arrogantly dismiss the scholarship of people such as ...

• Joseph Blenkinsopp
• J. J. M. Roberts
• Harold Lous Ginsberg
• Harry M. Orlinsky<<

I do not know enough about any of them to dismiss their scholarship.
... the latter two being the highly acclaimed scholars who led the JPS Isaiah translation team. You will note further that Orlinsky "had been a translator of the Revised Standard Version and would become the only translator of that version to work also on the New Revised Standard Version." [ibid] Speaking of which, the Wikipedia entry fully identifies a robust team of scholars and offers: "The New Revised Standard Version is the version most commonly preferred by biblical scholars and used in the most influential publications in the field."

Then versions you just mentioned are all very good translations and I know anyone associated with with translation those versions are will qualified and conservative theologians.

The NRSV may be the most accepted now, but before that, the NASB was always in the top 3 of the most accurate Bibles. The NRSV is my churches pew Bible.

I am still wondering what the difference is that they say in Isiah, that I do not accept.

 

[rosends]

I am not interested in knowing some non-Biblical, man-made theory.

So you should disregard the gospels and any other interpretation which masks as translation.

God gave the Jews the law. He used Moses to relay it to them. There really is not such things as the "laws of Moses."

"of" has a variety of uses in English. While one denotes ownership, another denotes association.
Look at the definitions here, Google specifically #3 and the the subdefinition under #3.

Being an expert in the language does not mean you are an expert in interpretation.

As long as you say the same of the "translation" you rely on. At least now you can see that it is an interpretation.

Most Jews are not experts in Hebrew and I don't need their base line to understand the OT. My understanding trhe NT helps me better understand the OT. Everyone learns the same way---prayer---study---prayer---study until you die.

Actually, many people learn through a slot of study and not as much prayer. This reminds me of the old story -- a Gentile girl was talking with a Jewish girl in her school at the turn of the century. The non-Jewish girl bemoaned her poor grades.
"I lit a candle and prayed and yet I still did poorly!" she moaned.
The Jewish girl said, "I, too lit a candle."
The Gentile girl was taken aback. "You did? The Jews also light candles?"
"Yes," the Jewish girl responded, "I lit the candle so I could stay up late and study."

 

[omega2xx]

So you should disregard the gospels and any other interpretation which masks as translation.

Evidently you don't understand the difference between interpretation and translation.

"of" has a variety of uses in English. While one denotes ownership, another denotes association.
Look at the definitions here, Google specifically #3 and the the subdefinition under #3.

So what's your point?

As long as you say the same of the "translation" you rely on. At least now you can see that it is an interpretation.

Thanks for affirming what I just said---you don't know the difference between translation and interpretation.

Actually, many people learn through a slot of study and not as much prayer.

While that is true, it doe snot apply to me. My formula is pray---study---pray---study until I die. One thing I always say as part of my prayer is "God, please show me something new today, that I can apply to my life."

This reminds me of the old story -- a Gentile girl was talking with a Jewish girl in her school at the turn of the century. The non-Jewish girl bemoaned her poor grades.
"I lit a candle and prayed and yet I still did poorly!" she moaned.
The Jewish girl said, "I, too lit a candle."
The Gentile girl was taken aback. "You did? The Jews also light candles?"
"Yes," the Jewish girl responded, "I lit the candle so I could stay up late and study."

I like that. I hop I can remember it.

Itg reminds me of a story abut the old tiem churches that put the offering box in the entrance to the sanctuary and the people put their offering in the box as came into the sanctuary The preacher would one dollar in the box and after the service he would take what was in the box. It was usually the dollar he had put in. One day he expressed his disappointment in the offering. His wife told him, "honey if you put more into it, you would get more out of it.

 

[rosends]

Evidently you don't understand the difference between interpretation and translation.

Quote the opposite. I am very clear on it but you have been throwing the words around without being clear on their meaning and distinction.

So what's your point?

That you also don't know what the term "law of Moses" means because you don't know the various meanings of the word "of." And if you can't understand that, then you have other comprehension issues as well.

Thanks for affirming what I just said---you don't know the difference between translation and interpretation.

Feel free to infer that if you would like. It doesn't follow from my statement but it is perfectly in line with how you have been responding.

While that is true, it doe snot apply to me. My formula is pray---study---pray---study until I die. One thing I always say as part of my prayer is "God, please show me something new today, that I can apply to my life."

"Just don't make it something which undermines what I think I know, because then I'll have to reject it."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am still wondering what the difference is that they say in Isiah, that I do not accept.

Given incoherent questions such as ...

Do you not know part of the prophecy says they will name the child Emanuel? How an they find thr right child if the mother is nota virgin?

... that much is clear.

 

[omega2xx]

Quote the opposite. I am very clear on it but you have been throwing the words around without being clear on their meaning and distinction.

The way you use them shows you do not understand the difference.

That you also don't know what the term "law of Moses" means because you don't know the various meanings of the word "of." And if you can't understand that, then you have other comprehension issues as well.<<

Still wrong. I know what the law of Moses refers to and i know the various used of "of.'

Feel free to infer that if you would like. It doesn't follow from my statement but it is perfectly in line with how you have been responding.

"Just don't make it something which undermines what I think I know, because then I'll have to reject it."

I don' have to make up anything, You clearly don' know he difference between translation and interpretation.

 

[rosends]

The way you use them shows you do not understand the difference.

You can keep claiming that but the thread speaks for itself. You have preferred versions that include words that aren't there and when I show you the actual translation you say you prefer your interpretations but then say that my translation is interpretation. You are very confused. I cannot help you if you don't want to be helped.

Still wrong. I know what the law of Moses refers to and i know the various used of "of.'

See, here's the thing. If you truly knew the many meanings of "of" then you wouldn't insist that the text is not the "law of Moses." So since you have a problem with that phrase, you clearly DON'T know the meanings of the word, no matter how much you protest (too much, methinks). The same holds true with your repeated insistence about translation and interpretation. You throw the words around haphazardly and all it shows is a lack of mastery of English on your part.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, many people learn through a slot of study and not as much prayer. This reminds me of the old story -- a Gentile girl was talking with a Jewish girl in her school at the turn of the century. The non-Jewish girl bemoaned her poor grades.
"I lit a candle and prayed and yet I still did poorly!" she moaned.
The Jewish girl said, "I, too lit a candle."
The Gentile girl was taken aback. "You did? The Jews also light candles?"
"Yes," the Jewish girl responded, "I lit the candle so I could stay up late and study."

Missed this. Very nice.

 

[omega2xx]

You can keep claiming that but the thread speaks for itself. You have preferred versions that include words that aren't there and when I show you the actual translation you say you prefer your interpretations but then say that my translation is interpretation. You are very confused. I cannot help you if you don't want to be helped.

Let me explain the differences as simply as possible.
Translation---Defining words. This depends on the expertise of the translator in the language
Interpretation---Explaining understanding of the words. This depends on the expertise of the one reading the words.

You are the one who is confused. My version does not omit any words. When your translation differs from mine, I will us the translation done by those who know Hebrew better than you do. This will give me a better chance of properly understanding the passage. I have NEVER said your translation is interpretation.

See, here's the thing. If you truly knew the many meanings of "of" then you wouldn't insist that the text is not the "law of Moses." So since you have a problem with that phrase, you clearly DON'T know the meanings of the word, no matter how much you protest (too much, methinks). The same holds true with your repeated insistence about translation and interpretation. You throw the words around haphazardly and all it shows is a lack of mastery of English on your part.

Here's the thing. You think I don't understand the used of "of" because my interpretation, not my translation, differs from yours. I have no problem with any passages that has "the law of Moses. I might or might not when you interpret a verse as "the law of Moses" when the phrase is not in the passage.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[rosends]

Let me explain the differences as simply as possible.
Translation---Defining words. This depends on the expertise of the translator in the language
Interpretation---Explaining understanding of the words. This depends on the expertise of the one reading the words.

That's very nice. Except you prefer a "translation" that you admit, has concepts in it (and words) that are not found in accurate translations. Which means that you prefer an agendized interpretation and eschew and actual translation. Let me lay it out for you:

Post 154 -- you make a claim about the accuracy of the bible you use with the phrase "the scholars who translated" it.

Post 158 -- after reviewing the JPS you concede that the JPS does "have soul and not guilt offering. As much as I respect their translations, I will stick with what my bible says."

Therefore, you are ignoring a translation you respect and prefering an explanation which omits words and includes concepts not found in translation. This makes the bible you prefer an INTERPRETATION.

However...

In post 159 -- you claim that the NASB "is considered one of the most accurate Bibles in translating the Hebrew and the Greek into English." So you have called what you see is an interpretation a "translation."

So, in post 204 I simply called out that the text you admit is interpretation is called by you a translation. You just admitted through your definitions that a text which omits "soul" and inserts "guilt offering" is providing explanation not found in the definitions of words so for you not to accept that the NASB is an interpretation is intellectually dishonest.

You are the one who is confused. My version does not omit any words.

This contradicts the statement you made in post 158.

When your translation differs from mine, I will us the translation done by those who know Hebrew better than you do. This will give me a better chance of properly understanding the passage. I have NEVER said your translation is interpretation.

But you HAVE said that your interpretation is translation, and that's the problem.

Here's the thing. You think I don't understand the used of "of" because my interpretation, not my translation, differs from yours. I have no problem with any passages that has "the law of Moses. I might or might not when you interpret a verse as "the law of Moses" when the phrase is not in the passage.

Except I didn't invoke a verse that had "law of Moses", YOU did.

In post 201, you claimed " There really is not such things as the "laws of Moses."" However, you cited Luke in post 168 with the phrase.

All I was pointing out is that linguistically, there IS such a thing based on the various meanings of "of" and your complete dismissal of it ignores other meanings. Your choice. Strange that you dismiss a verse YOU cited.

I hope I laid out for you, with full citations, precisely my position and that you can, citing other relevant sources, explain your position, especially vis-a-vis the apparent contradictions you posted.

 

[omega2xx]

That's very nice. Except you prefer a "translation" that you admit, has concepts in it (and words) that are not found in accurate translations. Which means that you prefer an agendized interpretation and eschew and actual translation. Let me lay it out for you:

I have said no such thing. You need some lessons in reading between the line. You Aren't good at it.

Post 154 -- you make a claim about the accuracy of the bible you use with the phrase "the scholars who translated" it.

Post 158 -- after reviewing the JPS you concede that the JPS does "have soul and not guilt offering. As much as I respect their translations, I will stick with what my bible says."

Therefore, you are ignoring a translation you respect and prefering an explanation which omits words and includes concepts not found in translation. This makes the bible you prefer an INTERPRETATION.

No I am accepting a translation I believe is more accurate then the JPS. If you do a complete comparison,. you will find the JPS has come passages using exactly the same words as my Bible but different than soem in your Bible.

]However...

In post 159 -- you claim that the NASB "is considered one of the most accurate Bibles in translating the Hebrew and the Greek into English." So you have called what you see is an interpretation a "translation."

You still don't see the difference between a translation and an interpretaion. Translations do not interpret, they only define words.

So, in post 204 I simply called out that the text you admit is interpretation is called by you a translation. You just admitted through your definitions that a text which omits "soul" and inserts "guilt offering" is providing explanation not found in the definitions of words so for you not to accept that the NASB is an interpretation is intellectually dishonest.

Your insistence that translation and interpretation are the same comes from your ignorance of the words.

This contradicts the statement you made in post 158.

No it doesn't. It show you lack of understanding.

But you HAVE said that your interpretation is translation, and that's the problem.

Your problem is you say I have said something I have not said. If you want to speak of intellectual dishonesty, start there.

Except I didn't invoke a verse that had "law of Moses", YOU did.

Actually you first said that I do not understand the term.

In post 201, you claimed " There really is not such things as the "laws of Moses."" However, you cited Luke in post 168 with the phrase.

In response to you using the term.

All I was pointing out is that linguistically, there IS such a thing based on the various meanings of "of" and your complete dismissal of it ignores other meanings. Your choice. Strange that you dismiss a verse YOU cited.

The term is the law, singular, not he laws, plural.

I hope I laid out for you, with full citations, precisely my position and that you can, citing other relevant sources, explain your position, especially vis-a-vis the apparent contradictions you posted.

I have explained my position and you have rejected it. Time to move on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No I am accepting a translation I believe is more accurate then the JPS. If you do a complete comparison,. you will find the JPS has come passages using exactly the same words as my Bible but different than soem in your Bible.

This is a laughably stupid comment. One would expect any two translations to have passages using "exactly the same words."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Translations do not interpret, they only define words.

And this is a remarkably stupid claim.

 

[omega2xx]

This is a laughably stupid comment. One would expect any two translations to have passages using "exactly the same words."

Not true. Many Hebrew words have several meanings and some seem unrelated. Different good scholars can choose different meanings. Now whose comment is is laughable and stupid?



...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[omega2xx]

And this is a remarkably stupid claim.

That is a ignorant remark.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a laughably stupid comment. One would expect any two translations to have passages using "exactly the same words."

Not true. Many Hebrew words have several meanings and some seem unrelated. Different good scholars can choose different meanings. Now whose comment is is laughable and stupid?

Actually, yours.

One of the truly frustrating things about discussions with you is that your responses are non-responsive, almost as if you don't comprehend the text you're quoting. So, for example, the fact words (Hebrew or otherwise) can have multiple meanings has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one would expect different translations on the Tanakh to have passages in common.

 

[rosends]

I have said no such thing. You need some lessons in reading between the line. You Aren't good at it.

Between the lines? You mean between the actual words you said are other stateents that contradict that?

No I am accepting a translation I believe is more accurate then the JPS. If you do a complete comparison,. you will find the JPS has come passages using exactly the same words as my Bible but different than soem in your Bible.

The NASB is more accurate even though it omits words that are in the Hebrew (soul) and inserts ideas that are not in the Hebrew (guilt offering). And this is your idea of a translation? SO be it. I leave you to your confusion.

You still don't see the difference between a translation and an interpretaion. Translations do not interpret, they only define words.

Translations also do not omit words or insert ideas, and yet the NASB does. You admitted this, and I cited where you did.

Your insistence that translation and interpretation are the same comes from your ignorance of the words.

No where did I say that they are the same. Now your position requires that you establish straw men? Notice how I quoted and cited to make my argument. I note you have not done the same.

No it doesn't. It show you lack of understanding.

More likely your failure in communicating your position effectively.

Your problem is you say I have said something I have not said. If you want to speak of intellectual dishonesty, start there.

I have quoted you and cited my claims. Instead of making empty assertions, why not do the same.

Actually you first said that I do not understand the term.

Your claim was that something does not exist. Since it clearly does exist, you must not understand the term. Show me how that is wrong instead of simply claiming that it is wrong.

In response to you using the term.

Show e where I used it. Your response is in post 168. You are responding to my post 163. Show me.

The term is the law, singular, not he laws, plural.

Yes, that's true. In post 197 I used the word "laws" but never in conjunction with "of Moses" so your objecting to it is meaningless.

I have explained my position and you have rejected it. Time to move on.

You have not substantiated anything you claim. If you are satisfied with that, then so am I.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually, yours.

One of the truly frustrating things about discussions with you is that your responses are non-responsive, almost as if you don't comprehend the text you're quoting. So, for example, the fact words (Hebrew or otherwise) can have multiple meanings has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one would expect different translations on the Tanakh to have passages in common.

Actually it perfectly explains why some translations, not interpretations, are different.