1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Help Translate Messiah in Isaiah 52:14

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by wizanda, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:30 AM.

  1. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    There is a typo shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Isaiah 52:14, where it has missed a yod at the end of the word many have translated as 'Marred', which then makes the meaning of the word, 'my anointed' i.e. 'My Messiah'.

    Here is a picture from the Dead Sea Scrolls with the missing yod:

    amAlk.png

    כאשר שממו עליך רבים כן־משחתי מאיש מראהו ותארו מבני האדם

    Isaiah 52:14 Just as many were astonished by him. For my anointed as a man, his appearance, and his form as a son of man.

    This translation is my current understanding, aware could add better English; yet want a second opinion can anyone translate this better, keeping to what was originally there?

    This make so much more sense of what is written with the word 'Messiah' in there; as it is silly saying the suffering servant was 'disfigured', 'marred' or 'blemished', when we've got no reason to justify it in the context of everything else said.

    Especially the line before it:

    Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely. He will be exalted and lifted up, and will be very high...

    Yet he is disfigured more than any other men? :rolleyes:

    Think it makes far more logical sense with the right word, as this explains where the earlier understanding came from that Isaiah 53 is Messianic. :innocent:
     
  2. Tumah

    Tumah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +4,638
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    The type is not a missing yod but an extra one at the end of the word where the MT has none. The verse as its written in the DSS says:

    כאשר שממו עליךה רבים כן משחתי מאיש מראהו ותארו מבני האדם

    As / they were astounded / about youh / many / so / I anointed / from man / his appearance / and his visage / from sons / the man.

    Or in regular English:

    "As much as the many were astounded by you, so I anointed his appearance more than man and his visage from the sons of man."

    Its most likely a scribal error since anointing is not something you do to one's appearance, you do it to one's head or body. Also the contrast doesn't make so much sense: To the degree that others were astounded about you, that's the degree that you were anointed from everyone else. Anointing doesn't work in degrees. A thing is either anointed or not anointed.

    Without going through the whole scroll to see if there's other extra yod's at the end of the word, there's no way I can know for sure though.

    There are a number of textual differences between Isaiah in the MT and the DSS in these three verses alone. Most of them are spelling differences that I noticed in a few other cases as well. Not all of them make sense to me. From my perspective most of them look like incorrectly added letters (as is the case of the OP). Without another source to compare it to, I don't know if this is normal spelling for the time or not.

    הנה ישכיל עבדי
    וירום ונשא וגבה מואדה. כאשר שממו עליךה רבים כן משחתי מאיש מראהו ותארו מבני אדם. כן יזה גואים רבים עליו יקפצו מלכים פיהמה כיא את אשר לוא ספר להמה ראו ואשר לוא שמעו התבוננו

     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    If Yeshuat Eloheinu (Salvation of our God Isaiah 52:10) is a manifestation of YHVH, then people would be astounded that he appeared as a man. ;)
    Not sure why you swapped the words around, as in the order the words are placed; it seems that it is the man that is 'my anointed', not the appearance?

    Doesn't adding a yod make it 'my' or 'I'? :innocent:
     
  4. Tumah

    Tumah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +4,638
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    I'd rather ignore stupidity if you don't mind.

    No, I don't know the grammatical names for it, but the word "I anointed" isn't going on the following word, because the following word is "more than man (lit. from man). Its going on the word after that, "his appearance". In English you don't talk that way, but its common in Biblical Hebrew. If you want to read it more exactly, its:

    כן משחתי מאיש מראהו

    So I annointed - more than man - his appearance
    and his visage, more than the sons of man.

    It can't be the man that's anointed, because it doesn't say "man", its one word that says "from man".

    If the word is a noun it makes it "my", if the word is a verb, its makes it "I". In this case, the suffix is a tav-yod on a verb, making it something I did.
    משיחי - coming from the noun משיח is "my messiah".
    משחתי (as here) - coming from the verb משח is "I anointed".
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Ignoring our own ignorance, doesn't make us any wiser...

    Psalms 98 has the same statements, saying we shall physically see the salvation of our God (Yeshuat Elohienu). :innocent:
     
  6. Tumah

    Tumah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +4,638
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    Yeah. We've had this discussion where you attempt to explain how despite all normative grammatical rules, the words are referring to Jesus. The suggestion isn't even worth the bytes on the server its taking up. Certainly not worth any more response.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Firstly thanks for the help.
    As saying ignoring our own ignorance, doesn't lead to wisdom, and since you're clearly not even understanding the metaphoric statements within them passages; it is a shame you don't want help understanding it.
    So caught up on grammar, miss the blatantly obvious; it isn't a name, it is a place holder for YHVH to be made physically manifest. :innocent:
     
  8. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,500
    Ratings:
    +1,311
    Religion:
    Jewish
    If you are going to toss out grammar and the rules of language selectively, you can decide that anything means what you want it to. Take the phrase "ezrati hayita" (Psalms 27:9). It means "you were my help" but if you ignore how the language works, you might as well say "You were Ezra, the manifestation of God" and turn this is into a prediction prophesying Ezra as a manifestation, physically, of God. So if that is your method, then you can't deny that the three instances of the word Machmad in Ezekiel must refer to the physical manifestation of God as Mohammed (Machmud) in front of the eyes of the people (as the phrase reads "machmad einecha" - the Machmad of your eyes in its first use).

    And if that's your approach, then no phrase necessarily means anything because grammar is optional.
     
  9. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    No one is throwing anything out, other than the Rabbinic Jews who refuse to acknowledge they could be wrong, and instead just dismiss anything that isn't very basic to understand.

    Like we can take every line within the text, and systematically show how the glove fits; yet not if the only goal is to dismiss...

    Whilst being in a state of denial, it is very hard to examine the truths, if the only goal is to show where others are wrong. :innocent:
     
  10. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,500
    Ratings:
    +1,311
    Religion:
    Jewish
    And yet you said this to the Rabbinic Jew who was pointing out that your comment was ungrammatical "So caught up on grammar, miss the blatantly obvious; it isn't a name, it is a place holder for YHVH to be made physically manifest"

    So you first say that someone sticking to the grammar is caught up in it so he missed a meaning which you developed outside of the grammar, then you say you aren't throwing the grammar out. You really should make up your mind.
    You can show how the glove fits if you don't get "caught up on grammar", right? LIke I did to show how the text brings up Ezra and Mohammed, right? Or are you so stuck on your belief in Jesus that you are in denial of those other truths I gave you? ;)
     
  11. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Find trying to dissect everything someone says, simply to dismiss it mentally unstable; which is why walked off from our last conversation. :(
    The point in those statements wasn't to remove grammar, Pardes or any other logical system of analyzing a text; it is simply meaning the same thing now having to say to you....

    It is extremely rude to continually be so dismissive without taking on board where someone is coming from, and just shows a weak faith, to not be able to rationally analyze something, without needing to take it all on board.
    Always completely open to question everything; yet unfortunately the context of those sentences doesn't imply what you've theoretically inserted into the text...

    Whereas within the instance of Isaiah 52:10 and Psalms 98, a systematic methodology can be shown; when people are not so busy with their own belief, 'it isn't a name'. :innocent:
     
  12. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,500
    Ratings:
    +1,311
    Religion:
    Jewish
    When you proved unable to answer simple points, what more was there to say? You are using your own invented reading of things to substantiate your belief. That's your choice. A foolish one, but whatever floats your boat. And in terms of "walking off" you might want to see how much you responded to my post 74 on that other thread. It wasn't I who walked off.
    So now you don't want to remove grammar? You want to invoke the concept of PaRDeS? Then you don't understand how PaRDeS works.
    Where you are coming from? Pretend-ville. And so I am answering within the context of seeing that you are comfortable making things up. The grammar has been analyzed but you deny it by saying that one shouldn't get caught up in grammar and that the text means something else entirely which substantiates the misreading you are bound to. Pretty straightforward.
    Always getting caught up in the context...the words are clear if you look to the PaRDeS system. Wait, are you saying that there are other rules at work which would prevent the interpretation I presented? How you are caught up in denial so much that you can't see truth is just sad to watch.
    Of course it isn't a name. It is a noun with a suffix indicating that it is possessed by the preceding noun - the two together describe a concept which goes beyond the simple sum of the parts. cf chemdat yamim, ahavat kelulotayich, me'irat eynayim.
     
    #12 rosends, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:38 AM
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM
  13. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,504
    Ratings:
    +1,048
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Unfortunately always able to answer the questions; it is the responses that are given, that then shows the person isn't really listening, other then to their already presupposed predispositions, which is often that they don't like certain beliefs.

    Thus learned it is a warning sign, that the conversation won't progress logically. :oops:
    That is what everyone is doing; scholars, rabbis, come up with their own ideas, and even those who are guided by God, still have to question things for themselves as well.
    See will explain to help you...

    Here instead of listen to what was being said, you've continued on your own train of thought, even tho the track said the complete opposite direction.
    See will explain again...

    Like here the ego is presenting what it thinks 'i know'; yet how can it know what I'm aware of?...

    Plus notice how the attempts to belittle, as if that will mean everything else said is more solid; yet not actually doing anything for the understanding, other than showing a not very mature soul.
    Coming from being caring, and trying to help people; how about you? :heart:
    Again to explain...

    As well as lots of sweeping statements without much evidence; you then move back on to the same illogical point stated earlier...

    The grammar in both Isaiah 52:10 and Psalms 98, is what it is meant to be, it is saying 'we shall see the salvation of our God', and why mentioning Pardes or any other form of metaphoric exegesis, we can look at it in multiple ways.

    Within context of everything else stated in multiple chapters, it fits in a rational methodology with the grammar as stated throughout...

    Yet to not even get to the part of explaining any of the contextual aspects, as the grammar police scream, "it isn't a name" straightaway, before even understanding any of the context being applied, is ridiculous...

    Sorry unless you learn to be more polite, and less rude, not going to continue conversing with you. :innocent:
     
    #13 wizanda, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:15 AM
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017 at 11:36 AM
  14. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,500
    Ratings:
    +1,311
    Religion:
    Jewish
    So that's why you walked away on the other thread...you didn't like the responses I gave. OK. Thanks for being honest.

    Ah, so you feel that everyone is on the same level, all inventing, so your invention is as valid as anyone else's. That's irrational, but have fun with that.

    Actually, not only did I listen, but I quoted it back to you. You, instead of confronting your own error have run, run and then run some more.
    You are judged by your fruit, I guess. Your fruit portrays a lack of knowledge of the PaRDeS system, so I infer that you don't know it. Well, maybe you do and are intentionally invoking it incorrectly. Or maybe you invented your own system which is as valid as anyone else's.
    If you don't want to feel belittled, stop being little.
    There was as much evidence as you present. I just mirrored your approach and you can't handle it. That's OK with me.
    So now the grammar is something that is acceptable. OK, good. The PaRDeS system though, limits how you can look at it. At best, you seem to be calling forth remez and hoping that you can pass this off as a remez to the gospel character you seem so hooked on. The problem is, PaRDeS has its source in a culture and a belief system which also taught "אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו" and your reading breaks that rule.
    No, it goes against the logic the moment it is used to refer to something external to the specific reference point in its grammatical structure.
    Funny how I don't recall saying "it isn't a name". I only recall pointing out that its use as a reference to someone by dint of the person's name can be extended and applied to other constructs. You, stuck in your denial, have to day "but that's different."
    Oh, so you'll walk away again? My day, she is ruined.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. Tumah

    Tumah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +4,638
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    You're quite welcome.

    Grammar? in up, catching me who! will correcting never Understood saying being; importance "metaphorically Things - only:

    right

    you
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...