• 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

rosends

Well-Known Member
Oh, snap! Don't hurt my feelings all at once now!

You needn't bite, I already told you, "In what sense."

David absolutely had a Mishkan.
Show me. Or is this another claim that is only supported by information that isn't known. Or did a mystery gentleman tell you this also?
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
You're messing up which letters are the roots and which letters are prefixes and suffixes for the word's construct. So far, I've seen you mention a few different roots, not realizing that they're unrelated.

Here they are:

משח - This is the root of the word that means Messiah. In its root form, its a third person masculine verb meaning "anointed". The Messiah is someone who is anointed (as are other kings and prophets). Because anointing was done as a way to appoint someone to an important position, it also became a loanword to indicate appointment or importance, such as when G-d calls Cyrus "His anointed" or when G-d gives the Terumah tithe to Aaron and sons.

משך - This root means to "draw out" (and in context can mean either to "pull" or "continue"). This is the root of one interpretation of Daniel's friend Meishach's (מישך) name (according to Rav Saadiah Gaon) and also for Meshech the son of Japheth.

סכך - This is root means "he covered". Its the root of the noun מסך meaning "curtain". Its found in a number of places in Exodus when referring to curtains that covered entrances.

פרסא - The Aramaic word for curtain. Literally, something that's spread out.​

שכן - This root means "dwell". It also means neighbor (ie. someone who dwells with you). It is the root of "Mishkan" - the place G-d used to dwell with Israel.


I understand that its hard to recognize letters of a language that's unfamiliar. So I'll show them here again for comparison in the same order. I've color coded them so you can easily identify similar letters. The words outside the parenthesis are the three letter verb roots, inside - the nouns in question:

משיח) משח) - m-sh-ḥ becomes moshiaḥ (note the dot under the last 'h' in the root verb and the noun) - Messiah
מישך) משך) - m-s-kh becomes Meishakh (kh as in the German 'ch' in Bach) - Meishakh
מסך) סכך) - s-kh-kh becomes mesekh - veil
משכן) שכן) - sh-kh-n becomes Mishkan - Tabernacle

As you can see these are four different unrelated roots, that when conjugated into nouns they create words that may sound similar to the unfamiliar ear. But once its spelled out, we can easily see that - for instance "Moshiach" and "Mishkan" come from roots that actually only have one letter in common. And the word for "veil" - "mesekh" actually share no root letters with the word for Messiah.

Lastly, the word "Shiloh" has an unclear root. A number of possibilities are given by commentaries. Shalom's root is sh-l-m. It is the Hebrew counterpart to the Arabic word "Salaam". "Islam" isn't derived from the same word.

Yeah... I was not offering interpretations that are actually valid despite your immense displeasure at them for the cause of debating someone who doesn't even think as I do, always a useless endeavor.

That said my source on the Shiloh prophecy and interpretation was from a Jewish source called Jews for Allah and not my own.

And the last Jewish Kingdom was in Arabia before Mohammed PBUH who easily fulfilled the prophecy as the "scepter" passed from Jacob when Shiloh-Shalom-Salaam-Islam came.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Mshcn is Mishkan, Ch is K in Hebrew.
Mshch is Maschiach, with a Nun at the end, instead of h.
In Hebrew kuf is kuf, kaf is kaf, chet is chet. Just because you can transliterate them in a certain way doesn't change the Hebrew alphabet.


Mishkan of David refers to his dwelling, which is covered by a "veil" or a tent.
Any mishkan that David "had" would not have been where he dwelled. Clearly you don't know what a mishkan is.

All it takes to make Messiah, Mishkan, in Hebrew, is a fish or Nun. The loss of the H is meaningless and in line with Rabbinical and Kabbalistic methods of interpretation.

Which to be fair is lost on the fundamental Christian.
What H? In the Hebrew, neither mishkan nor mashiach has an H in it. You really don't understand any of this, do you?
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
Show me. Or is this another claim that is only supported by information that isn't known. Or did a mystery gentleman tell you this also?

But do keep trying to argue with me, I love when people think that because they are unaware of it something can't be true or that the Bible is not open to interpretation.

It is definitely open to interpretation, considered by modern Jews foolish to do otherwise.

As the Zohar says, "Every new interpretation creates a new world."
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
But do keep trying to argue with me, I love when people think that because they are unaware of it something can't be true or that the Bible is not open to interpretation.

It is definitely open to interpretation, considered by modern Jews foolish to do otherwise.

As the Zohar says, "Every new interpretation creates a new world."
I enjoy when people think that just because they make it up, it must be true.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
In Hebrew kuf is kuf, kaf is kaf, chet is chet. Just because you can transliterate them in a certain way doesn't change the Hebrew alphabet.



Any mishkan that David "had" would not have been where he dwelled. Clearly you don't know what a mishkan is.


What H? In the Hebrew, neither mishkan nor mashiach has an H in it. You really don't understand any of this, do you?

The H in Maschiach.

It was not a complicated explanation. You are making it complicated, not me. It makes perfect sense.

And definitely over thinking a relatively simple concept. Maschiach is actually Hebrew and not Aramaic so it's not important about the H being replaced with an N, or a Ch, if anything that is the error I made, not H but Ch is replaced with N.

A harmless and honest error of one letter that was not significant as H and is no more as Ch.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
In Hebrew kuf is kuf, kaf is kaf, chet is chet. Just because you can transliterate them in a certain way doesn't change the Hebrew alphabet.



Any mishkan that David "had" would not have been where he dwelled. Clearly you don't know what a mishkan is.


What H? In the Hebrew, neither mishkan nor mashiach has an H in it. You really don't understand any of this, do you?

MisHkan... doesn't have an H?

Um...

Whatever you say about David's Mishkan is unreliable because an hour ago "David doesn't have a MisHkan" was your claim.

I see you have amended that error. Good. It takes an honest person to admit they were wrong.

But... what else will you (continue to) be wrong about so you can entertain yourself with pointless arguments about an open to interpretation book that I certainly have not erred in... Interpreting.

Do I even have to say clearly YOU don't know what a MisHkan is? Again, my source was Jewish, Messianic Jewish, and I am inclined to believe what I know when it is confirmed by others who know.

Tabernacle or Dwelling is what it means.

Like I said. It was different in David's time but later a part of the Temple.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The H in Maschiach.
There is no H in mashiach. The English transliteration of certain Hebrew letters requires using H in combination with S or C to create a sound not found in the English alphabet, but there is NO H in the word. You are stuck because of a bizarre claim - that a word in a language you don't know has a letter in it which it doesn't.



Maschiach is actually Hebrew and not Aramaic
Who said it was Aramaic?
so it's not important about the H being replaced with an N, or a Ch, if anything that is the error I made, not H but Ch is replaced with N.
Replacing a (non-existent) H with an N or a Ch? Changing a Ch into an N? You can't just switch letters and say it doesn't matter.
A harmless and honest error of one letter that was not significant as H and is no more as Ch.
Your entire interpretation rests on switching particular letters but now the letter is not significant? And what about the fact that in the 2 words, the Ch is two different letters?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
MisHkan... doesn't have an H?
No, it doesn't. You see, it is a Hebrew word and there is no H sound in it. The shin is transliterated as SH, but the H isn't a discrete letter that you can just swap out.

Whatever you say about David's Mishkan is unreliable because an hour ago "David doesn't have a MisHkan" was your claim.
You claimed that David's mishkan was where David dwelled. I said that is wrong -- David didn't have a mishkan. There was a tabernacle in existence but it was apart from David and where he lived. Your confusion is just that, yours.
Do I even have to say clearly YOU don't know what a MisHkan is? Again, my source was Jewish, Messianic Jewish, and I am inclined to believe what I know when it is confirmed by others who know.
What exactly was your source? Mine is the Hebrew language. Your thinking that "messianic Jewish" is Jewish is another error.
Tabernacle or Dwelling is what it means.

Like I said. It was different in David's time but later a part of the Temple.
Tabernacle is not the same as dwelling. This isn't even Hebrew. Your English is continually suspect.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
There is no H in mashiach. The English transliteration of certain Hebrew letters requires using H in combination with S or C to create a sound not found in the English alphabet, but there is NO H in the word. You are stuck because of a bizarre claim - that a word in a language you don't know has a letter in it which it doesn't.




Who said it was Aramaic?

Replacing a (non-existent) H with an N or a Ch? Changing a Ch into an N? You can't just switch letters and say it doesn't matter.

Your entire interpretation rests on switching particular letters but now the letter is not significant? And what about the fact that in the 2 words, the Ch is two different letters?

And is that supposed to invalidate my interpretation?

It doesn't. At all. It is honestly not even mine, I got it from a Messianic Jewish website.

The letter games WERE mine, but they are par for the course in Kabbalistic interpretation.

Which, again, is lost on Fundies to be fair. But I am a big Zohar fan, it's how it's done. One way.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
No, it doesn't. You see, it is a Hebrew word and there is no H sound in it. The shin is transliterated as SH, but the H isn't a discrete letter that you can just swap out.


You claimed that David's mishkan was where David dwelled. I said that is wrong -- David didn't have a mishkan. There was a tabernacle in existence but it was apart from David and where he lived. Your confusion is just that, yours.

What exactly was your source? Mine is the Hebrew language. Your thinking that "messianic Jewish" is Jewish is another error.

Tabernacle is not the same as dwelling. This isn't even Hebrew. Your English is continually suspect.

Mishkan means Tabernacle or dwelling, don't insult yourself by pretending to know things you don't because you are wrong and have been.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
No, it doesn't. You see, it is a Hebrew word and there is no H sound in it. The shin is transliterated as SH, but the H isn't a discrete letter that you can just swap out.


You claimed that David's mishkan was where David dwelled. I said that is wrong -- David didn't have a mishkan. There was a tabernacle in existence but it was apart from David and where he lived. Your confusion is just that, yours.

What exactly was your source? Mine is the Hebrew language. Your thinking that "messianic Jewish" is Jewish is another error.

Tabernacle is not the same as dwelling. This isn't even Hebrew. Your English is continually suspect.


It actually is. MisHkan means either.

And you are a bit of a complainer, nobody says you have to like it but don't make claims based on a lack of understanding of how others interpret scripture when it makes sense, even if not to you.

It is not like I didn't look up the meaning of MisHkan. I am not stupid.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
And is that supposed to invalidate my interpretation?

It doesn't. At all. It is honestly not even mine, I got it from a Messianic Jewish website.

The letter games WERE mine, but they are par for the course in Kabbalistic interpretation.

Which, again, is lost on Fundies to be fair. But I am a big Zohar fan, it's how it's done. One way.
Yes, it invalidates. You start with a false premise so you reach a false conclusion. Pretty basic.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
It actually is. MisHkan means either.

And you are a bit of a complainer, nobody says you have to like it but don't make claims based on a lack of understanding of how others interpret scripture when it makes sense, even if not to you.

It is not like I didn't look up the meaning of MisHkan. I am not stupid.
Another point we disagree on.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
No, it doesn't. You see, it is a Hebrew word and there is no H sound in it. The shin is transliterated as SH, but the H isn't a discrete letter that you can just swap out.


You claimed that David's mishkan was where David dwelled. I said that is wrong -- David didn't have a mishkan. There was a tabernacle in existence but it was apart from David and where he lived. Your confusion is just that, yours.

What exactly was your source? Mine is the Hebrew language. Your thinking that "messianic Jewish" is Jewish is another error.

Tabernacle is not the same as dwelling. This isn't even Hebrew. Your English is continually suspect.

Mishkan means Tabernacle or dwelling place or residence.

Which took all of 10 seconds to find out.

What was that, it doesn't mean what it's definition is? Such an odd thing to say.

Does sky still mean sky?
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
Another point we disagree on.

It is not a disagreement.

It is a person who knows a definition (myself) being told that the definition is not the definition every Jewish dictionary says it is. And fending off accusations of error that are baseless.

Big difference.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
First it's "David doesn't have a MisHkan."

Then, "MisHkan doesn't have an H."

Or was it Maschiach you meant?

Because I actually corrected myself on that oversight and it would be my self correction you are taking issue with about H vs Ch. Irrelevant either way, it matters not if I substitute an H with N or Ch with N, it makes the same point which is simply that a normal word play is at hand. That is just the Bible's way.

Then "Mishkan doesn't mean Tabernacle or dwelling place" when it definitely does.

We're I you I would stop. You are just trying too hard and out of your league. Go interpret everything literally like a good goy.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Mishkan means Tabernacle or dwelling place or residence.

Which took all of 10 seconds to find out.

What was that, it doesn't mean what it's definition is? Such an odd thing to say.

Does sky still mean sky?
It means tabernacle and is used to describe the location of the Ark of the Covenant in the desert and after. If you want to use it as "dwelling" like an apartment/residence then you can feel free. The text only uses it like that when the form is mishk'not, mishk'neyhem or other, longer constructions. It does use it in that sense in one other context -- when the word is connected to Korach.

Be that as it may, a tabernacle and a dwelling are still not the same thing. Just because a Hebrew word can be translated as 2 different English words doesn't make the two English words synonyms and interchangeable. The Hebrew word Masa means both "carry" and "prophecy." Those 2 words are not synonyms. Mateh is both stick and tribe. There might be an etymological reason but the words are not interchangeable. It is pretty simple.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Yeah... I was not offering interpretations that are actually valid despite your immense displeasure at them for the cause of debating someone who doesn't even think as I do, always a useless endeavor.
Well look, you've put forward an interpretation that has no basis. If you want someone to accept, you have to provide a basis for it. Both Rosends and I both explained to you how your idea has no basis in Hebrew grammar. So far, what you've been saying is something like "fissure and censure sound the same therefore they are related". It just makes no sense If you have something, say it. Otherwise, how can you be expected to be taken seriously?

That said my source on the Shiloh prophecy and interpretation was from a Jewish source called Jews for Allah and not my own.
I am not familiar with the site nor the Shiloh prophecy and interpretation you're referring to, but I'll say that not everything a Jew says, is a Jewish idea. Just because a Jew said it, doesn't mean his source was Jewish literature.

And the last Jewish Kingdom was in Arabia before Mohammed PBUH who easily fulfilled the prophecy as the "scepter" passed from Jacob when Shiloh-Shalom-Salaam-Islam came.
I see. You are trying to turn the word "Shiloh" into "Islam" to make Islam be a fulfillment of the prophecy. The only two words that are the same are Shalom and Salaam. The other two words are unrelated.

Anyway, it doesn't say that the scepter won't pass from Jacob it says the scepter won't pass from Judah. The Himayarite kingdom was a kingdom of converts. They weren't from the tribe of Judah, so they never had Judah's scepter to begin with.
 
Top