Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
What Tanach are you using? The one I use has "has". Well, actually, it has something else entirely, כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ
That all depends on what Tanakh is being used.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Tanach are you using? The one I use has "has". Well, actually, it has something else entirely, כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ
Really? Show me one that says anything different from what I quoted.That all depends on what Tanakh is being used.
Really? Show me one that says anything different from what I quoted.
No, you claimed that there is one. What is your source? Mine is Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 9I just did.
No, you claimed that there is one. What is your source? Mine is Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 9
That's the KJV of the bible. Not the Tanach. Thus your mistranslation.Tanakh, Isaiah 9:6-->"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, Dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele - Yo' etz el Gibbor Avi - ad Sa shalom wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God
Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace"
There's the Tanakh, Isaiah 9:6
That's the KJV of the bible. Not the Tanach. Thus your mistranslation.
What you can't handle is that you don't know what a Tanach is and that you aren't using one.What you can't handle when the Tanakh proves your wrong. That's to funny.ROFL
What you can't handle when the Tanakh proves your wrong. That's to funny.ROFL
OK, strike one. It is neither of those. It is a Hebrew acronym, spelled תַּנַ"ךְ. You can choose your transliteration and I'll choose mine.Ok here's both the Tanakh and the KJV
Why can't you at lease spell
It's Tanakh and not Tanach.
No, that's some English translation. Which one? I think the CJB which is a messianic version...that is, Christian. Not Jewish, not a Tanach. Strike two.Here's the Tanakh --> "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, Dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given a name Pele - Yo' etz el Gibbor Avi - ad sar Shalom, wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace"
Yes, another Christian mistranslated text. And if you want to respond to me, try not responding to yourself. Strike 3. You're out.Here's the KJV --> "For unto us a child is born, unto to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"
OK, strike one. It is neither of those. It is a Hebrew acronym, spelled תַּנַ"ךְ. You can choose your transliteration and I'll choose mine.
No, that's some English translation. Which one? I think the CJB which is a messianic version...that is, Christian. Not Jewish, not a Tanach. Strike two.
Yes, another Christian mistranslated text. And if you want to respond to me, try not responding to yourself. Strike 3. You're out.
Your mangled English only makes your woeful and ignorant position on this more pathetic.What ever do you mean, you were Strike out before you ever got started.
Your mangled English only makes your woeful and ignorant position on this more pathetic.
Sorry this really is awful, the Jewish translation using past tense is not a problem; the prophets often use past tense for future events, to confirm it will happen...No your mangled English of interpretation only makes you ignorant position more pathetic.
Maybe not. Maybe he was creating a new theology based on his own perception of God.
When the Christians created their new religion, they took the true words of the Tanakh and twisted them into verses like the one above to support their new theology. The verse in the Original Testament (that is, I s a 9:5) reads "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-Shalom; "
As shown in the Tanakh (Original Testament), this past-tense verse refers a prophecy that has already happened. All the titles are about G-d and the son is the righteous King Hezekiah.
Isaiah 9:6 isn't quoted by Christian authors in the Bible.
Isaiah 9:5 and Isaiah 9:7 are both Messianic events that haven't happened yet; garments rolled in blood is ascribed to the Lord at Judgement day (Isaiah 34), and the ever lasting kingdom is the Messianic age after that.
Prophets write in past tense for future events that will happen; almost like that enforces it will happen.
In my opinion.
I believe the idea of what judaism should be was at variance with what God intended and therefore Jesus knows that better than any Jew living at that time.
Do you believe the OT is reliably the Word of God? Jewish theology is based on this, as well as The Mishnah. They've spent a lot of effort to understand and implement the OT. Hard to argue they misunderstood it.
Other than the prophets declare in multiple places they won't understand it (Isaiah 29:9-14)... Moses said they're a stubborn people, who will eventually face the opposite direction (Deuteronomy 31:24-29).Hard to argue they misunderstood it.