Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[rosends]

well check these sites and see what they say. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/berei****-genesis-chapter-22

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8217

and BIBLE HUB, with the Hebrew. Genesis 22:8 Hebrew Text Analysis

did they ... Go? ,... Went? or did they stay right where they were? ... thank you... (smile) .... LOL. Oh dear......

101G.

great -- so you are admitting that you are relying on other people's translations and don't actually know the Hebrew. That's a great step on your part, admitting your ignorance and reliance on others. What's funny is that you cite the concordance which, in only those two cases, translates the word as "provide." In all other cases, your concordance uses a word related to "look" or "see." In fact, the chabad site and the Jewish Virtual Library site you refer to also have a "see" word in 22:14, so why do you think that the translation you refer to has a built in inconsistency?

The Jewish Virtual Library site uses the JPS translation which is based on the KJV which has the same error. In other words, you are relying on mistakes and agendas in the translations and you are too ignorant to understand that as a problem.

And if you can't see the error in the translation of the conjunction "and" as the word "so" then you just don't know English.

"Oh dear" indeed.

 

[101G]

great -- so you are admitting that you are relying on other people's translations and don't actually know the Hebrew.

not relying on your Hebrew.... you can take that to the Bank.

That's a great step on your part, admitting your ignorance and reliance on others.

which you're not one of the OTHERSD, yes a GREAT STEP. and you need to step back....

What's funny is that you cite the concordance which, in only those two cases, translates the word as "provide." In all other cases, your concordance uses a word related to "look" or "see." In fact, the chabad site and the Jewish Virtual Library site you refer to also have a "see" word in 22:14, so why do you think that the translation you refer to has a built in inconsistency?

you go and see...... (smile).

The Jewish Virtual Library site uses the JPS translation which is based on the KJV which has the same error.

EXCUSE? thought so.
so, are the Other two sites in ERROR also? LOL, LOL, LOL, .... YIKES!



101G.

 

[rosends]

not relying on your Hebrew.... you can take that to the Bank.

Fantastic. You aren't relying on the Hebrew. Perfect. And you admit that you are relying on the English of the KJV which has a mistake in it. Yes, a mistake. And the JPS copied the error. You would notice, if you looked, that the other sites fixed the error in verse 14 (same word, different translation). But that would be too much to ask from you.

Klein Dictionary, ראה

ראה to see. — Qal - רָאָה 1 he saw; 2 he looked at, beheld; 3 he perceived; 4 he conceived, understood; 5 he observed, considered,...

www.sefaria.org

maybe you prefer the Aramaic
וַאֲמַר אַבְרָהָם קֳדָם יְיָ גְּלֵי לֵיהּ אִימְרָא לַעֲלָתָא

probably not. Did you know that the updated JPS (not stuck with the 1917 which is a KJV redux) doesn't have "provide"?

"And Abraham said, “It is God who will see to the sheep for this burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them walked on together."

But you just keep on with your broken English and non-existent Hebrew, pretending you understand the text.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry friends, he cannot be the suffering servant if he cried out loudly to God, "Why have you foresaken me?" That is the opposite of silent like a lamb to the slaughter. Sure, a person can soften the prophecy, and lower their standards. But that weakens any other scriptural argument one makes. There are people out there that claim Christ has returned. And in order to "prove" it they reduce the expectations and make the prophecies more acheivable. If people do that with the suffering servant, then other people can do it too.

He was silent to Herod, silent to the mob, bore his punishment without screaming, accepted his lot.
But... he did answer Pilot, did warn people of what will become of Israel, did tell John to care for his mother and did show us that he took upon himself our own experiences of being forsake by God. The argument lies in nuance and subtility. Meanwhile you yourself can't have your own argument weakened.

 

[101G]

But you just keep on with your broken English and non-existent Hebrew, pretending you understand the text.

(smile) I will...... now one question for you. in your Hebrew is "YHWH"/God H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m. is this identification of God plural? yes or NO.

just a yes or no please.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

was not he, the Christ, Shiloh, injuriously treated by the Jews? did they not used him very ill, (and desired a murderer). and handled him very roughly; he was oppressed and afflicted, both in body and mind, with their blows, and with their reproaches, of false charges; he was afflicted, indeed, both by God and men. because he was provided for this being in a human body. he too our place.

If so, that covers the first 7 words of the verse. What about the remaining 30 words? Those last 30 words repeat the same concept twice emphasizing it. It wouldn't be repeated it if wasn't important.

now, verse 10. Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

Woh. We may need to table this discussion on verse 10. I apologize for bringing it up. I should have checked the KJV first. There's translation issues here, and I would rather not argue those. Since there aren't those same issues with verse 7, then, we should probably just stick with that.

 

[101G]

Fantastic. You aren't relying on the Hebrew. Perfect. And you admit that you are relying on the English of the KJV which has a mistake in it. Yes, a mistake. And the JPS copied the error. You would notice, if you looked, that the other sites fixed the error in verse 14 (same word, different translation). But that would be too much to ask from you.

Klein Dictionary, ראה

ראה to see. — Qal - רָאָה 1 he saw; 2 he looked at, beheld; 3 he perceived; 4 he conceived, understood; 5 he observed, considered,...

www.sefaria.org

maybe you prefer the Aramaic
וַאֲמַר אַבְרָהָם קֳדָם יְיָ גְּלֵי לֵיהּ אִימְרָא לַעֲלָתָא

probably not. Did you know that the updated JPS (not stuck with the 1917 which is a KJV redux) doesn't have "provide"?

"And Abraham said, “It is God who will see to the sheep for this burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them walked on together."

But you just keep on with your broken English and non-existent Hebrew, pretending you understand the text.

I did a little researching. on why the term provide was used in Genesis 22:8. we suggest you read this at the Stack Exchange. Genesis 22: Jehovah Jireh.

101G.

 

[rosends]

(smile) I will...... now one question for you. in your Hebrew is "YHWH"/God H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m. is this identification of God plural? yes or NO.

just a yes or no please.

101G.

No.

 

[rosends]

I did a little researching. on why the term provide was used in Genesis 22:8. we suggest you read this at the Stack Exchange. Genesis 22: Jehovah Jireh.

101G.

Did you even read through it? The answer you cited says that it is an acceptable secondary meaning though it provides no reason to prove that. The next answer says unequivocally, "But, "Provide" is not an accurate translation"

 

[101G]

If so, that covers the first 7 words of the verse. What about the remaining 30 words? Those last 30 words repeat the same concept twice emphasizing it. It wouldn't be repeated it if wasn't important.

Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

yet he opened not his mouth; not against the oppressor that did him the injury, and also nor murmured at the affliction that was heavy upon him, (the sins of the world), now get this, <<<and he opened not his mouth>>>>> against the justice of God, (who is merciful) and the demand that was made upon him, as the surety of his people he carried the obligation God had laid on him, he paid the debt, and bore the punishment without any dispute or hesitation: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb. this figurative phrase is expressive, not only of the harmlessness and innocence of Christ, as considered in himself, but of his meekness and patience in suffering, and of his readiness and willingness to be sacrificed (forsaken),in the stead of his people; he went to the cross without any reluctance, (this was foreordained). Christ, Shiloh, went as willingly to be sacrificed as a lamb goes to the slaughter house, and was as silent under his sufferings as a sheep while under the hands of its shearers, he was willing to be stripped of all he had, as a shorn sheep, and to be slaughtered and sacrificed as a lamb, for the sins of his people. all of this was ..... again, was foreordained.
this is why we're called Christians... following in his foot steps. 1 Peter 2:20 "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." 1 Peter 2:21 "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:" 1 Peter 2:23 "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:" 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Peter 2:25 "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

101G.

 

[dybmh]

He was silent to Herod, silent to the mob, bore his punishment without screaming, accepted his lot.
But... he did answer Pilot, did warn people of what will become of Israel, did tell John to care for his mother and did show us that he took upon himself our own experiences of being forsake by God. The argument lies in nuance and subtility. Meanwhile you yourself can't have your own argument weakened.

For me, it's a deal breaker. The point of verse 7 is that the suffering servant accepts the suffering. Yes! Jesus did that at the beginning, but didn't do that at the end. Maybe think if it this way? Let's say I sit down to a meal, and say grace thanking God. Then at the end of the meal, I say a 2nd grace thanking Artemis. What happened? I started out doing the right thing, but at the end ... I botched it.

Maybe you can answer this for me? Why is it important for Jesus to be the suffering servant? What is lost in the Jesus story if this prophecy is not him? There's still the miracles. There's still the exocisms. There's still speaking truth to power. There's still concentrating the commandments. There's still the sacrifice. There's still the ressurection. Etc... There's so much there, why go back into the Hebrew bible?

I did a quick search for the answer, this is what I found:

Is Isaiah 53 "The Suffering Servant" a Prophecy about Jesus?

Jesus made it obvious that he was the suffering servant. Even if people never read the New Testament, they can see from the example Jesus gave that no one matches the Suffering Servant quite as well as he does.

www.christianity.com

"This passage also leaves the Old Testament readers with no excuse."

So, it's not that Jesus ever claimed to be the suffering servant. This is someting that Christians use to show that Jews were/are wrong to reject Jesus. But, like I asked with Zecharia 12, if the story told by Christians is true, then the Jewish people were nothing more than pawns. If Jesus had been accepted, then none of the really important events in the Christian story would have occured. If the Jewish people had accepted him, there would not have been a crucifixion!

So this whole idea of prophecies being obviously fulfilled, makes no sense. The Gospel story, on its own makes sense. Can you address this issue? Wouldn't obvious prophecies pointing to Jesus defeat the entire purpose of Jesus' mission?

 

[101G]

No.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H43

now H433,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

my source Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

Brown-Driver-Briggs
אֱלֹהִים2570 noun masculine plural (feminine 1 Kings 11:33; on number of occurrences of אֵל, אֱלוֺהַּ, אֱלֹהִים compare also Nesl. c,)
1 plural in number.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
angels, exceeding, God, very great, mighty
Plural of 'elowahh.

101G.

 

[101G]

Did you even read through it? The answer you cited says that it is an acceptable secondary meaning though it provides no reason to prove that. The next answer says unequivocally, "But, "Provide" is not an accurate translation"

ERROR, read it again,

101G

 

[dybmh]

Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

yet he opened not his mouth; not against the oppressor that did him the injury, and also nor murmured at the affliction that was heavy upon him, (the sins of the world), now get this, <<<and he opened not his mouth>>>>> against the justice of God, (who is merciful) and the demand that was made upon him, as the surety of his people he carried the obligation God had laid on him, he paid the debt, and bore the punishment without any dispute or hesitation: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb. this figurative phrase is expressive, not only of the harmlessness and innocence of Christ, as considered in himself, but of his meekness and patience in suffering, and of his readiness and willingness to be sacrificed (forsaken),in the stead of his people; he went to the cross without any reluctance, (this was foreordained). Christ, Shiloh, went as willingly to be sacrificed as a lamb goes to the slaughter house, and was as silent under his sufferings as a sheep while under the hands of its shearers, he was willing to be stripped of all he had, as a shorn sheep, and to be slaughtered and sacrificed as a lamb, for the sins of his people. all of this was ..... again, was foreordained.
this is why we're called Christians... following in his foot steps. 1 Peter 2:20 "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." 1 Peter 2:21 "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:" 1 Peter 2:23 "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:" 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Peter 2:25 "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

101G.

"<<<and he opened not his mouth>>>>> against the justice of God, " --- He did open his mouth against God's justice. That is what it means to ask "Why have you foresaken me???"

"he paid the debt, and bore the punishment without any dispute or hesitation" --- He did dispute it. "Why have you forsaken me???"

"patience in suffering" --- He was patient... until he wasn't.

"was as silent under his sufferings" --- not at the end.

 

[101G]

"<<<and he opened not his mouth>>>>> against the justice of God, " --- He did open his mouth against God's justice. That is what it means to ask "Why have you foresaken me???"

ONE MORE TIME. the word forsaking, (forsook), means leave, the present of the Father in that body came out of the son, because the sins of the whole world will be laid on him. This word forsook is interesting. Forsook , or forsaking is the act of, or the allowing of one to be sacrifice. Note, to clearly see this, another word, or some synonyms words for forsook is, renounced, relinquished, “sacrificed”. Sacrificed is the word we are looking for. The Father, the Ordinal First, allowed that body to be scarified. For the Lord God did provide for himself a sacrifice, (a lamb).

forsaken is not against God, the "WHY" is for the ANSWER, the word forsaking, (forsook), means leave, the present of the Father in that body came out of the son, because the sins of the whole world will be laid on him. And upon his death, it released, or relinquished, (that's what forsook means), the full power and attributes of God in human form.

"he paid the debt, and bore the punishment without any dispute or hesitation" --- He did dispute it. "Why have you forsaken me???"

see above

"patience in suffering" --- He was patient... until he wasn't.

ERROR, listen, Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

"was as silent under his sufferings" --- not at the end.

see above also please read all that I posted.... thanks

101G

 

[rosends]

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H43

now H433,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

my source Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

Brown-Driver-Briggs
אֱלֹהִים2570 noun masculine plural (feminine 1 Kings 11:33; on number of occurrences of אֵל, אֱלוֺהַּ, אֱלֹהִים compare also Nesl. c,)
1 plural in number.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
angels, exceeding, God, very great, mighty
Plural of 'elowahh.

101G.

You didn't ask if the word can be a plural word. You asked, "is this identification of God plural".

The word can, indeed, be a plural word. It can also be a singular word. In the example you gave, it is a singular word. In Hebrew, you can identify the number by looking at the verb. If the verb is singular, the noun is singular. Quoting a concordance which is driven by the need to ignore the singular is not very helpful. Even if you want to say that it is a plural construct referring to God, you would have to say that it is a pluralis majestatis because the grammar of the verse uses it as a singular. The first three words of the book of Genesis indicate that the word is a singular noun.

 

[rosends]

ERROR, read it again,

101G

I quoted it. Maybe YOU should read it a first time.

 

[dybmh]

ONE MORE TIME. the word forsaking, (forsook), means leave, the present of the Father in that body came out of the son, because the sins of the whole world will be laid on him. This word forsook is interesting. Forsook , or forsaking is the act of, or the allowing of one to be sacrifice. Note, to clearly see this, another word, or some synonyms words for forsook is, renounced, relinquished, “sacrificed”. Sacrificed is the word we are looking for. The Father, the Ordinal First, allowed that body to be scarified. For the Lord God did provide for himself a sacrifice, (a lamb).

forsaken is not against God, the "WHY" is for the ANSWER, the word forsaking, (forsook), means leave, the present of the Father in that body came out of the son, because the sins of the whole world will be laid on him. And upon his death, it released, or relinquished, (that's what forsook means), the full power and attributes of God in human form.

see above

ERROR, listen, Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

see above also please read all that I posted.... thanks

101G

"Why have you forsaken me???" is NOT accepting the will of God. What you have brought does not change this simple fact.

 

[PruePhillip]

For me, it's a deal breaker. The point of verse 7 is that the suffering servant accepts the suffering. Yes! Jesus did that at the beginning, but didn't do that at the end. Maybe think if it this way? Let's say I sit down to a meal, and say grace thanking God. Then at the end of the meal, I say a 2nd grace thanking Artemis. What happened? I started out doing the right thing, but at the end ... I botched it.

Maybe you can answer this for me? Why is it important for Jesus to be the suffering servant? What is lost in the Jesus story if this prophecy is not him? There's still the miracles. There's still the exocisms. There's still speaking truth to power. There's still concentrating the commandments. There's still the sacrifice. There's still the ressurection. Etc... There's so much there, why go back into the Hebrew bible?

I did a quick search for the answer, this is what I found:

Is Isaiah 53 "The Suffering Servant" a Prophecy about Jesus?

Jesus made it obvious that he was the suffering servant. Even if people never read the New Testament, they can see from the example Jesus gave that no one matches the Suffering Servant quite as well as he does.

www.christianity.com

"This passage also leaves the Old Testament readers with no excuse."

So, it's not that Jesus ever claimed to be the suffering servant. This is someting that Christians use to show that Jews were/are wrong to reject Jesus. But, like I asked with Zecharia 12, if the story told by Christians is true, then the Jewish people were nothing more than pawns. If Jesus had been accepted, then none of the really important events in the Christian story would have occured. If the Jewish people had accepted him, there would not have been a crucifixion!

So this whole idea of prophecies being obviously fulfilled, makes no sense. The Gospel story, on its own makes sense. Can you address this issue? Wouldn't obvious prophecies pointing to Jesus defeat the entire purpose of Jesus' mission?

Jesus was the first of the three to die. He rejected the pain killer, vinegar and myrrh.
It's proposed that had he been prepared to push down with his agonizing feet he could have raised his body enough to breath slightly better. Jesus apparantly did not do this. In no way can it be seen that he sought to make the experience less painful for himself. "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering," This was lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the ram in the thicket, the spotless lamb who's blood was upon the lintel as a sin offering. His death physically has no bearing, but it's the SYMBOLS we accept or reject that matter.

 

[101G]

You didn't ask if the word can be a plural word. You asked, "is this identification of God plural".

dose it not identifies "God?" 3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).

so my question still stands.

101G.