The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[rosends]

It is not a presupposition. It come from a highly respected Jewish Christian.

You still have not explained how they would find this child if its mother was not la virgin.

A "Jewish Christian"? First, that has no real meaning. Second, if the person is a Christian then that person's perception and translation are tainted. Second, the verse says "behold" which means that the identity was made clear to the the person speaking and being spoken to.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't forget what you said. But just because you say it doesn;t make it right, reasonable or rational. You have decided arbitrarily that this section suddenly becomes allegorical when you need it to. That's capricious at best. And it is intellectually dishonest.
It is not arbitrary , capricious or dishonest if you understand allegory. Which evidently you don't.

If you accepted the Quran, or the texts of the Raelians, you would see that they are correct. But you don't.

Why in the world would a Christian or a Jew accept as true, writings that the Bible contradicts?

What rant? I'm just pointing out that you are trying to bring proof from a text which is meaningless.

You considering it meaningless is meaningless.

You keep insisting that there has to be a "without blemish" notion because the text is talking about a literal sacrifice. That's funny to me for 2 reasons:
1. You keep saying that the text is allegorical, so why do you insist that the obligation of a literal "no blemish" is still literal?
2. You demand that the text is talking about a sacrifice at all even though I showed you translations which have no mention of a sacrifice there. You are willing to concede that other translations have proven you wrong when it comes to "soul" but you keep wanting to insert something that hose translations omit because you think you know better. You don't

Have you already forgotten that Biblical allegories are based on a literal, historical events. Let me give you an allegory that might help you see that---2 Sam 12:1-7. Was Nathan's story true or an allegory. Was it based on a literal event?

I think that people who do translations very often have an agenda which has them make changes or make choices so that they fall in line with a theological preconceived notion. The text is clear.

If they do then they are not doing translation and anyone knowledge in the language would expose them.

 

[omega2xx]

A "Jewish Christian"? First, that has no real meaning.

The Fact that it has no meaning to you does mean it has no meaning. If someone is an expert in Hebrew, it has meaning.

Second, if the person is a Christian then that person's perception and translation are tainted.

The only thing tainted here is your judging of someone you don't know.

Second, the verse says "behold" which means that the identity was made clear to the the person speaking and being spoken to.

Irrelevant.

 

[roger1440]

In order to understand if Isaiah meant a virgin or young woman we have to read the verse in context to the story. A Jewish kid born 700 years later could not have been a sign to the King at that time. He was long dead.

 

[rosends]

It is not arbitrary , capricious or dishonest if you understand allegory. Which evidently you don't.

Sure it is, and sure I do. You decide that a textual section starts off as literal, becomes allegorical when you want it to and retains elements of the literal when you need it to. If you understood how allegories are constructed and deconstructed you would see how that fails. But you don't.

Why in the world would a Christian or a Jew accept as true, writings that the Bible contradicts?

You realize that I wrote that in response to your statement, "If you accepted and understood the N.T., you would see that I am correct." So I can ask you the same question you just asked me -- why would a Jew accept as true writings that the Bible contradicts? Thank you for making my case for me.

You considering it meaningless is meaningless.

Again, you miss the point. You, in post 169, tried to make a point to me by quoting the text of Luke. As a rhetorical approach, that is ridiculous because you are trying to establish proof from a source which I reject as having any value. You can feel free to dismiss my position, but you should realize that methodologically, the citing of something which has no value to me is a useless tactic.

Was Nathan's story true or an allegory. Was it based on a literal event?

His story was only an allegory unless you are claiming that the events told actually happened. He told David this allegory so that David could decipher it and see it applied to his own situation. You, though, are taking a textual section, calling it allegory (which you can do) but saying that the allegorical nature only applies to certain sections and the literal meaning of certain parts is still required. Here is what you wrote: "I am invoking the Torah concept---the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish comes from the Torah. The Levitical sacrifices requiring the death of the offering are an allegory of the substitutionary atonement of Christ." So the sacrifices are allegorical, but the blemish has to be literal. Why can't the blemish be allegorical also and represent anything else I want it to be, and then say that X person was without blemish? See, your decision where and when the text has to be taken literally is arbitrary and driven by the end you need to reach.

If they do then they are not doing translation and anyone knowledge in the language would expose them.

Which is exactly what I, who know the language, have been trying to point out to you. You just keep ignoring it.

 

[rosends]

The Fact that it has no meaning to you does mean it has no meaning. If someone is an expert in Hebrew, it has meaning.

Being an "expert in Hebrew" has no bearing on someone's religion. There is no thing as a "Jewish Christian." There are Jews, and there are Christians. Since the two religions have mutually exclusive doctrines, someone trying to be both, regardless of what language he does it in, will inevitably fail. The fact that some people, in an effort to muddy the waters, claim to be both doesn't create the thing in teh real world. It just exploits the ignorance of others.

The only thing tainted here is your judging of someone you don't know.

That's a judgment you are ill-equipped to make. I don't have to know someone to know that if he believes in Christianity, he will understand words, phrases and sections in the light of his own theology.

Irrelevant.

Only to you because it points out the error in your thinking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... you still can't tell me how the child could be identified and give the name if the mother was not a virgin.

In what linguistic universe is the above statement coherent?

Discussing Isaiah 7:14 with you is almost certainly worthless effort and is clearly off topic here. It has also been discussed ad nauseam. I raised it solely as a marker which clearly exposes the conservative Christian bias of the NASB, one which I suspect it's anonymous translators would readily acknowledge.

 

[omega2xx]

Sure it is, and sure I do. You decide that a textual section starts off as literal, becomes allegorical when you want it to and retains elements of the literal when you need it to. If you understood how allegories are constructed and deconstructed you would see how that fails. But you don't.<<

Thanks for confirming your ignorance of allegory and even more ignorance is saying what I do.

You realize that I wrote that in response to your statement, "If you accepted and understood the N.T., you would see that I am correct." So I can ask you the same question you just asked me -- why would a Jew accept as true writings that the Bible contradicts? Thank you for making my case for me.

I have not made you case until you provide an example, I can explain.

Again, you miss the point. You, in post 169, tried to make a point to me by quoting the text of Luke. As a rhetorical approach, that is ridiculous because you are trying to establish proof from a source which I reject as having any value. You can feel free to dismiss my position, but you should realize that methodologically, the citing of something which has no value to me is a useless tactic.

I ALWAYS use the NT for things I believe, and most of the time I use it to explain things in the OT. Therefore any discussion with you is a waste of time

His story was only an allegory unless you are claiming that the events told actually happened.

Thanks for reaffirming your ignorance of allegory. Allegories aer based on literal events.

He told David this allegory so that David could decipher it and see it applied to his own situation. You, though, are taking a textual section, calling it allegory (which you can do) but saying that the allegorical nature only applies to certain sections and the literal meaning of certain parts is still required. Here is what you wrote: "I am invoking the Torah concept---the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish comes from the Torah. The Levitical sacrifices requiring the death of the offering are an allegory of the substitutionary atonement of Christ." So the sacrifices are allegorical, but the blemish has to be literal. Why can't the blemish be allegorical also and represent anything else I want it to be, and then say that X person was without blemish? See, your decision where and when the text has to be taken literally is arbitrary and driven by the end you need to reach.

The blemish is necessary because Jesus was sinless. That is how he fulfilled the allegory. If the blemish was allegorical, anyone could fulfill it.

Which is exactly what I, who know the language, have been trying to point out to you. You just keep ignoring it.

Knowing the language does not mean you understand what you read. The scholars who translate the OT into English know Hebrew much better than you do. That help;s me understands the OT better than you do.

 

[omega2xx]

Being an "expert in Hebrew" has no bearing on someone's religion.

I have not said it did.

There is no thing as a "Jewish Christian." There are Jews, and there are Christians.

And ther are Jews who arr Chrisians.

Since the two religions have mutually exclusive doctrines, someone trying to be both, regardless of what language he does it in, will inevitably fail. The fact that some people, in an effort to muddy the waters, claim to be both doesn't create the thing in teh real world. It just exploits the ignorance of others.

You have fun off the track Again. All I am saying is that I am familiar with some Jews whoe are Christians and they know Hebrew better than you do. That gives me an advantage of understanding the OT.

That's a judgment you are ill-equipped to make. I don't have to know someone to know that if he believes in Christianity, he will understand words, phrases and sections in the light of his own theology.

You Are bearing false witness.

Only to you because it points out the error in your thinking.

Not on your say so.

 

[rosends]

Thanks for confirming your ignorance of allegory and even more ignorance is saying what I do.

I have shown your rhetorical flaws. I have demonstrated the failings of your argument. All you do is repeat the baseless charge. Res ipsa loquitur.

I have not made you case until you provide an example, I can explain.

Again, you make an empty statement which doesn't address the facts and details I present. And I must continue to ignore the poor phrasing and confusing, ungrammatical statements, I guess.

I ALWAYS use the NT for things I believe, and most of the time I use it to explain things in the OT. Therefore any discussion with you is a waste of time

Feel free then not to continue any discussion with me. But if you do want to continue, you might want to cite proof that we both agree has evidentiary value.

Thanks for reaffirming your ignorance of allegory. Allegories aer based on literal events.

That may be the single most foolish thing you have said.

The blemish is necessary because Jesus was sinless. That is how he fulfilled the allegory. If the blemish was allegorical, anyone could fulfill it.

So you need for the blemish, in a discussion of allegorical sacrifices to remain literal otherwise it doesn't point to your vision of Jesus. That's precisely the problem. You have to draw a random line to keep some things literal and others allegorical. I'm shocked you can't see this. Well, no. No, I'm not.

Knowing the language does not mean you understand what you read. The scholars who translate the OT into English know Hebrew much better than you do. That help;s me understands the OT better than you do.

Ignoring that you are judging me without actually knowing what my knowledge base is, you are also judging every scholar who translated the text into forms that don't have the "sacrifice" concept -- like the JPS which you admitted lacked it. You couldn't even give the names of the NASB translators but you have full faith in their scholarship? Wow.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I
You have fun off the track Again. All I am saying is that I am familiar with some Jews whoe are Christians and they know Hebrew better than you do.

And you know that how? Your "my-daddy-can-beat-your-daddy" adolescence argument is getting tiresome fast.

 

[rosends]

I have not said it did.

And yet, in your defense of the concept of "Jewish Christians" you wrote, ". If someone is an expert in Hebrew, it has meaning." So you drew the connection between this phantom religious status and knowledge of a language.

And ther are Jews who arr Chrisians.

And there are plenty of words for them -- like "Christian" or even "apostate." But they forfeit their claim to the title "Jewish" and cannot be part of the Jewish community. You know who gets to decide that? Jews.

You have fun off the track Again. All I am saying is that I am familiar with some Jews whoe are Christians and they know Hebrew better than you do. That gives me an advantage of understanding the OT.

No, you don't. You might know some Christians who know some Hebrew, but you don't know what I know so you can't claim that anyone you know is more informed than I am. Who are these experts you cite? What is there background. Do they speak Hebrew? Every day? I do. DO they read Hebrew (biblical and modern) every day? I do. What is their claim to expertise? I have been studying the language for over 40 years.

 

[omega2xx]

In what linguistic universe is the above statement coherent?

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?

Discussing Isaiah 7:14 with you is almost certainly worthless effort and is clearly off topic here. It has also been discussed ad nauseam. I raised it solely as a marker which clearly exposes the conservative Christian bias of the NASB, one which I suspect it's anonymous translators would readily acknowledge.

You are not qualified to expose the NASB as having a Christian bias. Do you really not understand that translations are not commentaries? If you aren't afraid to have your bias exposed, why don't you google "best bible translation."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

The question is incoherent, as is your understanding of the text.

You are not qualified to expose the NASB as having a Christian bias.

I already have. I have also exposed your complete inability to realize it.

 

[omega2xx]

The question is incoherent, as is your understanding of the text.


I already have. I have also exposed your complete inability to realize it.

You are not qualified to judge anything about those more knowledgable in Hebrew than you are.

Are you afraid to google "most accurate Bibles? If you do, you will see that you are not qualified to judge it. You also need to learn the difference between a translation and a commentary.

 

[omega2xx]

And yet, in your defense of the concept of "Jewish Christians" you wrote, ". If someone is an expert in Hebrew, it has meaning." So you drew the connection between this phantom religious status and knowledge of a language.

You are not qualified to determine if ones religious status is phantom. Do you really not uneerstand that the better one know Hebrew, the better will be their translation of words ?

And there are plenty of words for them -- like "Christian" or even "apostate." But they forfeit their claim to the title "Jewish" and cannot be part of the Jewish community. You know who gets to decide that? Jews.

Actually the Jews do not get to determine it. God does.

No, you don't. You might know some Christians who know some Hebrew, but you don't know what I know so you can't claim that anyone you know is more informed than I am. Who are these experts you cite? What is there background. Do they speak Hebrew? Every day? I do. DO they read Hebrew (biblical and modern) every day? I do. What is their claim to expertise? I have been studying the language for over 40 years.

Since you have studied Hebrew for over 40 years, I will acknowledge you are an expert. The ones I am referring to have PhD's and ThD's in Hebrew and some have degrees in Semitic languages also. They teach in Christian seminaries and I am sure some of the have studied Hebrew over 40 years also.

 

[rosends]

You are not qualified to determine if ones religious status is phantom. Do you really not uneerstand that the better one know Hebrew, the better will be their translation of words ?

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.

Actually the Jews do not get to determine it. God does.

He did. And gave Jews the laws.

Since you have studied Hebrew for over 40 years, I will acknowledge you are an expert. The ones I am referring to have PhD's and ThD's in Hebrew and some have degrees in Semitic languages also. They teach in Christian seminaries and I am sure some of the have studied Hebrew over 40 years also.

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are not qualified to judge anything about those more knowledgable in Hebrew than you are.

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

Are you afraid to google "most accurate Bibles?

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 ...

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?

If you do, you will see that you are not qualified to judge it.

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

You also need to learn the difference between a translation and a commentary.

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since you [i.e., @rosends - JS] have studied Hebrew for over 40 years, I will acknowledge you are an expert. The ones I am referring to have PhD's and ThD's in Hebrew and some have degrees in Semitic languages also. They teach in Christian seminaries and I am sure some of the have studied Hebrew over 40 years also.

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

... 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."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So since you concede that I'm an expert is should be difficult for you to disregard my translation now. This should call into question most everything you have asserted.

"should"