From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<78714@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:26:56 UTC

In article <78714@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>I thought we should include the notes that we are talking about,
>but were omitted. :-)

Well, I wasn't so sure that you were interested in actually talking
about the verse in question, but it seems you are, so good, let's do it.
I only want to talk about the first verse for now, the issue in the
second one is a bit more complicated so perhaps we can save that one for
later.

>|>    Isaiah 9:1 (NIV)   Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom 
>|>    for those who were in distress. IN THE PAST he humbled the land 
>|>    of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, BUT IN THE FUTURE he will 
>|>    honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the 
>|>    Jordan-- 

Isaiah9:1(KJV): NEVERTHELESS the dimness *shall* not *be* such as *was*
in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of
Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievoulsy
afflict *her by* the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations.

>|Isaiah 8:23(JPS): For (o-)if there were to be(-o) any break of day for
>|that [land] which is in straits, only the former [king] would have
>|brought abasement to the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali -
>|while the later one would have brought honor to the Way of the Sea, the
>|other side of the Jordan, and Galilee of the Nations.(p)
>|---
>|o-o: So 1QIs(a); the others have "there is not."
>|p: Meaning of verse uncertain. The rendering here assumes that "the
>|former [king]" refers to Pekah (cf. 2Kings15.29) and "the latter" to
>|Hoshea (ibid. 30). For the construction "lu ... ka'eth," see Judg.13.23.

OK, where to begin? First, note the KJV translation I have included and
note that the NIV is not based on the KJV/Septuagint translation, in
fact NIV has gone far off into left field, in my not so humble opinion.
At the minimum, please study and compare the three translations and draw
your own conclusions. That said, there are some shorthand notations here
that should be explained. First off, in the KJV, words have been added to
the Hebrew text to make the passage have some type of meaning and these
words are in italics or surrounded by stars as I have here. Any italics
in KJV are words that are not in the original Hebrew or Greek
Scriptures, they have been added as an aid. JPS has done the same thing
except words added are in brackets [] and a footnote describes how they
arrived at this rendering. Also, JPS references the complete ancient
Hebrew Isaiah scroll found at Qumran, (1QIs(a) meaning manuscript *a* of
Isaiah found in the first cave of Qumran), which was not available at
the time of KJV but may have been for the NIV. And, regarding the
differences in verse number and chapter: Chapter and verse numbers are
not part of the original texts, neither Hebrew nor Greek, they were
added some time just before the KJV as a convenient means to index the
scripture. JPS uses the same scheme as KJV, except where they disagree
with the chapter breaks which happens only occaisionally, as in this
case. So, in the opinion of JPS, this verse is part of chapter 8, not 9.
So, what's the bottom line? The bottom line is this is what the Hebrew
of Isaiah says:
>|Isaiah 8:23(JPS): For (o-)if there were to be(-o) any break of day for
>|that        which is in straits, only the former        would have
>|brought abasement to the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali -
>|while the later one would have brought honor to the Way of the Sea, the
>|other side of the Jordan, and Galilee of the Nations.(p)
You don't have to believe me and I'm certainly not going to try and
translate it here, but it's not that big of a deal. You can do it
yourself. Go to your local library, find the Hebrew for this verse and
find a good Biblical Hebrew dictionary and go at it and see what you
come up with. I think you will find yourself quite close to JPS, which
is after all a conservative, just what the Hebrew says, nothing more
nothing less, translation. Then, if you'd like you can try to figure out
what it could mean, you can see if you agree with the JPS rendering, ie
the extra words they add and the meaning they think it has. And, if
anyone has information on how NIV arrived at the translation they have,
please post it. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing how they
arrived at "IN THE PAST" and "BUT IN THE FUTURE" and "Galilee of the
Gentiles."
^^^^^^^^???????

>Oh.  The HEBREW is UNCERTAIN, but we can translate it CORRECTLY????
>I think I now understand. NOT.

Do you understand now? The translation is certain, exactly what the
verse is refering to is not. There is a big difference between "the
Hebrew is corrupted or no longer known" and "the meaning is uncertain."
Make any sense? A conservative translation will keep the translation and
add words to derive a rendering of what they consider to be the best
meaning and make it known that they are rendering and where. The NIV
apparently decided to abandon the Hebrew in this case and derive
inspiration from the NT or other without mentioning it in the text,
unless you have not included this information.

>I checked the NASB (a very accurate word-for-word translation, whereas,
>the NIV is a phrase-for-phrase translation) and found that the NASB
>also gives the rendering of something like "BEFOREHAND was this and
>in the FUTURE will be this."  Sorry, I don't have it in front of me.

If you have the NASB available, it might be interesting to post it and
compare, also the NRSV would be interesting. The more information the
better.

>Do devout Hebrews, that are English speaking, use the JPS?

Why? If you are a "good" follower of Judaism, you learned Biblical Hebrew
when young and can read the Hebrew directly. Hebrew is the sacred
language of Judaism, it is the language of Moses. Translations might be
interesting from a secular perspective, but they wouldn't be sacred.
Make sense? Judaism is the study of the Hebrew scriptures, in particular
the Torah or first five books of the Christian Bible, in *Hebrew*.

>>I don't care either way! I want an accurate translation, that's all,
>>nothing more and nothing less. If the Hebrew says virgin, fine, but it
>You desire baffles me - what do you do or will you do with an accurate
>translation?  How does it affect your life?

The same thing I would do with an accurate translation of The
Mahabharata or the Epic of Gilgamesh, study it. Why? To learn.

>>>Again, what do you, Mr. Harvey, consider valid Scripture?  Only
>>>the OT?  Again, email me directly, if you think I've missed your
>>>response.
>>This question has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
>It will help me to understand your purpose and what you consider to 
>be worthy evidence.  Else, how can I say such and such says so and so,
>without you telling me that it isn't valid evidence?

OK, here is my purpose: I wish to learn from dogma but not to become
dogmatic.

>You know I consider the OT and NT vaild.  And the NT shines light
>on the OT, but yet too the NT comes from the OT, for the NT tells us
>what Jesus did, but the OT tells us he was coming.

You think what you know is the absolute right, the absolute truth. You
think that what you know of the NT is the absolute truth. You use the OT
only as a prop, you already know what the OT says because you know the
absolute truth of Jesus Christ. Hebrew may just as well be a forgotten
language, it matters not what the Hebrew actually says because your absolute
knowledge of the absolute truth of Jesus Christ tells you exactly what
the Hebrew actually means. You use the NT only as proof that what you
know is the absolute truth and you use the OT as a prop for the NT.
Plain and simple. You use the Bible as a weapon instead of as a source
of knowledge. The Bible is merely the sword that proves your absolute
knowledge of the absolute truth.

>>>I know the truth - it is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the Annointed
>>>One, God in human flesh, the Lord Almighty.  Which truth do you
>>>know and what are you doing with it and what is the eternal benefit
>>>to you?
>>Everything's a power game to you, isn't it?
>I think a lot of the power game has to do with one's own concept of
>how much power oneself has or should have.  I don't want to win
>every argument (that's not my goal) and I'm sure you'd agree I don't
>win all the time or even much of the time.  However, I do want you
>and all of the world to come to Jesus - the Author of our Faith.
>He came and experienced all the temptations and struggles we do and
>now he is ever making intercession to the Father for us.  He provided
>the way to the Father for all and He wants us to be like Him - loving
>perfectly and having eternal life. 
>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
>                          --|--   
>Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
>Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 

Be careful in casting out what you think to be devils, for you may be
discarding the best parts - of yourself. Be careful in your zeal and
devotion to slaying dragons, each dragon lost means the loss of an
option, an option that might save your heart - in the future - if there
is a future without dragons - if such a dragonless landscape can be
called - a future - a future worth *fighting* for.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24751 alt.pagan:14657