Date: Tuesday, 22 December 1992 18:57:21 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <78703@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
# 
# In article <fWVpDQ7@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# |In article <78670@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
# |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.
# |a: See note j at 5.30. [Which says:] I.e., the LORD will intervene and
# |come to his aid. Cf. 29.6-7; 30.27. This verse may constitute a
# |transition between chaps. 8 and 9.
# 
# Do these notes from the JPS not say that there is uncertainity here,
# yet you say there is none????  Much less they even say that these
# verses may respresent a transition, which is what the NIV has.

  Please read in context.  The former and latter kings are uncertain,
  that is: we don't know fer sher who's meant.  NOT that we don't
  understand the Hebrew (in which case they say "Heb. uncertain").

# |>And they have now mastered English, better than those who were
# |>reading English???
# |
# |What? If one is to translate from Hebrew to English, one had better
# |master both languages.
# 
# PAUL HARVEY - I've asked before and have yet to see your reply.
# 
# WHY IS IT THAT YOUR GUYS (JPS) CAN MASTER BOTH ENGLISH AND HEBREW
# BUT NO ONE ELSE CAN OR HAS?????

  Perhaps the mastery of Hebrew is more important than the mastery
  of English?  Perhaps it helps to learn both as a child, instead
  of English only?  Especially if trying to ascertain the meaning
  of the Hebrew?  (It might be different if one were translating
  Chaucer into Hebrew, nicht?)

# |>Are you referring to the OT?
# |
# |Do you know what the Septuagint is?
# 
# Is this what he is referring to?  Let DCS answer?

  Clue: the Septuagint predates the common era by centuries.  If it
  included Xtian material I'd be either (a) quite impressed, or
  (2) suspicious as all get out.  You're not impressing anyone with
  your scholarship, Mr. Pitts, by not getting the hint.

# |Richard! The point is plain and simple. The Hebrew text does not say
# |virgin! To translate the Hebrew for young woman into virgin is to add to
# |the text! Please read your Revelations 22:18-19 for the details of what
# |will happen when one adds to the text.
# 
# Paul! The point is plain - you don't want it to say virgin or even
# imply virgin, do you?  Are you saying that this word cannot mean
# virgin?  Are you saying that a young maid (prior to marriage) cannot
# be understood as being a virgin?

  Mr. Pitts!  Why not translate 'Isha' or even 'Ima' as virgin?
  You don't deny that they COULD fit, no?  For that matter, why
  don't your sources translate 'almah as "virgin" in any of the
  other places where it appears?  Could they ...?  Nyaaah!

# |>|#     Isaiah 53 (NIV)   Who has believed our message and to whom has 
# |>|#     the arm of the LORD been revealed? {2} He grew up before him 
# |>|#     like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
# |>|  This is an odd translation.  I have "For he shot up right forth as
# |>|  a sapling, and as a root out of dry ground."  The "before him"
# |>|  fersher ain't in the Hebrew.
# |>The KJV is considered a very accurate translation - it is a little
# |>archaic in style, but that doesn't mean it is inaccurate.
# |
# |Nice try. The KJV is *not* a very accurate translation as it
# |relied heavily on the Septuagint, another *not* very accurate translation.
# 
# It is an accurate translation based on the then available evidence.

  Huh?  You think that Hebrew texts of Isaiah just recently came to
  light?  Perhaps out of Ethiopia?  Medieval Catholic theologians
  quoted Rashi and Ibn Ezra extensively, so are you suggesting that
  the authors of the KJV started out without reviewing the prior
  art in their field?  (Admittedly King John's banishment may have
  narrowed their exposure somewhat; still...)

  [ad homineum exchange deleted -- dcs]
  [out-of-nowhere sermon deleted -- dcs]

# |Clearly you have given us insite on your approach to Scripture. That
# |being: make it conform by whatever means necessary, including gross
# |mistranslation, to the picture you want to see. Who do you think you're
# |fooling Richard? Do you have a problem with honesty? Do you have a
# |problem with the truth? Do you have a problem with fidelity?
# 
# It is nice to see how you aviod the question.  What is Scripture
# to you - answer this, please.

  Not that you asked me, but what difference could it possibly make?

# Again, your gross exageration of my supposed gross mistranslation
# seems to fade in the light of the theme of the Scripture.  It
# is not to continue to study the Scripture to just know the Scripture,
# but it is to come to God - to walk humbly with Him.

  Silly us!  Here we were, thinking that Isaiah was inspired by
  the Holy One, and that all the effort that went into transmitting it
  to us must have been for some purpose.  How foolish of us to think
  that The Omniscient might actually be concerned with details!
  Thanks to you we know now that only mortals concern themselves
  with precise wording, but that He Who Spoke and the World Came
  Into Being can't be counted on to mean what He says.

  (Sarcasm aside, you're just restating your conclusion.  As I
  say in another article, I'm not interested in being the guest
  of honor at another Proof by Vigorous Assertion.  If the best
  you can do is resort to appeals to your own authority, there
  isn't much left to discuss and we can stop now.)

# 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?

  So, if I read you rightly, it doesn't matter what the text says;
  just go with your own inspiration?  Why have you been burning
  bandwidth talking about the contents of Isaiah if they don't matter?

  Silly us.  We thought this was about the contents of Isaiah.  We
  didn't realize that we were in Humpty Dumpty land, where words
  mean whatever they have to to get the Truth (tm) and the only
  question is who is to be master.  Your explanation makes everything
  much clearer; for instance I now understnd how your fellows
  reconciled 'Lo tirtzach' with the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.

  (Note that I'm not saying you're wrong, but only that your
  certainty does not justify reading your own beliefs into the
  Qu'ran, Beowulf, the Iliad, or Isaiah.)

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24801 alt.atheism:24628 alt.pagan:14709