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'.
	<78670@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 1992 20:11:28 UTC

In article <78670@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <765330d3663354t188@witsend.uucp> 
dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:
>|In <78497@hydra.gatech.EDU>, 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
>|# In article <fWFaqVV@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>|# >Only when poorly translated does Isaiah prophesy Christ.
>|# Are you referring to all of Isaiah?
>|# Or do you mean the verse that says something to the effect of "for unto
>|# you a child is born and the government shall be upon his shoulders
>|# and he shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
>|# Father, Prince of Peace and his kingdom will see no end" - is this
>|# the verse you are referring to?
>|  Dear me.  Please check with your local Xtian scholar; last I heard
>|  even they admitted that this one was CONTEMPORARY.  Isiah was
>|  referring to a child even then in utero.  Present tense, folks.
>Oh.  Since the above is Isaiah 9:6-7, then why does the first verse in 
>Isaiah 9 (NIV) lead into this with "IN THE PAST ..., BUT IN THE FUTURE"?

Take a wild guess Richard. Hint: [Translation *ERROR*]

>    Isaiah 9:1-7 (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-- {2} The people walking in darkness have seen a great 
>    light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a 
>    light has dawned.

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) (9:1) (a)The
people that walked in darkness have seen a brilliant light; On those who
dwelt in a land of gloom, light has dawned.
---
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.

>|# Oh, It seems that I keep missing your (PH's) explanation.  Why is it 
>|# that this JPS translation is superior to say the NASB or NIV or even
>|# the KJV?  
>|# It seems that you believe/know that these translators of the JPS
>|# have mastered both Hebrew and English, but yet no one else seems
>|# to be able to do that.  
>|  Well, the first is certainly true.  Chances are that they read it
>|  in the original before they ever saw a translation.  BTW, the
>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.

>|  version I use is the Soncino Press edition; it's handy to have
>|  the Hebrew on facing pages.
>Good.
>|  The Xian versions are derived from a long history of translation
>|  going beck to the Septuagint.  Unfortunately, several gross
>|  misquotes made it into the Xian scriptures and ever since Xian
>Are you referring to the OT?

Do you know what the Septuagint is?

>|  translators have had to doctor their work to make everything fit.
>|  The best-known example immediately precedes the verse you cite,
>|  where Xian translators squirm around the fact that Isaiah does
>|  NOT say "virgin" despite Xian doctrine.  Oops.
>Oops, the word, to my understanding, means one who is engaged to
>be married - who traditionally would be a virgin - maybe not in
>today's society, but most likely true in Israel's at that time.
>They married pretty young.

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.

>|#     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.
Obviously your standards aren't very high and you demonstrate quite well
the lengths that some Christians are willing to go to make reality
match what they want to see. Do you really think you can lie your way
into heaven?

>Do you think the OT is valid and the NT is not?  Give me (us) some
>insight on your approach to Scripture.

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?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc