From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:56:19 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <fWVpDQ7@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
|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*]

Oh.

|>    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.

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.

|>|# 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.

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?????

If you think I keep missing it, email it directly to me.

|>|  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?

Is this what he is referring to?  Let DCS answer?

|>|  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.

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?

|>|#     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.

|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?

Again, what do you, Mr. Harvey, consider valid Scripture?  Only
the OT?  Again, email me directly, if you think I've missed your
response.

Ones actions or lack thereof do not merit entrance into heaven, but
faith in Jesus - the one to whom the Scriptures point - is the
ONLY way to heaven.  Don't study the Scriptures and refuse to come
to Him, for eternal life is found in Him alone and the Scriptures
point to Him - the Scriptures are not eternal life.

|>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?

It is nice to see how you aviod the question.  What is Scripture
to you - answer this, please.

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.

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?

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 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24703 alt.pagan:14625