• We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.

Jewish vs Christian Scriptures

Eliyahu

New Member
A new thread had been created since the following posts are not about the New World Translation.

Bs'd

As a general rule, the New World Translation is much less corrupted toward Christianity then for instance the KJV.

For instance, in Isaiah 7:14 the NWT says "The young woman will become pregnant" while about every other translation says there "virgin" in stead of "young women".

And it just happens to be so that the NWT is right, and the rest is corrupted to support Christianity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Isaiah 7:14New International Version (NIV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Strong's Number: 05959
Original Word Word Origin
hml[ from (05958)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
`almah TWOT - 1630b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
al-maw' Noun Feminine
Definition
  1. virgin, young woman
    1. of marriageable age
    2. maid or newly married ++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
Quite clearly it means virgin.

JW' believe Christ is Michael the Archangel.

As well, there is a new version of the NWT in work.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
Isaiah 7:14New International Version (NIV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Strong's Number: 05959
Original Word Word Origin
hml[ from (05958)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
`almah TWOT - 1630b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
al-maw' Noun Feminine
Definition
  1. virgin, young woman
    1. of marriageable age
    2. maid or newly married ++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
Quite clearly it means virgin.

JW' believe Christ is Michael the Archangel.

As well, there is a new version of the NWT in work.
Bs'd

Strong is simply wrong here.

And as he says: "Maid or newly married", and that is definitely not a virgin.

And of course, most of the Bible translators translate the word "almah" as "maid", "damsel", or something like that.

Except of course in Isaiah 7, there they almost all of 'm, say "virgin".

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah". And not "almah".

See here how most of the Bible translations in other places than Isaiah 7:14 translate it overwhelmingly different than "virgin":
https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/almahtranslationa
 

Eliyahu

New Member
Bs'd

Micah 5:2
New American Standard Bible "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

The NWT says here: "From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago."

So who is right?

Holman Christian Standard Bible " Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity, from eternity.

New Life Version "His coming was planned long ago, from the beginning."

Darby Translation "whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity."

American Standard Version "whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."

All versions of the King James: "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Amplified Bible "Whose goings forth have been from of old, from ancient days (eternity).


All the above translation say the origins of the messiah are from "everlasting" or from "eternity", hereby implying that the messiah is God.
The Hebrew words here translated with "from everlasting" or "days of eternity" are "jamei olaam", which means literally "ancient days".
Many Bible translations translate it like that, only the above hold on to "days of eternity", or something with the same implications, because they want to push the wrong Christian idea that the messiah is God himself.

However, also the above translations know how to correctly translate the words "jamei olaam". We see that for instance in Micah 7:14, were the same expression "jamei olaam" is used. See here how the above translate it there:

Holman Christian Standard Bible " Let them graze in Bashan and Gilead as in ancient times."

New Life Version "Let them eat in Bashan and Gilead as in days long ago."

Darby Translation "let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. "

American Standard Version "let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old."

King James: "let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old."

New American Standard Bible "Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead As in the days of old."

Amplified Bible "they shall feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old."




Another place where the expression "jamei olaam" is used, is in Isaiah 63:11

Holman Christian Standard Bible " Then He remembered the days of the past, [the days] of Moses [and] his people."

New Life Version "Then His people remembered the days long ago, the days of Moses."

Darby Translation "But he remembered the days of old, Moses [and] his people:"

American Standard Version "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people,"

King James: "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people,"

New American Standard Bible "Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses"

Amplified Bible "Then His people [seriously] remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people"




Another place where the expression "jamei olaam" is used is Amos 9:11

Holman Christian Standard Bible "In that day I will restore the fallen booth of David: I will repair its gaps,
restore its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old,"

New Life Version "In that day I will build again the tent of David that fell down. Yes, I will build it again from the stones that fell down. I will set it up again as it used to be."

Darby Translation "and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:"

American Standard Version "and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;"

King James: "and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:"

Amplified Bible "and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old,"

New American Standard Bible "I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old;"



Another place where the expression "jamei olaam" is used is in Malachi 3:4

Holman Christian Standard Bible "And the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will please the LORD as in days of old and years gone by"

New Life Version "Then the gifts of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, as they were in the past."

Darby Translation "Then shall the oblation of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto J-e-h-o-v-a-h, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

American Standard Version "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto J-e-h-o-v-a-h, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years."

King James: "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

Amplified Bible "Then will the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in ancient years."

New American Standard Bible "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years."

It should be clear by now for everybody that the expression "jamei olaam" has no bearing on "days of eternity" whatsoever.
It is always translated correct, except there where Christianity wants to push it's dogma of a divine messiah. There the translations are corrupted in order to squeeze in JC.

Except for the NWT of course, he gives the right translation.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
Bs'd

Psalm 22
To begin with; the Psalms are not prophetic writings. Also Psalm 22 does not claim to prophesize about the messiah. It is nowhere written: The messiah will come and he will call out during his execution: My God, my God, why did you forsake me? This is king David speaking about himself. This Psalm is written mainly in the past tense, and describes the tribulations King David went through. But, as shown before, the authentic messianic prophecies are NOT fulfilled by Jesus, and therefore Christianity has to resort to Biblical texts that have no bearing on the messiah whatsoever, and present them as messianic prophecies. Because of the fact that, according the NT, Jesus quoted Psalms during his execution, the Christians claim that this Psalm must be a prophecy about the messiah. An upside down proof based upon nothing. And even that is not enough. In order to make it a little more authentic Christianity squeezed in the infamous falsification about the “piercing of hand and feet”. See verse 16: “Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet.” They say: “Look! Here is the crucifixion, prophesized in the Psalms!”

Point one: It is not written here that that the hands and feet of the messiah would be pierced. Like I pointed out: King David speaks here about himself, and that in the past tense. And on top of that: there is no such a thing as “they pierced my hand an feet”. The Hebrew word that is here translated as 'pierced' is 'ka'arie'. There is no word that even comes close to ka'arie that means piercing. To call this a mistranslation is too euphemistic, we should call this just what it is; another Christian falsification of their Bible translations, in order to squeeze in JC. The word that comes the closest is 'karah', but it is impossible to fit that in here, because that would violate almost every rule in the Hebrew grammar. And besides that, karah does not mean piercing, but 'to dig up, to bring up from the ground' (in the sense of mining)

The Hebrew prefix 'ka' means: 'as the', and the Hebrew word 'arie' means 'lion'. So what it says here is: "Like the lion [they are at] my hands and feet." The text between the square brackets is my insertion. So King David, who is not prophesizing about the messiah here, is speaking about a lion, and not about piercing hands and feet. The same lion he speaks about in verse 13 and 21.

Also the modern day Bible translations translate this in the wrong way. I could find only one Christian Bible translation who translates this verse in the right way, and that is the translation of the Y-H-V-H witnesses. But at least the modern Bible translations have the decency to write that there is no such thing in the Hebrew text.

My edition of the Revised Standard Version has a footnote with the word pierced in verse 16, it says there: "Gk Syr Jerome: Heb like a lion" That means that the translators get the word “pierced” from the ancient Greek translation; the Septuaginth, and from the Syriac translation, and from the Vulgata, the Catholic translation of the Bible into Latin, made by Jerome, on the request of Pope Damascus, in 328 CE. But this: “Heb like a lion” means that they admit that in the Hebrew is written: Like a lion.

Here is the footnote of the New American Standard Bible Update (1995): "Another reading is like a lion, my..."

And here is the footnote of the New International Version: "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts: 'like the lion,"

What the Bible translators are doing here is ignoring the original Hebrew Bible, and translating translations instead, because that fits the Christian theology better.

But the exact same word "ka'arie" is used in Isaiah 38:13. This claim can be checked out by people who cannot read Hebrew, by means of the Christian Hebrew-English interlinear, that is a Hebrew text of the Tanach, (OT), with under each word an English translation. Provided by a Christian institution. Look here: www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm and look there how it is translated there. It is possible to zoom into the text.
On the right side of the Hebrew text is a normal English translation. Now look at the discrepancy between how the Hebrew is translated right underneath, and how it is translated in the text on the right side. VERY educational!


And look here how the English translations translate the word "ka'arie" in Isaiah 38:11;

New International Version “I waited patiently till dawn, but like a lion he broke all my bones;”

ew American Standard Bible: “I composed my soul until morning. Like a lion--so He breaks all my bones,”

The Message: “I cry for help until morning. Like a lion, God pummels and pounds me,”

Amplified Bible: “I thought and quieted myself until morning. Like a lion He breaks all my bones;”

New Living Translation: “I waited patiently all night, but I was torn apart as though by lions.”

King James Version: “I reckoned till morning, that, as a lion, so will he break all my bones:”

English Standard Version: “I calmed myself until morning; like a lion he breaks all my bones;”

Contemporary English Version: “Until morning came, I thought you would crush my bones just like a hungry lion;”

New King James Version: “ I have considered until morning-- Like a lion, So He breaks all my bones;”

New Century Version: "I waited patiently till dawn, but like a lion he broke all my bones"

21st Century King James Version: “I reckoned till morning that, as a lion, so will He break all my bones;”

American Standard Version: “I quieted myself until morning; as a lion, so he breaketh all my bones:”

Young's Literal Translation: “I have set [Him] till morning as a lion, So doth He break all my bones,”

Darby Translation: “I kept still until the morning; ... as a lion, so doth he break all my bones.”

Revised Standard version: “I cry for help until morning; like a lion he breaks all my bones;”



Another place where we see the word "ka'arie" is in Numbers 24:9. See here how it is there translated:

New International Version “Like a lion they crouch and lie down"

New American Standard Bible: “He crouches, he lies down as a lion"

The Message: “Israel crouches like a lion and naps"

Amplified Bible: “He couched, he lay down as a lion"

New Living Translation: “Like a lion, Israel crouches and lies down"

King James Version: “He couched, he lay down as a lion"

English Standard Version: “He crouched, he lay down like a lion"

Contemporary English Version: “Like a lion you lie down"

New King James Version: “He bows down, he lies down as a lion"

New Century Version: “Like a lion, they lie waiting to attack"

21th Century King James Version: "He couched, he lay down as a lion"

American Standard Version: “He couched, he lay down as a lion"

Young's Literal Translation: “He hath bent, he hath lain down as a lion"

Darby Translation: “He stooped, he lay down like a lion"

Revised Standard version: “He couched, he lay down like a lion"

Also in Ezechiel 22:25 we encounter the same word "ka'arie", followed by the word "sho'eig", which means "roaring". See here how that is translated:Ezekiel 22:25 KJ21
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey.

Ezekiel 22:25 ASV
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey:

Ezekiel 22:25 AMP
There is a conspiracy of [Israel’s false] prophets in the midst of her, like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 CEB
The conspiracy of princes in her is like a roaring lion ripping up prey.

Ezekiel 22:25 CJB
There is a conspiracy of prophets in it like a roaring lion tearing up the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 CEV
Their leaders are like roaring lions, tearing apart their victims.

Ezekiel 22:25 DARBY
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst of her like a roaring lion ravening the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 DRA
There is a conspiracy of prophets in the midst thereof: like a lion that roareth and catcheth the prey,

Ezekiel 22:25 ERV
The prophets in Jerusalem are making evil plans. They are like a lion—it roars when it begins to eat the animal it
caught.

Ezekiel 22:25 ESV
The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 ESVUK
The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 EXB
Like a roaring lion that tears ·the animal it has caught [its prey], Israel’s ·rulers [princes] ·make evil plans [conspire].

Ezekiel 22:25 GNV
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof like a roaring lion, ravening the prey:

Ezekiel 22:25 GW
Your princes are like roaring lions who tear their prey into pieces.

Ezekiel 22:25 GNT
The leaders are like lions roaring over the animals they have killed.

Ezekiel 22:25 HCSB
The conspiracy of her prophets within her is like a roaring lion tearing its prey:

Ezekiel 22:25 KJV
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 AKJV
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey;

Ezechiel 22: KNOX
What of the prophets? A sworn conspiracy; lions roaring for their prey, the lives of men;

Ezekiel 22:25 LEB
The conspiracy of its prophets in the midst of her is like a roaring lion that is tearing prey.

Ezekiel 22:2523- MSG
The leaders among you became desperate, like roaring, ravaging lions killing indiscriminately.

Ezekiel 22:25 NOG
Your princes are like roaring lions who tear their prey into pieces.

Ezekiel 22:25 NASB
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst like a roaring lion tearing the prey.

Ezekiel 22:25 NCV
Like a roaring lion that tears the animal it has caught, Israel’s rulers make evil plans.

Ezekiel 22:25 NET
Her princes within her are like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they have devoured lives.

Ezekiel 22:25 NIRV
“Ezekiel, the princes of the land are like a roaring lion that tears its food apart.

Ezekiel 22:25 NIV
There is a conspiracy of her princes within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 NIVUK
There is a conspiracy of her princes within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 NKJV
The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 NLV
Israel’s false religious leaders are making plans within her. They are like a lion making noise over the food it has killed.

Ezekiel 22:25 NLT
Your princes plot conspiracies just as lions stalk their prey.

Ezekiel 22:25 NRSV
Its princes within it are like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 NRSVA
Its princes within it are like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 NRSVACE
Its princes within it are like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 NRSVCE
Its princes within it are like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Yechezkel 22: OJB
There is a kesher of her nevi’im in the midst thereof, like a roaring ari lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 RSV
Her princes in the midst of her are like a roaring lion tearing the prey; t

Ezekiel 22:25 RSVCE
Her princes in the midst of her are like a roaring lion tearing the prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 VOICE
Her prophets conspire in her midst like raging lions killing their prey;

Ezekiel 22:25 WEB
There is a conspiracy of her prophets within it, like a roaring lion ravening the prey:

Ezekiel 22:25 WYC
Swearing together, either conspiring, of prophets is in the midst thereof; as a lion roaring and taking prey like a lion roaring and taking prey,

Ezekiel 22:25 YLT
A conspiracy of its prophets [is] in its midst, as a roaring lion tearing prey;


So the translators know very well what "ka'arie" means. It is just that in Psalm 22 (almost) all the Christian Bible translators are collectively struck with blindness, and go astray.

But here we see what “ka’arie” means: “As the lion”, and, more important, we clearly see what is does NOT mean: "piercing".

So in Psalm 22 it does not speak about the final messiah, and not about a crucifixion, and the “piercing” in Psalm 22 is just another Christian falsification of their Bible translations.


Only the NWT translates it correct....
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
1. "Like a lion" is rejected for a number of reasons by scholars: makes no sense, MT manuscript evidence against it, all the earliest translations (not interpretive paraphrases) reject it, its highly unusual form (for the 'like a lion' expression), the conclusive existence of the verb reading at Qumran, and even ancient rabbinic rejection of the meaning.

2. The textual witnesses line up historically like this:

  • The earliest is the LXX, which has "they pierced"
  • The next witness is Qumran, which has "they pierced"
  • The next witness is Aquila's first edition, which is best explained as a transposition of letters from "they pierced"
  • The next witness is the Peshitta, which has "they pierced"
  • The next witnesses are A2/S/J, which have "they tied", which can be seen as a 'reasonable' mis-understanding from "they pierced"
  • We don't get "like a lion" for centuries after these witnesses, and even then there are MT variants representing "they pierced"
  • Later Jewish writers (e.g., Rashi) follow the MT (surprise, surprise), but one or two midrashic writers understand this as a verb, instead of "like a lion"
This sequence alone would make a strong case for "they pierced".

3. Of the remaining two major candidates (i.e., 'pierced' and 'tied'), 'pierced' is to be preferred since:

  • It occurs in the earliest manuscripts we have (LXX)
  • Its root is widely attested, whereas 'tied' does not even occur in all of existent Hebrew writing
  • It is not a 'strange' way to say this--it is not to be rejected for its infrequency
  • It provides a plausible basis from which to reconstruct (a) the midrashic/masoretic comments; (b) the MT textual variants; and (c) the Greek , non-LXX variants
  • It makes more sense in the immediate context.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Isaiah 7:14New International Version (NIV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Strong's Number: 05959
Original Word Word Origin
hml[ from (05958)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
`almah TWOT - 1630b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
al-maw' Noun Feminine
Definition
  1. virgin, young woman
    1. of marriageable age
    2. maid or newly married ++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
Quite clearly it means virgin.
And as he says: "Maid or newly married", and that is definitely not a virgin.
Really? You are saying Mary was not a virgin? Or the definition says virgin or young woman, one or the other? Not a young woman who is a virgin?

Where in the Bible is a woman who is not a young virgin every called this term?

You need to learn how to read a dictionary. It says it means a virgin/young woman who is of marriageable age, maid, one who is single, or newly married.

The Bible clearly states Mary was newly married but had not had sex.

As well, in the Hebrew marriage custom, one is referred to as married upon becoming engaged.

Also, the families kept close control of unmarried females. They were not allowed to be with men by themselves or without parental permission.
And of course, most of the Bible translators translate the word "almah" as "maid", "damsel", or something like that.
All meaning virgin young girls or women.
Except of course in Isaiah 7, there they almost all of 'm, say "virgin".
Anything but being virgin would hardly be sign.
The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah". And not "almah".
You already have the definition, which you want to avoid, that says it includes being a virgin.
See here how most of the Bible translations in other places than Isaiah 7:14 translate it overwhelmingly different than "virgin":
As said, it would not be a sign if she were not a virgin. Not rocket science.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
1. "Like a lion" is rejected for a number of reasons by scholars: makes no sense, MT manuscript evidence against it, all the earliest translations (not interpretive paraphrases) reject it, its highly unusual form (for the 'like a lion' expression), the conclusive existence of the verb reading at Qumran, and even ancient rabbinic rejection of the meaning.

2. The textual witnesses line up historically like this:

  • The earliest is the LXX, which has "they pierced"
Bs'd

The LXX is corrupted by the RK church, something they freely admit:

Here are a few excerpts from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, here to be found:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ from the entry "Septuagint" which show the reliability of the LXX:

The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).

On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in.

The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text.

Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint.

So the Catholics openly admit they corrupted the LXX.

The next witness is Qumran, which has "they pierced"
That's simply a lie, it doesn't have that.

The next witness is Aquila's first edition, which is best explained as a transposition of letters from "they pierced"
"Which is best explained", that means, "it isn't written there".

The next witness is the Peshitta, which has "they pierced"
  • The next witnesses are A2/S/J, which have "they tied", which can be seen as a 'reasonable' mis-understanding from "they pierced"
  • We don't get "like a lion" for centuries after these witnesses, and even then there are MT variants representing "they pierced"
  • Later Jewish writers (e.g., Rashi) follow the MT (surprise, surprise), but one or two midrashic writers understand this as a verb, instead of "like a lion"
This sequence alone would make a strong case for "they pierced".
That sequence is mainly based on Christian translations or translations corrupted by Christians.

The real thing, the Hebrew text, does NOT have "pierced".

3. Of the remaining two major candidates (i.e., 'pierced' and 'tied'), 'pierced' is to be preferred since:

  • It occurs in the earliest manuscripts we have (LXX)
  • Its root is widely attested,
  • Another lie, that root just doesn't exist.

  • NOWHERE in the whole Tanach will you find a root with those letters.

  • whereas 'tied' does not even occur in all of existent Hebrew writing
  • It is not a 'strange' way to say this--it is not to be rejected for its infrequency
  • It provides a plausible basis from which to reconstruct (a) the midrashic/masoretic comments; (b) the MT textual variants; and (c) the Greek , non-LXX variants
  • It makes more sense in the immediate context.
Christians are simply corrupting the translations to fit their religion, just like they do in the above example of Micah 5.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
And as he says: "Maid or newly married", and that is definitely not a virgin.
Really? You are saying Mary was not a virgin? Or the definition says virgin or young woman, one or the other? Not a young woman who is a virgin?
Bs'd

Who is talking about Mary? We are talking about the young woman from Isaiah 7, not about Mary.

A young woman can be a virgin, and she can be a non-virgin. The term "almah" just doesn't say anything about that.

And seeing that in Isaiah 7 that young woman is pregnant and in the proces of giving birth, it is a bit too much a stretch of the imagination to assume she is a virgin.

Where in the Bible is a woman who is not a young virgin every called this term?
Proverbs 30:
18 "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:

19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden.

20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'


An eagle in the sky doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A snake on a rock doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A ship on the sea doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A man who has his way with a maiden (in the Hebrew "almah") doesn't leave a trail of what he has done.
A man with a virgin does leave a trail, namely the fact that the hymen has been torn, so here is not spoken about a virgin.

"This is the way of an adulteress: She eats (eating here means having forbidden sexual relations) and wipes her mouth (mouth here is an euphemism for the female sexual organ) and says, 'I've done nothing wrong." because no trail is left, and nobody can prove anything any more.

But it should be clear to everybody that here the "almah" is not a virgin.

You need to learn how to read a dictionary. It says it means a virgin/young woman who is of marriageable age, maid, one who is single, or newly married.
Is a newly married woman a virgin?

The Bible clearly states Mary was newly married but had not had sex.
Totally irrelevant, we are not talking about Mary.

As well, in the Hebrew marriage custom, one is referred to as married upon becoming engaged.

Also, the families kept close control of unmarried females. They were not allowed to be with men by themselves or without parental permission.
And things like rape, premarital sex, incest, or whatever, never occurred in the good old days?

And of course, most of the Bible translators translate the word "almah" as "maid", "damsel", or something like that.
All meaning virgin young girls or women.
Non of these must be a virgin.

Except of course in Isaiah 7, there they almost all of 'm, say "virgin".
Anything but being virgin would hardly be sign.
Please explain how a "virgin birth" would be a sign. How would anybody know that the pregnant woman is still a virgin? Do they have to take her word for it? In that case we'll be seeing a whole lot more "virgin births".

Did the whole town come to look if her hymen was still intact?

As you see, a virgin birth cannot be a sign.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah". And not "almah".
You already have the definition, which you want to avoid, that says it includes being a virgin.
A Christian definition.

Let's see what a dictionary says about it:

http://translation.babylon.com/hebrew/to-english/

We put in עלמה, and we get out: "lass, maiden, damsel, fraulein, mademoiselle, signorina" and that's it. No virgin mentioned anywhere.

Another dictionary: http://www.morfix.co.il/en/עלמה

Result: "maiden ; העלמה - Miss"

Again; no virgin mentioned.

And lets now see what we get with the normal Hebrew word for virgin; "betulah": http://www.morfix.co.il/en
בְּתוּלָה שֵם נ'
virgin (female) ; (literary) young lass, young woman

http://translation.babylon.com/hebrew/to-english/

virgin, maiden, vestal; Virgo (astron.)

It is simple; "betulah" means "virgin", and "almah" means "young woman", who can or cannot be a virgin, who can or cannot be married.

See here how most of the Bible translations in other places than Isaiah 7:14 translate it overwhelmingly different than "virgin":
As said, it would not be a sign if she were not a virgin. Not rocket science.
A virgin birth is not a sign, no rocket science.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
Bs'd

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

1: In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzzi'ah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali'ah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it. 2: When the house of David was told, "Syria is in league with E'phraim," his heart and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. 3: And the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and She'ar-jash'ub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's Field, 4: and say to him, `Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remali'ah. 5: Because Syria, with E'phraim and the son of Remali'ah, has devised evil against you, saying, 6: "Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Ta'be-el as king in the midst of it," 7: thus says the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
8: For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years E'phraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.) 9: And the head of E'phraim is Sama'ria, and the head of Sama'ria is the son of Remali'ah. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.'" 10: Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." 13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

We see here in Isaiah 7, that king Achaz, the king of Judah, is afraid of two neighboring kings.
It is important to know that after the death of king Solomo the kingdom of Israel split up into two parts; into the kingdom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom om Judah was made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a part of the Levites. The kingdom of Israel was made up of the other ten tribes.
Achaz was king over Judah, and in this prophecy the king of Israel is Pekah, the son of Remaliah.
And Pekah had made a covenant with the king of Syria, called Resin, to attack together the kingdom of Judah.
This news caused king Achaz considerable stress, because he had a dark suspicion that things could very well turn out not so very rosy for him.
Therefore God sent Isaiah to Achaz, in order to tell him that things would work out just fine for him. God tells Achaz that he will give him a sign. Here is the sign: "14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and she called his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

God says that before the child of the young woman who is pregnant will grow up, the land of the two kings, Resin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel, will be deserted, that is devoid of people. Those two nations will be led into exile.
So this is a sign for king Achaz, who lived about 700 years before JC.

And the Bible tells us that this prophecy came true: "27: In the fifty-second year of Azari'ah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remali'ah began to reign over Israel in Sama'ria, and reigned twenty years. 28: And he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jerobo'am the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin. 29: In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria came and captured I'jon, A'bel-beth-ma'acah, Jan-o'ah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naph'tali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria. 30: Then Hoshe'a the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remali'ah, and struck him down, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzzi'ah."
II Kings 15.

We see here that the population of Israel indeed went into exile, and that the land of king Pekah was deserted.

And here is what happened to Resin, the king of Syria:
"6: At that time the king of Edom recovered Elath for Edom, and drove the men of Judah from Elath; and the E'domites came to Elath, where they dwell to this day. 7: So Ahaz sent messengers to Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria, saying, "I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." 8: Ahaz also took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria. 9: And the king of Assyria hearkened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin."
II Kings 16.

So here we see that also the inhabitants of the land of King Resin went into exile, and also his land was deserted, in the days of Achaz.

So God gave a sign to Achaz.

In the days of Achaz.

About 700 years before JC.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

These are only misconceptions of the NT.

However, the NT brings this prophecy to Achaz as a messianic prophecy, see Matthew 1 "21: she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel".

So what the NT does here, is taking a text which does not speak about the messiah, ripping it out of context, mistranslating it, (is says "young woman", and not "virgin") and then presenting it to us as a messianic prophecy.

So one of the foundations of the Christian religion, the virgin birth, is based upon a mistranslated text which is ripped out of context and does NOT speak about the messiah.

Look here for more reasons why nobody should believe in the New Testament: http://mountzion.notlong.com
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
So, you are not a Christian. Your choice, as is your rejection of the Bible.

I have listened to a number of Rabbis attempting to explain away Christ, the virgin birth, etc. They always restore to redefining words in contradiction to know linguistics, rules of grammar, history and spiritualizing meanings. Some say Israel itself is the Messiah.

The 70 Weeks of Daniel remain problem for such thinking, in example. An exact time frame is set for the coming of the Messiah. We are 2,000 years past the deadline.

I noted when you first posted you took the name Elijah. So you think you are a prophet?
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
Was DOES the text of Psalm 22.16c say--"lions" or "pierced"?

To start this discussion off, let me point out that the word in question here in Ps 22.16/17c is a NOTORIOUSLY difficult TEXTUAL (not 'theological') problem. To give you the sense of this, let me cite just two scholars:

"Ps. xxii 17c is an old crux which has never been satisfactorily explained. The MT's ka'ari yaday weraglay, 'like a lion my hands and my feet', makes no sense, and most modern scholars agree the text is corrupt. They also agree in locating the problem in the word ka'ari, 'like a lion'. All the ancient versions with the exception of the Targum read a verb here, and following their lead, most modern scholars emend the consonantal text from k'ry to k'rw or krw in order to obtain a verb in the 3mpl suffix conjugation." [J.J.M. Roberts, Vetus Testamentum, Vol 23, pge 247f]
"MT’s ka'ari (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred" [Craigie, Peter C. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 19: Psalms 1-50. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1998.]


The reasons that 'like a lion' is generally rejected (even though it shows up in the printed Hebrew bibles as MT) are given by scholars as follows:

1. As Roberts pointed out, the verse makes no sense with 'like a lion' there. He points out that attempts to salvage the MT reading fall into two approaches:

a. you either make the verse elliptical and supply a verb from context; or
b. you redivide the verse, so 16/17c STARTS a new verse, instead of ends one.

but points out that neither of these have produced convincing alternatives:

"Attempts to extract some sense from these enigmatic words without resorting to textural emendations generally take one of two forms. either one assumes an ellipsis of a verb in the line, or one redivides the line. Neither approach has produced a credible meaning, however. The Targum, following the first route, supplies a verb not found in the MT: 'they gnaw my hands and my feet like a lion", but such an ellipsis is incredibly hard and totally unexpected in the context." [op.cit., p.247n2]

Rabbinic commentators (medieval to modern) side with the lion, taking the elliptical tactic:

So Rashi: "As though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth, and so did Hezekiah say (in Isa. 38:13): 'like a lion, so it would break all my bones.'" [tanknote: Isaiah is different than the Ps passage in that the verb "broke" is EXPLICIT in the Hebrew text. There is no verb in 22.16/17c, if the form is translated "like a lion"]

So a modern rabbi (A Rabbi Reads the Psalms), admitting that the MT reading is "rather strange", takes the elliptical approach and supplies a verb from the first half of the verse:

"a company of evildoers has enclosed me; (they have enclosed) like a lion my hands and feet" Modern commentators would be quick to point out that the notion of a lion 'enclosing hands and feet' borders on the senseless, and certainly makes no sense in context either.
Indeed, biblical images of lions include much more violent actions like:

  • Devouring prey/drinking the blood of the slain (Num 23.24, refering to Israel; Jer 2.30)
  • Tearing the arm and the crown of the head (Deut 33.20)
  • Tearing and killing a man (1 Kgs 13.24; also 20.36)
  • Tear and drag away (Ps 7.2; 17.12--with the common 'lurking'; Hos 5.14)
  • Seizing and dragging off the prey (Is 5.28)
  • Tearing prey and eating (Ezek 19.6; 22.25; Hos 13.7)
  • Crushing bones (Dan 6.24)
Professional translators (e.g., UBS) acknowledge the difficulty, and point out that "the majority of translations use a word appropriate to the action of 'a pack of dogs'" (e.g., niping at hands and feet), referring to the image in play at the beginning of the verse [A Handbook on Psalms, Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn, UBS Handbook Series:1991, p.221].

2. A second reason it is sometimes rejected (and emended to a verb) is that there is Hebrew manuscript evidence against it--even within the MT text-family. BHS lists two variants in the critical apparatus:

  • k'rw ("a few mss", Kennicott gives seven), a 3 personal plural verb form from the biblical Hebrew root kara(h), meaning "they dug/pierced"


  • krw ("2 mss"; Kennicott adds "in the margin of three"), also a verb form. [Actually, this is the same word as k'rw, less the aleph which has 'intruded']

It should be noted that these variants occur in MT-family manuscripts.

[For the uninitiated, there is no such 'thing' as "the MT"..."MT" designates a family of manuscripts, no two of which agree in all details, and there is no hard-and-fast assumption that the MT is the 'original'. Tov, in the standard work on OT/Taanach, tries to get this across to his readers:

"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations (tanknote: such as the LXX). We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [OT:TCHB:11, italics his-bold mine]

3. All of the very early translators (except the somewhat later Targumic writers, doing the interpretive-paraphrase thing) obviously had textual variants in the Hebrew text in front of them (or emended the text because of the difficulties mentioned above) as they translated--none of them had "as a lion" in front of them!

  • The great Jewish translator Aquila (125 AD), in his first edition of his Greek translation of this passage, rendered this by aschuan--"ashamed" or "disgraced" (reading ka'wr, instead of ka'rw, a simple case of transposition of letters--which he corrected in his second edition) [instead of "as a lion"!] [KD, vol 5, in. loc.(p.318ff)]

  • Aquila's second edition had a different rendering. He renders it by the same meaning (but different Greek words) as Symmachus (Jewish translator for Origin) and Jerome, meaning "they have bound/tied". Aquila used epedasan (aor of pedaw, "to shackle"), whereas Symmachus used hos zatountes dasai ("as seeking to bind"). Again, note that this rendering is both (a) a verb and; (b) not a lion...(smile)

  • The LXX (earlier than Aq/Sym/Jerome) and the Syriac (about the same time as Aquila) both have the same Hebrew word in front of them, but understand the root meaning of "to dig" [kara(h) I]. They both see the verb "they pierced" in front of them. The Hebrew root would have been the same root as found in Psalm 7.15 ("a hole he digs") kara(h). It is interesting in that the Syriac is aware of the LXX, but shows no preference for using the LXX over the proto-MT of the time [Mikra:296]




    The LXX reflects a more ancient text that the Syriac, though: "In the study and use of ancient versions pride of place goes, of course, to the LXX, which may reflect a Hebrew text older than, or at least different from the Masoretic text known to us. In general this is not the case with the Peshitta (Syriac version). A great many studies on the relation between the text of the Peshitta and MT, agree that the Hebrew text which is reflected in the Peshitta is practically identical with MT, or at least very close to it. This suggests that the Peshitta originated after the early Masoretic text had more or less been established, which means after the middle of the first century C.E." [Mikra:258f]

4. Even the other incidences of the phrase "like a lion" are different than this form.

The phrase 'like a lion' (with the kap "as" prefix) appears in 19 unquestioned passages. Of these,
    • Four cases involve a different word for lion (Job 10.16; Hosea 5.14; 13.7; Jer 25.38)
    • Three cases have a consonantal form similar to ours, but with a different vocalization [patah instead of qames] under the initial kap (Num 23.24; 24.9; Ezek 22.25)
    • Only one case has the same exact form as ours (Is 38.13)
    • One form is the dominant one (with a final sere/h), occurring in 11 cases (Gen 49.9; Ps 7.2/3; 10:9; 17.12; Jer 2.30; 12.8; 49.19; 50.44; Dan 7.4; Hos 11.10; Mic 5.8/7)

    Note that the only other case in Psalms (e.g., 7.2) has a completely different pointing/end than the form under discussion. Every single vowel point is different.

    On the basis of usage, then, we can suggest that if the author of Psalm 22 would have wanted to say "like a lion", then he/she would have either (a) used the form elsewhere used in the Psalms; or (b) used the most common form in the Hebrew bible--both of which are different from the form in our passage. This suggests that 'like a lion' is NOT the preferred meaning (although it does not suggest in itself what might be the preferred meaning). The LAST form he/she would have picked was that used only one other place in the Hebrew bible (i.e., our form here).
5. There is recognition even in the rabbinics that this form does NOT mean the same as the "as a lion" form in the Isaiah 38 passage! Keil and Delitzsch bring this data to light in their discussion of this passage: "Perceiving this [difficulty of the translation 'like a lion' in the context], the Masora on Isa xxxviii. 13 observes, that k'ari in the two passages in which it occurs (Ps. xxii. 17, Isa. xxxviii. 13), occurs in two different meanings, just as the Midrash then also understands k'ri in the Psalm as a verb used of marking with conjuring, magic characters"

Let's restate this for clarity:

1. Since the Isaiah passage clearly means "like a lion" and since the Masora says the Psalm passage has a "different meaning", then it cannot mean "like a lion".
2. The Midrash understands the form in the psalm as (a) a verb [instead of 'like a lion'] and (b) meaning "marking hands and feet with symbols".

This last point alone should be sufficient to eliminate "like a lion" from consideration as the preferred translation, but when coupled with the other points above, makes the case very, very strong. Whatever the form means, it is LEAST LIKELY to be "like a lion".

But there is actually a final piece of data that constitutes extremely strong evidence against ka'rai ("like a lion"), and that is from the single occurrence of the verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).

The DSS scrolls pre-date (historically) the Massoretic Text by centuries (even the latest DSS). Psalm 22.17 occurs in one of these scrolls from Nahal Hever (XHev/Se4, f.11, line 4), and the collection is dated to 50-100 AD (The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, Peter W. Flint, Brill:1997, p.43)--again, centuries before the MT witness. The form in this earliest copy of the Psalm in existence is k'ry, with the waw ending y indicating a 3 personal plural verb form ("they"). This is decisive evidence against "like a lion" (although it will not necessarily help us decide between the competing "they X" variants below). And remember from above, this k'ry variant also showed up in the later MT variants. [Data on the DSS manuscript can be found in The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, Peter W. Flint, Brill:1997, p.83]

This makes the two earliest witnesses refute the "like a lion" option.

This was recently pointed out in the translation of the DSS into English by the scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich [The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Know Bible Translated for the First Time into English, HarperCollins:1999]. At the begining of Psalm 22 they say:

"Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' wheras the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'"!" [p.519]

This is exceptionally strong data, from very strong scholars [e.g., Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame], that "like a lion" is NOT the original reading.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
So, you are not a Christian. Your choice, as is your rejection of the Bible.
Bs'd

The vast majority, the Hebrew Bible, I accept.

I have listened to a number of Rabbis attempting to explain away Christ, the virgin birth, etc. They always restore to redefining words in contradiction to know linguistics, rules of grammar, history and spiritualizing meanings. Some say Israel itself is the Messiah.

The 70 Weeks of Daniel remain problem for such thinking, in example. An exact time frame is set for the coming of the Messiah. We are 2,000 years past the deadline.
Daniel 9 does not speak about THE messiah. It speaks about two messiah's, but not about THE messiah.

For the finer details look here: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/daniel9

I noted when you first posted you took the name Elijah. So you think you are a prophet?
I don't think I'm a prophet. It's just that "Eliyahu" means "My God is Y-H-W-H". And that's the way it is.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
A lot of good stuff to respond to, but I will leave it to CTZ to discuss it with you.

I know what Eliyahu means, which some do not know is Elijah in English.

Here we are open to discussion with people of any faith, as long as it is honest an true discussion and debate.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
Bs'd

Concerning the "like the lion" controversy, it is important to know that what is written in the Hebrew text, is "like the lion".

The claim that in de Dead Sea scrolls there is written "they pierced" is wrong. There it is written kaf, aleph, reesh, waav; כארו
And that is a word that does not exist in Hebrew. It is nowhere to be found in the Tanach. It is most likely a scribal error, all the more so because the word "hands" following the "ka'ari" is also misspelled in that scroll.
The vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts says there simply "like the lion", that is kaf, aleph, reesh, yot: כארי
In order to turn that into a known verb, the aleph has to disappear, and the yot needs to be replaced by a waav, and then you get כרו, a verb that means "digging", and not piercing. Google translate translates that as "mined".

So there really is no "pierced" in Psalm 22.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
So, even though the Hebrew manuscripts that say “lion” outnumber the Hebrew manuscripts that say “pierced,” the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading. Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts which predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D., after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html#ixzz3GyhXUi8j
 

Eliyahu

New Member
So, even though the Hebrew manuscripts that say “lion” outnumber the Hebrew manuscripts that say “pierced,” the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading. Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts which predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D., after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html#ixzz3GyhXUi8j
Bs'd

You seem to overlook the simple fact that there is NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT THAT HAS "PIERCED".

There might be some that have כארו, but like I said before, that means nothing in Hebrew. That verb doesn't exist in Hebrew or the Tanach.

You have to turn it into כרו by dropping the alef, but then you get the verb "digging", and not piercing.

So there is no way you can say that "hands and feet are pierced in Psalm 22".

Just doesn't exist.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
You seem to overlook the simple fact that there is NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT THAT HAS "PIERCED".
Well you've been shown why the historians and linguistic scholars agree that the correct interpretation is pierced and lion is meaningless in the given context.
Pierced is the correct interpretation in light of all the other scholarly review we have to date.

You reject the overwhelming modern scholarship and expert verification of the linguistics involved in the matter of translation in favor of your own interpretation.
OK...but you just tossed all logic and reason out the window in your own worldview.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
You seem to overlook the simple fact that there is NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT THAT HAS "PIERCED".
Well you've been shown why the historians and linguistic scholars agree that the correct interpretation is pierced and lion is meaningless in the given context.
Pierced is the correct interpretation in light of all the other scholarly review we have to date.

You reject the overwhelming modern scholarship and expert verification of the linguistics involved in the matter of translation in favor of your own interpretation.
OK...but you just tossed all logic and reason out the window in your own worldview.
Bs'd

The Jews are the ones who have transmitted the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible through the millennia with very great accuracy. The Tanach is even much more accurately transmitted than the much younger NT.

And that is what I rely on, the Jewish tradition and zeal in transmitting the Scriptures unchanged, a tradition which continues up until today.

Christians rely upon corrupted translations like the LXX, Christian made translations like the Vulgata, en other sources which are not reliable.

You say: "Pierced is the correct interpretation in light of all the other scholarly review we have to date."

I don't do interpretations, I just read what is written there.

That Christians corrupt their translations is also clear from the example I gave from Micah 5.

And we can also see it in Isaiah 7, where the word "almah" is translated as "virgin", when it doesn't have that meaning.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
How do you come to the conclusion that the Jews were absolutely perfect in their translations?
You rely on what you claim to be perfect. Not so.

When compiling any given passage of Scripture, the Masoretes had to choose among multiple versions of the ancient Hebrew texts. In some cases the textual differences were relatively inconsequential. For example, two texts may differ over the spelling of a person’s name.

However, in other cases they were presented with textual variants which made a considerable impact upon doctrine or prophecy. In cases like these, were the Masoretes completely objective? Or did their anti-Christian biases influence any of their editing decisions?

In the 2nd century A.D., hundreds of years before the time of the Masoretes, Justin Martyr investigated a number of Old Testament texts in various Jewish synagogues.
He ultimately concluded that the Jews who had rejected Christ had also rejected the Septuagint, and were now tampering with the Hebrew Scriptures themselves:

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the [Septuagint] translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying” (~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)

If Justin Martyr’s findings are correct, then it is likely that the Masoretes inherited a Hebrew textual tradition which had already been corrupted with an anti-Christian bias. And if we look at some of the most significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, that is precisely what we see. For example, consider the following comparisons:


These are not random, inconsequential differences between the texts. Rather, these appear to be places where the Masoretes (or their forebears) had a varied selection of texts to consider, and their decisions were influenced by anti-Christian bias. Simply by choosing one Hebrew text over another, they were able to subvert the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His healing of the blind, His crucifixion, and His salvation of the Gentiles. The Jewish scribes were able to edit Jesus out of many important passages, simply by rejecting one Hebrew text, and selecting (or editing) another text instead.

Thus, the Masoretic Text has not perfectly preserved the original Hebrew text of Scripture. The Masoretes received corrupted texts to begin with, they used an alphabet which was radically different from the original Hebrew, they added countless vowel points which did not exist in the original, they excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures, and they included a number of significant changes to prophecy and doctrine.

It would seem that the Septuagint (LXX) translation is not only far more ancient than the Masoretic Text . . . the Septuagint is far more accurate as well. It is a more faithful representation of the original Hebrew Scriptures.

Perhaps that is why Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the Septuagint, and accorded it full authority as the inspired Word of God.
 
Top