Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
To clarify, Isaiah doesn't say "virgin", but Matthew clearly does.
The sign was not the birth of the child. The sign, rather, was that before the child reached the age of reason, the two foes of Judah would be defeated.
How could the birth of Jesus, 700 years later, have been a sign to Ahaz that Ephraim and Syria would be defeated?
and so all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26)
:o)
I would still maintain that being inside the Church is the only way to know for sure one is saved.
I can't believe no one called you on this!
Of course, the Catholic church doesn't teach the doctrine of eternal security, so there is no way that a Catholic can "know for sure" that he is saved.
Which requires taking the verse from Isaiah completely out of context.
It doesn't matter, anyway, for those who believe in the inspiration of the gospels. Isaiah doesn't say this, but Matthew does.
Busy working! I'm sorry I missed all the fun! :o)
LOL!
A Lenten Baptist bible study?
Believe it or not, some Baptist "do Lent". It isn't exactly the same thing, but the notion of sacrifice for 40 days in preparation leading up to Good Friday appeals to some people.
(NASB)
16 For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
(AMP)
16 For [like a pack of] dogs they have encompassed me; a company of evildoers has encircled me, they pierced my hands and my feet.
(NLT)
16 My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet.
(ESV)
16 For dogs encompass me;
a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet--
17 I can count all my bones--
they stare and gloat over me;
(NKJV)
16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
(ASV)
16 For dogs have compassed me: A company of evil-doers have inclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
(YLT)
16And to the dust of death thou appointest me, For surrounded me have dogs, A company of evil doers have compassed me, Piercing my hands and my feet.
(DARBY)
16 For dogs have encompassed me; an assembly of evil-doers have surrounded me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
(HCSB)
16 For dogs have surrounded me;
a gang of evildoers has closed in on me;
they pierced my hands and my feet.
(NIRV)
16 A group of sinful people has closed in on me.
They are all around me like a pack of dogs.
They have pierced my hands and my feet.
(TMB)
22:16For dogs have surrounded Me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed Me; they pierced My hands and My feet.
(RSV)
16 Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet--
(GWT)
16 Dogs have surrounded me. A mob has encircled me. They have pierced my hands and feet.
(BBE)
16 Dogs have come round me: I am shut in by the band of evil-doers; they made wounds in my hands and feet.
(WBT)
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Latin Vulgate ends at verse 6. ????
But, all in all, there are a lot of bible versions that perpetuate the error. The same word is correctly translated in verse 21 as lion.
But you aren't going to differentiate by whether or not "pierced" is used for that verse. That goes back well before the split between denominations - certainly well before the KJV messed some things up. But it's a false argument. Some would like to pretend that "pierced" is incorrectly used here. They're simply wrong. The Septuagint translates it as "pierced" long before there WERE any Christians to get it wrong. The Greek is not really in question.
It's equally likely that the Jews changed it ex-post-factop to avoid the Messianic implications. Especially since the supposedly "correct" Hebrew makes no sense.
You might check 5/6HEvPs (one of the DSS).
Ahh.... I guess I need to type faster. See above for the explanation. It has nothing to do with the KJV. It goes back much farther.
Probably because it wouldn't read well! LOL
21 Save me from the lion's pierced mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Ok, then its about time they all correct their faulty translations.
Because it isn't the same word?
The MT probably changed the word because the Jews didn't want to lend credibility to the Christians.
"Pierced" is the correct translation.
No. It looks like 'pierced' is a deliberate mistranslation. In fact, that is the only time that word is translated as pierced! LOL All the other times it is correctly translated as lion.
Psalm 22 (KJV)
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
From the Tanakh (The Jewish Bible)
(17) For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
(18) I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me.
(19) They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.
(20) But Thou, O YHWH, be not far off; O Thou my strength, hasten to help me.
(21) Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog.
(22) Save me from the lion's mouth; yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen do Thou answer me.
From the KJV
Psalm 22
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
From the Hebrew
kiy sebhâbhuniykelâbhiym `adhath merê`iym hiqqiyphuniy kâ'ariy yâdhay veraghlây
from the Hebrew
738 'ariy ar-ee' or (prolonged) earyeh {ar-yay'}; (in the sense of violence); a lion:--(young) lion, + pierce (from the margin).
1) lion
a) pictures or images of lions
King James Word Usage - Total: 80 lion 79, untranslated variant 1
Can you guess what verse is the VARIANT?
Why, it's this one.... For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Either this person in question was pierced by a lion, or the word pierced doesn't belong in the verse at all. And what does (from the margin) mean? It means that someone wrote pierce in the margin of some manuscript, so that when it was trans-scribed later, the word pierced could be inserted. And it was. Since verse 21 of the KJV correctly translates the word into lion, it would seem that the word pierce/d does not belong in verse 16 of the KJV at all.
Also, in case you wonder why the verses are off by 1, its because the first verse from the Tenach is used like an intro in the KJV. The first verse from the Tanach is:
Nope. Nice try, though. The context clearly indicates that "lion" is the proper translation.
BigMack
The second mistake is that the Jewish text your argument is based on is NEWER than the Septuagint. While the Hebrew is clearly the original, we don't have manuscripts from before the time of Christ... except for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately for you... the DSS renders the verse WITH the word "pierced".
Again, the most likely situation (since admitted by numerous Jewish scholars) is the the Tanakh is simply wrong. The verse as cited makes no gramatical sense at all and Jewish scholars have struggled to come up with SOME explanation for how this could be. The answer? Some time after the time of Christ, the Jews changes their Scriptures to take out references that clearly pointed to Christ. Whether this was around the time they took out the "Apocrypha" or not, I don't know.
Nope. Nice try, though. The context clearly indicates that "lion" is the proper translation.
Tennis anyone?
Where does it all end?
BigMack
The only thing I would add is to point also to verse 14 (or verse 13, depending on the version you are using):
they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. (Psalm 22:14)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.