This highlights the point very well. The interlinear does give a better one-to-one with the Hebrew text, than the KJV or other Christian English translations. Look at Isaiah 7 and Psalm 22 in your interlinear. The interlinear still misses some subtle points as well though.
Isaiah 7:14Interlinear: the·damsel The JudaicaPress Hebrew: the young woman The KJV: a virgin
The interlinear is closer to the JP than the KJV, no virgin but a young woman.
Psalm 22:16Interlinear: ones-doing-evil they-cencompass·me as·the·lion The JP Hebrew: band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion The KJV: the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet
Again,The interlinear is closer to the JP than the KJV. No piercing of the hands and feet but surrounded like a lion, consistent with Psalm 22:12-13
Zech 12:10 Interlinear:and·they-look to·me whom they-stabbed JPS Hebrew: and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through The KJV: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,
Analysis by Messiah Truth:
Specifically, the problem concerns the mistranslation of the Hebrew expression (et asher-daqaru) found in Zechariah 12:10B(i), which reads: because of him who they pierced [or because of the ones who they pierced], when correctly translated.
The Hebrew words (et) and (asher) are ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible. (et) is a preposition that serves as the marker of a definite direct object of a verb. In its root form, it is similar to the definite article the in English. However, unlike the case of the English language, (et) can be conjugated, and thereby it becomes the objective case of the respective pronoun, such as (oti), me (1st-person, singular, masculine or feminine pronoun; as in "He taught me."), (ot'cha), you (2nd-person, singular, masculine pronoun; as in "He taught you."), etc. The word (et) may also serve as the preposition with, and it can be conjugated in that context as well, albeit differently, such as, (itti), with me, (it'cha), with you, etc. The Hebrew word (asher) is a conjunction, a part of speech that connects other words or phrases. (asher) can mean because or for, that or which, who or whom, and it may take on various other meanings when combined with prepositions.
When (et) and (asher) occur together as a phrase, and in the particular grammatical structure, such as is found in Zechariah 12:10B(i), the phrase (et asher) must be read as, because of or concerning or regarding [something] or simply because or that which, but not simply as whom or the one, which are common in Christian translations. The particular translation depends on the context of the specific passage. The following example demonstrates this in another passage which has a grammatical structure similar to Zechariah 12:10B(i):
1 Samuel 30:23 – And David said, "You will not do so, my brothers, concerning that which [ (et asher)] the L-rd has given us, and He watched over us, and delivered the troop that came against us into our hand.
The KJV has a correct translation of that passage:
1 Samuel 30:23(KJV) – Then said David, Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the LORD hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand.
The special application of this combination, (et asher) appears to have been better understood by the writers of the Christian Septuagint (LXX), in which appears the following rendition of Zechariah 12:10B(i):
Zechariah 12:10B(i)(LXX) - and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me,
Although still badly mistranslated and inaccurate, the LXX rendition does not at all resemble the common Christian translations, and it has the (et asher) at least partially right.
Isaiah 53 is interesting. The interlinear gets some important parts correct, such as Is 53:8, second to the last word is nagua in the hebrew, which means plague. The KJV makes it stricken (as in a beating)the interlinear says a contagion, which is closer to the hebrew than stricken. Jesus was never a diseased person, so clearly that isnt him.
Also, the last word in Is 53:8 is lamo, which means "them". The KJV has it "he" and the interlinear has it "to him" which is also not correct. This is very important because rendered "them" is obviously plural, meaning the servant is a plurality, which makes it impossible for the servant to be Jesus. Here is why.
The word which KJV translated in the second half of the verse in the singular is the Hebrew word "lamo." In numerous places throughout the Bible, and in Isaiah in particular, you find "lamo" translated as "them." See Isaiah 15:4 ("be thou a covert to them."), 23:1 ("from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them."), 44:7 ("let them show unto them."), and 48:21 ("He caused waters to flow out of the rock for them.") A much more accurate rendering of the last half of that verse is Artscroll’s "an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin."
A significant difference exists in the way the Hebrew word (lamo) is translated in the respective versions of the last phrase. The Jewish version renders the word as upon them, while the KJV renders it as he. This difference in translation also creates a significant difference in the context of the phrase. In the Jewish rendition, the context points to a nation that was stricken. In the KJV translation, the context points to an individual who was afflicted. Since both versions cannot be simultaneously valid, which is the correct rendition?
A closer look at the word (lamo) helps resolve this issue. A good Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary will identify the word (lamo) as a synonym for the word (lahem), meaning, them(selves), for them(selves), to/unto them(selves), they [have] (particularly in Biblical Hebrew).
A very good 6 part series on Isaiah 53. Here is the 3 part that covers Isaiah 53:8, scroll down to the discussion on lamo. At the end is a button that will take you back to part 1. It is worth reading all 6.
Shalom.
Shalom