And Isaiah 9:6 Continued...

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Nov 30, 2011 at 13:49

Coming back around to this dissertation of Isaiah 9:6, when assessing what you are trying to ascertain about Who that passage is referring to, the same mistake in claiming a 'false' translation is made as has been for centuries. In that, we need to go to your last statement, claiming that the translation was 'messed up', apparently from the view of starting in Hebrew, to Latin to English, by this thinking the meaning is lost. But in this, one aspect is lost: the Hebrew of those times was the 'Temple' language; and the translations for the common usage were found in the Septuagint. I almost never consider any of the Latin translations as a comparable version since it comes at a much later time and its use was prescribed for membership in the Roman communion, of which I am not a part.

Your reason(s) why translations cannot be supported by you for your belief system are humanistic reasons; for they do not take into consideration the necessity of revelation of spiritual things on a mortal human level, at which level spiritual help is supernaturally necessary. Each of your supposed 'proofs' are taken out of context to support a humanistic rationale, but miss what is being revealed. It is a decidedly Jewish thing: show me or I will not believe, the very same things the people of the time Yeshua's human appearance said.

In the use of the term 'man' is each of these references is the distinction that Almighty God does not operate in the same way as sinful man: (see Isaiah 55:8, 9). Further, they do not diminish the potential that Almighty God can perform His will in any fashion that He determines through His will, even the supernatural appearance of being virgin born to a young Jewish maiden in order to fulfill Isaiah 9:6.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".