Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Isaiah 9:6 IS a mistranslation-detailed proof

Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:18:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
some days ago, I have started a thread in which we discussed whether Isaiah 9:6 is a mistransaltion or not. AS usual, new testament believers came up with their silly excuses and tried to convince me "christian translation are right" but now I came with detailed analysis from jews. Here is that thread: http://www.debate.org...

My question was on christian translations like "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace
." NIV Isaiah 9:6

At the end, I am gonna give reference, here I am going to write summary. I cant post everything here. The analysis I found compares it with KJV which reads the verse as
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Hebrew translation is
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and [He, the] Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace; "
It is version A, now version B
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and [he] called his name: Wondrous Adviser, Mighty
God [or, Mighty Hero], Eternal Patron, Ruler of Peace; "

At first sight, the biggest difference here is "future/present tense VS past tense" Christian translations give it in present and future tense, Jewish translation gives it in past tense. Which is correct?! When we read it from English translation by jews we see the verse talks about things that happened in the past while we read from KJV about the events that are yet to happen in future. Which is right?
Another difference is: names/titles listed in that verse. KJV lists 5 names/titles while JT provides us 4 names/titles. Which is correct?
The analysis will answer you.

VERBS&TENSES:
Now, we must look at the verb which is in dispute, controversy. Is it in future tense as christians translate or is it past tense as the jews translate? I am quoting:

"The first verb that appears in the verse is לּדַ ֻי (yuLAD). This is a conjugation of the root verb #1497;לד in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense, in the pu'AL stem, the passive intensive verb form, giving it the meaning has been born or was born, depending on the context of the passage in which it appears"
so, deducing from this, the verb in Hebrew seems to be past tense. From now on, we can conclude KJV (or other christian translations) is wrong by mistranslating it "is born". We go on by comparing the usages of the same verb in the same book. I quote:

The KJV renders לּדַ ֻי at Isaiah 9:6 as is born, in the present tense, which conflicts with the Hebrew as well as with the Jewish translation. Of the 15 identical instances (in terms of both spelling and vowel markings) of the term לּדַ ֻי in the Hebrew Bible, only one appears in the Book of Isaiah " at Isaiah 9:5. Of the remaining 14 instances, on seven occasions (Genesis 10:21,25, 35:26, 46:22,27, 51:50, 1Chronicles 1:19), the KJV correctly renders the term as were born, where the references are to more than one son (in Biblical Hebrew verbs conjugated in the singular are, at times, applied to plural nouns). These cases are excluded from the analysis since they concern a plurality and not an individual, which leaves a total of eight cases for the analysis

so, where was this verb used in the Jewish scriptures (misnamed as Old Testament) and how KJV translated it? let us see:
The verb "יֻ ַלּד" appears in Genesis 4:26 , 2 Samuel 21:20, Jeremiah 20:15, Psalms 87:4, Psalms 87:5, Psalms 87:6, Ruth 4:17 and Isaiah 9:6.
On three occasions, KJV translated it as "is born" and on other 5 occasions KJV translated it as "was born." Those 3 are Isaiah 9:6, Jeremiah 20:15 and Ruth 4:17.

now, here I wanna add my own analysis which was not included in the source I am citing, I wanna add from biblehub.com . Here, textanalysis of biblehub translates "יֻלַּד־" as "was born" but if you do the same textanalysis for Isaiah 9:6 they translate it as "is born". The hebrew verse is the same but biblehub translates it differently.

Now, let us go back to the source I am citing. The next verb is
תּןַנִ (niTAN). This is a conjugation of the root verb נתן in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense, in the nif'AL stem, the reflexive and passive verb form, giving it the meaning has been given or was given, depending on the context of the passage in which it appears.
Deducing from this grammatical explanation, we can conclude the verb is in the past tense. BUT
The KJV renders תּןַנִ at Isaiah 9:6 as is given, in the present tense, which conflicts with the Hebrew as well as with the Jewish translation.
again, christian translations are wrong. mistranslations.
did they mistranslate it intentionally, on purpose or did they not know they are mistranslating? Let us see.
Of the 14 identical instances of the term תּןַנִ in the Hebrew Bible, two appear in the Book of Isaiah " at Isaiah 9:5 and at Isaiah 35:2 " an inadequate sample from which to draw conclusions. Therefore, all 14 cases are included in the analysis. The verse appears in the following verses of the Tanakh;
Leviticus 19:20, Numbers 26:62, Joshua 24:33,Isaiah 9:5[6], Isaiah 35:2, Jeremiah 13:20, Jeremiah 51:55, Ezekiel 15:4, Ezekiel 16:34, Ezekiel 32:25, Ecclesiastes 10:6, Esther 4:8, Esther 6:8 2Chronicles 34:16.

out of these 14 cases, KJV gives it in past tense in 6 verses, present tense in 7 verses and future tense once. What the hell KJV translators were smoking/drinking while they were translating this verses? Can a person be such inconsistent hypocrite? if he is a NT believer, not he can but he is.
Now, let us skip to the hebrew for "was placed/shall be placed". The hebrew verse for that is "וַתְּהִ֥י" transliterated as vathi. Here is analysis:

(we continue below, few characters are remaining, I go on with posts.)
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:43:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I am sorry, Hebrew characters are not supported here. I realised it too late. I omit it in the upcoming quotes. if you want you will read them in the source I quote. from now on, only transliterations will be quoted. if transliteration is not available in the source I use I will type ,,,, instead of transliteration.

The next verb that appears in the verse is (va'teHI). This term is a combination of the conjugated verb, (teHI) and a special form (va-), of the conjunction (ve-) the latter being called (VAV-ha'hiBUR), the conjunctive-vav, which is the preposition and]. The verb & is a poetic form of the conjugation of the root verb ,,, in the 3rd-person, singular, feminine, future tense, in the pa'AL/QAL stem, the simple verb form, which translates as [she/it] will be. [Note: Since the Hebrew language has no neuter gender, all nouns are either masculine or feminine, and the neuter gender must be inferred from the context]. Together with the conjunction ,,,,, and, this would then be and [she/it] shall be. However, as noted above, the conjunction appears in a special form called in Hebrew "(VAVha'hiPUCH), the conversive-vav, which, in addition to functioning as the conjunction and, also reverses the tense of the verb to which it is prefixed. In other words, if the verb is in the past tense, it is changed to the future tense, and vice versa. Putting all this together, the verb ,,, means and [she/it] was [placed], i.e., a verb conjugated in the 3rd-person, singular, feminine, past tense.
Again, christian translation contradict hebrew grammar.
not only hebrew grammar, they contradict themselves as well. 5 out of the 85 identical usages of the same verb are in the book of Isaiah. THey are:
Isaiah 5:25, Isaiah 9:5[6], Isaiah 23:3, Isaiah 29:11,Isaiah 29:13 .
Twice KJV gives it in the past tense, 3 times in the present or future tense. seems when it fitted them they mistranslated, when they did not need to edit, invent a prophecy they translated it correctly.

now, the main verb: was it to be translated "shall be called" or "called" in the past tense? The hebrew word for that verb is "va'yiqra". Is it in future tense or in the past tense? Let us see:
The last verb that appears in the verse is (va'yiqRA). As in the previous case, this term, too, is a combination of the conjugated verb (yiqRA) and the special conjunction ,,, the conversive-vav the net effect of which is the addition of the preposition and to the verb and reverse its tense. The verb is the conjugation of the root verb ,,, in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, future tense, in the pa'AL/QAL stem, the simple verb form, which translates as [he] will call. Thus, the combination means and [he] called, where the future tense has been reversed to the past tense.
we go on
The KJV renders ,,, at Isaiah 9:6 as shall be called, in the future tense, and in a passive form, which conflicts with the Hebrew
Grammar.
Of the 205 identical instances of ,,, in the Hebrew Bible, four appear in the Book of Isaiah " at Isaiah 9:5, 21:8, 22:12, 36:13. These four cases comprise the sample selected for the analysis
They are: Isaiah 9:5[6], Isaiah 21:8, Isaiah 22:12,Isaiah 36:13 . out of that 4, 3 times KJV translates it in the past tense, once in a future tense. you know where they did this hypocricy.

The results of the above analysis of the tenses in Isaiah 9:5[6] demonstrate
the consistency of the Jewish translations and the inconsistency of the KJV
translations.

"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:44:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Here is the source: http://thejewishhome.org...

The analysis does not end here. we go on with names.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:59:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
NAMES/TITLES:

The verse goes on with titles/names.
The first name/title is עץֵיוֹ לאֶ פֶּ (PEle yo'ETS), Wondrous Adviser, which appears in the Hebrew Bible only once " at Isaiah 9:5. Consequently, a comparative analysis, as was done for the verbs, is not possible. In the KJV rendition, this name/title is separated into two entities " Wonderful and Counsellor. Although a comparative analysis is not possible, the rules of Hebrew grammar still apply and, according to which, this split may not be done.
While the two terms can stand on their own as nouns, they take on different meanings as such. The noun (PEle), which derives from the root verb means a wonder or a marvel, as may be seen in its two applications, in the singular form, in the Book of Isaiah " at Isaiah 25:1 as , a wonder, and at Isaiah 29:14 as (va'FEle), and a wonder. The noun (yo'ETS), which derives from the root verb, means an adviser or a counselor, as may be seen from its two applications, in the singular form, in the Book of Isaiah " at Isaiah 3:3 as (ve yo' ETS), and an adviser or and a counselor, and at Isaiah 41:28 as, an adviser or a counselor.

In short, names are also mistranslated in christian translations. read them in the source please. from now on, I want to add another source which says something about Dead See Scrolls Isaiah 9:6.

The key words in the NIV version "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" and "Prince of Peace" are the ones to focus upon.
The words "Mighty God" in the NIV comes from the Masoretes in the 900s AD who wrote it out as two words -- El and Gibbor which means El (God) and Gibor (Warrior). From this, many of us believed it was a prophecy calling a child "Mighty God." But Brenner shows that the much earlier Dead Sea Scrolls, which is presumptively more valid, has it as one word -- Elgibor. This would imply the Masoretes erred in transcribing this.
What then is the importance that the DSS has Elgibor as one word? Benner says such a conglomerate term thus signifies simply a name, without any intention to identify someone as God. The name of this child to be born was simply Elgibor just like Isaiah is a conglomerate name "Yahweh Saves" (Isai = saves, Iah / Yah = Yahweh). Just as one is not saying Isaiah is Yahweh, one would not be saying the child prophesied about in Isaiah 9:6 is God Yahweh. Elgibor is a name, and nothing more.
What about the term "Everlasting Father" as the NIV has it?
Scholar Jeff Brenner says this too is an error. It is not "everlasting" in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In fact, the entire key passage, Brenner translates from the DSS to say: "Elgibor the father of Ad, ruler of Hashalom (i.e., Jerusalem)."

Scholar Jeff Benner says that "Ad" is misinterpted as "Eternal," and literally it means a person named Ad.
This word is often used in the phrase (l'olam v'ed). While this is usually translated as "forever and ever" it literally means "to eternity and again". The word (ad/ed) never means "eternity". These two words would best be translated as "father of Ad (a name)" (link)
What about "Prince of Peace?" Another mistake, Brenner's evidence would prove.
The Masoretes in the 900s AD are missing "Ha" in their version. However, it is present in the Dead Sea Scrolls from over a milennium earlier. Missing this, the Masoretic text would read "Ruler / Prince of Peace." But once one restores the "Ha" from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Brenner points out that Hashalom is simply an abbreviation for Jerusalem, not "ruler of Peace (Salem)."
Thus, applying Brenner's corrections, the passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls version reads simply:
For a child is born unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called El Gibbor father of Ad, ruler of Jerusalem.
So in the DSS, Ad is a name of the father of the son; El-Gibbor is a name of the child; and the Masoretes lost the "ha" before Shalom, and thus lost the link that signified only "Jerusalem," allowing it to be misread as "Prince of Peace." If this was the state of the Hebrew in 33 AD, no wonder neither Matthew nor anyone else read into this verse an application to Jesus.
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com...
but now, if the only difference between DSS and Hebrew scriptures is HA, then the analysis applies here as well. Verbs are all in the past tense. Thus, considering DSS is presumably more valid than the later, the correct translation of Isaiah 9:6 must be:

For a child has been born to us, and the government is placed upon his shoulder, and he called his name: El Gibbor, father of Ad, Ruler of Jerusalem.

but, in hebrew or other cultures, A is identified as son of B, not father of C. That is the common way. Why would it talk about someone's father?
it would make sense if A is not known person and his son is famous but El Gibbor would be a famous one since he is the ruler of Jerusalem. so, all we are left with is Masoretic text's Jewish translation is more correct.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:03:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
What do you believe is the theological significance of this?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:26:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:03:34 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
What do you believe is the theological significance of this?
It is one of the most out of context quoted verses I guess. just like almost any and every alleged fullfilled by Jesus prophecy, it too is false that is why it is significant.

even though the translation was right, that is not a prohecy. That talks about the child that was born, not about the one that is expected to be born.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:40:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:26:42 AM, Artur wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:03:34 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
What do you believe is the theological significance of this?
It is one of the most out of context quoted verses I guess. just like almost any and every alleged fullfilled by Jesus prophecy, it too is false that is why it is significant.

even though the translation was right, that is not a prohecy. That talks about the child that was born, not about the one that is expected to be born.

Slain since the foundation of the world. Yeah, lot of mystery there. How do you reconcile the promises made to David while showing that God is Salvation?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:31:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:40:49 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:26:42 AM, Artur wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:03:34 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
What do you believe is the theological significance of this?
It is one of the most out of context quoted verses I guess. just like almost any and every alleged fullfilled by Jesus prophecy, it too is false that is why it is significant.

even though the translation was right, that is not a prohecy. That talks about the child that was born, not about the one that is expected to be born.

Slain since the foundation of the world. Yeah, lot of mystery there. How do you reconcile the promises made to David while showing that God is Salvation?
I do not. did you expect me to reconcile? if so, why?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer