islam: truly an Abrahamic religion?

Psalm 2 is a conversation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit concerning His 2nd coming.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

John 14:6

i do not deny that. Sure, when Jesus was here he was the way, the truth and the life. Every prophet of God, when sent to his people was "the way, the truth and the life". You cannot arrive to God except by following that Prophet.

I'm ok with that.


You have still not chosen:

Thus, as per Jesus saying, the Qur'an cannot be from Devil.
If you deny that, you are going AGAINST JESUS.


Choose.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Bible teacher who's ministry specializes in a few areas. Eschatology, Texual Commentary, his degree is in information sciences, so his understanding and teaching on the codes and discoveries under the text is quite insightful.

I can also post the credentials of several other biblical "scholars"... would that make them credible, as well?
Im sure the followers of Harold Camping also were impressed by his resume.

And no, its not appeal to "ridicule".... this is a genuine statement from me. It is indeed startling to see so many christians, claiming that they have the holy spirit and knowledge of the bible... blindly follow the words of preachers, as if they were Moses or Jesus in the flesh today.

Believe me when I say it... around 10 years ago, I was really into the books of this christian scholar called Grant R. Jeffrey. (Ever heard of him?) While I dont subscribe to the christian view of eschatology, I will still credit Grant R. Jeffrey with getting me interested in the subject through his two books "prince of darkness" and another, I cant remember.

Anyway, as I grew up, I figured he is just another guy like you or me, who just has his own viewpoint of the bible but is good at writing books and getting them printed. Thats about it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Psalm 2 is a conversation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit concerning His 2nd coming.

Red herring much?

What does that have to do with anything we are discussing here.

And BTW, NO it is not what you claim it is.

And I am still waiting:

Thus, as per Jesus saying, the Qur'an cannot be from Devil.
If you deny that, you are going AGAINST JESUS.


Choose.

Psalm 22 is written as if the thoughts of Jesus as He hung on the cross. The "codes" behind Isaiah 53 lists all the people at the foot of the cross. Except Judas, his name is absent, and would be the most common if the codes were merely random.

Coded into Isaiah 53.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Psalm 22 is written as if the thoughts of Jesus as He hung on the cross. The "codes" behind Isaiah 53 lists all the people at the foot of the cross. Except Judas, his name is absent, and would be the most common if the codes were merely random.

Coded into Isaiah 53.

edit on 10-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: wrong verse for the 40 names at the foot of the cross.

Educate yourself:

The beginning of Psalms 22 is not the only part cited by Christians as a messianic prophecy. Christians also claim that Psalms 22:16 (or Psalms 22:17, depending on text) is a messianic prophecy. Let’s examine:

Psalms 22:17 “Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions [they maul] my hands and feet.” (JPS)

Psalms 22:16 “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” (KJV)

The piercing of the hands and feet is referenced by Christians as being a prophecy about Jesus’ crucifixion, where his hands and feet were pierced by nails. However, contrasting the two verses in the JPS and KJV give radically different results – the former states that the Psalmist’s hands and feet are mauled by dogs or lions. The latter states that the assembly of the wicked has pierced the Psalmist’s hands and feet. This is a translation issue, specifically over the word ari, or lion.

In Hebrew, the verse reads karah ari yad regal. Literally, mauled lion hands feet. Or, the lion mauled my hands and feet. The KJV, and virtually all Christian translations, completely ignores the word ari. It’s easy to see why they do that – because it significantly alters the context of the verse. If we’re talking about lions mauling the Psalmist rather than the Psalmist being pierced by some unknown entity, then it’s clear it doesn’t refer to Jesus. Fabricating messianic prophecy via incorrect translation is a modus operandi of Christians today and has been throughout history.

On a final note, this Psalm, in the style of most Psalms, is metaphorical. We know David was never mauled by lions, just like Jesus was never mauled by lions. Christians may try to use that as an excuse for why it doesn’t refer to David. At the same time, they will selectively interpret verses as being literal that fit their agenda while interpreting verses that don’t as metaphorical. This is a fallacious double standard. If we interpret each verse as literal, there are quite a few that refute the belief that it is a prophecy about Jesus:

Psalms 22:13-14 “Many bulls surround me, mighty ones of Bashan encircle me. They open their mouths at me, like tearing, roaring lions.” (JPS)

Was Jesus surrounded by the strong cattle from Bashan? Did they attack Jesus? Interestingly we see another reference to lions as well, enforcing the metaphor throughout the Psalm.

Psalms 22:15 “My life ebbs away: all my bones are disjointed.” (JPS)

Were Jesus’ bones disjointed? This would actually contradict another common proof-text used by Christians, which claims a fulfilled prophecy on the belief that Jesus never had any broken bones.

Psalms 22:26 “Because of You I offer praise in the great congregation.” (JPS)

Jesus never did this. In fact, the Gospels portray Jesus as rejecting Temple life.

Psalms 22:31 “Offspring shall serve Him; the Lord’s fame shall be proclaimed to the generation to come.”

Jesus, according to Christian tradition, had no offspring.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

Thus, as per Jesus saying, the Qur'an cannot be from Devil.
If you deny that, you are going AGAINST JESUS.

Jesus never said that. The Quran denies God has a Son and denies Jesus died for your sins. That's from the devil.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


What does that verse say in the LXX?? The Messorites in the 10th century "de-Jesused" most of the OT, and transitioned to Talmudic Judaism instead of Mosaic, they no longer had a temple.

The question is why would expert Hebrew scholars (70 of them, hence the Septuagint) translate the Hebrew word they understood to be oruxsan, if what they read in the Hebrew text “was like a lion.” If the word in question ended in a YOD כָּאֲרִי they would have translated “like a lion;” but they didn’t do that. The only way Jewish antagonists can get round that one is to claim that the Pentateuch was doctored. And by whom? The Christians? That, of course, is silly, because Christ was only born more than a century later. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are the two bugbears of Judaism.

Psalm 22 LXX.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

Thus, as per Jesus saying, the Qur'an cannot be from Devil.
If you deny that, you are going AGAINST JESUS.

Jesus never said that. The Quran denies God has a Son and denies Jesus died for your sins. That's from the devil.

I just SHATTERED your Psalm 22 "prophecy".

Shall I continue?

You said something about Isaiah 53?


Let's see:

Isaiah 52 & 53 are About Israel.

Isaiah 52:13 reads, "Indeed, my servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights."
-Now, this is crucial! Isaiah identifies the servant multiple times as being Israel. For those who want to go sola scriptura, this should be enough to clearly demonstrate who the servant is.


Isaiah 41:8, "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my friend"
Isaiah 44:1 "But hear, now, O Jacob My servant, Israel whom I have chosen!"
Isaiah 44:21 "Remember these things, O Jacob for you, O Israel, are My servant"
Isaiah 49:3 "And he said to me, "You are My servant, Israel in whom I glory.""

- Because Isaiah identifies the servant previously as Israel we know that references to the servant (such as those found in Isaiah 52 & 53) are not references to Jesus.

Why Jesus Doesn't Fit?

Isaiah 52:14 states, “So marred was his appearance, unlike that of a man, his form, beyond human semblance”

-Even though Jesus was whipped and crucified, his form was not marred beyond human semblance. He still resembled a human being, and his form was still like that of a man. Jesus doesn't fit.


Isaiah 53:4 states, “Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, our suffering that he endured, we accounted him plagued, smitten and affected by God.”

Isaiah 53:3 contains, “A man of suffering, familiar with disease.”

Isaiah 53:10 states, “But the Lord chose to crush him by disease”

-Now, these passages tell us that the suffering servant being described was not only familiar with disease, but also afflicted with it, and crushed by it. It may be argued that Jesus was familiar with disease; however, he was not crushed by disease.

And no, disease does not mean sin or any other metaphorical interpretation. The historical context confirms this, early Jewish sources confirm this - it refers to leprosy.
"The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanh. 98b)
Jesus was no leper. He wasn't smitten, afflicted, plagued, crushed by disease. Jesus doesn't fit.


Isaiah 53:10 also states, “That, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life”

-Jesus made a guilt offering? This is recorded nowhere. He had offspring? The gospels don't mention this, rather Christian tradition teaches that he had no wife or children. He had a long life? He lived to his mid-30s. Jesus just doesn't fit.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

What does that verse say in the LXX?? The Messorites in the 10th century "de-Jesused" most of the OT, and transitioned to Talmudic Judaism instead of Mosaic, they no longer had a temple.

The question is why would expert Hebrew scholars (70 of them, hence the Septuagint) translate the Hebrew word they understood to be oruxsan, if what they read in the Hebrew text “was like a lion.” If the word in question ended in a YOD כָּאֲרִי they would have translated “like a lion;” but they didn’t do that. The only way Jewish antagonists can get round that one is to claim that the Pentateuch was doctored. And by whom? The Christians? That, of course, is silly, because Christ was only born more than a century later. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are the two bugbears of Judaism.

Psalm 22 LXX.

the verse reads karah ari yad regal. Literally, mauled lion hands feet. Or, the lion mauled my hands and feet.



Check Isaiah 53 above. Also shattered.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


Ummm, behind the 12 verses of the text of Isaiah 53.




2:08 minutes long.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

the verse reads karah ari yad regal. Literally, mauled lion hands feet. Or, the lion mauled my hands and feet.



Check Isaiah 53 above. Also shattered.

Read the link again, the LXX (200 BC) renders it as "they dug (pierced) my hands and my feet", it was changed to "lions" in the 10th century AD when the Messorites codified their Hebrew text.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

The piercing of the hands and feet is referenced by Christians as being a prophecy about Jesus’ crucifixion, where his hands and feet were pierced by nails. However, contrasting the two verses in the JPS and KJV give radically different results

Have you tried Greek?

16 εξηράνθη ωσεί όστρακον η ισχύς μου, και η γλώσσά μου κεκόλληται τω λάρυγγί μου, και εις χουν θανάτου κατήγαγές με. 17 ότι εκύκλωσάν με κύνες πολλοί, συναγωγή πονηρευομένων περιέσχον με, ώρυξαν χείράς μου και πόδας. 18 εξηρίθμησαν πάντα τα οστά μου, αυτοί δε κατενόησαν και επείδόν με.

And here is the translation:

22:15 My strength is dried up, like a potsherd; and my tongue is glued to my throat; and thou hast brought me down to the dust of death.
22:16 For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
22:17 They counted all my bones; and they observed and looked upon me. LXX Psalm 22:15-17

What does it says?

In Hebrew, the verse reads karah ari yad regal.

Not quite. In Root Form (Hebrew) it is read : keleb cabab `edah ra`a` naqaph kuwr yad regel I will even use the Masoretic text.

כִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים
הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָֽי׃

Which translates to :

For dogs have surrounded me; [fn]A band of evildoers has encompassed me; [fn]They pierced my hands and my feet.

Source


Peace

reply to post by Seed76

One of the claims of fundamentalists about this passage is that the ancient versions [i.e. translations] support the reading "they pierced" at Psalm 22:16b.
There are two preliminary considerations that must be remembered before examining the readings of the ancient versions. Firstly, it should be remembered that the Hebrew Bible remains the most direct source for the original text. All translations are, in effect, interpretations. In translating, one to one correspondences of words between the languages are rare. More often there are always a few or even many choices of words that can be used in the translation. The choice of which word to use depends in many cases on how the translators actually understand the passage before them. How they understand the passage depends not only on the text that lies in front of them but also on the presuppositions of the translators. Therefore knowing the external influence that may affect the translation is important.

Secondly, we must know what exactly was the vorlage, or the copy of the text, that the translation was made from. Was it the Hebrew text or was it already a version of the text? Some of the versions were not translated from the original Hebrew but from other versions. If this is the case, it must be remembered that this particular version does not form an independent witness to the original Hebrew text, especially if it supports the peculiar reading of the vorlage.

Thus it is important to get a working knowledge of these various renditions of the Bible. Perhaps the most well known of the versions is the Septuagint. We have already described this version in detail elsewhere in this website. Here we will just note that the Septuagint was the Greek translation which was started around the third century BCE and probably completed around the first century BCE. The book of Psalms was probably translated into Greek around the second or third century BCE. [21] Although initially translated by Jews for the use of other Jews who no longer understood Hebrew, the early Christians co-opted the Septuagint and it became the Holy Scripture for them. In their disputes with Jews, the Christians quoted exclusively from the Septuagint. The Jews would retort back by comparing the Septuagint with their Hebrew original and noting that the former either had faulty translations or contained interpolations made by Christians. As a result of these disputes and the generally deteriorating textual situation, the Jews ceased using the Septuagint towards the end of the first century CE. [22]

In the second century CE, Jews dissatisfied with the Septuagint began new Greek translations of their Bible. Around 130 CE, a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, produced a version that followed the Hebrew very closely. About four decades later, Symmachus, who according to which church father you choose to believe, was either a Jewish Christian (Eusebius) or a Samaritan convert to Judaism (Epiphanius), published another Greek translation which, although generally faithful to the Hebrew original, is generally considered to be in more elegant Greek than Aquila's. Around the end of the second century another Greek translation, by another Jewish proselyte, Theodotian, was produced. Unlike the Septuagint, which is still available to us in its entirety, these three second century translations are today extant only in scroll fragments, palimpsests and in quotations by the church fathers. Indeed for Psalm 22:16, we have only the translations of Aquila and Symmachus; there is no extant fragment from Theodotion's version with this passage. [23]

The Targums refer to Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures. Like the Septuagint originally, it was translated for Jews who could no longer understand the Hebrew - Aramaic having taken over as the lingua franca of post-exilic Palestine. Rather than a strict translation, the Targums are more accurately described as a paraphrased interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Written Targums were in use by the third century CE, but the oral tradition dates back to pre-Christian times. [24]

Like Aramaic, Syriac is a language closely related to Hebrew. Syriac versions of the Bible are called Pe#ta. The Pe#ta was probably produced around 200CE. The origins of the Old Testament Pe#ta is unclear and still debated among scholars. It is unclear if the translations were done by Jews or (Jewish?) Christians. As Bruce Metzger suggested, it is likely that some books of the Pe#ta were translated by Jews while others by Christians. There is also uncertainty regarding the vorlage used for the various sections of the Old Testament. For instance, it is likely that the Pentateuch was translated directly from a Hebrew text while Isaiah was translated by someone who had obvious familiarity with the Septuagint.

For our purposes it is important to note that the Pe#ta translation of Psalms are rather free, as opposed to a strict-literal, translations. Furthermore it is quite obvious that the book of Psalms was translated by a Christian who already looked upon it as valuable proof text for the death and resurrection of Jesus. One clear example of this is in the introduction to Psalm 71. The Masoretic Text does not give a title for this, while the Septuagint attributes it only to David. The Pe#ta however has this for an introduction: [25]

Psalm 71: [Introduction in Pe#ta]
Being spoken to/by David: when Saul was fighting the house of David, and a prophecy about the suffering and rising of the messiah.

Thus as far as establishing the original text of Psalm 22:16b is concerned, the value the Pe#ta is very limited.

Sometime around 235 CE, the Alexandrian church father, Origen (185-254) attempted to resolve the textual difficulties surrounding the various Bible version and the Hebrew text by publishing the Hexapla. It contained six columns consisting of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text transliterated in Greek, Aquila's version, Symmachus' version, the Septuagint and Theodotian's version. There is very little that has been preserved of the Hexapla. However in the nineteenth century some fragments of the Hexapla were discovered in a Cairo synagogue Geniza [g]. In this Geniza, the Hexapla fragments dating from the sixth century CE, actually a palimpsest [h], contain portions from Psalm 22:15-28! [26]

There is a Syriac translation of Origen's Hexapla, called the Syro-Hexapla, made around 616-617 CE. For our purposes the Syro-Hexapla contains translations in Psalms for the Septuagint, Aquila and Symmachus. Thus while these versions do not allow us direct access to the Hebrew text, they allows us to check the texts of the Septuagint and in some cases to reconstruct the lost Greek texts of Aquila and Symmachus. [27]

Finally we look at the Latin Versions. Most people think of the Vulgate and Jerome (342-420) when we speak today of the Latin Bible . However there are a few facts to keep in mind. While the Vulgate, in general, was a translation from the Hebrew by Jerome, the section of Psalms in this version was not translated from the Jewish Bible. The book of Psalms in the Vulgate is a translation by Jerome from the Septuagint-in other words it is a translation of a translation! Jerome did make another translation of Psalm, this time from the original Hebrew. However even in this case it must be kept in mind that he consulted other versions, Greek and Latin, in this translation as well.

There is an older Latin version of the Bible, known appropriately as Old Latin. Unlike (most) of Jerome's Vulgate, the Old Latin is a translation of the Septuagint-it thus gives no direct evidence of the Hebrew text. We find evidence of the existence of Old Latin versions in the quotations of its text by second century Church fathers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE) and Cyprian (c200-258). Indeed Latin Biblical texts can be found in areas where Latin was the predominant language, such as southern Gaul and North Africa, from as early as 150 CE.[28]

The chart below the ancient versions mentioned above. The dotted lines show the original vorlage used by each of the versions. The abbreviations next to the names of the versions will be used in the tabular comparison of the readings in the next section.

Having acquainted ourselves with the various ancient versions, it is now time to examine their witness to the text of Psalm 22:16b. The table below gives all the readings from the Hebrew texts and the various ancient versions: [29]
Text Actual Reading Translation
MT Like a lion my hands and my feet.
DSS They dig (?) my hands and my feet.
T Biting like a lion my hands and my feet.
LXX ωρυξαν χειρας μου και ποδας μου They dug my hands and my feet.
α' (1) ησχυναν χειρας μου και ποδας μου They disfigured my hands and my feet.
σ' ως λεων χειρας μου και ποδας μου Like a lion my hands and my feet.
OL foderunt manus meas et pedes meos They dug / pricked my hands and my feet.
VP foderunt manus meas et pedes meos They dug / pricked my hands and my feet.
LJ vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos They bound / encircled my hands and my feet.
S They hacked off / pierced my hands and my feet.
SL They hacked off / pierced my hands and my feet.
Sα They fettered my hands and my feet.
Sσ Like seeking to bind my hands and my feet.
We note that the Targum of Psalms and Symmachus' Greek translation gives "like a lion", supporting the masoretic reading. The Targum adds the verb biting to make the sentence clearer.

For Symmachus, it is important to note that ως λεων (like a lion) is very likely the original reading. Some commentators, including the critical apparatus in the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (the critical edition of the Leningrad codex of the Hebrew bible), made the erroneous assumption that the reading here should be ως ζητουντες δησαι (like seeking to bind). It must be noted that this reading ("like seeking to bind") is the result of a reverse translation from the Syriac of the Syro-Hexapla back into Greek. Yet it clearly arose from a mistake made by the translators of the Syro-Hexapla in reading the original Greek in Origen's Hexapla. How this arose we will explain below.

The ancient Greek manuscripts were written in uncials (i.e. all caps) and there was no space between the words. The mistake arose when the translators of the Syro-Hexapla misread three of the Greek letters and then rephrased the incorrect reading. The table below shows this process, the reading on top is from Symmachus and the one below is what the translator of the Syro-Hexapla read by mistake:

ΩΣΛΕΩΝΤΑΣΧΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΥ... ως λεων τας χειρας μου... Like a lion my hands...
ΩΣΔΕΟΝΤΕΣΧΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΥ... ως δεοντες χειρας μου... Like binding my hands...

edit on 10/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)