 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Remembering what you have just learned from the previous article concerning the absence of "to be verbs" in Hebrew, then let us now proceed with Isaiah 9:6 and understand correctly what is being said.
The following quote is taken from the Companion Bible...a highly esteemed and recommended Christian study Bible::
Isa 9:6 6 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. (KJV)
I suppose this is the best proof-text that Christianity can use to prove to themselves that Yeshua is G-d. When those in Christianity finally begin to understand Hebrew they will have to repent and ask forgiveness for practicing error and idolatry. I had too. Let us recall that there are no "to be" verbs in Hebrew [see previous article]. Remember that Isaiah was written in Hebrew.
Answer for yourself: Why is the word "child" and "his" in Capitals in your Bible when the Hebrew Scriptures from which the above translation came does not contain them?
Again the word "child" and "his" has been capitalized in your Bibles to make sure you agree with the Gentile translator who represents the orthodox position of the pagan Gentile church for centuries. The word "child" was not capitalized in the Hebrew manuscripts!
First of all, terms of G-d were often associated in the Oriental culture with great men and kings. When a human king was called "mighty god" is was understood the power of this king was like a god; invincible. When he was called "god" it was understood that the king was the all-powerful one. When is was said that he is an "everlasting Father" the meaning was quite similar to today's "G-d save the king." It was a term of address implying a desire for long life be given to the king. 1 Kings 1:31 states: "Let the lord King David live forever." The same is seen in Neh. 2:3. These terms, used in this way, was not to understood that a human ruler or king was truly G-d!
A second interpretation is the lack of the "to be" verbs (mentioned above), which when translated into English, tend to make the uninitiated and uninformed reader believe the child IS one and the same "being" by whose names he is called. These names are only intended to described him and manifestations about him and his character. To say it another way, adjectives in a sentence describe the subject of the sentence, they are never the same as the subject of the sentence. Just because the "child" (human child) is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" does not mean that he must be one and the same with the titles given him. It is mistakenly understood that since those "titles" are titles for G-d the Father, then the child IS all those titles and is himself G-d! This is incorrect according to the rules of grammar of Hebrew. The child's is ONLY to be called by these titles (again we see the 'to be' verb). The child of Isa. 9:6 is to do and be like the one whom he is called. He is not to be confused with the identity of the one he imitates! Selah! (means pause and think about it).
It is easy to understand Yeshua as being like the Wonderful Counselor (he had G-dly wisdom), as like a Might G-d (he truly was very powerful in speech and his ministry was full of anointed miracles), as like an Everlasting Father (referring to the pre-existence of the "anointing of G-d" before Genesis 1:1 which would later be shared upon mankind), and as like a Prince of Peace (his ministry brought repentance and reconciliation with the Father, thereby ending the enmity between man and G-d; thus bringing peace).
These terms for "G-d" are not meant to mean that the child is "G-d," only that he will exhibit many G-dly traits and characteristics in his life and ministry.
Answer for yourself: Now, if the correct interpretation of the text in the original language does not teach that the child is G-d, then how do we have the right to teach that Yeshua is G-d if the Bible never said he was? Please tell your Pastor what you just learned and help him to teach his congregation correctly.
Thirdly, and even more interesting, is that in Hebrew it is quite common to use phrases or terms for G-d to complete sentences (The LORD our righteousness, the LORD our banner, the LORD our peace, etc.). This was spoken of above. A good example for us that has misled the church so much is Isa. 7:14: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." There are so many errors in this verse as transcribed into the English I don't know where to begin. The sentence in question states that G-d will give a "sign" and that sign is related to the conception of a child. Remember, that the verse in Hebrew does not say the child is "Immanuel" for there are no "to be" verbs in Hebrew. Thus, the "child" is not to be Immanuel!
Next the sentence ends with praise to G-d ("Immanuel") because in the Hebrew language it is not uncommon to give praise to G-d in a sentence describing G-d's accomplishments or some great work He has done and to conclude the descriptive sentence with such praises to G-d. It is quite proper in Hebrew to make a statement about G-d (that "G-d is with us") in finishing a sentence. It is similar to our custom of praising G-d in conversation by saying "bless G-d" or "Praise the LORD." We do it all the time, and so did the Hebrews!
Next, we find that in the context of the verse, the Hebrew word translated "virgin" in English is incorrect. This is not the meaning of the term at all! In Hebrew, "almah" means a young woman, of which she may or may not have had prior sexual experience. It does not mandate she be a virgin. Anytime the Bible wants to make a distinction between a "virgin" and "non-virgin" for legal reasons (in a court of law and in matters of divorce), G-d uses the term "betulah" and never "almah." Christianity claims that Yeshua was born of a virgin, and bases such belief off a verse in the New Testament as well as Isa. 7:14. However, there is no linguistic reason to translate "almah" as virgin.
Proverbs 30:19 tells of four paths or four ways: a way of an eagle in air, a serpent on a rock, a ship in the sea, and a man with an "almah." All four of these examples have in common that there is absolutely no way to demonstrate where an eagle has flown, where a ship has sailed, where a serpent has crawled on a hard rock, or a sexual experience after a woman has had other prior sexual experiences. Since a virgin has demonstrable differences in her physical body both before and following her first sexual encounter, the term used to make such distinctions would not be "almah" but "betulah." Likewise, Isaiah tells us that a young woman (with prior sexual experience since he used "almah") shall conceive and bear a child, and before that child (verse 16) shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread (Assyrian invaders) will be forsaken by both her kings (a child learns right from wrong usually by the age of 2-3 years). If you keep reading the passage you will find that within about 2-3 years (before the child learns good from bad) G-d will bring His Presence (Immanuel) upon Israel and destroy the attacking Assyrian army. Isaiah speaks to King Ahaz of Israel who was being attacked by two Assyrian kings. Isaiah brings assurance to him to not worry, that G-d was bringing a "sign" to Israel that before a small child (who would be born not of a virgin) learns to choose right from wrong, the battle will be won for Israel. The young woman's pregnancy was a "good sign" that something good was going to happen to Israel...real soon! The child was a sign of the soon coming delivering Presence of G-d as He liberates His people from Assyrian aggression. G-d's Presence (Immanuel-G-d with Israel) would come and destroy Israel's enemy (not Yeshua). The child was not to destroy them either. G-d was to destroy them. Thus we see that to adhere to a virgin birth in front of such solid evidence is foolishness and to believe that this child is Yeshua is utterly ridiculous, because Yeshua would not be born for seven hundred more years!
Back to Isaiah 9:6 for a moment. These names in verse six (Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace) have already been seen as symbolic names that are often used to complete Hebrew sentences. In and of themselves, they make complete sentences about G-d, and not about the child (again similar to our responses to the goodness of G-d when we say "Bless G-d" or "Praise G-d"). The most proper understanding of the passage would be that the Eternal Father G-d, the Mighty G-d, is planning a wondrous deed (the birth of the Messiah will come in the future some 700 years later). However, the wondrous deed that coincided with the coming of "Immanuel" at the time of the writing of the text by Isaiah was the destruction of Sennacherib's army (Assyria) and the salvation and deliverance of the people of Israel. Immanuel! G-d's Presence came to deliver them. Isn't G-d wonderful. Oh what a Mighty G-d we have that chose to deliver Israel against so many overwhelming odds. Oh what a Prince of Peace as He brings peace to His people by His mighty deliverance and Presence. Oh what an Everlasting Father that Israel has who never slumbers or sleeps, and is ever-watching to protect and deliver His people. As you can easily see that in Hebrew these words and phrases about G-d completed sentences in order to render "praise" to G-d for His greatness and love for His people. These phrases never meant that the child to be born later would be G-d. But let me say again, let us never forget that these "praises" were in no way intended to mean that the child was G-d, only to give glory and praise to G-d for what He had done or will do (G-d is faithful to bring His people their Messiah! Yeshua came seven hundred years following this prophecy.
Answer for yourself: Don't you think the Christian church should be told the truth?