 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
I just posed a very serious question which impugns the integrity of not only the Gospel of Matthew as a reliable, inerrant, and divine oracle as well as a truthful record but the integrity of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew as well. Of course I do not do this without having first checked out the Hebrew Scriptures to see if the quote in Matt. 3:3 was accurate to the Hebrew Scriptures from which is drawn (or supposedly drawn). Below is what the translators of the King James Bible provides for us as a "fulfilled messianic prophecy." Let us see if they are correct of if we have been deceived in this regard and our faith in the New Testament as a Divine Oracle can take the test of scrutiny.
Matt 3:3 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah), saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (KJV)
Now we need to look at the same passage from the Hebrew Scriptures and make some critical comparisons.
3 ¶ Hark! one calleth: 'Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God.
It should seem obvious by just a quick simple comparison of these verses that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew either is not aware or familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures or planned to alter the passage from Isa. 40:3 in order to force a "fulfillment of a messianic passage" and apply it to Jesus when there really is not one to be found.
Answer for yourself: Do you see anywhere in Isa. 40:3 and mention of anyone "crying" in the wilderness? Nope, there is none. We have again a purposeful misquote and surely if the Holy Spirit was behind any of this such discrepancies would not be present in anything or any document that was "inspired" by G-d; let alone one touted to the whole world as "inerrant" and "infallible" as Christianity does for the most part. Only serious scholars and serious students of the Bible come to see the New Testament for what it really is: a religious propaganda document spreading a theology about a man that often is less than accurate to the historical reality surrounding Jesus let alone accurate to the Hebrew Scriptures from which it quotes; or should I say "misquotes."
Answer for yourself: Did you notice that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew changed the verb tense in the quote of Isa. 40:3 as found in Matt. 3:3 in order to make it apply to the time period of Jesus when Isaiah said otherwise?
The present tense verb "that calleth" shows that Isaiah is not making a prophecy but only speaking of a contemporary in the days in which he lived. In reality this is not a Hebrew prophecy at all but a statement. To make a prophecy out of a non-prophecy goes undetected except by the most critical eyes and those who have a Hebrew-English Bible and who takes the time to compare such verses. Contrary to the intended meaning of the prophet as well as the passage the writer of the Gospel of Matthew alters the tense of the verb in order to make sure his Gentile readers, who are not familiar with the Hebrew and who would never know of such a change, would not notice that the Hebrew passage and text was originally intended to apply to one who was coexisting with Isaiah at the time that the prophecy was delivered by Isaiah.
Let us also not the writer of the Gospel of Matthew uses the word "paths," (pl.) while Isaiah has "a highway."
Answer for yourself: So what have we seen here?
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew had to come up with his "messianic forerunner" to announce Jesus if Jesus was to have any hope and consideration to be the Jewish Messiah. This is because of Jewish tradition and religious texts maintain that the "anointed" of the L-rd was to be announced by a forerunner; namely Elijah. In order to provide such an announcer of the ministry of Jesus, whom is to be represented by the New Testament writers as the "messiah," a forerunner has to precede Jesus. Thus the passage from Isa. 40:3 quoted in Matt. 3:3 was made to read:
"For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah)."
If you take a second to compare the passages you should see that Isaiah is not speaking about "a person" but only mentioning "what" a person is saying in the days in which he lived. Understand that Isaiah was not the only prophet calling Israel to repentance in his day. Thus in order to provide a messianic forerunner for Jesus John the Baptist was made into such a messianic announcer by the manipulation of Isa. 40:3 which was necessary if Jesus was to seriously to be considered as the possible messiah.
Lastly we need to look at the word L-rd used in Matt. 3:3. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew used the word "kurios" as we find in the Greek translations today. This word, according to the Strong's Concordance means:
2962 kurios (koo'-ree-os); from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Mr. (as a respectful title): KJV-- God, Lord, master, Sir.
Yet we find when we look at the Hebrew Scriptures that unmistakably the word intended by Isaiah is "YHWH-JEHOVAH."
Strong's Concordance shows us the word used by Isaiah to be:
3068 Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw'); from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: KJV-- Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.
As we see we have two different presentations of the word "lord;" one used by Isaiah referring to G-d and the one used by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew referring to one supreme in authority, a master, or sir.
The Hebrew Scriptures tell us to make a way for G-d to enter into our lives through repentance. The word used in the Hebrew is "Jehovah-YHWH." But in the New Testament and in the mistranslation of the verse, necessitated in order to apply this passage to Jesus, the writer of the Gospel of Matthew changes the word into "Lord" with a capital "L" and a non capitalized "ord." The New Testament writers changes the verse where the idea of "G-d" is omitted completely from the passage quoted; this being done in order to let the verse apply to human man and a possible messiah instead of G-d.
Before you go and say that Jesus is G-d and this was understood that way by John the Immerser and likewise in the mind of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew take pause for John the Immerser, when meeting Jesus, sure did not interpret the event as G-d walking up to him to be immersed in John's baptism of repentance. If you have ever studied Judaism to any extent no man is G-d and not even the Messiah was G-d; only one anointed by G-d for a particular task. Again we have a purposeful distortion of the verse to pass of a supposed fulfilled passage and prophecy when in reality we don't have one at all.
Answer for yourself: What does G-d have to repent of?
To try to make the case that the New Testament mistranslation in not a mistranslation at all and that "Lord" meant G-d as used in the New Testament rendition of the text stretches credibility and believability beyond reason.
Now let us move on to other examples of forgery of the Hebrew Scriptures by the writers of the New Testament.
Bennoah1@verizon.net