PDA

View Full Version : Isaiah 9:6 Study



CherubRam
June 16th, 2015, 12:11 AM
This study is done from the N.I.V Exhaustive Concordance.

The two words of this study are, (PRINCE-S) and LEAD-ER-S-ING).

The Hebrew word (NASIY). Ref # 5954 is used 39 times for the word (PRINCE-S).

And the Hebrew word (SAR). Ref # 8569 is used 51 times for the word (PRINCE-S).

As you can see NASIY and SAR are very different words.

The word SAR is used a total of 421 times; 78 times as officials, 110 times as commander-s and 32 times as officer-s. And 40 times as Lead-er-s-ing.

The correct translation for Daniel 12:1 is “leader or minister.” And the correct translation for Isaiah 9:6 is "leading or minister."

The other alternate Hebrew words used for PRINCE are these.
#5592 NAGIYD (PRINCE) 3 times.
#5618 NADIYB (PRINCE-S) 6 times.
#5687 NAZIYR (PRINCE-S) 3 times.
#5817 NASIYK (PRINCE-S) 3 times.

You should take notice that they all began with the letters " N A ".

In Daniel 11:22 the word PRINCE is #5592 NAGIYD.

In our different bibles, interpretations are often given in place of translations.
It's something to think about.


Isaiah 9:6
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.

This is how that verse should read.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, ministering in Peace. {Or, leading in peace.}


If you run that Hebrew word through a Hebrew to English translator it will read “minister.”

Elia
June 23rd, 2015, 10:12 PM
Bs'd

Isaiah 9:2-7 "2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. 5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Please take notice of the fact that Isaiah is talking in the past tense: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.|

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name was called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

These are things which had happened already in the days of Isaiah.

If, despite these facts, you still want to apply these verses to JC, than read verse 5, 6, and 7, and see that JC didn't do any of those things. He never ruled on the throne of David, he never had any government on his shoulders, and there never was endless peace over his kingdom.

The same holds true for the verses 6 and 7: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."

All of this doesn't hold true for JC; he never had any government on his shoulder. And also here is spoken in the past tense: "A child is born, a son is given. But most translations give it in the future tense. For instance the RSV, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, NIRV, the all say; "His name will be called ....", future tense. However, in the Hebrew text this too is past tense: "His name was called ...." The Hebrew expression here is "wayikra". That is the first word in the book of Leviticus. And all the previously mentioned translations there say: "And the Lord called Mozes ..." Past tense. Exactly the same the word. Isn't that weird? Exactly the same word is used in Genesis 5:1; "And God called the light 'day'" Called. Past tense. Nobody argues with that one. But why then, in Isaiah 9, is it suddenly changed to future tense? The answer is simple: The past tense doesn't fit with the Christian theology, and therefore the Bible translations are corrupted and twisted to fit the Christian religion. Just like that. There is only one solution for this problem: Take a course in Biblical Hebrew. It is more easy then it looks. Then your eyes will be opened and the Christian deception will stare you in the face. And yes, I do sympathize with the poor misguided Christians whom are being led astray by their clergy by means of twisted and corrupted Bible translations. That's the reason why I fulfill my duty of being a light unto the nations and uncovering the Christian deception.
"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" "There will be no end", future tense. And this too is WRONG. It is in the Hebrew present tense. I found only one translation which is correct here, and that is Young's Literal Translation.

Why all this stress on the tenses? Isaiah spoke about a king who was living in his days, and therefore JC is out. The king that Isaiah speaks about is Hezekiah, the son of Achaz who got from Isaiah the sign about the young woman (no, not the virgin) who was pregnant and gave birth to the son Immanuel.
The Talmud explains that under the rule of the God fearing Hezekiah the Jewish kingdom rose to great heights, and that's why he was entitled to those impressive titles.


Because of the fact that the name of the son is "Mighty God", (or "God is Mighty", both are possible translations) and "Eternals Father", the Christians deduce that the boy spoken about must have been God.
HOWEVER, a name is only that; a name. A name is not a description of the bearer of that name. An example: Buffalo Bill was not a buffalo. The indian chief Sitting Bull was not a bull.
Many times people in the Bible have in their name the word "God", or the name of God, but that doesn't mean that those people are God. For instance; in Exodus 6:23 is spoken about a man called "Elazar". That means "God is helper", or "Helping God". But that doesn't mean that that man was God.
Exodus 6:24; "Elkanah", that means "God acquired", or "acquiring God". II Samuel 22:19; "Elchanan"; "God is merciful", or "Merciful God". But these men were not God, just like the the child in Isaiah 9 wasn't God.


Apart from that, the Hebrew words "El gibor", in Christian Bibles translated with "Mighty God", can have a different meaning. "El" can mean "God", but it can also mean "judge", "leader", or "mighty man". In Exodus 4:16 God says to Moses that he will be of an elohiem for his brother Aharon. ("elohim" is the longer form of the word "el") This doesn't mean that Moses was a God for Aharon and Aharon started to worship his brother, it meant that Moses would be the leader of Aharon.
In Exodus 21:1-6 is spoken about a slave who after the normal period of servitude ended, doesn't want to leave his master. In that case the owner has to take him to court, where the slave will make a statement that he doesn't want to leave his master, and that he will serve his master until his death. The Hebrew text there says that his master must take him to the "elohim". There the NAS, ASV, ESV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, they all say that his master must take him "to God". However, his master doesn't take him for a ride to heaven, but takes him to the courthouse. Therefore the NIV, KJV, TNIV, and the NIRV, they all say that the master must take him to "the judges".

Even so in Isaiah 9 the word "El" does not necessarily mean "God". Therefore the text in Isaiah 9 is in no way a proof that the child spoken about was God.

CherubRam
June 23rd, 2015, 10:37 PM
Bs'd

Isaiah 9:2-7 "2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. 5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Please take notice of the fact that Isaiah is talking in the past tense: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.|

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name was called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

These are things which had happened already in the days of Isaiah.

If, despite these facts, you still want to apply these verses to JC, than read verse 5, 6, and 7, and see that JC didn't do any of those things. He never ruled on the throne of David, he never had any government on his shoulders, and there never was endless peace over his kingdom.

The same holds true for the verses 6 and 7: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."

All of this doesn't hold true for JC; he never had any government on his shoulder. And also here is spoken in the past tense: "A child is born, a son is given. But most translations give it in the future tense. For instance the RSV, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, NIRV, the all say; "His name will be called ....", future tense. However, in the Hebrew text this too is past tense: "His name was called ...." The Hebrew expression here is "wayikra". That is the first word in the book of Leviticus. And all the previously mentioned translations there say: "And the Lord called Mozes ..." Past tense. Exactly the same the word. Isn't that weird? Exactly the same word is used in Genesis 5:1; "And God called the light 'day'" Called. Past tense. Nobody argues with that one. But why then, in Isaiah 9, is it suddenly changed to future tense? The answer is simple: The past tense doesn't fit with the Christian theology, and therefore the Bible translations are corrupted and twisted to fit the Christian religion. Just like that. There is only one solution for this problem: Take a course in Biblical Hebrew. It is more easy then it looks. Then your eyes will be opened and the Christian deception will stare you in the face. And yes, I do sympathize with the poor misguided Christians whom are being led astray by their clergy by means of twisted and corrupted Bible translations. That's the reason why I fulfill my duty of being a light unto the nations and uncovering the Christian deception.
"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" "There will be no end", future tense. And this too is WRONG. It is in the Hebrew present tense. I found only one translation which is correct here, and that is Young's Literal Translation.

Why all this stress on the tenses? Isaiah spoke about a king who was living in his days, and therefore JC is out. The king that Isaiah speaks about is Hezekiah, the son of Achaz who got from Isaiah the sign about the young woman (no, not the virgin) who was pregnant and gave birth to the son Immanuel.
The Talmud explains that under the rule of the God fearing Hezekiah the Jewish kingdom rose to great heights, and that's why he was entitled to those impressive titles.


Because of the fact that the name of the son is "Mighty God", (or "God is Mighty", both are possible translations) and "Eternals Father", the Christians deduce that the boy spoken about must have been God.
HOWEVER, a name is only that; a name. A name is not a description of the bearer of that name. An example: Buffalo Bill was not a buffalo. The indian chief Sitting Bull was not a bull.
Many times people in the Bible have in their name the word "God", or the name of God, but that doesn't mean that those people are God. For instance; in Exodus 6:23 is spoken about a man called "Elazar". That means "God is helper", or "Helping God". But that doesn't mean that that man was God.
Exodus 6:24; "Elkanah", that means "God acquired", or "acquiring God". II Samuel 22:19; "Elchanan"; "God is merciful", or "Merciful God". But these men were not God, just like the the child in Isaiah 9 wasn't God.


Apart from that, the Hebrew words "El gibor", in Christian Bibles translated with "Mighty God", can have a different meaning. "El" can mean "God", but it can also mean "judge", "leader", or "mighty man". In Exodus 4:16 God says to Moses that he will be of an elohiem for his brother Aharon. ("elohim" is the longer form of the word "el") This doesn't mean that Moses was a God for Aharon and Aharon started to worship his brother, it meant that Moses would be the leader of Aharon.
In Exodus 21:1-6 is spoken about a slave who after the normal period of servitude ended, doesn't want to leave his master. In that case the owner has to take him to court, where the slave will make a statement that he doesn't want to leave his master, and that he will serve his master until his death. The Hebrew text there says that his master must take him to the "elohim". There the NAS, ASV, ESV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, they all say that his master must take him "to God". However, his master doesn't take him for a ride to heaven, but takes him to the courthouse. Therefore the NIV, KJV, TNIV, and the NIRV, they all say that the master must take him to "the judges".

Even so in Isaiah 9 the word "El" does not necessarily mean "God". Therefore the text in Isaiah 9 is in no way a proof that the child spoken about was God.

In prophecy, Christ reign on Earth is to begin about the 6 thousand Hebrew year. 5760 plus the subtracted 140 years is 5900 Hebrew time. That means that the reign of Christ will begin shortly after 2100 Gregorian calendar time.

Elia
June 24th, 2015, 04:44 AM
In prophecy, Christ reign on Earth is to begin about the 6 thousand Hebrew year. 5760 plus the subtracted 140 years is 5900 Hebrew time. That means that the reign of Christ will begin shortly after 2100 Gregorian calendar time.

Bs'd

The messiah must fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Your Christ didn't fulfil the messianic prophecies, therefore he was not the messiah.

CherubRam
June 24th, 2015, 05:03 PM
Bs'd

The messiah must fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Your Christ didn't fulfil the messianic prophecies, therefore he was not the messiah.
In regards to prophecies: That is why there is a second coming. In Christ day the Jews did not want to hear about a suffering Messiah, they wanted to hear about a victor that would expel the Romans. The suffering Messiah must come first, then later as the victorious Messiah.

CherubRam
June 24th, 2015, 05:10 PM
Bs'd

The messiah must fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Your Christ didn't fulfil the messianic prophecies, therefore he was not the messiah.

2300

2300 - 167 BC = 2133.

2000+133= 2133.

167 BC + 133 AD + 2000= 2300.


Daniel 9:14. He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”

133 AD plus 2000 equals 2133 AD. Israel was finally defeated in 133 AD. The Civil Hebrew Calendar had 140 subtracted from it to prove Bar Kokhba was the Messiah to come. 5760+140=5900.


What I have said about the 140 years being subtracted is correct according to carbon dating done in Israel.

CherubRam
November 28th, 2015, 06:58 AM
Prince, Minister, Leader, Sar

Brown-Driver-Briggs makes a very good argument for the word "sar" meaning royalty, in Assyrian. (King) However, using another language to translate a word can be both helpful, and misleading. What they did not take into consideration is the fact that royalty also acted as ministers. (As in, ministering in peace.) Or (Minister of the faith.) The Hebrew word "Sar" is best translated as "Minister." The Hebrew word "Sar" should never be given a translation as having to do with royalty.


Brown-Driver-Briggs
שַׂר420 noun masculine chieftain, chief, ruler, official, captain, prince (Late Hebrew especially of angels; Assyrian šarru, king)

Elia
November 28th, 2015, 10:49 AM
In regards to prophecies: That is why there is a second coming. In Christ day the Jews did not want to hear about a suffering Messiah, they wanted to hear about a victor that would expel the Romans. The suffering Messiah must come first, then later as the victorious Messiah.

Bs"d

The only problem is that there is no suffering messiah to be found in the Tanach, that is a Christian way to get around the failure to fulfil the messianic prophecies.


"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5

CherubRam
November 28th, 2015, 11:39 AM
Bs"d

The only problem is that there is no suffering messiah to be found in the Tanach, that is a Christian way to get around the failure to fulfil the messianic prophecies.


"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5
The Hellenistic Jews removed the parts in the scriptures that offer proof of a suffering Messiah. That's one reason the word "Jew" is a dirty word.

Elia
December 2nd, 2015, 12:57 AM
The Hellenistic Jews removed the parts in the scriptures that offer proof of a suffering Messiah. That's one reason the word "Jew" is a dirty word.

Bs"d

Well, at least you admit there is no such thing as a "suffering messiah" in the Tanach.

That is something.

And then, just like the Muslims, (are you a muslim by any chance? You sure post like one) you claim that the Jews changed the Tanach.

But of course, there is no proof what so ever for that faulty assumtion.

"Serve Y-H-W-H! And if it seems evil to you to serve Y-H-W-H, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.
But as for me and my house, we will serve Y-H-W-H!.”
Joshua 24:14-15

CherubRam
December 2nd, 2015, 01:49 AM
Bs"d

Well, at least you admit there is no such thing as a "suffering messiah" in the Tanach.

That is something.

And then, just like the Muslims, (are you a muslim by any chance? You sure post like one) you claim that the Jews changed the Tanach.

But of course, there is no proof what so ever for that faulty assumtion.

"Serve Y-H-W-H! And if it seems evil to you to serve Y-H-W-H, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.
But as for me and my house, we will serve Y-H-W-H!.”
Joshua 24:14-15

Are you mentally ill by any chance? You sure post like you are.