Recently there was a question but forth to the Jews concerning their understanding of this verse.
I so enjoyed the honest answers given, that I did some more research into their comments.
Most referenced John 19:37, and said John misquoted Zech 12:10, by adding "him" to the text, thus proving John, Jesus and the NT to be wrong.
In looking at two different Greek interlinears I found that in the original text the word "him" is not there.
Does this help to prove that John did not misquote Zech. 12:10?
2006-12-06 04:08:48 · 5 answers · asked by TeeM 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
well i never saw that earlier one unfortunately. anyways as quantrill said, why would you use a translation to prove a translation? use the real thing. as for the verse you specified:
"And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son."
i don't even have to look at the context of this verse, its obviously not talking about a messiah or any real person at all. its a comparison between the grief for people lost in the war to the grief one feels after losing a firstborn son. thats it.
2006-12-06 07:54:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How John quoted or misquoted Zecharya is irrelavent. The meaning of the verse is clear and it says nothing of Jesus. Anyone, including John, apparently, who tries to twist the meaningof this verse to anything other than what is clearly says is simply being intellectually dishonest at best, or outright deceitful at worst.
2006-12-06 12:23:43 · answer #2 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was the only answer of the three that didn't directly answer your question, and the other two cut and pasted from JewsForJudiasm.org, so I don't know that they put a great deal of thought into their answers.
My answer stands, it was indirect and roundabout, but it still reaches the heart of your question (according to Jewish prophecy, Jesus could not have been HaMosiach).
2006-12-06 12:13:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What John said is irrelevant. Christians do try make the NT match the OT, but let's face it, the NT was a book written by man.
2006-12-06 12:31:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You look at the greek? Look at the original Hebrew.
2006-12-06 12:15:17 · answer #5 · answered by Quantrill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋