Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations?.?

Question

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

C. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun

Think about this to
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7


"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages.

Answer 1

Pslams 69:21
Pslams 27:1
Pslams 15:8-11
Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 44:6
Genesis 1:1
John 1:1
John 8:12
John 8:58
John 10:11
John 10:30
John 10:33-38
John 17:5
Acts 2:34-35

Answer 2

No,Christians have not mistranslated anything.

"virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods."

Not true.'Alma' has always meant a young,unmarried,woman-and a virgin.See here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
Neither was it based on paganism.

"B. CRUCIFIXION

"The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet.""

This argument is very common,but untrue.I will refer you to a refutation to this claim here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html

"In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun"


It is definitely a Messianic prophecy,and no,Christians did not change anything.

http://isaiah53.com/
http://www.hadavar.org/display_am_argument.php?q_id=5
http://www.hadavar.org/display_am_argument.php?q_id=7

Answer 3

Well I'll give you points for the ones you were right on, and the ones you were wrong on:

The virgin birth you are right on 100%, and nobody who has read the chapter can say differently withany honesty. The context is Jerusalem is under siege, and the King wants to know what will happen. The prophet tells him the siege will be lifted before the young woman gives birth.

Also, the word just plain means young women, and the greek in the septuagint does not mean virgin either. It is used for DInah, Jacob's daughter, AFTER she is raped. A betulah is Hebrew for "virgin," an almah is a young woman.

A virgin birth is also impossible culturally as a "betulah," or virgin, is a girl who has not had her hymen ruptured. If she has had her hymen ruptured, even if she was never with a guy, she is not a virgin in Hebrew culture. See the Jewish Mishnah, Ketubot - which deals with marriages for a rather detailed example of this. Obviously it is impossible for a baby to come out without rupturing the hymen.

The k'ari, you are kind of right on. In the Mesortetic text it says "like a lion." In the septuagint and many Hebrew manuscripts it says, "pierced." Gramatically, the latter makes more sense. Your translation added words. Literally it would read, "Like a lion, my hands and my feet. I can count every bone." It makes less sense than, "Dug into are my hands and my feet. I can count every bone."
Notice I tranlated "Dug into," because the word does not mean "pierced," but dug into.

C. I have a degree in Hebrew Literature. According to the Jewish sage Rashi, you are correct. According to other sages, this does in fact refer to the Jewish Messiah. Anti-missionaries can be just a deceptive as missionaries; but there is a long tradition in Jewish religion of this referring to the Messiah. It even played a part in the Misnagdim vs. Hasidim debates of the 18th century. The Jewish leaders in the city of Brody refused to burry Chasidim in the Jewish cemetary, but insisted the be burried with the suicides and the wicked people. The Grand Rabbi of Ramanov remarked, "You see we are correct. They put us in the same category as the Messiah, as it is written, 'And he will be numbered with the wicked in his death."

Answer 4

Regarding the John verse. People from the Jesus Seminar might say so, but there's really two types of academics in this field, one that studies theology to disprove it and one that studies theology to prove it. The Jesus Seminar is the first (trying to disprove Christ).

According to the late Dr. Bruce M Metzger, one of the translators for RSV and NRSV Bibles, the New Testament is trustworthy. For instance, the first century Josephus is considered a trustworthy source for Jewish history. His widely accepted work The Jewish War has about nine manuscripts written in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. There’s one Latin manuscript in the fourth century. On another example, Homer’s popular work Iliad has about 650 Greek manuscripts.

The New Testament in contrast, has over 5,000 Greek manuscripts catalogued. There are about 8,000 to 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. All of which combined are about 99.5% pure – more so than any work in antiquity. His statement about the NT, “We can have great confidence in the fidelity with which this material has come down to us, especially compared with any other ancient literary work.” Dr. Metzger taught at Princeton University for 46 years and died February 13, 2007 of natural causes.

Answer 5

It is what the word says, read Genesis 6 and see were the sons of god left there place and mated with the daughters of Adam, God did it by his spirit! The devil did it with his body giving us the demon seed, and they are here today, so I suggest instead of trying to prove Gods word wrong, go read it and see whats really going on, because you need to know, and you don't yet, although you think you do. Dig deeper.

issue2. yes they refer to Israel as a unit but they also prophecy of their messiah to come.

If the issue is is God real you can know right know, just go read john 3 and ask Jesus to fill you with that spirit in John 3 and he will send his ALIVE AND LIVING HOLY SPIRIT TO COME INTO YOU, and you will be what we call born again, and then the scriptures will be interpreted correctly by his spirit, not your own or any man! There it is the secret is in John 3 and acts 2.seek and you shall find!

Answer 6

Let's take a look at the virgin birth:
Jesus was born of a virgin.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Let's assume that "virgin" means "young woman"...if that is all it means, how is this a sign? Have you forgotten that she could be a virgin? Being a "young woman" does not mean that she is not a virgin!
Oh, did you forget this verse:
Lu 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
and of Joseph it is said:
Mt 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
what about this verse?
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
"her seed"? This strongly implies a virgin (born of a woman with no man involved). The Bible's point was that Jesus Christ would be born of a woman without a man being involved. Being a virgin was not specifically required, however if she was not a virgin someone could falsely claim that a man was involved. This is probably why there is some ambiguity, Jesus meets the requirements of the scripture no matter how one looks at it.

The crucifixion. Again, Jesus meets the requirement of the Old Testament scripture, even if you try to change the meaning. The word can certainly mean "pierced" and Jesus' hands and feet were certainly pierced. There can be no difficulty here.
You forgot this verse:
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
and this one too:
Joh 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
Obviously the Jews were translating it the same as we do.

"Suffering servant"
If you read Isaiah 52, you should be able to see that it speaks of redemption by God's servant. Isaiah 53 indeed continues along these lines and describes His servant. It is impossible to read this description of His servant and apply it to a nation.
Notice these verses...
Isaiah 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
In those verses we see God's servant being despised, rejected, sacrificed, and being made the Passover lamb. In the other verses we see Him as being perfect, yet being buried with the wicked.
Look at this verse...
Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
In verse 8 he dies as the Passover Lamb for God's people. There is just no way this person can be God's people. We are an imperfect sacrifice, never shall we be acceptable to God in our state. How can you claim that?

Answer 7

First of all this is not from you but a post from your anti Christian website, please note that alma means virgin or young maiden in hebrew....And a son being born to a young maiden is not a sign as the verse says.....it was the Jews who translated the Hebrew to greek 200 yrs before Jesus and specified it to say "virgin".......do some research, any chimp can copy and paste

Answer 8

Thank you for your insight. It will give me something to think about as I study.
Just to clarify one thing. It is Psalm 22:16 not Psalm 22:17.

According to my Hebrew dictionary "almah" is defined as a damsel, maid, virgin.

Did you do a quick study or did you actually take your time with this? Perhaps you should not try so hard to discredit Christ as the Messiah and accept Him for being born of a virgin, beaten and wounded for our transgressions and crucified and risen the third day. Then it would all really make sense to you.

Answer 9

Just to get you started, Alma means young maiden.. In the Hebrew you are either a Maiden a married woman or a harlot.. Isaiah says this will be a sign that a "young maiden will be with child" Now did he mean a married woman? No did he mean young woman? some sign of God that a young woman would have a child huh? did it mean harlot? of course not a young maiden having a child can only mean virgin as this is a sign of God the sign was not that a harlot would have a child...Now the rest of your preaching is as ridiculous as this interpretation of the Hebrew word alma.. so I suggest you continue your studies and get back to me.

Answer 10

You're right. Good for you.
Those examples are just the tip of iceberg of Christian tampering with the Hebrew Bible.