Isaiah's Servant in original context

[rakovsky]

53:8 . . . .

The Hebrew לָֽמוֹ is plural. So the meaning is "For the transgression of my people were they stricken" and not "was he stricken":

ISAIAH 53 PART 1 PDF UNEDITED By Moshe Shulman

Isaiah 53:8: He was taken from prison (D: oppression) and from judgment: and who shall declare his
generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living {lit: the living land}: for the transgression of my
people was he stricken {Heb. Lawmo. KJV mistranslates 'was HE stricken', instead of the correct THEY.}
Before explaining this, let me show the mistranslation. The Hebrew word is Lawmo and in it's other
appearances in Tenach the KJV is CORRECTLY translated to 'them'. For example in Isaiah 44:7 (unto them)
16:4 (to them). (There are no examples of exceptions where a plural prepositional pronoun is used referring
to other than a plural noun). The translation is just made to distort the true meaning

ErrancyWiki

Joe, please do tell me you have not been using Judaism Is the Answer sources as your translation authority for the Hebrew text in ErrancyWiki!

The pdf you link to is the Jewish equivalent of the worst Christian apologetics that we would never be caught dead having ever read. Above its title we read its declared purpose: "New Aid For Faith". Its preface describes any Christian view as "a deception" and declares that there is only one correct interpretation -- that of today's rabbis. They are all unanimous obviously and no doubt teach what the author of Isaiah 53 exactly originally wrote and meant.

Is Joe Wallack coming at these issues from a rabbinical Countermissionary POV?

[JoeWallack]

53:8 . . . .

The Hebrew לָֽמוֹ is plural. So the meaning is "For the transgression of my people were they stricken" and not "was he stricken":

ISAIAH 53 PART 1 PDF UNEDITED By Moshe Shulman

ErrancyWiki

Joe, please do tell me you have not been using Judaism Is the Answer sources as your translation authority for the Hebrew text in ErrancyWiki!

The pdf you link to is the Jewish equivalent of the worst Christian apologetics that we would never be caught dead having ever read. Above its title we read its declared purpose: "New Aid For Faith". Its preface describes any Christian view as "a deception" and declares that there is only one correct interpretation -- that of today's rabbis. They are all unanimous obviously and no doubt teach what the author of Isaiah 53 exactly originally wrote and meant.

Is Joe Wallack coming at these issues from a rabbinical Countermissionary POV?

JW:
Neil likes to criticize religious Jews but he religiously tries to avoid criticizing religious Muslims because that could be considered Islamophobia. I think Neil has an issue here he needs to work out.


Joseph

You Might Be An Antisemite

[rakovsky]

My Personal pov:
It is helpful to check christian and countermissionary Jewish povs on questions, even if we disagree with one of them.

Example 1: Both sides agree that tanakh teaches a future resurrection... so it probably does.

Example 2: Both traditions commonly teach that in psalm 22 the narrator gets attacked by enemies... so he probably does.

Both povs are important. Christianity is like a 1st c. School of Judaism, maybe in the way samaritans are predavidic Israelite religion. Modern Judaism probably changed in big ways due to reacting against christianity, the loss of a Judean kingdom, and temple, loss of a portion of the religious community via major conversions to Christianity and islam. Had those changes not occurred, I expect concepts of atonement, temple sacrifice, suffering messiah would have remained mainstream philosophical concepts in rabbinical tradition today.

Different religions perform historical revisionism. Hindus commonly teach that the indus civilization was aryan, and some even teach a theory of global Vedic religion. Modern historians consider that pseudoscience, with Hinduism reinventing the history of India to fit into the vedas and make sanskrit seem like bronze age hindi.

Same thing to an extent with nonlutheran protestantism. They reinvented the history of the early church to match their Low Church "demystified" version of Christianity.

I imagine that to some major extent modern rabbinical perceptions did the same thing. Some of them claim that the Torah was originally written in Assyrian script, not paleo or middle Hebrew characters.

Claims that ancient Judaism lacked a vicarious sacrificial atonement concept, eg. the "asham" offering of Isaiah 53, IMO are another example of modern revisionism and of where we can't automatically assume that countermissionary povs are an unbiased interpretation.