Psalm 22:17, Hebrew Text, "Like A Lion". Who's Lion?

[John2]

Rakovsky,

You wrote:

I gave you one - Daniel. - he said that Nebudchadnezzar's empire would get crushed, which happened in the Biblical era. So the Israelites presented Daniel as trustworthy in the Bible. But Daniel also made prophecies about what was for them the distant future, ie. the events of the 1st c. AD. So they were reading Daniel like he was a reliable prophet who already got predictions right and was now telling them predictions for the distant future. They of course would give Daniel a pass for that, because they treated his predictive words as holy scripture.

Regarding Daniel, I subscribe to the theory that it was written during the Maccabee era (that it is not included in the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible but in the Writings is one of the reasons I think this). So I see the "predictions" you mention as having already happened or were happening (or just about to happen) when Daniel was written (i.e., the four kingdoms). But I reckon you do not agree with this idea, and that's fine. So from your point of view Daniel supports what you are saying and we'll just have to disagree on that issue.

But regarding the timing of the End of Days, Nehemia Gordon has an interesting article about this and concludes that "there is no secret" about when the End of Days will begin because it is already discussed in the Torah and that it isn't contingent on any particular chronology but rather repentance and that this is what the later prophets are referring to, and I think it's worth putting up most of it here.

When will the "End of Days" Begin?

In the book of Daniel we see a number of prophecies which describe with varying degrees of detail the chronology of the End of Days. However, the prophet himself does not understand to what historical events this chronology refers. In his vision Daniel protests to the angel that appears to him:

"And I heard but did not understand and I said, 'Master, what is the End (Aharit) of all these things?' (Dan 12:9)

The angel explains to Daniel that the meaning of the visions will remain undecipherable until the events of the End of Days itself:

"And he said, 'Go Daniel, for the things are closed up and sealed until the end time." (Dan 12:10)

Although the exact year of the End of Days can not be learned from the Book of Daniel, there is no secret in the Hebrew Bible about when the End of Days will take place. In fact, the timing of the End of Days is spelled out explicitly in the Torah. In Dt 28-30 God lays down the terms of his covenant with Israel: If Israel keeps the covenant they will be blessed with abundance and peace but if they violate the covenant they will be harshly punished with a curse. In Dt 29:25-27 the people of Israel are warned that if they continue to sin the ultimate curse will be exile from the Land of Israel. Dt 30:1ff. then describes the final redemption:

"And it will be when all the these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, and you will return with your heart in all the nations wherein Yehovah your God has cast you. And you will return to Yehovah your God and obey his voice according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, with all your heart and all your soul. And Yehovah will return your captivity and have mercy upon you and he will again gather you in from all the nations wherein Yehovah your God has scattered you. If your dispersed ones be at the end of the heavens, from there will Yehovah your God gather you and from there will he take you. And Yehovah your God will bring you to the land that your fathers inherited and you will inherit it; And he will do good to you and make you multiply more than your fathers. And Yehovah your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed to love Yehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul in order that you will live."

We see from the above passage in Deuteronomy that after Israel repents Yehovah will return their exile to Israel (a second time!) and will cut his covenant into the hearts of the people. Returning to Jeremiah 31:32 we see that the end of days is described as period in which the covenant of Yehovah is written on the hearts of the people:

"For this is the covenant which I will make with the House of Israel after those days, says Yehovah; I will place my Torah in their inner parts and I will write it upon their hearts and I will be to them God and they will be to me a people."

The End of Days of Jeremiah and the Redemption of Dt 30 are one and the same event. In Dt 4:30 we are told explicitly that the End of Days will be brought on by the repentance of Israel:

"...in the End of Days you will return to Yehovah your God and obey his voice... And he will not forget the covenant which he swore to your fathers..." (see the broader context in Dt 4:25-31 from which it is clear that this refers to the exact same sequence of events as Dt 30:1ff.).

Thus there is no secret as to when the End of Days will take place. As can be gleaned from Dt 4 and 30, as soon as Israel repents and returns to Yehovah, the exile will end and the period of the renewed covenant will begin. With the great majority of the People of Israel still in the exile, and those in the Land of Israel following the path of iniquity, this time seems far off. We can only pray that the People of Israel repent and fulfill their duty to be a guide to the nations. Until that day it is the duty of every human being, both from Israel and the Nations, to keep the commandments of Yehovah in his holy Torah so that the time will come when:

"no longer shall a person teach his fellow and a man his brother saying 'Know Yehovah!' for they will all know me from the littlest one to the greatest, says Yehovah". (Jer 31:33 [KJV 31:34])

A Final Note on Daniel

Even if we could decipher the chronology of the prophecies of Daniel (which Dan 12:10 indicates we can not do!) this would not necessarily give us a precise date for the End of Days. We learn in Dan 9 that a predicted end time can be delayed if Israel sins. At the beginning of Dan 9, the prophet looks into the Book of Jeremiah and discovers that the Babylonian exile is to end after 70 years. Daniel proceeds to pray to Yehovah to forgive the people of Israel and to bring them back from exile. Was this a vain prayer since the fate of Israel was determined beforehand by the prophecy of Jeremiah? Why did Daniel see a need to ask for forgiveness when the time of the redemption of Israel was set in advance? If we look at Daniel's prayer we see the reason for his trepidation. Daniel calls to Yehovah:

"Master hear! Master forgive! Master Listen and Do, Do not delay!" (verse 19)

Daniel realizes that if Yehovah does not forgive his people for their sins the end of the 70 years would be "delayed", perhaps indefinitely. This is an important lesson when trying to decipher the chronology of the end time in the Book of Daniel. Even if we can figure out what periods are referred to in Daniel's prophecies we must realize that if there is not repentance then the date of the Redemption will be delayed, as Daniel himself teaches us in his prayer.

http://karaite-korner.org/end_of_days.shtml

This reminds me of something the Recognitions of Clement 1.69 says about James:

"To him our James began to show that whatsoever things the prophets say they have taken from the law, and what they have spoken is in accordance with the law."

In other words, there's nothing really "new" in the prophets regarding the End of Days.

The point I was making is that when it comes to the Tanakh's concept of the suffering Messiah who gets killed by his enemies in the first century AD and resurrects, I think that the interpretation not only of mainstreams Christians, but of Torah-observant Messianic Christian Jews, and of Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin on this question is correct.

And since I believe this interpretation about the nature of the Messiah to be correct, it leads to what is for me the most interesting question that comes out of this thread:
If the Tanakh did make such a prediction about the Messiah does that show that in fact such a prophesied event would occur - ie. the arrival, killing, and resurrection of a first century Davidic Messiah?

There's a lot to unpack here. First, I don't agree with your chronology, as per Gordon above. Second, I also don't agree with the idea that the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (for example) is the Messiah (even though it was seen this way by some in ancient Judaism, including, possibly, the DSS sect) but rather a symbol of Israel, or that Ps. 22 is about the Messiah (unless you count David). I think interpretations of verses like these -at least in Jesus' case- are only after-the-fact cherry picking. I don't think there are any hidden "secrets" like that in the OT. As the Torah says (in the same chapter that discusses the End of Days above):

"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it" (Dt. 30:11-14).

The Torah is also to be read out loud every seven years so that even people who could not read could understand it by simply hearing it, including children, which, in my view, supports the plain meaning of at least the Torah rather than there being a "mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God," as Paul puts it.

"...you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the foreigners residing in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law. Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the Lord your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess” (Dt. 31:11-13).

[theterminator]

Yet you have rejected us and abased us, and have not gone out with our armies. You made us turn back from the foe, and our enemies have gotten spoil. You have made us like sheep for slaughter, and have scattered us among the nations. You have sold your people for a trifle, demanding no high price for them. You have made us the taunt of our neighbors, the derision and scorn of those around us. You have made us a byword among the nations, a laughingstock among the peoples. All day long my disgrace is before me, and shame has covered my face at the words of the taunters and revilers, at the sight of the enemy and the avenger. All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way, yet you have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god, would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. Because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help. Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love. (Ps 44:9-26)

no one would argue that the people who are being persecuted and killed off are an ATONEMENT for sins. these people clearly say they are true to yhwh.

Zechariah 10:2New International Version (NIV)

2 The idols speak deceitfully,
diviners see visions that lie;
they tell dreams that are false,
they give comfort in vain.

9And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

quote :

Deceit/lying in general is associated with idolatry as in Zech. 10:2 - The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie, similarly, Hab 2:18 - What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? and the sentiment in Ps 115:8 - Those who make them will be like them

The text is only stating that the individual is not violent or that he worshiped idols (having deceit in the mouth being a reference to this ), i.e. he's not corrupt like the people who are persecuting him, and as a result he is buried among them and is given a death sentence for not refuting God.

end quote

When you come to appear before me,[a]
who asked this from your hand?
Trample my courts no more;
13 bringing offerings is futile;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—
I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.
14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you stretch out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.
18 Come now, let us argue it out,
says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be like snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be devoured by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

this is how isaiah starts of his book and he has his god angry with the ritual sacrifices. how then is it possible that the same writer wants to view his god as an atonement for sins in isaiah 53?

[theterminator]

Exodus 17:14
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

Deuteronomy 29:20
"The LORD shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.

Psalm 9:5
You have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked; You have blotted out their name forever and ever.

Psalm 69:28
May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous.

i don't know hebrew, though i wish i did to catch out your misrepresentations.

are the amalek children who knew no sin a guilt offering ?
are the amalek people a guilt offering?

i quote

So here is the passage in context, and in a good translation from the Hebrew text, in which I will add [in brackets] the portions that are missing -

Exodus 32:31-33 - 31. And Moses returned to the Lord and said: "Please! This people has committed a grave sin. They have made themselves a god of gold. 32. And now, if You forgive their sin [then I am content to remain in Your Book]. But if not, erase me now from Your Book, which You have written." 33. And the Lord said to Moses: "Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will erase from My Book!"

Verse 32 is a conditional sentence, i.e., if ... then...., and the part the I supplied [in brackets] is not an unusual suppression in a conditional sentence in the Hebrew language. The verse demonstrates one great aspect of Moses' character - he lived only for his people. If they were to be destroyed, then he had no desire for life. Nowhere in that passage is it even implied that Moses offered himself as a sacrifice to achieve atonement for his people's sin.

end quote

[John2]

Rakovsky wrote:

Hab. 2:4 says: “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith."
That sounds like the kind of thing Paul was talking about when he proclaimed living by faith.

But the context of this is his complaint in 1:4 that, "Therefore the law [Torah] is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted."

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky,

You wrote:

I gave you one - Daniel. - he said that Nebudchadnezzar's empire would get crushed, which happened in the Biblical era. So the Israelites presented Daniel as trustworthy in the Bible. But Daniel also made prophecies about what was for them the distant future, ie. the events of the 1st c. AD. So they were reading Daniel like he was a reliable prophet who already got predictions right and was now telling them predictions for the distant future. They of course would give Daniel a pass for that, because they treated his predictive words as holy scripture.

Regarding Daniel, I subscribe to the theory that it was written during the Maccabee era (that it is not included in the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible but in the Writings is one of the reasons I think this). So I see the "predictions" you mention as having already happened or were happening (or just about to happen) when Daniel was written (i.e., the four kingdoms).

John,

I brought this up to address the issue of distant future fulfillment of prophecies. Let's say Daniel was written in the 2nd c. BC when it was included in the canon. The audience at that time still would have been imagining that back in the 6th c. BC Daniel had made prophecies to the Babylonian ruler that turned out to be true, and that this qualified his writings for future generations (ie. the 2nd c. BC and later).

Other prophets who made predictions that clearly applied to both their own era and the distant future include Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah.
So for example Isaiah predicted to Hezekiah Israel's capture and exile that occurred in his era, but he also predicted the Messiah (root of Jesse in Is 11) and the general resurrection (Is. 26), which remained for the distant future as they weren't fulfilled in his lifetime.

But regarding the timing of the End of Days, Nehemia Gordon has an interesting article about this and concludes that "there is no secret" about when the End of Days will begin because it is already discussed in the Torah and that it isn't contingent on any particular chronology but rather repentance

I understand that predictions can be contingent on something like repentance. However there are two big obstacles to this.
First, Daniel 9 gives a detailed chronological calculation. If it was up to nonchronological contingencies, there would not be as much point to lay out dates.
Second, if repentance was the contingency for the events of Daniel 9, it doesn't make sense why it would end in the destruction of the Second Temple like Daniel 9 discusses. If the Israelites were repentant and God chose to reward them, then based on the Torah covenant rules of Ex. 28 etc, he would not do so by destroying them and their nation. Nehemiah G cites this himself in your quote:

and that this is what the later prophets are referring to, and I think it's worth putting up most of it up here.

In Dt 28-30 God lays down the terms of his covenant with Israel: If Israel keeps the covenant they will be blessed with abundance and peace but if they violate the covenant they will be harshly punished with a curse.

The other issue is that if Daniel 9 really is simply contingent and it isn't clear when the End of Times happens, then the prophecy is not really ascertainable in the time of writing, which is what you and I were originally discussing- whether the Bible could respect someone as a prophet if they made untestable predictions.

The point I was making is that when it comes to the Tanakh's concept of the suffering Messiah who gets killed by his enemies in the first century AD and resurrects, I think that the interpretation not only of mainstreams Christians, but of Torah-observant Messianic Christian Jews, and of Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin on this question is correct.

And since I believe this interpretation about the nature of the Messiah to be correct, it leads to what is for me the most interesting question that comes out of this thread:
If the Tanakh did make such a prediction about the Messiah does that show that in fact such a prophesied event would occur - ie. the arrival, killing, and resurrection of a first century Davidic Messiah?

There's a lot to unpack here. First, I don't agree with your chronology, as per Gordon above.

Second, I also don't agree with the idea that the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (for example) is the Messiah (even though it was seen this way by some in ancient Judaism, including, possibly, the DSS sect) but rather a symbol of Israel, or that Ps. 22 is about the Messiah (unless you count David). I think interpretations of verses like that -at least in Jesus' case- are only after-the-fact cherry picking. I don't think there are any hidden "secrets" like that in the OT.

OK, I understand that you don't agree with my understanding that Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and other verses predict that the Messiah would get killed in the 1st c. AD and resurrect. I recommend that you read Orthodox Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin's writings on this topic and also my website rakovskii.livejournal.com .

In any case, the question remains. From my perspective and those like Boyarin and Messianic Jews, from our perspective, if we find that the Old Testament does predict that the Messiah would get killed in the first c. and resurrect and the Second Temple would get destroyed, does this mean that in fact it would occur?

Alternately, regardless of the Messianic aspects, was Daniel's prediction about the 1st century that the Second Temple would get destroyed prescient of the fact that the Temple did indeed get destroyed in 70 AD? If an Old Testament prophet made a prediction for the distant future, does the fact that he made the prediction have a strong bearing on whether or not it would occur?

In other words, is the fact that you don't consider Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 to be Messianic and categorical standing between you and believing in their 1st century fulfillment, such that if you read the passages differently, you would conclude that these things did occur then? Do you believe in the "power" of ancient Jewish prophecy?

The Torah is also to be read out loud every seven years so that even people who could not read could understand it by simply hearing it, including children, which, in my view, supports the plain meaning of at least the Torah rather than there being a "mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God," as Paul puts it.

The Tanakh with Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 is different than the Torah. But anyway the Torah is full of mysteries and concepts that go beyond what is obvious at a childlike level. It's true that the Torah's authors wanted everyone to understand basic things about it like the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that there aren't very important or essential ideas inside.

These kinds of major questions start from the beginning like the debate over Pantheism, which is very fundamental. In Genesis 1:1-2, God makes the heavens and the earth. But did God make the "waters" that are mentioned there? Are the "waters" as old as God? are the "waters" simply the substance that make up the heavens and earth? Are the waters as old as God himself? Is God a "demiurge" who emerged out of the waters? Only by turning to a later book, Proverbs, do we get the idea that God in fact pre-existed even the waters and is separate from them.

Did you know that every fifth word in the Torah starts with one of the letters of "Torah"? I think it is not a coincidence, and that a simple plain reading would never pick that up. There are many things in the Tanakh that go beyond an initial surface reading.

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky wrote:

Hab. 2:4 says: “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith."
That sounds like the kind of thing Paul was talking about when he proclaimed living by faith.

But the context of this is his complaint in 1:4 that, "Therefore the law [Torah] is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted."

So it could mean that the answer to the problem that the "law is paralyzed" can be that instead, "the just shall live by his faith."

Anyway, as I mentioned, the main issue here you and I are discussing is whether the Tanakh has the idea of a suffering Messiah, which is something Torah-observant Messianic Christians and the Talmudic scholar D. Boyarin would agree with. Whether the Messiah would suffer and get killed in the idea of the Tanakh is a separate issue from whether Paul's views on the role of the Torah in the Messianic era are correct. It's an interesting side issue that I recommend making a new thread over. For example, we could talk there about Jeremiah 30-33 about the predicted "new covenant" and its relationship to the old one.

[John2]

Rakovsky wrote:

So it could mean that the answer to the problem that the "law is paralyzed" can be that instead, "the just shall live by his faith."

Well, maybe, but that's what I'm saying, that the DSS sect saw the answer to Hab. 2:4 as keeping the Torah.

And it would be fine with me if you want to start another thread and talk about anything you like.

[rakovsky]

Yet you have rejected us and abased us, and have not gone out with our armies. You made us turn back from the foe, and our enemies have gotten spoil. You have made us like sheep for slaughter, and have scattered us among the nations. You have sold your people for a trifle, demanding no high price for them. You have made us the taunt of our neighbors, the derision and scorn of those around us. You have made us a byword among the nations, a laughingstock among the peoples. All day long my disgrace is before me, and shame has covered my face at the words of the taunters and revilers, at the sight of the enemy and the avenger. All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way, yet you have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god, would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. Because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help. Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love. (Ps 44:9-26)

no one would argue that the people who are being persecuted and killed off are an ATONEMENT for sins. these people clearly say they are true to yhwh.

David nowhere says that the people in that chapter either were an atonement or could not be an atonement for sin. He doesn't bring up the concept.

Isaiah, a different author with a different mindset, writing 500 years later says that every one of the Israelites was lawlessly violent and dishonest, and talks about a righteous servant undergoing a "sin offering".

Zechariah 10:2New International Version (NIV)

2 The idols speak deceitfully,
diviners see visions that lie;
they tell dreams that are false,
they give comfort in vain.

9And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

quote :

Deceit/lying in general is associated with idolatry as in Zech. 10:2 - The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie, similarly, Hab 2:18 - What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? and the sentiment in Ps 115:8 - Those who make them will be like them

The text is only stating that the individual is not violent or that he worshiped idols (having deceit in the mouth being a reference to this ),

When you come to appear before me,[a]
who asked this from your hand?
Trample my courts no more;
13 bringing offerings is futile;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—
I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.
14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you stretch out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.
18 Come now, let us argue it out,
says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be like snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be devoured by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Where does the Bible say that "dishonesty" and "lies" means "idolatry" and that if it's not idolatry it's not called a "lie"?
Where does the Bible say that the word "lie" does not actually mean the plain meaning of the word?

The Hebrew word for deceit used in Is. 53:9 is "mir-māh".
This word means:
deceit (21), deceitful (6), deceitfully (2), deception (2), deceptive (1), dishonest (1), false (3), treacherous (1), treachery (2).
Strong's Dictionary: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4820.htm

It is not specifically referring to speaking about idols.

Proverbs 11:1 uses this Hebrew word as Strong's Dictionary explains, and the verse says:
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight."

It is not talking about "idolatrous balances", it is talk about dishonest scales, like when someone uses a fraudulent measurement.

Actually, I think that you should already have a pretty good guess that the word in the Bible "deceit" does not just mean "idolatry". So why are you saying something that you should know is wrong?

You say that you wish you knew Hebrew so you could catch my "misrepresentations". In other words, you don't actually know that I have made any about the Hebrew, but you make these accusations anyway. It sounds like you are a cyberbully and that the conversation is not productive.

Most tempting thing is that I've studied this for a long time and so your questions are easy. Some people love to bully each other online. It doesn't do much for me though.

this is how isaiah starts of his book and he has his god angry with the ritual sacrifices.

how then is it possible that the same writer wants to view his god as an atonement for sins in isaiah 53?

Well, first, I'm not particularly promoting the idea that Isaiah saw the suffering Messiah as God, just that Isaiah saw the Messiah as being an atonement.
You have to look at why was God angry with the ritual sacrifices. I think he did not consider them performed with deep faith and piousness.
But then in Isaiah 53, Isaiah does talk about the Messiah undergoing what Isaiah calls a "guilt offering". But it can be that Isaiah uses this concept and sees an atonement, but he doesn't see the future killing of the Messiah as being performed ritualistically inside the Temple. So there are differences between the ritual sacrifices he opposed and the atonement in Isaiah 53.

What is your native language? Sometimes that makes things easier.
Какой у Вас родной язык?

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky wrote:

So it could mean that the answer to the problem that the "law is paralyzed" can be that instead, "the just shall live by his faith."

Well, maybe, but that's what I'm saying, that the DSS sect saw the answer to Hab. 2:4 as keeping the Torah.

And it would be fine with me if you want to start another thread and talk about anything you like.

So I am saying that maybe Paul was right - that Hab. 2:4 really was about the importance of faith even if it meant putting aside some Torah rituals. So Paul can be making a good understanding of what Hab 2:4 says: " the just shall live by his faith". This Pauline understanding could be correct, because Habakkuk intended living by faith to be an answer to what to do when the Torah was paralyzed. Maybe when the Torah is paralyzed and the answer to the paralysis is living by faith, this answer by Habakkuk means that the faith is more important than keeping the rituals.

[rakovsky]

Exodus 17:14
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

Deuteronomy 29:20
"The LORD shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.

Psalm 9:5
You have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked; You have blotted out their name forever and ever.

Psalm 69:28
May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous.

i don't know hebrew, though i wish i did to catch out your misrepresentations.

are the amalek children who knew no sin a guilt offering ?

Where does it say that Amalek's children "knew no sin"?

are the amalek people a guilt offering?

No, even though they got blotted out, because it was not done as substitution atonement to help others.

Are you familiar with why God blotted out Amalek and the implications of that?

i quote

So here is the passage in context, and in a good translation from the Hebrew text, in which I will add [in brackets] the portions that are missing -

Exodus 32:31-33 - 31. And Moses returned to the Lord and said: "Please! This people has committed a grave sin. They have made themselves a god of gold. 32. And now, if You forgive their sin [then I am content to remain in Your Book]. But if not, erase me now from Your Book, which You have written."

33. And the Lord said to Moses: "Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will erase from My Book!"

Verse 32 is a conditional sentence, i.e., if ... then...., and the part the I supplied [in brackets] is not an unusual suppression in a conditional sentence in the Hebrew language. The verse demonstrates one great aspect of Moses' character - he lived only for his people. If they were to be destroyed, then he had no desire for life.
Nowhere in that passage is it even implied that Moses offered himself as a sacrifice to achieve atonement for his people's sin.

It's so ironic that you say Moses nowhere implied to be a sacrifice to atone, after you said the part in red. It means Moses was saying that if God doesn't forgive the Israelites, he wants to lose his life. Either God forgives the Israelites and lets Moses live OR God kills Moses. He is opening up the proposition, "either you let the people go or you take me."

Also, why did you not actually include the whole context, like one verse earlier, where Moses says:
30. On the next day Moses said to the people, "You yourselves have committed a great sin; and now I am going up to the LORD, perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

Why do you leave out the words "atonement for your sin" and then say there is no "atonement for his people's sin" in this story?

What do you think "making atonement for someone else's sin" means?