richard2

Luke 3:4-6 (NIV):

As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation.’"

Luke is referring to these lines in Isaiah 40:3-5 (NIV):

"A voice of one calling:
"In the desert prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.
Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.

And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
and all mankind together will see it.
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.""

The word "salvation" does not appear in Isaiah 3 like Luke says it does. Is "glory" supposed to be another word for "salvation"?

yummyfur

The word salvation comes from the LXX which has "and all mankind will see God's salvation(soterion)" where the Hebrew has "and all mankind will see it together(yachad)". It might be possible to reconcile the two and have the text say "and all mankind will see it's(God's glory) unity", with yachad as unity, and soterion in it's sense as preservation, that is keeping whole.

richard2

It = Glory in Isaiah. Luke says "salvation", though, not "glory".

yummyfur

not quite the Hebrew is yachad, which is together, the NIV removes this in their translation, I'm not sure why maybe because they find it rendundant as the line has already said all(kol) mankind. This is the problem, why say "all mankind will see it together" which is the more literally accurate translation, as it is strangly redundant.

So in Isaiah in Hebrew it is Yachad(together, unity). In Isaiah in Greek (LXX) it says Soterion Ho Theos(God's salvation). So Luke used the greek OT(LXX). I think I updated my previous post after you posted as well, with a possible way to reconcile the greek LXX text of Isaiah to the Hebrew.

richard2

Yes, that is redundant.

Just to make clear, though, my main point was that Luke, instead of using the word "glory" like Isaiah does, uses the word "salvation" instead. He also leaves out the word "together". I was thinking Luke is either misquoting the Isaiah verse or the words "salvation" and "glory" are interchangeable:

Luke: "And all mankind will see God's salvation."

Isaiah: "And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
and all mankind together will see it."


richard

yummyfur

But Isaiah does say salvation, in the Greek version of the old testament. The Greek version of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint(abreviated LXX). Early Christain authors often used the Septuagint or something close to it, for their qoutes. But many modern translations of the OT use the Masoretic text in Hebrew as preserved by medieval Jews.

I am thinking that maybe I wasn't clear enough and you didn't understand what I meant by LXX. The Septuagint and the Masoretic texts have different reading for some passages, which is the case for Isaiah 40:5.

But what Luke does, is leave out the line "And the glory of the LORD will be revealed". You might have noticed that the Hebrew Isaiah also doesn't have "the crooked roads made straight", to match Luke instead it says " the rough ground shall become level". But this line is in there in the Septuagint, again this is another line were the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have different possible translations.

richard2

Ah, I see. Thanks.

johntheapostate

I have sometimes wondered if this verse could be translated
" A voice of one calling. In the desert prepare a way for the Lord."

I don't believe that any pronunciation marks were used in the Hebrew texts therefore the interpretation is at the discretion of the interpreter. Is it possible that the writer had intended it to be understood the way I have translated it. In which case it really cant be used as a prophecy of John the Baptist

I have often considered the awkward relationship between the concept of the soul and the concept of the bodily resurrection. I mean what is the point of a bodily resurrection and judgment if the person represented by the soul is instantly whisked to its destination at the moment of death?

One of the very few verses that can be used as a proof text for the concept of the soul is Luke 23:43 were Jesus states " I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. This verse seems to indicate that both Jesus and the criminal would be together in paradise instantly after they both died.

I have wondered if the verse was intended to be understood this way
"I tell you the truth today. You will be with me in paradise"

With the stroke of the pen I have removed the proof text for the concept of the soul and have restored the harmony with the rest of the gospels indicating an eventual resurrection, judgment and then an everlasting fate in heaven or hell (I am now aware that the everlasting nature of hell has been a topic of debate in this forum)

richard2

I can give you an orthodox Christian answer to your question. Orthodoxy states that man is a composite being of body and soul. At the end of time, the bodies of the just and unjust will be resurrected to reunite with their souls for the final judgment. However, these bodies will be different, like Jesus' resurrected body, which was capable of supernatural things like instantaneous appearances, yet he also possessed a physicality. He was able to eat and to be touched.

Specifically, the final punishments and rewards would not be complete without man being wholly himself -- body and soul. Yet, somehow, before the ressurrection of the body, he is able to occupy heaven and hell in the form of a soul only.

But who said Christianity made sense?

johntheapostate

Did the resurrected body of Jesus have it its origin in his physical body? I mean Christians are always crowing about the empty tomb, indicating that the physical body had been transformed into the resurrected body.

If this is the case, then some complications occur if due to time the physical body is completely incorporated into its environment.

Isn't it rather childish to think that just because some bone tissue remains for some time after death, that this indicates that they could somehow be transformed at some future date into a resurrected body.

It all just seems a little primitive to me.