sky4it

spin see above post

Ninjay: My last post to spin was pleasant. The commentary that I made to the original poster was based upon my own reading of scripture, thus i did not glean it from anyone and do not see it as old hat, as you seem to indicate.

Anyway, I believe the matter is resolved as you will see from my last post I only preach to people 2 1/2 things and only if they believe in God. I explained why in my last post to Spin.

Thank you for the commentary and

Regards, :wave:

Godless Dave

Before you look up the Hebrew or Greek for "pierce", you might want to look up the meaning of the English word "prolific". It doesn't make sense to describe a book as "prolific".

angelo

Name one. Just one! Anyone can claim a prophecy to be fulfilled after the facts.

-Jay-

Listen up, spin, sky4it is getting all authoritative. They're so cute when they do that...

Translation: I have no interest in learning anything about my belief system that might actually cause me to challenge it. Further, I'll go out of my way to avoid learning anything that might call any details of my belief system into question.

Translation: I don't have the background to cogently argue this issue with you, nor do I wish to take the time to gain the background. I'll just go hang out with people who already agree with me and we'll validate each other's worldviews.

Translation: You won't play the game I want to play, so I'm gonna take my ball and go home.

Translation: It's a lot easier to foist off my dogmatic nonsense on people who already believe a lot of it than to have my statements excoriated by people who have done more research than me.

I have trouble understanding why people who place so much value in their religion have such a strong aversion to actually learning anything about it beyond what they hear at church or in Bible reading sessions. It seems like if it's worth one's time to be religious, it's worth one's time to actually understand the history and development of that religious tradition, even if what one learns tends to disconfirm one's beliefs. To do anything else seems intellectually dishonest.

regards,

NinJay

funinspace

sky4it, if your goal is to show that Christians can be just as pissy as anyone else, you are accomplishing your goal. If you are the humble servent of the God you claim, I find your responses rather strange. Though within caustic comments, you have been asked several times to substanciate your claims/comments. Why do you choose to dwell within the snarky vice the content? Sometimes it pays to offer the olive branch first.
Notice above where I bolded? I think it's quite obvious that spin knows it's originating source is Hebrew. Anywho, back to subject…
I found your above comment odd for a non-fundy and well read Christian. Very few non-fundies consider KJ to be one of the higher quality translations. Why do you think the KJ version is so good compared to RSV, NIV, etl.al.? Because a British King ordered the translation? Harry Potter is a pretty prolific book as well, does it become more real for it? You do know that little of it came from the Greek/Hebrew older copies; and that it was translated mostly from the Latin translations?

Here's one conservative site, and it's notes on the verse in question. Now I can't debate the finer points of Greek/Hebrew like spin can, so I rely upon generally respected sources. Notice that the word "peirce" is not there. This does not negate the potential reality of your Jesus, but it does weaken the usage of this one passage and it's prophetic value.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
22:16 Yes, wild dogs surround me – a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet. (38)

38<NOTE=827tn Heb “like a lion, my hands and my feet.” This reading is often emended because it is grammatically awkward, but perhaps its awkwardness is by rhetorical design. Its broken syntax may be intended to convey the panic and terror felt by the psalmist. The psalmist may envision a lion pinning the hands and feet of its victim to the ground with its paws (a scene depicted in ancient Near Eastern art), or a lion biting the hands and feet. The line has been traditionally translated, “they pierce my hands and feet,” and then taken as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ. Though Jesus does appropriate the language of this psalm while on the cross (compare v. 1 with Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34), the NT does not cite this verse in describing the death of Jesus. (It does refer to vv. 7-8 and 18, however. See Matt 27:35, 39, 43; Mark 15:24, 29; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24.) If one were to insist on an emendation of כָּאֲרִי (ka’ariy, “like a lion”) to a verb, the most likely verbal root would be כָּרָה (karah, “dig”; see the LXX). In this context this verb could refer to the gnawing and tearing of wild dogs (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV). The ancient Greek version produced by Symmachus reads “bind” here, perhaps understanding a verbal root כרך, which is attested in later Hebrew and Aramaic and means “to encircle, entwine, embrace” (see HALOT 497-98 s.v. כרך and Jastrow 668 s.v. כָּרַךְ). Neither one of these proposed verbs can yield a meaning “bore, pierce.”

Amaleq13

I'm not sure you understand my meaning, however. In the context of this discussion, I consider it is "lacking" in two senses. First, with not even forty posts to your name, your history "lacks" the rather extensive and readily available number of background-posts that spin's eight thousand posts provides. The number alone should suggest that such a check is necessary before one offers opinions about his knowledge. Second, I saw nothing in your posts that would impact on spin's stated opinion regarding scholarship. Neither of these is a value judgment but a simple statements of fact. You have far fewer posts and none appear relevant to whether or not you are familiar with the identified type of biblical scholarship.

Amaleq13

You've also made it clear that your mind will never change. Both of these assertions suggest you are in the wrong place. This is a discussion board, not a pulpit.

Preaching is prohibited here. If your intent is to preach rather than discuss, you are in the wrong place. This forum is intended for discussions about the Bible. Preferably substantive discussions involving references to scholarly research.

funinspace

This verse in Isaiah 53 is kind of odd for the Jesus we all know:
Isaiash 53:10 'Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life'
Hum, maybe the rumors of Jesus running off with Mary were true

Here's a Jewish counter point with references to Christian Bible references that also doesn’t tow the prophetic line on Is 53 (and a small quote of a very detailed counter argument):
http://www.messiahtruth.com/isaiah53a.html
So oatmealia, as you can see, Messianic prophecy can be spun round and round with little clarity in the end. If you are struggling thru this, and where your faith should be, I would recommend seeking out a preacher that can recognize varying ways of understanding the scriptures beyond fundamentalism/evangelicalism. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is a common place where people of other Christian sects come for marriage because their own church has too many rules that get in the way. A local UMC preacher might be a good sounding board for your questions as well.

oatmealia

Wow, this topic really took off! I just wanted to let everyone who's contributing know that I am still here, and I've been regularly reading this thread since I created it. (But then, it's the posters that make a thread, not the disappearing OP. )

A tremendous thank you to everyone who replied, actually. I know this is a discussion board, not a therapy session, but seeing both sides of the issue in interaction like this is really helping me to hash through the issue. It's no replacement for reading the books and scholarly papers that you've all suggested, but it's giving me direction in my study.

I realized at some point while I was thoroughly a fundamentalist that I had no basis for my beliefs whatsoever -- beyond the Biblical prophecy. If prophecy showed that Jesus Christ was indeed the predicted Messiah, then I thought I would be comfortable taking the Bible literally. However, when I saw that the Gospel authors weren't taking the Bible "literally" in the sense that I had expected, I was quite shaken. Still picking up the pieces, actually.

From reading the content in this thread, it appears that my suspicions about Messianic prophecy are true. I was not aware that the NRSV and other versions "identify Israel as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53." That's interesting to me, because I've never heard a Christian source say such a thing. I've not been very far beyond my church bookstore on the topic of prophecy, actually.

Oh my, how I have discovered this since I've dared to peek beyond fundamentalism. Thanks for the encouragement.

NinJay, your questions for evaluating sources are wonderful. When one wants to cling to something, one sometimes pretends that a source is more credible than it actually is. Your suggestions have helped me check myself.

As far as the personal issues go, my support network consists mostly of my fiance and his mother, both of whom are fundamentalists. However, my fiance began searching at the same time I did, and so it's been comforting to have someone open-minded on my side. My sisters are casually being raised in a fundamentalist church, but I can count on them for positive relationships also.

That's interesting -- it hits on what I've been wondering about. It's obvious that modern day fundamentalists view prophecy differently than the Gospel writers did. Anyone have any views on that? It's easy for me to assume that that means that the Gospel writers were stretching their sources -- is there any reason to believe that their interpretations are valid or relevant?

I haven't read it, but I've heard negative things about it from exChristians who read it while they were still searching. They've said that it was far from convincing. However, I may look into it soon. Maybe it contains what I'm looking for.

Actually, "just reading the Bible" is what got me in this mess in the first place. In fact, for me, just reading the Bible is what made the apologists so hard to swallow. If I had read Christian books before I read the Bible, maybe I would've been more secure in fundamentalism, but here I am now. Additionally, the Calvinist tradition follows the most convincing systematic theology I've encountered so far. But I don't want to debate internal theology, and I don't feel that any system I've studied is dogmatically true, including Calvinism.

Please, keep the discussion going if you so wish. I am profiting greatly from reading what you all have to say.

oatmealia

Thanks for this! I'm working through it, slowly but surely.