In answer to the video "The Quran Calls Jesus the Messiah - Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 11"
Isa9 describes historical events. The original Hebrew is in the past. Isa9:6 says "yulad"(was born). Like in Arabic, as kindly noted by these youtubers, in all of its 15 biblical occurences yulad is rendered in the past. Christian translations inconsistently switch between tenses depending on the intended Christological message. Again in the same passage "nitan"(was given) is a past tense verb, always rendered as such in all of its 14 occurences in the hebrew bible. But again, corrupt Christian translators switch the meaning depending on their whims. In v7 it says "ein-qeitz" meaning "without end" or "is without end". The Hebrew is in the present tense except in Christian renderings that have it in the future Isa9:7"of his government and peace there will be no end".
Isaiah is speaking of a child born in the past. It is Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz, and his future as King of Judah. It relates his salvation from the Assyrian king Sennacherib. "wonderful" (not the KJV "wonderful councelor", this is even mentionned in the NIV footnotes) refers to the wonders god performed to Hezekiah with the sun going backwards and his miraculous cure in Isa38:8. Hezekiah was evidently a great councelor to his people in 2Chron30:8. Also, the same root word from which "counselor" stems from is used when Hezekiah decided to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem 2Chr30:2,32:3. El gibbor which Christians like rendering "mighty God" can as easily mean mighty ruler or hero Ezek32:21,31:11 with no reference to divinity. Hezekiah was a mighty ruler and hero for refusing to surrender to Sennacherib's army. This made him worthy of divine help 2Chr32:20-22.
"everlasting father" refers to Hezekiah's merit in prolonguing the Davidic dynasty. "Father" is commonly used for prominent figures, people who initiate something important like Jabal or Jubal in Gen4:20,21. Hezekiah is explicitly described as a prince of peace in Isa39:8.
Also by equating Jesus with the child here, trinitarians fall into a heresy by their own standards by confounding 2 distinct personalities of the godhead (father and son). Jesus the son cannot also be the everalsting divine father. The passage from Ezek31:11 also exposes the trinitarian bias of bible translators who render "el" as ruler while in Isa9:6 they render it "God".
The “day of Midian” is when Gideon and his small army were assisted(Judges6&7). Various phrases of Isa9 are repeated throughout Isaiah as reference to the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, for example the expressions “yoke” and ‘burden” (9:3) are used in 14:25, “staff” and “rod” (9:3) used in 10:5,24,27,30:31, God's "burning"(9:5) of the ennemies repeated in 10:16,17,30:31,31:9, the "The zeal of the LORD"(9:7) repeated in 37:32. All these repeptitions are in relation to the incidents in Hezekiah's life.
To further corroborate the weakness of Christian proof texting, Isa10 is the epilogue to the events described in Isa9. It explains how God saved King Hezekiah and his Kingdom of Judah from Sennacherib’s massive military attack. It is to be kept in mind that the original Isaiah scroll had no chapter divisions. It is the start and end breaks on a scribe's scroll that shows the beginning and end of a passage.
Assuming for argument's sake that the writer of Isa9 had Jesus in mind. Was Jesus ever actually called with the titles listed in Isa9? Saying that the definitions apply to Jesus wont work. Isa9 makes it clear that the individual is referred to with those titles. Also, as already pointed "Everlasing Father", cannot, even by the mysterious monotheistic Trinitarian standards, refer to both father and son.
The passage doesnt appear in the NT anyway, and this is a major indication that even to those unkown Greek writers, there was no connection between Isa9 and Jesus. These authors were scavenging the HB, twisting and misinterpreting it to make it fit the various Christian theological positions and had therefore every reason to include it. The Christian rendition simply is a later development and corruption of the Hebrew.
No comments:
Post a Comment