Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[rakovsky]

The garden narrative situates Eden eastward (from the perspective of a reader in the land of Israel; 2:8) and in proximity to the purported source of four rivers (2:10), two of which are identified as the Tigris and Euphrates (2:14), which marked out ancient Mesopotamia. There is no textual basis to locate this garden anywhere but the ancient Near East...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan,
If we remove supernatural ideas about Eden's location, then I agree.
But if we go by the rabbis' idea of the Garden being heavenly, then I don't know how many rabbis saw it as in some other place than the literal known Near East.

 

[rakovsky]

Why would rabbinical teachings be even concerned with such a thing? 1492 was around when man began to realize the world was not flat.

They were going into commentaries on that topic. People for centuries have sometimes been interested in thinking about where the Garden of Eden is located like they have thought of where Noah's and Moses' arms are located. There are 1st to 4th century writings theorizing about the location of those two arks. Josephus theorizes about Noah's ark. IIRC, 3 or 4 Baruch is one theorizing about Moses' ark being hidden by Jeremiah. If not, then it's in another apocryphal book.

 

[rakovsky]

The particle of interjection הנה (hinneh) carries no such exegetical force... for the various ways in which it is used in the Tanakh you may consult HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Koehler and Baumgartner). Furthermore, while the young woman is already pregnant when the prophet speaks, all else is future... and in the near future (see 7:16), not seven hundred years later.


Indeed, the word παρθενος has a range of meanings including virginity, purity and youth --- to fixate on the first to the exclusion of other possibilities, particularly given the context, is problematic. While LXX Isaiah does predate the advent of Christianity and is thus a genuine work of (Hellenistic) Jewish exegesis, it is a translation nonetheless and can never be used to determine the meaning of the putative Hebrew on which it is based. I would recommend the following article for a critical examination of issues related to this text:

Rodrigo de Sousa, "Is the Choice of ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΣ in LXX Isa. 7:14 Theologically Motivated?" Journal of Semitic Studies 53.2 (2008) 211-32.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan,
It makes sense to me that Hinneh/Behold is referring to future events, even if those events are narrated in the past tense in Hebrew. Behold shows up in numerous prophecies, especially in Isaiah. Another weird issue is that Hebrew uses past tenses sometimes that can literally mean either past or future tense. So for instance Isaiah 53 has past tense expressions for a future event.
I don't know Hebrew to say if that applies to Isaiah 7.

Jonathan- This reminds me of a related topic - On the Skeptics Forum, I talked with an Israeli who claimed that nowhere in the TANAKH does it expressly refer to the Davidic Messiah and that this is just a post-Tanakh rabbinical belief. And I could not find any place that inarguably laid out a prophecy of the Messiah. I brought up the prophecy in Isaiah of a child being born to us named the Prince of Peace, etc. and the person replied that this prophecy is in the past tense alone.

 

[En Hakkore]

It makes sense to me that Hinneh/Behold is referring to future events, even if those events are narrated in the past tense in Hebrew.

By your own admission later in the post you don't know Hebrew, so I'm at a loss as to how its vocabulary, grammar and syntax can 'make sense' to you. Unless one is writing on the history of interpretation, century-old commentaries are of little relevance or value next to a plethora of excellent contemporary resources... I've already suggested HALOT if you are interested in the meanings and uses of Hebrew or Aramaic words found in the Tanakh. And nothing can substitute for a working knowledge of these languages...

Behold shows up in numerous prophecies, especially in Isaiah.

The particle of interjection הנה (hinneh) is found over a thousand times in the Tanakh and is not restricted to sections designated 'prophetic'. For example:

And God saw the earth and, behold, it was corrupt! (Gen 6:12)
And he said to his people: "Behold, the Israelite people [are] more numerous and mighty than us!" (Exod 1:9)
And he will raise an ensign for the nations at a distance and whistle for one at the edge of the earth and, behold, he will come swiftly! (Isa 5:26)

Here we have narrative (example 1), speech (example 2) and poetry (example 3) with past action (example 1), present action (example 2) and future action (example 3). The particle primarily calls attention to that which follows, but the time of the action is determined by the verbs in context --- and here it should be noted that Hebrew action is split between that which is complete (perfect) and incomplete (imperfect). Particularly in prophetic oracles, the particle of interjection is followed by participles that have no sense of time in and of themselves, thereby conveying a sense of immediacy. For example:

Egypt's oracle: Behold, YHWH [is] riding on a swift cloud and coming [to] Egypt. (Isa 19:1)

This is similar to what we find in Isa 7:14 where the particle is followed by an adjective and a participle, then by a clause containing a converted imperfect verb --- "Behold, the young woman [is] pregnant and bearing a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." She is pregnant, soon to give birth and will name her son Immanuel. This is about to happen when the prophet delivers his message, not seven hundred years later.

Another weird issue is that Hebrew uses past tenses sometimes that can literally mean either past or future tense.

All languages have their anomalies, but Hebrew perfect and imperfect verbs function in predictable ways with few exceptions.

So for instance Isaiah 53 has past tense expressions for a future event.

That is incorrect. The section (52:13-53:12) contains both perfect and imperfect verbs that behave predictably, referring to the suffering the servant has experienced in the author's past (52:14; 53:2-7a, 8-10a, 12b), the servant's present humility and intercession (53:7b, 12c), and the good things the author anticipates will happen to the servant in the future (52:13; 53:11b-12a). Claims that this section uses past tense for future events are both selective (given the juxtaposed presence of numerous imperfect verbs) and ad hoc to justify the applicability of this 'servant song' to a figure who lived and died several hundred years after it was written.

I don't know Hebrew to say if that applies to Isaiah 7.

There is no phenomenon to apply (see analysis above)

On the Skeptics Forum, I talked with an Israeli who claimed that nowhere in the TANAKH does it expressly refer to the Davidic Messiah and that this is just a post-Tanakh rabbinical belief. And I could not find any place that inarguably laid out a prophecy of the Messiah. I brought up the prophecy in Isaiah of a child being born to us named the Prince of Peace, etc. and the person replied that this prophecy is in the past tense alone.

Your interlocutor was correct about the verbs in Isa 9:5 (9:6 in English enumeration) being perfect and therefore conveying completed actions: the child has already been born, government has been set on his shoulders and he has been given various titles --- this is an enthronement song, in all likelihood for Hezekiah. As for the idea of the messiah (Davidic or otherwise), this was a development of the Second Temple period (the rabbinic period, as such, does not begin until after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the first century CE), contemporary with some of the latest writings of the Tanakh (ie. Daniel) and was associated with eschatological hope under persecution (ie. that of Antiochus Epiphanes). The idea of a deliverer 'messiah' from the line of David was thus current at the time of Jesus, picking up on oracles in the Tanakh delivered in the wake of exile about a restoration of the monarchy, but other models were also in circulation (such as a priestly 'messiah' figure).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Jewjitzu]

It gives the cosmology of eden in the other world.

We were talking about earth and if it's round or flat.

 

[Jewjitzu]

eden is upon a cube, but the disc mentioned is above her - that disc which is the satanic realm’s; its called the elysian fields and created from what was stolen from eden. eden in turn after the fall came to be known as tartarus (hell).

Yeah, whatever. When you start getting into Midrash, aggadata, apocryphal writings, they are not sources to be taken literally.

Are there lessons to understand? Yes, but its subject to interpretation. Hieroglyphs doesn't help in understanding Hebrew.

 

[Jewjitzu]

This one is round. Eden earth is not.

This is the only earth spoken of in Genesis. The rest is subject to interpretation.

 

[Jewjitzu]

According to how read and were trained to read. The prophets do not agree with you.

Hebrew doesn't have hieroglyphics. You won't them in the prophets, eve.

 

[ding]

Welcome back everyone.

Christians are frustrated. Of all the peoples on the earth, they would think that the Jews, to whom God has entrusted the oracles, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. But no. Jewish converts have been ultra few. By and large, more than any other people, Jews have been immune to the gospel. Why? I hope that this post will answer that question.

1. God is ECHAD, one, not three in one. Christianity teaches Trinitarianism, which although it is monotheism, is a muddied monotheism. Judaism on the other hand teaches a pure and simple monotheism. Anything that comprises the oneness of God is unthinkable.

Here is something you may want to consider about the Trinity and it has to do with the tabernacle.

If we look at the construction of the tabernacle and in particular the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place. There are four main pieces in these areas.

In the Holy of Holies there is the ark of the covenant. In the Holy Place there is the Altar of Incense, the Menorah and the Table of the Bread of the Presence.

From a Christian perspective the Altar of Incense is the prayers of the saints. This leaves three other pieces. It can be argued that these three represent the Trinity. God the Father is the Ark of the Covenant, God the Son is the table with the Bread of the Presence and God the Holy Spirit is the Menorah.

 

[Harel13]

where eden was and is, is indeed a flat earth.

this earth is round but this earth is not where eden is.

Okay, and?

 

[En Hakkore]

In the Holy Place there is the Altar of Incense...

The incense altar is an unstable element in the pertinent text traditions... its placement in relation to the separating curtain is unclear and in some cases it does not appear among the furniture inside the tent at all. On a more general note, allegorical readings such as this are unlikely to convince those who are not already sold on the idea of a triune deity.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Harel13]

1. A difference between Jesus and other holy people is that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic task of bringing Abraham's God to the nations. (Isa 49).
I believe that Jesus is the Messiah not just because Christianity considers him to fulfill the Israelite prophecies of the Messiah, but because I attempted to understand such prophecies independent of Christianity's own views. It was interesting research and I described them on my website rakovskii.livejournal.com.

And prophecies are not crazy supernatural occurrences in your view?

2. Sure, archeologists find things like the Ipuwer manuscript that are potential extrabiblical evidence for miracles like the water turning red. It is a poem that looks like it is using exaggerated poetic language.
Since it's poetry, it doesn't necessarily mean that a mummy cloth literally speaks or that the river is blood. Plus, it can mean that the river is blood in a hyperbolic sense- ie. since men have been buried in the river, the river can be called "blood". I don't see this as the kind of evidence, unfortunately, that would go even close to proving something like the Biblical Flood story.

In other words, until you won't see a mega-level miracle yourself, you won't believe in it.
Your choice.

You asked what I meant about circular reasoning. I mean that if a person says that they believe that their religion's holy book is reliable because their religion's tradition says so, then it's rather circular reasoning. "Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument". (Source: Wikipedia) Another name for this is "begging the question."

If a person says that they find the Bible, Quran, or Vedas reliable because their religious tradition says so, the argument "begs the question" why the religious traditions are right about those books' reliability.

Thanks, I know what circular reasoning means.

Well, what would make traditions for place names right?

The etymology of Khug makes it sound like it means the form of a circle, coming from the verb of drawing something with a circular "compass" tool.

The other way around. Machoga מחוגה, the compass tool, comes from חוג, roundness or לחוג, to go around. Not necessarily a perfect circle. But now that you've clarified more about your interpretation, I wonder why you even originally interpreted it that way. How does that earth being circular mean that it's flat? The earth is indeed circular in one and two dimensions (not a perfect circle, from what I recall, but nonetheless circular).

As for Job, I recommend reading the comments on this question:
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/79399/why-does-prophet-isaiah-believe-the-world-is-flat

 

[Harel13]

What would you like to start with? If you are willing to consider or entertain possibilities then we could discuss.
I will start with a crude but basic observation that eden nature was different than this type physical nature...
space and time are different in eden than here... and there are direct references and clues to this in the OT.
From a cartesian point of view, we can look at the nature of the current heliocentric world
we live in, where nature is inert, non-caring, and light and energy coming from a sun made of the same stuff
we are familiar with here.

No, I simply didn't understand how your comment was relevant to the subject I was discussing with @rakovsky...

 

[rakovsky]

By your own admission later in the post you don't know Hebrew, so I'm at a loss as to how its vocabulary, grammar and syntax can 'make sense' to you. Unless one is writing on the history of interpretation, century-old commentaries are of little relevance or value next to a plethora of excellent contemporary resources... I've already suggested HALOT if you are interested in the meanings and uses of Hebrew or Aramaic words found in the Tanakh. And nothing can substitute for a working knowledge of these languages...

Certainly it's best if you understand Hebrew. Depending on how basic the issue is, a passage's vocabulary and grammar can make sense to a non-Hebrew-speaker who has references and translations available. In this case, it's a relatively simple issue: The vocabulary in question is Hinneh, Behold. And the grammar issue is whether a prophet in the Bible can make a prophecy starting with "Behold" and describe something in the future while not using a future tense.
We can check this with a search on BibleGateway for all places in Isaiah where Hinneh/Behold shows up, like Isaiah 24:1:

2009 [e]	הִנֵּ֧ה hin-nêh	Behold	Interjection
3068 [e]	יְהוָ֛ה Yah-weh	Yahweh	N-proper-ms
1238 [e]	בּוֹקֵ֥ק bō-w-qêq	makes empty	V-Qal-Prtcpl-ms
776 [e]	הָאָ֖רֶץ hā-’ā-reṣ	the earth	Art | N-fs

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search

www.biblegateway.com

OR:
Isaiah 26:21 on the future resurrection:

3588 [e]	כִּֽי־ kî-	For	Conj
2009 [e]	הִנֵּ֤ה hin-nêh	behold	Interjection
3068 [e]	יְהוָה֙ Yah-weh	Yahweh	N-proper-ms
3318 [e]	יֹצֵ֣א yō-ṣê	comes	V-Qal-Prtcpl-ms
4725 [e]	מִמְּקוֹמ֔וֹ mim-mə-qō-w-mōw,	out of His place	Prep-m | N-msc | 3ms
6485 [e]	לִפְקֹ֛ד lip̄-qōḏ	to punish	Prep-l | V-Qal-Inf
5771 [e]	עֲוֺ֥ן ‘ă-wōn	for iniquity	N-csc
3427 [e]	יֹֽשֵׁב־ yō-šêḇ-	the inhabitants	V-Qal-Prtcpl-msc
776 [e]	הָאָ֖רֶץ hā-’ā-reṣ	of the earth	Art | N-fs
5921 [e]	עָלָ֑יו ‘ā-lāw;	their	Prep | 3ms
1540 [e]	וְגִלְּתָ֤ה wə-ḡil-lə-ṯāh	and will disclose	Conj-w | V-Piel-ConjPerf-3fs
776 [e]	הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ hā-’ā-reṣ	the earth	Art | N-fs
853 [e]	אֶת־ ’eṯ-	-	DirObjM
1818 [e]	דָּמֶ֔יהָ dā-me-hā,	her blood	N-mpc | 3fs
3808 [e]	וְלֹֽא־ wə-lō-	and no	Conj-w | Adv-NegPrt
3680 [e]	תְכַסֶּ֥ה ṯə-ḵas-seh	will cover	V-Piel-Imperf-3fs
5750 [e]	ע֖וֹד ‘ō-wḏ	more	Adv
5921 [e]	עַל־ ‘al-	upon	Prep
2026 [e]	הֲרוּגֶֽיהָ׃ hă-rū-ḡe-hā.	her slain	V-Qal-QalPassPrtcpl-mpc | 3fs
	ס s	-	Punc

 

[rakovsky]

The particle of interjection הנה (hinneh) is found over a thousand times in the Tanakh and is not restricted to sections designated 'prophetic'. For example:

And God saw the earth and, behold, it was corrupt! (Gen 6:12)
And he said to his people: "Behold, the Israelite people [are] more numerous and mighty than us!" (Exod 1:9)
And he will raise an ensign for the nations at a distance and whistle for one at the edge of the earth and, behold, he will come swiftly! (Isa 5:26)

Here we have narrative (example 1), speech (example 2) and poetry (example 3) with past action (example 1), present action (example 2) and future action (example 3). The particle primarily calls attention to that which follows, but the time of the action is determined by the verbs in context --- and here it should be noted that Hebrew action is split between that which is complete (perfect) and incomplete (imperfect). Particularly in prophetic oracles, the particle of interjection is followed by participles that have no sense of time in and of themselves, thereby conveying a sense of immediacy. For example:

Egypt's oracle: Behold, YHWH [is] riding on a swift cloud and coming [to] Egypt. (Isa 19:1)

This is similar to what we find in Isa 7:14 where the particle is followed by an adjective and a participle, then by a clause containing a converted imperfect verb --- "Behold, the young woman [is] pregnant and bearing a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." She is pregnant, soon to give birth and will name her son Immanuel. This is about to happen when the prophet delivers his message, not seven hundred years later.

I agree with your analysis, and you did a good job, except that I disagree that the participle "conveying a sense of immediacy" in these "Behold.... is...." prophecies conveys immediacy in a way that it cannot mean seven hundred years later. One reason is isaiah 26:21, which uses this same construction that is talking about the future resurrection of the dead, something that wouldn't happen for even another 2500+ years.
Another reason is that we are talking about "prophetic" time. To say that it's "about to happen" when we are talking about prophecies that start with behold might not be quantifiable in terms of specific years. It's actually unfortunately ambiguous. One reason could be that there is a saying that 1000 years for man is like a day for God in the Psalms.

All languages have their anomalies, but Hebrew perfect and imperfect verbs function in predictable ways with few exceptions.
"So for instance Isaiah 53 has past tense expressions for a future event. "

That is incorrect. The section (52:13-53:12) contains both perfect and imperfect verbs that behave predictably, referring to the suffering the servant has experienced in the author's past (52:14; 53:2-7a, 8-10a, 12b), the servant's present humility and intercession (53:7b, 12c), and the good things the author anticipates will happen to the servant in the future (52:13; 53:11b-12a). Claims that this section uses past tense for future events are both selective (given the juxtaposed presence of numerous imperfect verbs) and ad hoc to justify the applicability of this 'servant song' to a figure who lived and died several hundred years after it was written.

You seem to be saying that since some of the expressions in the prophecy of Isaiah 53 use the past tense, then they must literally have already occurred chronologically in minutes or years before Isaiah wrote his prophecy. Unfortunately, the use of the past tense does not make things so clear, due to the Prophetic Past Tense used in the Tanakh.
Speaking on this topic:

David Kimhi: "The matter is as clear as though it had already passed,"[3] or Isaac ben Yedaiah:
"[The rabbis] of blessed memory followed, in these words of theirs, in the paths of the prophets who speak of something which will happen in the future in the language of the past. Since they saw in prophetic vision that which was to occur in the future, they spoke about it in the past tense and testified firmly that it had happened, to teach the certainty of his [God's] words -- may he be blessed -- and his positive promise that can never change and his beneficent message that will not be altered." (Isaac ben Yedaiah):

Gesenius describes it as follows:
"The perfect serves to express actions, events, or states, which the speaker wishes to represent from the point of view of completion, whether they belong to a determinate past time, or extend into the present, or while still future, are pictured as in their completed state." (GKC §106a)[5]
"[The perfect can be used to] express facts which are undoubtedly imminent, and, therefore, in the imagination of the speaker, already accomplished (perfectum confidentiae), e.g. Nu 17:27... Gn 30:13, 1 S 6:5 ..., Pr 4:2. Even in interrogative sentences, Gn 18:12, Nu 17:28, 23:10, Ju 9:9, 11, Zc 4:10 (?), Pr 22:20.8 This use of the perfect occurs most frequently in prophetic language (perfectum propheticum). The prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him, e.g. Is 5:13 ...; 19:7, Jb 5:20, 2 Ch 20:37. Not infrequently the imperfect interchanges with such perfects either in the parallel member or further on in the narrative." (GKC §106n)

Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia goes into more detail on the issue.

Your interlocutor was correct about the verbs in Isa 9:5 (9:6 in English enumeration) being perfect and therefore conveying completed actions: the child has already been born, government has been set on his shoulders and he has been given various titles --- this is an enthronement song, in all likelihood for Hezekiah.

Well, now that I know about the Prophetic Perfect Tense, it makes me think again about the prophecy about the "Prince of Peace" that uses some past tense.

In any case, it sounds like you are saying that the Messiah concept was around in the Second Temple period. Is there any place that you consider so definite that it would convince a Skeptic like my interlocutor?

 

[rakovsky]

Yeah, whatever. When you start getting into Midrash, aggadata, apocryphal writings, they are not sources to be taken literally.

Are there lessons to understand? Yes, but its subject to interpretation. Hieroglyphs doesn't help in understanding Hebrew.

Certainly Midrash and Apocrypha etc. can help to understand the Tanakh, although I think that they have weakness if they are written many centuries later.

Hieroglyphics could help in understanding what Paleo-Hebrew may have looked like. Here is a table that makes projections on that topic:

 

[rakovsky]

And prophecies are not crazy supernatural occurrences in your view?


(("Sure, archeologists find things like the Ipuwer manuscript that are potential extrabiblical evidence for miracles like the water turning red. It is a poem that looks like it is using exaggerated poetic language.
Since it's poetry, it doesn't necessarily mean that a mummy cloth literally speaks or that the river is blood. Plus, it can mean that the river is blood in a hyperbolic sense- ie. since men have been buried in the river, the river can be called "blood". I don't see this as the kind of evidence, unfortunately, that would go even close to proving something like the Biblical Flood story. "))

In other words, until you won't see a mega-level miracle yourself, you won't believe in it.
Your choice.

Thanks, I know what circular reasoning means.

Well, what would make traditions for place names right?

The other way around. Machoga מחוגה, the compass tool, comes from חוג, roundness or לחוג, to go around. Not necessarily a perfect circle. But now that you've clarified more about your interpretation, I wonder why you even originally interpreted it that way. How does that earth being circular mean that it's flat? The earth is indeed circular in one and two dimensions (not a perfect circle, from what I recall, but nonetheless circular).

As for Job, I recommend reading the comments on this question:
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/79399/why-does-prophet-isaiah-believe-the-world-is-flat

Harel, I think that prophecies are not supernatural occurrences to the degree that the Great Flood would be when you get into the physical details and geological implications of that Flood. The prophecies are like a mix of poetry and dream / vision predictions. I think that dreams can be paranormal predictors.

Certainly without seeing a mega-level miracle I could still believe in it. I did not see the Big Bang, but there is enough information about it that I think that it's probably true. However, when a miracle gets to the level of turning tons of contrary physics laws and geological, scientific, historical evidence into mush, it gets to the point that my mind does not compute it to be true. In the Biblical story, the Flood happened in like 2300 BC.

The Date of Noah’s Flood

by Dr John Osgood
...
The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years.

This date is, as expected, in conflict with secular archaeology which regards the Flood as either local or a myth and the Biblical chronologies as irrelevant or inaccurate.

The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years.

The Date of Noah’s Flood - creation.com

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

However, we have Sumerian and Egyptian records continuously to about 3000 BC in their own languages. It doesn't make sense for those civilizations to have been wiped out and then their languages restored along with their civilizations. And then there are plenty of other issues like how did flightless birds get from Mt. Arafat to New Zealand afterwards.

So unfortunately, it's not a "choice" what I believe on the matter. It isn't part of my will or preferences, as if I want to choose a flavor of ice cream. I can't choose to believe whatever I want, like that I will win the lottery tomorrow.

For place names' reliability, it makes sense that you can have historical records confirming the place names, as well as traditions passed down. In that case you don't know 100% that this village is the right one mentioned in the Bible. When you get into Biblical cities and locations, some cities have multiple theorized locations. In any case, considering that a place bears its name correctly that a cultural group has passed down about the place is not the same thing as believing that an extreme supernatural event occurred because that cultural group has passed it down. It's one thing for the cultural group to say that there was a Great Flood and to think that they could be talking about the sea rising in the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf, etc, and another to conclude that in 2300 BC the ocean covered the whole world killing everything in it besides the animals on the ark.

You asked: "How does that earth being circular mean that it's flat?" Thinking about it more, I think that calling it circular doesn't alone mean that it's flat.
I was thinking that the Tanakh has a world for a ball/globe/sphere and another word for a circle. A circle is a flat object. To say that the earth is circular rather than spherical or globular suggested to me that it's a flat circle.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Certainly Midrash and Apocrypha etc. can help to understand the Tanakh, although I think that they have weakness if they are written many centuries later.

Midrashim should not be taken literally. They are meant for a lesson, than a reality.

Hieroglyphics could help in understanding what Paleo-Hebrew may have looked like. Here is a table that makes projections on that topic:

It's interesting but I don't use it for interpreting Tanakh.

 

[En Hakkore]

Certainly it's best if you understand Hebrew. Depending on how basic the issue is, a passage's vocabulary and grammar can make sense to a non-Hebrew-speaker who has references and translations available. In this case, it's a relatively simple issue: The vocabulary in question is Hinneh, Behold. And the grammar issue is whether a prophet in the Bible can make a prophecy starting with "Behold" and describe something in the future while not using a future tense.

That the particle of interjection הנה (hinneh) has no bearing whatsoever on the timing of action in the clause that follows is basic. Please consult the reference I provided if you have access to it in some format.

We can check this with a search on BibleGateway for all places in Isaiah where Hinneh/Behold shows up, like Isaiah 24:1:

Behold, YHWH [is] laying waste the land and devastating it, and he will twist its face and disperse its inhabitants.

Isaiah 26:21 on the future resurrection:

For behold, YHWH [is] coming from his place to afflict the sin of the earth's inhabitants upon them, and the earth will disclose its blood and no longer cover over its slain.

It is unclear why these particular passages have been cited as neither are examples to support your claim above. They follow the same pattern I illustrated in my previous post... namely the particle of interjection followed by participles (which have no tense) and converted imperfects. I suspect the latter may be the 'problem' --- for the verb וגלתה (and will disclose), for example, the parsing information supplied is "Conj-w | V-Piel-ConjPerf-3fs". The "Conj" is subtle but important information that someone unfamiliar with Hebrew grammar might overlook. Without getting into all the technicalities and vowel pointing rules, the language includes a phenomenon whereby verbs take the opposite tense when prefixed with the conjunction 'and', often referred to in this function as a 'conversive' since it converts the tense of the verb to which it is attached. In other words, perfect verbs become imperfects and imperfects become perfects. That is what's happening in a number of verbs in the examples you provide (in addition to one straightforward imperfect which cannot be prefixed so because of its placement within a clause of negation). Above and in my previous post I referred to such verbs as 'converted imperfects'. This phenomenon is unrelated to the alleged phenomenon of 'prophetic perfects' that I will respond to shortly in the other post.

I would encourage you to continue in your study of Hebrew (and other pertinent ancient languages) and, if you can, to acquire a working knowledge of them. Without this, important parsing information available to you may be inadvertently glossed over and lead you to a mistaken conclusion. Mistakes and struggles with anomalies are inevitable when learning a new language... but the rewards of proficiency will open up all sorts of exegetical doorways to enrich your biblical study, for whatever purpose you do so.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If your sins were cleansed truly, then you shouldn't die.

Unless you were DESIGNED to. A JEW should know that the days of a man are 3 score and ten (Ps 90:10)

Of course the sacrifices atoned. God forgives a Jew when he confesses as well without the need for Jesus.

True. "Forgiveness" doesn't require ANYTHING, since it's a simple act of WILL (tearing up the I.O.U, as it were). but Being FORGIVEN and being CLEANSED from your SIN are two totally different things. If the "Day of atonement" actually WORKED like you think it does, you wouldn't have to do it every year. Forgiveness is unimportant. CLEANSING FROM SIN Through Jesus SIN OFFERING (Isa 53) is what's genuinely required. IF you "blow off" Jesus and His sacrifice for SIN, you'll die in your sins, and find yourself in Hell /Lake of fire with some nasty neighbors.

This is something Jews have none all along.

The Jews TOTALLY MISSED their time of visitation, and have been perishing ever since.

You miss the point. Jesus died defiled and didn't fulfill the requirements for cleansing.

Nope - YOU don't even know what the POINT is. And you OBVIOUSLY have NO IDEA what the Anti-type of the Temple sacrifice was even all about. Your "Theologians" have led you into death.