HOME | FUNNY ARTICLES | TOP NEWS REPORTS | SUBMIT
|
Apr. 13, 2011 Christians believe or like to pretend they believe that Isaiah prophesied the birth of Jesus by a virgin, but this is unadulterated nonsense. If you read Chapter 7 of Isaiah carefully and objectively, you will see that the so-called prophecy did not concern Jesus at all, but had to do with a war among three petty kings of the Levant in the eighth century BCE. Whether Isaiah felt that the course of the war allowed him confidently to prophesy Ahaz’s victory over Pekah and Rezin, or whether he was just indulging in wishful thinking that ultimately panned out, no one knows. One thing that is certain was that he was not talking about Jesus at all. Further, the Hebrew word “almah” means “girl”, “maiden” or “young woman”, rather than “virgin”. Isaiah wasn’t talking about a virgin birth. That is a translator’s error. So the Christian view of the prophecy is absolutely idiotic. I covered this plagiarism more fully in an earlier article: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/10june/article007.html You cannot blame Isaiah for the fact that The Gospel According to Saint Matthew willfully wrenches and distorts his so-called prophecy beyond recognition. But Isaiah did make at least one glaring blunder in all his ranting and raving and that was the prophecy that Damascus would be destroyed. Three thousand years have gone by since the time of Isaiah. He’s long gone and so are the original manuscripts of his writings, but Damascus remains, a modern city of 2,000,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus To verify that Isaiah said what he is reputed to have said, I checked the Jewish Bible and found the passage. Whether or not you can read Hebrew, you may want to look at the original text, to which vowel markings (little dots and lines) have been added by rabbis: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t1017.htm The pertinent passage consists of the first nine words from the right just below the title. Don’t forget Hebrew reads right to left. A precise transcription goes as follows: Massa, Dammashek: Hinneh Dammeshek musar meir, vehaytah mei mappalah. The two spellings of Damascus have to do with Hebrew grammar, the first being the form used at the end of a phrase or sentence, the second one being the form used in the middle. Isaiah’s diction is very odd to modern ears. The literal translation: Burden, Damascus: Behold Damascus is-removed as-a-city, and-will-be from-Ai a-ruin. I have hyphenated words so that there are nine words in the translation. More freely, this might read: The burden Damascus (must bear): Damascus will be removed as a city and will be like an Ai of rubble. Ai was a ruined city in the vicinity. This passage is translated thus in the New International Version: A prophecy against Damascus: “See, Damascus will no longer be a city, but will become a heap of ruins,” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+17:1-3&version=NIV Despite the weird diction, which was an affectation that men who wanted to be known as prophets adopted, it is clear that Isaiah meant that Damascus was to be destroyed. It is just as clear that he was wrong. So anyone thinking to cite Isaiah as a moral preceptor on adultery and like subjects should first consider why he made his own false prophecies and why some of his other utterances were made into false prophecies by others. The book of Isaiah has no moral authority. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written five books: ELEMENTS OF GRAMMAR and A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction); A TALE OF UNG, THE ENNUNMENT and GVAGMA (fiction). I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Visit my website here. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com
Comment on this article here!
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
