Isaiah 53:11 in which Bible? Which Bible has God's Word?

[Scotth1960]

Dear friends, Which Bible has God's Word for Isaiah 53:11? In the KJV, which doesn't have the word "light", or the NIV which has "light of life", or the ESV, which has "light" in a footnote, in the HCSB, which has "light", in the DSSB? Which version contains God's Word in Isaiah 53:11? The Hebrew MT (Masoretic Text), or the Greek OT LXX (Greek Septuagint). This is a significant difference! The NIV has the light of the resurrection of Christ. The KJV and the Hebrew text of Jewish rabbis (who reject Christ, most of them), does not have this resurrection word, "light". How do we account for the discrepancy between Bible versions, where just one small word, "light" makes a world of difference. Christ not only suffered; He rose, to see "the light of life" (NIV).
KJV King James Version
ESV English Standard Version
NIV New International Version
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
DSSB Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
OT Old Testament
Take care.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington, March 11, 2011 AD

 

[D4Christ]

...This is a significant difference!... How do we account for the discrepancy between Bible versions, where just one small word, "light" makes a world of difference. Christ not only suffered; He rose, to see "the light of life" (NIV).

What exactly do you think "light of life" translates to? I haven't been able to find a word-to-word translation for this phrase...only the fact that it is used in the septuagint and the NIV.

All of the other versions seem to be stating that he (Christ) will see all that he has suffered and be satisfied (paraphrased).

Dee

 

[Theofilus]

The NIV has the light of the resurrection of Christ. The KJV and the Hebrew text of Jewish rabbis (who reject Christ, most of them), does not have this resurrection word, "light".

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The Septuagint is a translation into Greek. The name "Septuagint" means seventy, which is a reference to the fact that it was translated by a team of seventy (are you ready for this?) rabbis. Yes, that's right. The rabbis added the phrase "light of life", they didn't take it away.

 

[Scotth1960]

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The Septuagint is a translation into Greek. The name "Septuagint" means seventy, which is a reference to the fact that it was translated by a team of seventy (are you ready for this?) rabbis. Yes, that's right. The rabbis added the phrase "light of life", they didn't take it away.

How do you know that? Are you relying on rabbis who don't confess Christ as Lord? If so, how would they know what the Word of God is? The early Church used the Greek OT, and the Greek OT agrees with the DSSB. Was the early Church wrong, and the unbelieving Pharisees right? Remember what Christ said to the Pharisees? Also, the MT (Masoretic text) is new, not old, it dates sometime between 800 and 1000 AD. The DSSB is old, as is the Septuagint. The original Hebrew text has been lost, or, at worst, falsified. The closest approximation may be the DSSB, although perhaps there were several varying Hebrew OT versions, of which the DSSB was one. How do we know which Hebrew text and which Greek text is the authentic word of God? Are we going to rely on non-Christian Jewish rabbis, or the work by Jewish rabbis that the Church authenticates (Septuagint Greek LXX OT)? What say you?

 

[Theofilus]

How do you know that? Are you relying on rabbis who don't confess Christ as Lord?

I don't know what you have against rabbis, but I would like to point out two things:

1. The Old Testament wasn't written by rabbis
2. Jesus and Paul were both rabbis.

 

[mcgyver]

How do you know that? Are you relying on rabbis who don't confess Christ as Lord? If so, how would they know what the Word of God is?

OK, you got me with this one!

The LXX was completed circa 285BC (as in "Before Christ"), so how in the world could they confess Jesus as Lord before Jesus' incarnation???? That's a straw man argument.

Secondly, even a cursory glance at early Jewish culture will reveal that the OT Jews counted the word of God (in this case the OT) as sacred, holy, and the very word of Adonai given to His people...It will be noted of course that the OT was given by God to the Jews....:D

The early Church used the Greek OT, and the Greek OT agrees with the DSSB. Was the early Church wrong, and the unbelieving Pharisees right? Remember what Christ said to the Pharisees? Also, the MT (Masoretic text) is new, not old, it dates sometime between 800 and 1000 AD. The DSSB is old, as is the Septuagint. The original Hebrew text has been lost, or, at worst, falsified. The closest approximation may be the DSSB, although perhaps there were several varying Hebrew OT versions, of which the DSSB was one. How do we know which Hebrew text and which Greek text is the authentic word of God? Are we going to rely on non-Christian Jewish rabbis, or the work by Jewish rabbis that the Church authenticates (Septuagint Greek LXX OT)? What say you?

You got me with that first bit...but you lost me with this one...I really have no idea what you're asking here...

 

[edwin]

How do you know that? Are you relying on rabbis who don't confess Christ as Lord? If so, how would they know what the Word of God is? The early Church used the Greek OT, and the Greek OT agrees with the DSSB. Was the early Church wrong, and the unbelieving Pharisees right? Remember what Christ said to the Pharisees? Also, the MT (Masoretic text) is new, not old, it dates sometime between 800 and 1000 AD. The DSSB is old, as is the Septuagint. The original Hebrew text has been lost, or, at worst, falsified. The closest approximation may be the DSSB, although perhaps there were several varying Hebrew OT versions, of which the DSSB was one. How do we know which Hebrew text and which Greek text is the authentic word of God? Are we going to rely on non-Christian Jewish rabbis, or the work by Jewish rabbis that the Church authenticates (Septuagint Greek LXX OT)? What say you?

You should check your facts before posting. The idea of the seventy elders transcribing the Hebrew bible into Greek may be apocryphal, but if true both early Talmudic sources and Flavius Josephus confirm that only the Pentateuch was translated and not the Prophets and Writings.

As regards your question of "light" the simple answer is the Hebrew word for light does not appear in either the Great Scroll of Isaiah (DSS) or in the Masoretic text.

Here is the Great Scroll of Isaiah text:

Here is the Masoretic text; 53:11 is at the bottom third.

An acceptable translation would be:"From the toil of his soul he shall see and be satisfied: with his knowledge my servant will vindicate the righteous before the multitudes, and their iniquities he shall carry."

 

[reba]

Its all greek to me edwin

 

[Scotth1960]

I don't know what you have against rabbis, but I would like to point out two things:

1. The Old Testament wasn't written by rabbis
2. Jesus and Paul were both rabbis.

I have nothing against rabbis. I go by what Christ said: Call no man father, call no man teacher, call no man rabbi. The rabbis who rejected Christ were preached against by Christ. He told the Pharisees they were in error. The Jewish rabbis who reject Christ are what I am saying have a problem. The Jewish rabbis who accept Christ, like St. Paul, have no problem. The Jewish rabbis who write the Talmud(s), are the one's who preach Judaism, oral Jewish traditions and oral traditions in writing, in opposition to the old Jewish OT, and the new largely Jewish NT. We need Christ. We don't need the Talmud or Jewish fables, or a Judaizing "false gospel" like Dispensationalism/Christian Zionism. Take care.

 

[Scotth1960]

You should check your facts before posting. The idea of the seventy elders transcribing the Hebrew bible into Greek may be apocryphal, but if true both early Talmudic sources and Flavius Josephus confirm that only the Pentateuch was translated and not the Prophets and Writings.

As regards your question of "light" the simple answer is the Hebrew word for light does not appear in either the Great Scroll of Isaiah (DSS) or in the Masoretic text.

Here is the Great Scroll of Isaiah text:

Here is the Masoretic text; 53:11 is at the bottom third.

An acceptable translation would be:"From the toil of his soul he shall see and be satisfied: with his knowledge my servant will vindicate the righteous before the multitudes, and their iniquities he shall carry."

The DSSB Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translation in English has light. The NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint has light. The GOC (Greek Orthodox Church) has the Septuagint, and believes in Jesus Christ. The Jews who use the late 9th, 10th, or 11th century AD Hebrew Bible, do not have light, because they do not have faith in Jesus. See Isaiah 8:16,20 KJV. According to my sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls does have the word "light" in it. Maybe your source is faulty. I'm not impressed just because someone can put up a Hebrew font.
I rely on the English translations of the Septuagint and the DSS, which both have the word light in them. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. I believe the Septuagint. It's the version used by the early Church. The Jewish rabbis largely rejected this version. They follow another tradition, a non-Christian tradition. Those Jews who accept Christ, along with the Gentiles, are the true born-again seed of Abraham. Not after the flesh, which profiteth nothing, but after the Holy Spirit of God. We need Christ. Without Him we can do nothing (John 15).
God save us. In Erie Scott Harrington PS The Jews of the Talmud blaspheme against Christ and His mother. They say Christ is in hell, boiling in His own excrement. Should such men who don't know or love their own Messiah be believed when it comes to determining what is the correct, inspired text of the OT? Has the Hebrew been modified to delete some of the references to Christ as Messiah. The answer should be obvious. This matter of Isaiah 53:11 show the Hebrew text does not have the light of Christ's (Messiah's) resurrection from the dead. Go figure. I accept Christ. I reject the Talmud.
I don't trust any Hebrew text that doesn't preach Christ in all the relevant verses of the OT.

 

[Scotth1960]

OK, you got me with this one!

The LXX was completed circa 285BC (as in "Before Christ"), so how in the world could they confess Jesus as Lord before Jesus' incarnation???? That's a straw man argument.

Secondly, even a cursory glance at early Jewish culture will reveal that the OT Jews counted the word of God (in this case the OT) as sacred, holy, and the very word of Adonai given to His people...It will be noted of course that the OT was given by God to the Jews....:D


The Jews who reject Christ have falsified their own Hebrew OT by their traditions. The Pharisees that is. Christ preached against their hypocrisy. The hypocrisy continues in a reliance on the Hebrew Masoretic Text as an authority, when it removes word like "light" from Isaiah 53:11. See Isaiah 8:16,20 KJV.
The Church uses the Greek translation of the original Hebrew OT, which is lost. The nearest approximation to the original Hebrew is the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, at least in those Hebrew Dead Sea readings which agree with the LXX (Septuagint), such as Isaiah 53:11. Take care. In Erie Scott God bless and save all of you. God save us all. Amen.


You got me with that first bit...but you lost me with this one...I really have no idea what you're asking here...[

 

[Guap]

How can the Jews who reject Christ have anything to do with the LXX translation? It was finished well before Christ came. Or do you think it was changed after Jesus?

As for which text / translation we should, perhaps we can look to the example of Paul. surely the text he used is the 'right' one isn't it?

But then again, he used different versions based on what he wanted to say ... oh well, I guess that doesn't help us then does it? Or does it?

 

[edwin]

The DSSB Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translation in English has light. The NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint has light. The GOC (Greek Orthodox Church) has the Septuagint, and believes in Jesus Christ. The Jews who use the late 9th, 10th, or 11th century AD Hebrew Bible, do not have light, because they do not have faith in Jesus. See Isaiah 8:16,20 KJV. According to my sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls does have the word "light" in it. Maybe your source is faulty. I'm not impressed just because someone can put up a Hebrew font.
I rely on the English translations of the Septuagint and the DSS, which both have the word light in them. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. I believe the Septuagint. It's the version used by the early Church. The Jewish rabbis largely rejected this version. They follow another tradition, a non-Christian tradition. Those Jews who accept Christ, along with the Gentiles, are the true born-again seed of Abraham. Not after the flesh, which profiteth nothing, but after the Holy Spirit of God. We need Christ. Without Him we can do nothing (John 15).
God save us. In Erie Scott Harrington PS The Jews of the Talmud blaspheme against Christ and His mother. They say Christ is in hell, boiling in His own excrement. Should such men who don't know or love their own Messiah be believed when it comes to determining what is the correct, inspired text of the OT? Has the Hebrew been modified to delete some of the references to Christ as Messiah. The answer should be obvious. This matter of Isaiah 53:11 show the Hebrew text does not have the light of Christ's (Messiah's) resurrection from the dead. Go figure. I accept Christ. I reject the Talmud.
I don't trust any Hebrew text that doesn't preach Christ in all the relevant verses of the OT.

You are relying on an English translation from the Hebrew text of the Great Scroll of Isaiah which in column XLIV line 12 is the same as 53:6 in the Masoretic Text. The translation states as follows: "we have turned and YHWH has caused to light on him the iniquity of us all". This has nothing to do with the "light" of resurrection or with light of any kind. It simply the translator's way of translating the Hebrew word "hefgiyah" ie inflict. The Hebrew word for light is "or" which is not found in the text of the Great Scroll. The actual Hebrew in the Great Scroll is exactly the same as in the MT, ie. "koolana ktson taeenu eesh ledarku peneenu; vadonai hefgiyah bo et avon koolanu"--We all went astray like sheep, we have turned each one on his way; and the LORD inflicted upon him the iniquity of all of us. If you don't believe me I suggest you consult someone who is fluent in Hebrew and check the DSS in the original Hebrew.

 

[Scotth1960]

You are relying on an English translation from the Hebrew text of the Great Scroll of Isaiah which in column XLIV line 12 is the same as 53:6 in the Masoretic Text. The translation states as follows: "we have turned and YHWH has caused to light on him the iniquity of us all". This has nothing to do with the "light" of resurrection or with light of any kind. It simply the translator's way of translating the Hebrew word "hefgiyah" ie inflict. The Hebrew word for light is "or" which is not found in the text of the Great Scroll. The actual Hebrew in the Great Scroll is exactly the same as in the MT, ie. "koolana ktson taeenu eesh ledarku peneenu; vadonai hefgiyah bo et avon koolanu"--We all went astray like sheep, we have turned each one on his way; and the LORD inflicted upon him the iniquity of all of us. If you don't believe me I suggest you consult someone who is fluent in Hebrew and check the DSS in the original Hebrew.

The Church chose the Septuagint, and the Septuagint has "light" in Isa. 53:11. And the Church can't err (Matthew 16:18). The rabbis can err, because they reject Christ. Should people who write the Talmud and slander Jesus Christ and His mother in their rabbinic traditions be trusted to correctly preserve the original text of the OT in Hebrew? The LXX is an early translation from an ancient Hebrew text. The Church in her wisdom, which comes from God the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) follows the Greek OT. Take care. We shouldn't believe in or follow the Masoretic text; these rabbis follow Talmud, not the Hebrew text, anyway. They don't look for Christ in their Hebrew texts; they look for the own Pharisee traditions, and these Christ spoke against, and it got Him crucified by the religious Jews.
A remnant of the Jews believed on Christ, and these formed the core (heart) of the early Church. We should go by St. Peter, St. Matthew, St.John's, etc. reading of the Hebrew OT in the NT writings. In Erie/ Scott

 

[Theofilus]

The Church chose the Septuagint

Would it help you to understand this better if I showed you the Icelandic version?

Vegna þeirra hörmunga, er sál hans þoldi, mun hann sjá ljós og seðjast. Þá menn læra að þekkja hann, mun hann, hinn réttláti, þjónn minn, gjöra marga réttláta, og hann mun bera misgjörðir þeirra. (Is. 53:11 Icelandic translation 1981)​

Or how about Arabic?

وَيَرَى ثِمَارَ تَعَبِ نَفْسِهِ وَيَشْبَعُ، وَعَبْدِي الْبَارُّ يُبَرِّرُ بِمَعْرِفَتِهِ كَثِيرِينَ وَيَحْمِلُ آثَامَهُمْ. (Is. 53:11 Arabic Life Aplication Bible)​

Bulgarian, maybe?

Ще види <плодовете> от труда на душата Си и ще се насити; Праведният Ми служител ще оправдае мнозина чрез знанието им за Него, И Той ще се натовари с беззаконията им. (Is. 53:11 1940 Bulgarian Bible)​

No, I gues those don't help much, do they? But do you know why it doesn't help? If you can figure that out, then you can figure out why "the church chose the Septuagint" or, more accurately, why the Greek manuscripts, from which our New Testaments are translated, used the Septuagint.

 

[jasoncran]

the church choose the septugaint? that to my knowlegde is all that there was to use! it was in greek for the non hebrew speaking hellenistic hebrews that were in captivity and wanted to read the texts as they couldnt read hebrew but originally its in hebrew!

the jews of today use the dss not the lxx!

 

[Theofilus]

the church choose the septugaint? that to my knowlegde is all that there was to use! it was in greek for the non hebrew speaking hellenistic hebrews that were in captivity and wanted to read the texts as they couldnt read hebrew but originally its in hebrew!

the jews of today use the dss not the lxx!

My point exactly. It doesn't do much good to use a version nobody understands.

 

[AKJVReader]

Dear friends, Which Bible has God's Word for Isaiah 53:11? In the KJV, which doesn't have the word "light", or the NIV which has "light of life", or the ESV, which has "light" in a footnote, in the HCSB, which has "light", in the DSSB? Which version contains God's Word in Isaiah 53:11? The Hebrew MT (Masoretic Text), or the Greek OT LXX (Greek Septuagint). This is a significant difference! The NIV has the light of the resurrection of Christ. The KJV and the Hebrew text of Jewish rabbis (who reject Christ, most of them), does not have this resurrection word, "light". How do we account for the discrepancy between Bible versions, where just one small word, "light" makes a world of difference. Christ not only suffered; He rose, to see "the light of life" (NIV).
KJV King James Version
ESV English Standard Version
NIV New International Version
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
DSSB Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
OT Old Testament

Why must this verse have the word "light"? the word "light" appears in many other places.

Here is the Authorized King James Version:
[FONT=arial,helvatica]"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:11).
I would use this word for word translation that is the Authorized King James Bible.

Here are some links that will help you:
The New International Version - NIV
Which Bible Can We Trust?


[/FONT]

 

[Scotth1960]

OK, you got me with this one!

The LXX was completed circa 285BC (as in "Before Christ"), so how in the world could they confess Jesus as Lord before Jesus' incarnation???? That's a straw man argument.

Secondly, even a cursory glance at early Jewish culture will reveal that the OT Jews counted the word of God (in this case the OT) as sacred, holy, and the very word of Adonai given to His people...It will be noted of course that the OT was given by God to the Jews....:D

I'm referring to the rabbis after Christ came, who rejected Christ, and

assembled the Hebrew canon of Scripture, in distinction from the Greek

OT canon of the Christian Church, which has a longer list of Bible books,

and the Bible translated into Greek from the original Hebrew. There may

be differences between the original Hebrew text of the OT, which is no

longer in existence, and the Masoretic Hebrew text, which dates to

about 800 years AD after Christ. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington



You got me with that first bit...but you lost me with this one...I really have no idea what you're asking here...

 

[Scotth1960]

That's Roman Catholicism. That's not the Church. Rome is heretical and schismatic. So, there is only one other logical possibility as to what the true Church is, and it isn't Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, or Protestant or Independent. I believe people who read my posts already know what I believe the true Church is. The sex-abuse scandals happened in Roman Catholicism, not in the true Church. As for me being a moron, I stand corrected by someone who doesn't know that the sex abuse scandal wasn't committed by the true Church. You don't even know what the Church is, if you think the pedophilia of celibate Roman Catholic priests comes from God.
That's not from the true Church.