Bible Prophecy  

Isaiah 9:6 KJV / Isaiah 9:5 in Tanakh This verse is dishonestly and ignorantly used by Christians to claim it is a prophecy pointing to Jesus. Isaiah 9:6 KJV: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall* be* upon his shoulder: and his name shall* be* called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:5 as translated properly from Hebrew to English: For a child has* been* born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called* his name, "the prince of peace." Notice the proper translation is in past perfect tense, not future tense as is wrong in your KJV bible. Isaiah is referring to someone in the past, hence past perfect tense is used. If you actually care enough about the truth, you need to buy a Hebrew to English Tanakh or go to chabad.org for the proper translations. Isaiah was referring to the king Hezekiah, who was a highly respected king in Isaiah's time. Isaiah was giving the names dedicated to Hezekiah. Hezekiah's name literary means mighty god/Yah is mighty, and he was the prince during a hectic time in history. And fyi, the dead sea scrolls support the Mazoretic Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:5 and not the bad translation of Isaiah 9:6 in the KJV bible. It is a fact that Isaiah was not referring to a future messiah in this verse. Dr. Tabor is wrong here.

In the case which you are stating sir, with all due respect. Then nobody has fit that description, ever. And the difference is between what you're calling past perfect sense, whatever that is supposed to mean. And a child is born. Which could mean past, but it could also mean future, is inconsequential! At this point we can judge from what we know has occurred. And even in the first six points that Mr Tabor shows here, the first two have been satiated, and the rest are yet to occur. But nowhere does it say that when the Messiah comes he will do everything at one time. Quit trying to be a dictatorial noob.

HI

Through the church of england? Anglican? 🤔

The British Monarchy is the literal "Throne of David" today. It was established by the prophet Jeremiah through the Kings of Ireland, then Scotland and later England . Just as God commanded Jeremiah and just as God promised King David .

@@TheWhyisthatsothat is true but it’s not the Germans who currently sit on the throne

This is still a question of dispute. Obama had to take the oath again later that day in 2012 as the chief justice got the oath wrong, as he tried to recite in from memory. This was to stop nit pickers saying he was not the president because the oath he first recited had slightly different words.

There is No mediator with Gos and man in Judaism. The closest was Moses. But he was NOT WORSHIPPED. MAN can approach God 1 on 1 in Judaism.

@@kennethbrownsher1264 - I know, as the Abrahamic religious tradition has disconnected the ancient and natural mediator function.

".... wolf shall dwell with the lamb ..." Isaiah 11:6

Pouring oil on Saul's head to annoint him as King of Israel did not make him THE Messiah. In that case , Saul: The Annointed King of Israel, we see that a man can lose his annointing.

Why be so dogmatic. Stone is one of many. That alternative is well known but unlikely.

That makes more sense as the child taken to God's throne in 2011 is a prince...even the crown prince of Judah.

As you probably already know, the book of Job is a literary collaboration-two separate hands are involv’d : chapters 1 & 2 are written in late Hebrew prose from the Persian period with all sorts of post Exilic (post 532 BCE) Zoroastrian elements such as the figure of Satan, the setting of YHWH at the head of a pantheon of ‘sons of EL’ I.e. ‘angels’ in the stile of a Persian Court & uses the name YHWH for the chief deity, etc; Whereas the poem proper [chapters 3 through 42] is written in an ancient Elamite-accented poetic Hebrew of which about 8% or so of the text is uncertain in translation and mainly uses ELOAH as the divine name (the feminine sg of Elohim. ‘gods’) which is found nowhere else in the Hebrew canonical scriptures - although it sometimes uses Elohim, El-SHADDAI & El-Elyon in places - but never YHWH - the late Masoretic text from 969 CE as well as some DSS copies of Job have YHWH’s name added once or twice in the ‘whirlwind scene’ but is otherwise absent from the text - If you read the book with the PROSE introduction included the point of the story is ‘Job was tested by YHWH & emerg’d victorious through various tribulations that Satan was allow’d to thrust upon him’ but if you remove the Persian period prose introductory chapters 1 & 2 and the very last paragraph and just read the POEM PROPER the message is quite a bit different : it amounts to Job suffering from a serious leprosy type skin disorder by which he rails throughout the narrative against ‘ELOAH’ because he had done nothing in his life to deserve such a fate - so the creator-god appears in a tornado & basically tells him in essence / ‘who the hell are you to judge ME? Don’t you know who I AM ? Were you there when I put the stars in the req’iak dome? Tell me how many there are, since you think you know so much !!’ And the god relentlessly continues along those lines until finally in exasperation Job gives up questioning the will of the divine & simply says, ‘I’m sorry I asked !!’ and resigns himself to accepting his fate-without being heal’d of his leprous condition … In other words the poem proper has a different Weltanschauung than the final editor who put a cutsy moral to the older originally starker & harsher narrative which teaches another lesson about the nature of suffering - ‘what the creator does to a person is what he does to a person [because he’s the boss !] & one just has to accept whatever fate one is given as divine will-and there’s an End.’

@Thomas_Geist: I would include sacrifice with the second one, i.e. a physical Temple or "House,"...but good to distinguish it, since a "House of Prayer for all Peoples" is the ideal. Isaiah 56 is interpolated. Good comments Thomas...I usually don't respond to comment son YT but happened to see yours. No hidden agenda on the series, I assure you...it was this prophetic corpus that profoundly influenced the very foundations of Western thought--from the DSS to our own times...and it is one of the major overlooked currents. Even Newton was deep into this stuff. 17th century England is a prime example, with the Fifth Monarchy Men, etc. and all the other disasters, London Fire, Comet, the Plague,...and on and on it goes. I teach a course on "The End of the World as We Know It" and these are the ideas we cover. I have stressed repeatedly that my approach in this series is along the lines of the history of ideas...and these ideas are profoundly affecting our society here in the USA today...Bible Prophecy is having a HeyDay...watch the speech the day before January 6th...they were all over it. I won't comment on your other topic, the TEB approach...of course I am aware of ANE language and literature but my purposes are explained in the introduction. It is designed to be a help for those who are not planning to learn Hebrew, to get the "feel" of the text, poetically, with the style and mode of expression, even the redundant vocabulary.

​@@JamesTaborVideosWhy do you block comments? If I haven't said anything offensive why block what I said?...GODS WORD interprets and defines ITSELF. Oil on the head...as in understanding in the mind. Oil in our lamps...so we can see in the dark. Wise virgins. Virgins as in spiritual virgins...not in relationship with the beast.

I have NEVER blocked anyone. Ever.

@@JamesTaborVideos I often get responses to my YT comments but was surprised to see this one from you. Thank you for taking the time. And yes, I think it’s good to make a distinction between sacrifice and any temple since sacrifice predates temples. All’s ya need is a pile of rocks and a knife, or a bog in which to cast the victim. (Sorry for the length of this reply as it doesn’t fit this venue or the attention span of most RU-vidrs. I’m not even sure RU-vid will accept it so it may come in installments. If not for the ready audience and the fact I no longer have your email address, I might have sent this to you directly.) A bit of housekeeping first: I did give some thought to using the word, “agenda,” and doing so without some long-winded explanation which now seems appropriate. I understand definition drift and the importance of context in phonetic languages. Let me say, I did not intend the common usage of an, “anterior motive,” or worse, “propagandizing cum Public Relations,” which carry some negative connotation. I used it here to suggest more of a Socratic method by which one attempts to cause the reevaluation of assumptions or possibly the deconstruction of archetypes which may be more precise in this case. My tentative view is that we always have an agenda behind what we say and do whether they come from the right or left hemisphere of the brain, the heart, the stomach, bowels or organs still South. From where they emanate is less important than that they have purposeful intent if they’ve risen to producing some action. I’m not quite sure I’ve reached any conclusion with regard to the Jan 6 event (also my birthday though I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!). As a longtime student of history, however, I am not as much concerned about personalities as much as the reactive political pendulum swings when the body politic becomes this polarized. I can’t think of one example where it did not inevitably lead to violence and mayhem prior to a new ordered equilibrium. I commented on this as far back as the ‘90s when I saw the rhetoric heating up beyond any point of return and the language itself being split into left and right. Though I haven’t viewed it anywhere, the title of your course, “The End of the World…” along with the qualifier, “…As We Know It,” tells me quite a bit about it. I think we might agree with the idea that metaphysical views that may start out as intellectual theories quickly become ideologies which in turn become unconscious symbolic archetypes; and that these archetypes then become eschatologies that are the fundamental dynamics of history. (Not being a Marxist, I place economics simply in the role of a trigger to conflict.) I do, therefore, understand the idea that redirecting the course of history would require changing the metaphysical foundation of certain archetypes. Is this not part of your, “agenda?” Are you not attempting in some way to disabuse those who hold to such things as a Premillennial Second Coming by pointing out past failed prophecy? I think you are and I do not suggest you have anything but the best of motives. If the project is feasible, it would seem the perfect plan. The bits of this idea I grapple with regarding participatory, Process Philosophy, and how to alter our course toward a cliff we seem to be rushing on almost every front first boils down to the basic, “chichen/egg dilemma,” i.e., are the driving archetypes far more fundamental and primal than eschatology given the natural world with which we have to deal? The Gnostics would agree with me on at least this one point. As you know, William James posited the idea that a transcendent belief in a god is a psychological human necessity and predicted that there would arise a pragmatic religion of utility. I think we see that in part with, The New Age movement. Of course Nietzsche had his own take on this as well. Of course it’s possible or even likely I’ve miss read your intentions, “agenda.” Critical analysis has its own reward, at least in the West going back to the pre-Socratics. I’m all about that as well. I’m just not certain where that takes us once the void is created if there is not some alternative to bridge the gap. I also think your project to create the TEB is a great one. Thoroughly enjoy it. For a guy that attempted to make sense of Budge’s word-for-word translation of the, Egyptian Book of the Dead, without any reference to his commentary, the TEB is right up my alley. Your translation of the first couple of verses of Genesis also raises some very interesting ontological questions regarding cosmology which I may share at some other time.

One question I would like to put to you regarding the TEB: Why did you choose to use the word, “was,” as opposed to, “had become,” in the first verses of Genesis? “Was,” is a mere snapshot in time while, “had become,” alludes to a prior state and process. I don’t know if it’s a majority opinion, but, “had become,” is fairly well accepted and may have rather profound implications regarding that fun question, “why is there something rather than nothing.”

CRY

@@travls_4679 Your point? Is that the best you have to respond with?

💯but...only 1~5% are keeping the requirements

The Isaiahan Prophecy seems to be no more than the figure of the IDEAL 👑, like a King Arthur. He is the "Son of God" but NOT god incarnate. He would be the "Most Blessed of Men". BUT, being of the "Davidic" 👑 and NOT the "Aaronic" chief priesthood, this CONTRADICTS the supposedly "divine" Levitical Law!! IRONICALLY, the CLOSEST Judah ever got to fulfilling this "prophecy", according to the Talmud, was the reign of QUEEN Alexandra SHALOME in the first century BC!!

A big problem Religion has is that everyone thinks the Bible is about El (Deus) when it's actually about Elohim (Deities). Keep in mind the Hebrews syncretized three main titles of God to all just mean God. Those titles are El, Elah and Elohim. To get some context on the meaning of El, Elah and Elohim we can use the Latin counterparts of Deus "God", Dea "Goddess" and Dei which has two uses one plural "gods" and one possessive "God's" based on context. Genesis 1 Elohim (Deity) is possessive context. (God's Son) Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim (deities) is plural context. (adopted idiot) Try the NOG translation on Bible Gateway. Doesn't remove God's titles. Does remove a metric 💩-ton of contradictions. Religious Dogmatics call the entire Bible "Good" and that generates sooo many biblical contradictions. The Bible is about knowing Good from Evil, not about knowing Good and lying about the Evil (apologetics).

The "Isaiahan Prophecy" was WRONG! Yahwah DIDN'T restore the "LOST Tribes" from the Assyrian Exile and Judah was NOT "saved" from the Babylonian Exile during the reign of the LAST 👑 who was ALSO taken into captivity and BLINDED, ZeDeKiaH!!

The "stone with seven eyes" meant LITERALLY 👁️ 👁️ engraved on it, because such images would be engraved at the top of Egyptian inscription stelae as an apotropaic or prophylactic against vandals. So the Stone described here would (to the superstitious) be "guarded" by the Seven Spirits of the Archangels.