ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

littledoc

New member
I'm more intrigued by the issue of the "non prophecies".

For example, Jesus states in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Another great example is Matthew 2:23, when Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt, the author states, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." In both cases, no such reference exists in the Old Testament. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do any of the the prophets say anything about Nazareth.
 

Newman

New member
littledoc said:
I'm more intrigued by the issue of the "non prophecies".

For example, Jesus states in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Another great example is Matthew 2:23, when Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt, the author states, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." In both cases, no such reference exists in the Old Testament. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do any of the the prophets say anything about Nazareth.
maybe those documents aren't a part of the old testament, i don't know

Nice to see another agnostic here on TOL... I'm always up for reinforcing my ideas on other people's religious perspectives.

Welcome!
 

TimMiller

New member
Matthew 3:23

Matthew 3:23

littledoc said:
I'm more intrigued by the issue of the "non prophecies".

For example, Jesus states in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Another great example is Matthew 2:23, when Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt, the author states, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." In both cases, no such reference exists in the Old Testament. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do any of the the prophets say anything about Nazareth.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.


In my understanding, Matthew was referring to all of the prophets in general, of how Jesus was to be of humble birth and despised of many. The Term Nazarene was a derogatory term. Second the Word Nazareth comes from the word netzer which means stem or branch. Nazareth means branch land; this may refer to Isa. 11:1

Isaiah 11
1And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

I started with the notes in Scofield and ran a search for Nazareth and netzer.

Thanks for sparking that.
Newman, BTW , did I miss something earlier on in the thread or are you really an agnostic Christian?
 
Last edited:

TimMiller

New member
Sorry Newman

Sorry Newman

OK OK I'm an idiot. Looked at the quote and figured it out,
I only have two brain cells left and they are usually fighting with each other, Sorry. :D
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
He meant that littledoc is yet another agnostic here at TOL. He was referring to the other agnostics around here, not himself.
 

pythagumus

New member
Nick M said:
The fool says in his heart, "there is no god"

Hello. I have heard many Believers quote that line from Psalms, but they always fail to continue reading. Here is the complete verse:

Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

I don't mind if you think I am a fool, but please know that many atheists do in fact, do good.
 

called_out

New member
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.

The reason I believe is because I prayed for God's help and God pointed me to Christ. It was all I needed.
 

Andre1983

New member
Great analysis Turbo! Thanks.

These prophecies were uniquely fulfilled by the Lord Jesus. I don’t understand how anyone (including an atheist) could consider this love of Christ for us and not be moved to surrender. Why are they so entrenched in darkness? Perhaps the Evil One has blinded them.

...

You guys make me loose all faith in humanity.

So.

God sent his (and Mary's) son to earth in order to be tortured and killed in order for God himself to remove some really cruel laws?
Basicly, that is stating: God sent god to earth to die so god wouldn't have to be so cruel to humanity.

It makes no sense at all.

No matter how you twist it: It makes absolutely no real sense for a good god to demand a sacrifice to himself in order to *stop* beeing cruel.

Besides : Yehoshua's foster father worked at a temple: Yehoshua would have intimate knowledge about the prophesies -- and if he was diluded enough he might just as well have attempt to forfil the prophesy.

Please rephrase in a simple way with no adjectives so that I can understand what you believe really happened.

For instance: "God sent Jesus to earth to be crucified in order to abolish gods laws"
Or even: "God sent Jesus to earth to forfil a part of the prophesy of the messiah"
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
...

You guys make me loose all faith in humanity.
Good! Faith in humanity is a loser.
So.

God sent his (and Mary's) son to earth in order to be tortured and killed in order for God himself to remove some really cruel laws?
Basicly, that is stating: God sent god to earth to die so god wouldn't have to be so cruel to humanity.

It makes no sense at all.
No, it doesn't.
No matter how you twist it: It makes absolutely no real sense for a good god to demand a sacrifice to himself in order to *stop* beeing cruel.
That's a nonsensical argument.
Besides : Yehoshua's foster father worked at a temple: Yehoshua would have intimate knowledge about the prophesies -- and if he was diluded enough he might just as well have attempt to forfil the prophesy.
:darwinsm: Ok, so now your vision of Yeshua is that He became a religious nutcase because his foster father worked in a temple. Nonsense.
Please rephrase in a simple way with no adjectives so that I can understand what you believe really happened.

For instance: "God sent Jesus to earth to be crucified in order to abolish gods laws"
Or even: "God sent Jesus to earth to forfil a part of the prophesy of the messiah"
I'll make it very simple:

John 3:16-17.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Certainly is. Start here
An extremely literalist and fundamentalist understanding of the Christian Bible is presently "in first place" as it were. In medicine. In education. In foreign policy. And, "in second place," there is also an alternative understanding of the Bible based on historical context.

Conservatives tend to read the Bible through the lens of a form of rationalism that predates Darwin. Liberals tend to read the Bible through the lens of modern science.

In both cases the intentions of the biblical authors have been ignored. This cultural misuse of the Bible has hidden its status as a text with its own integrity.

I have long advocated continued research into Christian origins, the history of ancient Israel and the social/cultural world of Jesus. The biblical texts should be allowed to speak for themselves; only then can we respond to them.

We can agree, disagree, affirm or ignore the arguments, but at least we will be doing so for the right reasons and not on the basis of misperceptions and mistaken presumptions.
 

brandplucked

New member
Psalm 22 and the bible babel of today

Psalm 22 and the bible babel of today

Psalm 22 - All about Christ's sufferings

Most Christians over the centuries have recognized that Psalm 22 is clearly a prophetic Psalm which speaks in great detail about the sufferings that Christ endured during the hours of His crucifixion on the cross. The Lord Jesus willingly took our place of deserved judgment, and offered up Himself to bear the wrath of a Holy God for our sins. In fact, while He is hanging on the cross of Calvary, He quotes the very words from the beginning of this Psalm.

Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my ROARING?" Here the word is #7581 and it is always ROARING in the King James Bible. It comes from the verb to roar, and is used in verse 13 of a roaring lion, where ironically, all the other versions have correctly translated the same Hebrew word as "roaring". Usually this word is associated with a lion. Christ is portrayed prophetically in this Psalm in His sufferings on the cross. Christ is the LION of the tribe of Judah who hath prevailed to open the book. See Revelation 5:5. "Roaring" is the correct reading found in the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, KJV 21, the Italian Diodati and Youngs.

The liberal RSV, as well as the NASB, NIV, and NKJV have changed this to "the words of my GROANING". This is incorrect since the word does not mean "groaning". Other Hebrew words do, but not this one. Also, of all the versions I checked, only the NASB changes the last part of this question into a statement. Instead of "Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" the NASB has: "Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning." The Revised Version, American Standard Version, Holman, RSV, ESV, NIV and NKJV still retain this last part as a question and not a statement as the NASB has it.

Psalm 22:2 "O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the NIGHT SEASON, and am not silent." Here the RV, ASV and the NKJV correctly have "night season". Jesus Christ did not suffer upon the cross during the night, but during the daytime. Yet it was His "night season"; He called it "your hour and the power of darkness" Luke 22:53. But the NASB and NIV have changed "in the night SEASON", to "in the NIGHT". This simple change in meaning creates a contradiction when we look at the facts of the timing of the crucifixion as recorded in the gospel accounts.

Psalm 22:3 "But thou art holy, O thou THAT INHABITEST the praises of Israel." So read the Geneva Bible, the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby and the Spanish Reina Valera. However the NASB and the NIV both give different meanings to this verse. The NASB says: "Yet You are holy, O You who ARE ENTHRONED UPON the praises of Israel", while the NIV has: "Yet you ARE ENTHRONED AS THE HOLY ONE; you are the praise of Israel."

Psalm 22:16 "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET." This piercing of the hands and feet never occurred to king David, but was prophetic of Christ on the cross.

It appears that many Hebrew manuscripts have deliberately been corrupted in this place, since it so clearly speaks of the crucifixion of the Son of God. The Jewish translations have a nonsensical reading in this place. Instead of "they pierced my hands and my feet", they say: " LIKE A LION, my hands and my feet." This is also the reading found in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. It may surprise some to hear that Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, in his idiosyncratic (i.e. goofy and weird) NET version, also makes up a similar reading, saying: "LIKE A LION THEY PIN my hands and feet."

However there are some Hebrew manuscripts, including as I have read and heard, the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls. In the book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, on page 519 they tell us that the Hebrew Psalms scroll found at Hahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs) which reads: "They have pierced my hands and my feet". This is also the reading of the alleged Greek Septuagint, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, and almost all English and foreign translations, including Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, French Louis Segond, and the Italian Diodati.

However we continue to have a group of looney tune versions like the NRSV of 1989 which actually reads: "My hands and my feet ARE SHRIVELED." Then in a footnote, the NRSV tells us that the Hebrew reading is uncertain.

New English Bible 1970, New Jerusalem Bible - "they have HACKED OFF my hands and my feet."

Douay 1950- "they have DUG my hands and my feet."

Jerusalem Bible 1968 - "they TIE my hands and my feet"

New Jerusalem Bible 1985 - "as if to HACK OFF my hands and my feet"

Today's English Version (put out by the United Bible Society) 1992 "they TEAR AT my hands and my feet."

New Life Version 1997 - "They HAVE CUT THROUGH my hands and my feet."

Contemporary English Version 1995 (put out by the American Bible Society) - "TEARING AT my hands and my feet."

The Message 2002- "They PIN ME DOWN hand and foot."

New Century Version 1991 (put out by Thomas Nelson, Inc.) - "THEY HAVE BITTEN my ARMS and MY LEG."!!!

In closing this little study of Psalm 22, I would like to focus on the last two verses of this amazing Psalm and note how the meaning has been changed in such versions as the NKJV, NASB and NIV.

In the King James Bible Psalm 22:30-31 reads: "A SEED shall serve him; IT SHALL BE ACCOUNTED TO the Lord FOR A GENERATION. THEY SHALL COME, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this." This is also the reading found in the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati, Webster's, KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible.

Adam Clarke comments on this verse: "This seed, however, shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. It shall be a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and called by Christ's own name."

However the NKJV changes the meaning of this verse. It says: "A POSTERITY shall serve Him. It will be RECOUNTED OF the Lord TO THE NEXT generation, They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born, that He has done this."

The NKJV looses the idea of "the seed" and instead of the seed being accounted for a generation, the NKJV adds a word not found in any Hebrew text, and says the message will be TOLD TO the NEXT generation.

The NASB is similar to the NKJV saying: "Posterity will serve Him; IT WILL BE TOLD OF the Lord TO THE COMING generation. They shall come..."

The NIV goes even further along this line. The NIV omits the Hebrew reading of "They shall come" and follows the Greek reading like the RSV and NRSV. At least the RSV, NRSV tell us in their footnote that they have omitted these words from the Hebrew texts and followed the Greek, but the NIV fails to inform us of this fact. The words "THEY SHALL COME" are found in all Jewish translations, as well as the NASB, Holman, NET, and now the 2001 English Revised Version (a revision of the previous RSV, NRSV) has put these Hebrew words back in their ever-changing bible versions.

The NIV says: "POSTERITY will serve him; FUTURE (NOT in any text) generationS WILL BE TOLD ABOUT the Lord. (Then it omits the Hebrew words "They shall come", and continues:) They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn - for he has done it."

The Hebrew word is clearly SEED and the Seed theology is consistently taught throughout the King James Bible, but not the modern versions. "a SEED" is the reading of the Jewish translations, Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Young's and Darby. The seed of Christ is the generation of His elect people from the beginning to the end of the world. "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for THE SEED." Romans 9:8. "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see HIS SEED...and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." Isaiah 53:10

The seed is ACCOUNTED TO the Lord FOR a generation. 1 Peter 2:9 tells us: "But ye are a chosen GENERATION, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

In the KJB and other translations, the sense is that the seed, which is the body of believers who will be born from His death and resurrection, are the children of the promise who are COUNTED FOR THE SEED (Romans 9:8) and are considered as "a generation". Christ generated us, or gave us birth, by means of His death and resurrection. We were in Him when He died, and we were in Him when He rose from the dead.

The NKJV changes the meaning with: "A POSTERITY will serve Him. It will be RECOUNTED OF the Lord TO THE NEXT generation." Wrong! Can you see that the meaning is changed? If this were the only example in the Bible, you might say, Well, what's the big deal? But the fact is there are literally hundreds of such changes in meaning from one version to the next. You end up asking yourself, Well, what did God really say?


Will Kinney
 

tomg

New member
Personaly i believe the bible to be the biggest myth of modern man, just like the ancient idiots who believed in Ra,Odin,and all the rest of the mythical gods. They(each race) all had their own gods, but that was before the "MEDIA AGE" Now there are only what 3 or 4 gods? Can you or any one online tell me in your own words,not biblical mumbo jumbo,how did god really make man?
 

tomg

New member
Turbo:

I agree with your post entirely. However, having tried the argument myself several times, I can tell you that most atheists will say the gospel accounts, written decades after the events described (if they accept that the events ever happened at all), were composed to put the words of the psalmist on Jesus' lips and the words and actions of the people were "made up" to conform to the prophecy. It's all good stuff, but unfortunately none of this will persuade an atheist.

Anyway, here's another great prophecy, dating to +/- 250 years before Christ:

[12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
[13] He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
[21] Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,
[22] and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hope for the wages of holiness,
nor discern the prize for blameless souls;
[23] for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
[24] but through the devil's envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it." Wisdom 2

[25] beist thou idiots? god, devil,holy spirit,son of god,angels,tooth fairies,santa clause,and war are all examples of mans ingenuity.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Personaly i believe the bible to be the biggest myth of modern man, just like the ancient idiots who believed in Ra,Odin,and all the rest of the mythical gods. They(each race) all had their own gods, but that was before the "MEDIA AGE" Now there are only what 3 or 4 gods? Can you or any one online tell me in your own words,not biblical mumbo jumbo,how did god really make man?

Have fun with that.
 

chair

Well-known member
Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. What we see is an attempt (typical, as others have pointed out) to read Jesus into the Old Testament.

1. It would be completely natural for Jesus, who likely knew the oT quite well, to use Biblical expressions in his time of trouble.

2. The Psalms were not all written by David, and thus this particular one does not necessarily predate Jesus by 1,000 years

3. The Hebrew text (as has been noted by my Karaite friend) does not have anything at all to do with piercing or crucifixion. It seems that only Christian translations of this, and possibly versions of the Septuagint that have been preserved by Christians over the centuries have the word "pierced" in them.

4. To top it all off, when the NT was written, it is quite possible that they wrote a story that matched their OT expectations.

In short, this argument would not convince a knowledgable atheist or Jew.

All of these OT arguments will only convince the convinced.

Oh- if anybody out there wants to start up on the Hebrew word "echad" meaning "one-that-is-many", you will get an earful from me. Another bit of nonsense.

I was going to write another response to the nonsense of the OP, but found that I had already done a decent job the first time around.

Chair
 
Top