Something interesting in Isaiah 11:1

[Jim_Duyer]

When I found a mention of Isaiah 11:1 in one of the links I was researching
I thought I should take a deeper look at it.

Isaiah 11:1 is an oft-quoted prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, the Christ.
"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall
grow out of his roots."

Jesse being the father of David who became the King of Israe, marks the lineage of Jesus as given in the New Testament as a reflection of this important branch and roots quotation.

But what else is hidden beneath, in the original Aramaic of the Hebrew letters, is rather more exciting and predictive, in my opinion. Here's that Aramaic translation:


And to depart the Manger,
To get away from a high-ranking military official,
with this Sheep, this Gift,
And to lull the baby to sleep with praises,
to guard, protect, devote oneself to this divine sign of something to come ...
Toward the direction of the dry, scorched zone,
and a watering hole for the baby sheep,
And also to make haste, while trembling from fear.

So yes, Isaiah, some 700 years before the birth of the Savior, shares his prophecy
of their future escape to Egypt in the time when King Harod of Jerusalem sent his soldiers to locate the Messiah in Bethlehem [to put Him to death].
.

Here are the Aramaic words from that verse, for those who might wish to confirm this in the Aramaic-English Dictionary:

WYS.A HhT.R MGZA YShY WNS.R MShRShYW YPRH


No tricks, no letters added, removed, modified or assumed. A clean translation of the original Aramaic as recorded in the Hebrew Massoretic text of the Old Testament. So scholars, both inside the Church and without, who do know how to read Aramaic, decided not to mention this prophetic message for 2700 years or more? Strange.

[Rizotto]

Biblical scriptures try to portray Jesus as a descendant of David by listing the genealogy of Joseph, Jesus' father. On the other hand, scriptures also say that Jesus' mother conceived him as a virgin by holy spirit intervention. So, Joseph can't be the father of Jesus. Just one reason why I wouldn't rely on these scriptures as evidence of anything.

But I'll use my thinking cap and say that much of what Jesus is recorded as having preached makes sense to me, not all of it, but most of it, especially 'treat others as you would like to be treated'.

[shaberon]

You should look in the back of the book. The final third of it is redacted by pseudo-Isaiah around the time of the Captivity.

What is more interesting is that the first sermon of Jesus begins by teaching pseudo-Isaiah; moreover, reading from a Greek scroll.

What he was teaching is:


aphesis


which is debt cancellation.

Theology has turned it into "state of uncleanliness" or a moral condition to be expunged by religion.

That's not what Jesus was talking about. It's quite plain.

Of course, you can backtrace it through Aramaic and into every written culture known to man. Hence the message of Jesus is not even original--just forgotten.

The Messiah was Cyrus the Great who ended the Captivity, so, if it was possible to predict one previously, and, that is not the answer, then everything is meaningless.

Jesus didn't say anything about the first part of Isaiah, the bloodlines and prophecy apparently being of less value than his in-the-moment demand.

[halcyon026]

Compare The Epic of Arta-Hasis to Noah.

Then follow that trail... pick a story in the Bible and find the original Cuneiform, you get an idea of what knowledge is kept from the Bible.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by halcyon026 (here)
Compare The Epic of Arta-Hasis to Noah.

Then follow that trail... pick a story in the Bible and find the original Cuneiform, you get an idea of what knowledge is kept from the Bible.

Yes. Do see this thread:

• An Ark pre-dating the story of Noah

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Biblical scriptures try to portray Jesus as a descendant of David by listing the genealogy of Joseph, Jesus' father. On the other hand, scriptures also say that Jesus' mother conceived him as a virgin by holy spirit intervention. So, Joseph can't be the father of Jesus. Just one reason why I wouldn't rely on these scriptures as evidence of anything.

But I'll use my thinking cap and say that much of what Jesus is recorded as having preached makes sense to me, not all of it, but most of it, especially 'treat others as you would like to be treated'.

IMHO there were two groups at play in Israel in that timeline. One was the northern group that were made up of former Northern Kingdom of Israel plus others, and the other the southern, Jerusalem centered group, that had come up from the deserts south of Israel. And you can see the inputs from each in the text. I don't have a way to defend the NT since I have chosen not to learn Koine Greek. I believe that the core teachings of Jesus are important indeed. But I also believe that, unfortunately, we have strayed from those due to modifications of his ideas Bdone by later persons.
But I can say that Joseph was never intended to be portrayed as the father of Jesus, other than as an adoptive father and influence.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by shaberon (here)
You should look in the back of the book. The final third of it is redacted by pseudo-Isaiah around the time of the Captivity.

What is more interesting is that the first sermon of Jesus begins by teaching pseudo-Isaiah; moreover, reading from a Greek scroll.

What he was teaching is:


aphesis


which is debt cancellation.

Theology has turned it into "state of uncleanliness" or a moral condition to be expunged by religion.

That's not what Jesus was talking about. It's quite plain.

Of course, you can backtrace it through Aramaic and into every written culture known to man. Hence the message of Jesus is not even original--just forgotten.

The Messiah was Cyrus the Great who ended the Captivity, so, if it was possible to predict one previously, and, that is not the answer, then everything is meaningless.

Jesus didn't say anything about the first part of Isaiah, the bloodlines and prophecy apparently being of less value than his in-the-moment demand.

Most people I would agree don't read far enough. If you check, Jesus was asked what his view was on the 10 commandments. He listed six only - none had the word Yahweh in them - those he left out because El and not Yahweh was whom He considered as His Father. He was from Galilee, where El was always the Creator God, and not from Judah, where Yahweh was brought in by those entering from the copper mines of south Arabia, by way of the Kenites (Cainite) relatives of the Egyptian-trained magician Moses.
Anyway, the new one Jesus added, or modified if you will, was "do not commit fraud", which is more encompassing than theft, and more appropriate in our day.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by halcyon026 (here)
Compare The Epic of Arta-Hasis to Noah.

Then follow that trail... pick a story in the Bible and find the original Cuneiform, you get an idea of what knowledge is kept from the Bible.

For translating the earlier text portions, such as Job, I developed a template that allows one to translate directly from Hebrew into Sumerian. It took quite a few years to develop but it works perfectly. It's only useful for the earliest writings, however. Using it one can discover such interesting tidbits as the type of wood that Yahweh told Noah to use in making his Ark - dry wood.


After I publish the one I have been working on - which is now completed and I am placing it into chapters, I will publish, on this forum, my template. I will not return to writing about the OT - it's been too much of a long an bumpy road for me and I have other more interesting works yet to do.

I would rather see others use it to do their own works, and I look forward to turning, or actually returning, to my research on extraterrestrials and their writings.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by halcyon026 (here)
Compare The Epic of Arta-Hasis to Noah.

Then follow that trail... pick a story in the Bible and find the original Cuneiform, you get an idea of what knowledge is kept from the Bible.

Yes. Do see this thread:

• An Ark pre-dating the story of Noah

That's an important thread that should be read by all who are interested in this area of research. I have the book. His translations are done in the English (Oxford) style, so they are a bit different than the Univ. of Penn. translations that we are used to here in the States, but extremely accurate. I agree that the texts claim the boat to have been of reeds, but rather than using his Old Babylonian examples I actually decided to fact-check him and go back to the earliest Sumerian tablets. I found a few that had those keywords, were 2000 or more years older than those he used, and translated them (for the first time, apparently). And they agree completely with what he reports.
So yes, no argument from me. There were, however, many floods, some with Arks and some without.
The one cited in the OT actually landed on a newly created volcanic mountain in Iran, north of Tehran. And then they traveled south and west into the northern portions of Sumeria, ending up at the border of Syria with Turkey in Harran. There they split into two main tribes and many sub-tribes - one to follow Abraham down into the Levantine coastal areas, the other to proceed into Arabia and then on to Egypt, through Yemen.

[Jim_Duyer]

At some point we probably should ask ourselves, in all truth, whether some of the events were not intentional re-enactments of what was contained in prophecies from much earlier authors. That would really not make much of a difference in the theme, since they would have perhaps had no choice but to follow the script, right to the end.

Much as we, today, should question ourselves whether or not we, as well, are following a script to the end? Is it more important to attempt to rebel against that script, knowing that in all probability failure follows, or to become the very best actors that we can be? I used to follow the former, now I lean more towards the latter. But your mileage may vary.