From: Anders
Location: Täby, Sweden
2008.06.06, 0245 Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim Universal TimePâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Tza•diqꞋ
I came over a discussion. One from J. witnesses that discusses. The person whom he discusses with have written the text [of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 44.24] áòáøéú and some other versions, including one translation from the úð''ê. And he don't know how it shall be translated. He says that he is thinking about starting to learn òáøéú and greek.
He wonder if it is translated "Who was with me?".
In J. witnesses version it says: [ybd: irrelevant—the first step is always to refuse, from the get-go, to accept (i.e., even to listen to) any version other than the earliest extant Ta•na"khꞋ bᵊ-I•vᵊr•itꞋ. Even concerning accounts of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, refuse to listen to anything other than The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM). Other "versions" are not to be considered or promulgated in any manner whatsoever.]
In Ta•na"khꞋ it is either:
îé àúé or
îàúé [it says in brackets].
How shall it be translated?
 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2008.06.06, 0900 Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim Time
… I am é‑‑ä, Who caused the [Big] Stretch Apart of the heavens by Myself, Who stamped out the land [qᵊrei: îÅàÄúÌÄé] kᵊtiv: îé àúé"
The first, îé àúé, is exactly as it's found in today's SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ.
This is also the form found in the Aleppo Codex.
However, 1QIsa reads: "îéà àúé." The à in îéà is a scribal replication having no meaning, which reveals how the single word became broken up into two words. The most likely explanation for the nonsensical replication is that the scribe, preferring to copy three letters at a time, noted that the word began îéà and copied the letters into a new scroll. Then he noted that the word ended àúé and copied those three letters into a new scroll: îéààúé. (Those wondering how anyone can do that have obviously never noticed their own errors, much less hand-copied anything of that length.) The next time the scroll was copied, by a next-generation scribe, he noted that îéààúé is not a word, and that, although still grammatically wrong, putting a space in the middle restored some sense to it… becoming îéà àúé, exactly as we find in 1QIsa.
This traces the mutation back to îéàúé (pronounced mei•it•iꞋ), a variant spelling of îàúé (also pronounced mei•it•iꞋ).
The qᵊrei throughout—and the correct understanding: "from Me" (i.e., from Myself). Note that the context corroborates this by bracketing the condition between the preceding phrase—ìÀáÇãÄé— and the wordplay grammar found in the subsequent verbs.
Nevertheless, the So•pheirꞋ Sta"m dare not change the earliest, long fixed, kᵊtiv in the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ. Thus, both are found and properly designated. The correct reading is always the qᵊrei.
The subsequent verb, îÅôÅø, demonstrates the word play, which is properly translated either is "Breacher" (of the signs of the astrologers) or "Who is breaching" (the signs of the astrologers)—neither of which suggests any second party. Subsequent sentences are grammatically similar.
Thus, the context is: "àÈðÉëÄé é‑‑ä, am making everything, [Big] Stretching Apart [of] the heavens, alone; stamping out hâ-ÂrꞋëtz from Myself. Breacher-breaching the signs of the astrologers…" This absolutely excludes the presence or co-existence of any second party (as other Scriptures also explicitly specify).
Understand that JWs consider their church to be this "servant"—the "true (spiritual) Jews"—composed of "His messengers" (each of the JWs, including him).
Accordingly, what he is, insidiously, trying to do is lead you into what he expects to be a "gotcha!": Pâ•suqꞋ 26, where he expects to show you that the JWs are "His servant…": "Confirmer-confirming ãÌÀáÇø òÇáÀãÌåÉ, and the Counsel of îÇìÀàÈëÈéå éÇùÑÀìÄéí…"
The next dot to which he'd like to connect is Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 43.10—"You are My witnesses"—which he thinks obviously refers to the JWs!
Look at the context. We've already seen in the previous pᵊsuq•imꞋ that "My servant" is Ya•a•qovꞋ, i.e., Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, personified in the Mâ•shiꞋakh – not (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ) goy•imꞋ! Now look at who "You" is in 43.10. The context of 43.1-8 is unmistakable in explicitly specifying Ya•a•qovꞋ, i.e., Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, personified in the Mâ•shiꞋakh — not (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ) goy•imꞋ! (What a surprise! 
).
Further, look at the preceding pâ•suqꞋ, contrasting all of the goy•imꞋ and their "witnesses" lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ, with "My witnesses" of 43.10! JWs are witnesses described in pâ•suqꞋ 9!!!
JWs confuse themselves not only by misplaced confidence in their JW analysis of an occasional Hebrew word, but in logical fallacies in English as well. Testifiers are not necessarily witnesses and witnesses are not necessarily testifiers. JWs are testifiers of contra-Tor•âhꞋ doctrines that they believe. They are not eid•imꞋ, who were eye-witnesses having personally and physically seen the Eid•utꞋ – containing the A•sërꞋët ha-Di•bᵊr•otꞋ – or of His subsequent Tor•âhꞋ. The original authentic eid•imꞋ are the heirs of the bᵊrit Tor•âhꞋ, Pᵊrush•imꞋ-Orthodox Jews; not miso-Judaic (Displacement Theology) goy•imꞋ!!!
At this point, you should be armed with these citations that explicitly specify who "My servant" is—to preclude the claim that he expects to make, that it refers to the JWs. In addition to these, there are three things to remember:
Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1: he must argue from Ta•na"khꞋ or NHM alone, nothing else
not "Mt" of the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) – which is not NHM!
Finally, there is fno support for his argument in NHM (e.g. their popular citation of "Mt." 24.45-46; much less any other Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) citation)
 |
|
 |