Marred Servant

[Pazooka]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

[BeNotDeceived]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

Yesterday I equated MT as Mysterious Type

in a message to someone with initials MT.

Maybe he’s marred by being confined in Outer Darkness.

Then he stands for the first time having been anointed, wouldn’t that be cool.

Grant us this day our daily bread.

[Pazooka]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

Yesterday I equated MT as Mysterious Type

in a message to someone with initials MT.

Maybe he’s marred by being confined in Outer Darkness.

Then he stands for the first time having been anointed, wouldn’t that be cool.

Grant us this day our daily bread.

Anointing is likened to a birth. For this day I have begotten you as my son ~ a saying attributed to female deity (interestingly enough) to the high priest.

[gruden2.0]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

The idea is that God will heal him to show His power to the world.

Conversely, Satan will bring up the beast in similar fashion so the world wonders after it as well. Competing miracles to push people to choose a side.

[Shawn Henry]

Well, we do know that there will be 'two anointed ones'.

Throughout scripture are references to the two great servants of the last days.

These two sons.
The two candlesticks.
The two olive trees.
The two anointed ones.
The two witnesses.
The Stay and the Staff.
The Branch and the Brand.
The two staves.
The prophet and priest.
The Seer and the Spokesman.

[Pazooka]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

The idea is that God will heal him to show His power to the world.

Conversely, Satan will bring up the beast in similar fashion so the world wonders after it as well. Competing miracles to push people to choose a side.

Please remind me what that idea is based on - like what scripture?

[Pazooka]

Well, we do know that there will be 'two anointed ones'.

Throughout scripture are references to the two great servants of the last days.

These two sons.

Unless that’s a mistranslation of Isaiah. Gileadi renders it: Twofold calamity has befallen you: desolation, ruin - and who laments you? Famine, the sword... rather than these two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee (which makes no sense at at within the context of the rest of the verse.

The two candlesticks.
The two olive trees.
The two anointed ones.
The two witnesses.
[/unquote]
The Urim and Thummim are the what all four of these are based on - the two eyes; the seers. I have supposed they are also the sun and the moon but it goes beyond that to what the sun and moon represent. Anointed ones are intended to give light.

The Stay and the Staff.
The Branch and the Brand.
The two staves.
The prophet and priest.
The Seer and the Spokesman.
[/quote]

These connections aren’t as strong. For instance, the prophet and priest are one and the same. I’m not familiar with the “brand.”

So, I guess, my whole intent was to say that I’m not convinced there need to be two to satisfy scripture. I think one servant would do.

[gruden2.0]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

The idea is that God will heal him to show His power to the world.

Conversely, Satan will bring up the beast in similar fashion so the world wonders after it as well. Competing miracles to push people to choose a side.

Please remind me what that idea is based on - like what scripture?

Like in the scripture where Jesus discusses the servant:

But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

I don't think those that don't believe the servant will anoint him...

[Pazooka]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)



I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

The idea is that God will heal him to show His power to the world.

Conversely, Satan will bring up the beast in similar fashion so the world wonders after it as well. Competing miracles to push people to choose a side.

Please remind me what that idea is based on - like what scripture?

Like in the scripture where Jesus discusses the servant:

But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

I don't think those that don't believe the servant will anoint him...

Unless it is a play on words, which the prophets were famous for. Hebrew words with no vowels, with the ability to read it multiple ways. An example is something like nsr which meant watch, preserve and protect but it also meant branch.

If the word to describe the servant was said “mar” in some cases as well as “anoint” in others, that only serves to our benefit in being able to understand.

Maybe he was “marred,” then healed, then anointed. Any one of the martyrs is a good candidate for that.

[Shawn Henry]

Unless that’s a mistranslation of Isaiah. Gileadi renders it: Twofold calamity has befallen you: desolation, ruin - and who laments you? Famine, the sword... rather than these two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee (which makes no sense at at within the context of the rest of the verse.

Of course, Gileadi mistranslates it, he refuses to use the Brass Plates. He omits everything Joseph brought forth so he can stay appealing to secular scholarship.

Here's Isaiah off the Brass Plates in 2 Ne 8.

19 These two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee—thy desolation and destruction, and the famine and the sword—and by whom shall I comfort thee?

20 Thy sons have fainted, save these two; they lie at the head of all the streets; as a wild bull in a net, they are full of the fury of the Lord, the rebuke of thy God.

Their sorrow makes perfect sense, they are lamenting the destruction of a fallen people just as Mormon did.

The two candlesticks.
The two olive trees.
The two anointed ones.
The two witnesses.

The Urim and Thummim are the what all four of these are based on - the two eyes; the seers. I have supposed they are also the sun and the moon but it goes beyond that to what the sun and moon represent. Anointed ones are intended to give light.

The Lord anoints and appoints people, not inanimate objects. Let us have Revelation 8 show who is referenced.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

There are typically three lines of leadership the Lord uses, the kingly line, the prophetic line, and the priestly line (hence prophet, priest, and king). They can at times overlap, but more often the Lord uses prophet and priest as a reference to two specific people. I have been following the word links and have found this to be the case.

Read Zechariah 11 and you will have no doubt that the two staves are two people.

You say, "I think one servant would do", perhaps having forgotten those revelation verses. There are two who hold the armies of hell at bay, and they are the same two prophesied about throughout scripture.

[Pazooka]

Unless that’s a mistranslation of Isaiah. Gileadi renders it: Twofold calamity has befallen you: desolation, ruin - and who laments you? Famine, the sword... rather than these two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee (which makes no sense at at within the context of the rest of the verse.

Of course, Gileadi mistranslates it, he refuses to use the Brass Plates. He omits everything Joseph brought forth so he can stay appealing to secular scholarship.

Here's Isaiah off the Brass Plates in 2 Ne 8.

19 These two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee—thy desolation and destruction, and the famine and the sword—and by whom shall I comfort thee?

20 Thy sons have fainted, save these two; they lie at the head of all the streets; as a wild bull in a net, they are full of the fury of the Lord, the rebuke of thy God.

Their sorrow makes perfect sense, they are lamenting the destruction of a fallen people just as Mormon did.

The two candlesticks.
The two olive trees.
The two anointed ones.
The two witnesses.

The Urim and Thummim are the what all four of these are based on - the two eyes; the seers. I have supposed they are also the sun and the moon but it goes beyond that to what the sun and moon represent. Anointed ones are intended to give light.

The Lord anoints and appoints people, not inanimate objects. Let us have Revelation 8 show who is referenced.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

There are typically three lines of leadership the Lord uses, the kingly line, the prophetic line, and the priestly line (hence prophet, priest, and king). They can at times overlap, but more often the Lord uses prophet and priest as a reference to two specific people. I have been following the word links and have found this to be the case.

Read Zechariah 11 and you will have no doubt that the two staves are two people.

You say, "I think one servant would do", perhaps having forgotten those revelation verses. There are two who hold the armies of hell at bay, and they are the same two prophesied about throughout scripture.

The BofM version still jives with Gileadi’s translation, except he is kinder to the ignorant and spells it out. The two sons are not people, they are desolation/famine and desolation/the sword. They are what the people give rise to.

The sun and moon are not inanimate objects, they are members of the hosts of heaven and are equated with angelic beings in the prophetic literature. They *have* been prophesying, clothed in sackcloth.

Edit to add: Zechariah has them as literal “sons of oil.” What is oil but light and life. For them to be anointed might only mean as much, since the anointing oil of the heavenly temple was said to make whatever it touched shine with light.

Israelite kings, according to original temple tradition, are priest/kings. They are these “servants” and sons. The Deuteronomists censored some of that out of our cannon because it was too scandalous a thing. I’m gonna start calling them the Deuts-bags, I think...for short.

[Pazooka]

Unless that’s a mistranslation of Isaiah. Gileadi renders it: Twofold calamity has befallen you: desolation, ruin - and who laments you? Famine, the sword... rather than these two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee (which makes no sense at at within the context of the rest of the verse.

Of course, Gileadi mistranslates it, he refuses to use the Brass Plates. He omits everything Joseph brought forth so he can stay appealing to secular scholarship.

Here's Isaiah off the Brass Plates in 2 Ne 8.

19 These two sons are come unto thee, who shall be sorry for thee—thy desolation and destruction, and the famine and the sword—and by whom shall I comfort thee?

20 Thy sons have fainted, save these two; they lie at the head of all the streets; as a wild bull in a net, they are full of the fury of the Lord, the rebuke of thy God.

Their sorrow makes perfect sense, they are lamenting the destruction of a fallen people just as Mormon did.

The two candlesticks.
The two olive trees.
The two anointed ones.
The two witnesses.

The Urim and Thummim are the what all four of these are based on - the two eyes; the seers. I have supposed they are also the sun and the moon but it goes beyond that to what the sun and moon represent. Anointed ones are intended to give light.

The Lord anoints and appoints people, not inanimate objects. Let us have Revelation 8 show who is referenced.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

There are typically three lines of leadership the Lord uses, the kingly line, the prophetic line, and the priestly line (hence prophet, priest, and king). They can at times overlap, but more often the Lord uses prophet and priest as a reference to two specific people. I have been following the word links and have found this to be the case.

Read Zechariah 11 and you will have no doubt that the two staves are two people.

You say, "I think one servant would do", perhaps having forgotten those revelation verses. There are two who hold the armies of hell at bay, and they are the same two prophesied about throughout scripture.

Thought you might enjoy the late LDS scholar, Robert Smith’s take on the “two sons” of 2 Nephi 8. I still think it works fine with the word “sons,” however. Just like the daughters of Zion aren’t always referring to people in prophecy.

“I have researched all the versions of Isaiah that are in existence including the various manuscripts of Isaiah that contain these verses. All versions of Isaiah, including the Masoretic text, are exactly as translated here with minor variation. In the KJV and one or two other modern translations, it says “these two things” rather than “these two calamities.” But in no case does any translation use “sons.” In verse 20, the phrase “save these two” has been added in the Book of Mormon version but it is not found in any text. The term kara is from a verb, which means to happen or to occur. The form used in verse 19 is the substantive form of the verb, or the noun, which would be an occurrence or a happening. The context here makes it clear that it is a bad happening and the rhetorical links confirm that it is the coming invasion and tribulation that is about to fall upon Ephraim. So rather than use “thing” Gileadi translated it as “calamity,” which is perfectly accurate in this case. There are no links either rhetorical or metaphorical to any two sons. Where did they come from? It makes no sense and it would appear that someone, whether Joseph Smith or someone else, made the change. The regular text makes sense and is parallel to many other places in Isaiah where this calamity is discussed so by usage and manner of writing these prophecies, we have to assume that the original text is correct. Likewise in verse 20, the reference to the two sons “save these two” is equally erroneous. It is not in the original text and for the same reasons explained above, it makes no sense. If Joseph Smith did in fact make these additions, then this is one of the few times he was in error. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the book of Isaiah was still sealed and would remain so until our time. He was not given the power to translate the book correctly either. It remained for our time and for Gileadi who was specifically called by the Lord to do the new translation and to begin the unsealing of the book. That is why Joseph pretty much took the Book of Mormon Isaiah verses from the KJV and he made a few changes here and there as he supposed the meaning to be. But we have mentioned one other change in Chapter 48 where Joseph or someone added “waters of baptism” making the verse incorrect as we discussed in that commentary on that chapter. Joseph was not given the power to translate these sealed scriptures because they were to remain sealed until the time of their fulfillment. This does not make Joseph any less the great prophet he was. The Lord told him that there were many things that were not clear and that had been hidden or intentionally changed in the scriptures, but when they were translated, we would understand them and these things would be made clear. He was speaking of the New Testament, however (refer to D&C 42:15, 45:60, 76:15). Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon worked on translating the Bible and they apparently produced the version, which we now call the Inspired Version. But this was not a complete retranslation of the Bible. The prophetic books were sealed to come forth at the last days when they were to be fulfilled as Nephi makes very clear (2 Nephi 25:7-8) and as we have quoted often in this commentary. So we need not be perturbed at this apparent discrepancy. The Lord did not intend for us to understand Isaiah until this time and at this time he has raised up men to do that very job.” RS

[logonbump]

I can also testify that Isaiah was a sealed book until, in the hands of Gileadi, they were opened to my understanding when they began to be fulfilled in the last few years.

[Shawn Henry]

Thought you might enjoy the late LDS scholar, Robert Smith’s take on the “two sons” of 2 Nephi 8.

I do enjoy your thoughtfulness in putting forth the effort, but I do not enjoy Robert Smith's take. I'm flabbergasted that he thinks the way he does.

the Masoretic text

There is so much arrogance in assuming that just because a text is old, that therefore it is accurate. So, what if a text is older, there might be one older still, but it is still a product of apostacy and is not the original. We do not have the original. If you find an older text, that just means it was altered first. Brigham Young has taught us that altering the word of God begins immediately. Why should anyone praise the Masoretic text?

If Joseph Smith did in fact make these additions, then this is one of the few times he was in error. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the book of Isaiah was still sealed and would remain so until our time. He was not given the power to translate the book correctly either.

Joseph Smith is in error because of an apostate Masoretic text? I don't think so. Joseph Smith was at his revelatory best when translating the BoM. Whether translating directly from the Brass Plates or straight from the spirit, his Isaiah insights were prophetic. He was the prophet of the restoration not latter-day arm of flesh scholars. It was his calling to hint at unsealing the book of Isaiah and it will be his calling again to unseal and retranslate the entire Bible. Read 2 Nephi 3, it is a two-part ministry, the second phase work of the Seer and Spokesman will result in the "convincing them" of their initial work that has already gone forth.

It remained for our time and for Gileadi who was specifically called by the Lord to do the new translation and to begin the unsealing of the book.

This is the height of hubris. JS had an actual call from the Lord. Gileadi is inspired at best. His pride blinds him. He is the same arm of flesh scholar that all other scholars are, acting as if they have the original text. Gileadi does not have access to the original text, nor does he have the calling of translator.

The English of 2 Nephi 8 is quite simple, sons are people, no matter how you look at it. All other sons or rather all other standard bearers will faint, except for these two because they are the Lord's standard bearers that he raises up.

The reason for these two being all throughout scripture is because of the prophesies of the reuniting of the two kingdoms, the Southern Kingdom and the Northern Kingdom. The standard bearer for each kingdom or rather the stay or the staff is the head of that kingdom. They reunite under one head, just as Aaron's staff consumed all other staffs of leadership.

[Shawn Henry]

I can also testify that Isaiah was a sealed book until, in the hands of Gileadi, they were opened to my understanding when they began to be fulfilled in the last few years.

I too have benefitted from his work and am grateful for him, but I can admit that he is not working with the original text and despite being inspired, he does not have a prophetic calling. It one were to call him an inspired scholar, I'm fine with that, but that is still the arm of flesh.

[logonbump]

I can also testify that Isaiah was a sealed book until, in the hands of Gileadi, they were opened to my understanding when they began to be fulfilled in the last few years.

I too have benefitted from his work and am grateful for him, but I can admit that he is not working with the original text and despite being inspired, he does not have a prophetic calling. It one were to call him an inspired scholar, I'm fine with that, but that is still the arm of flesh.

Not only Isaiah, but much of the Old testament, and the Book of Mormon has been made much clearer as prophecies or types of them have been fulfilled, thus unsealing them to our understanding. My testimony is of the scriptures, not the scholar.

[Shawn Henry]

My testimony is of the scriptures, not the scholar.

As is mine.

I'm just in disagreement with your statement that Gileadi unsealed Isaiah. I question how a scholar can work with a non-original text and unseal it? An apostate Masoretic text does not unseal a book. The spirit unsealing the book of Isaiah is open to all who put forth the effort into Isaiah and many have done so before Gileadi. He has just had the biggest impact because of his background and education and he is the most prolific publisher.

[logonbump]

My testimony is of the scriptures, not the scholar.

As is mine.

I'm just in disagreement with your statement that Gileadi unsealed Isaiah. I question how a scholar can work with a non-original text and unseal it? An apostate Masoretic text does not unseal a book. The spirit unsealing the book of Isaiah is open to all who put forth the effort into Isaiah and many have done so before Gileadi. He has just had the biggest impact because of his background and education and he is the most prolific publisher.

I didn't give such credit to Avraham. Gileadi teaches that the scriptural prophecies become unsealed by them beginning to come to pass. It was the reason the BOM Isaiah passages hadn't been understood by the readers until now. We'd been blind to many things we cannot deny any more because the present is so clearly illustrated by these old Hebrew writings.

[Bronco73idi]

Oh….all the things we think we know….will probably turn out to be worthless in the end. But the chase “vale la pena”

Turns out the word “marred” in Isaiah 52 could actually be “anointed.”

As many were astonished at him –

His appearance was so marred,

Beyond human semblance,

And his form beyond that of the sons of men – (Isa. 52.14)

This verse has significantly different forms in the ancient versions. The MT [Masoretic Text] and the Targum, which used the MT, say he was disfigured beyond human semblance, such that people were astonished (thus RSV). The Qumran Isaiah scroll,69 however, has ‘he was anointed beyond human semblance’ such that kings and people were astonished. The difference is one letter: mšt in the MT and mšty in the Qumran scroll. The Servant ‘anointed beyond human semblance’ means he was transfigured, and so, as did Enoch, he became like one of the glorious ones. (Barker, Margaret. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (pp. 9-10). SPCK. Kindle Edition.)

I mean…how would a tortured, disfigured man surprise anyone? A glorious, transfigured one, on the other hand…

I love it. so much.

Yesterday I equated MT as Mysterious Type

in a message to someone with initials MT.

Maybe he’s marred by being confined in Outer Darkness.

Then he stands for the first time having been anointed, wouldn’t that be cool.

Grant us this day our daily bread.

I think it’s interesting that someone with the initials MT thinks a servant will rise at the same time the beast might sacrifice a red calf….. That doesn’t fit another’s 2010 as the start of an half hour.

Just random thoughts I have.

[Pazooka]

Thought you might enjoy the late LDS scholar, Robert Smith’s take on the “two sons” of 2 Nephi 8.

I do enjoy your thoughtfulness in putting forth the effort, but I do not enjoy Robert Smith's take. I'm flabbergasted that he thinks the way he does.

the Masoretic text

There is so much arrogance in assuming that just because a text is old, that therefore it is accurate. So, what if a text is older, there might be one older still, but it is still a product of apostacy and is not the original. We do not have the original. If you find an older text, that just means it was altered first. Brigham Young has taught us that altering the word of God begins immediately. Why should anyone praise the Masoretic text?

If Joseph Smith did in fact make these additions, then this is one of the few times he was in error. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the book of Isaiah was still sealed and would remain so until our time. He was not given the power to translate the book correctly either.

Joseph Smith is in error because of an apostate Masoretic text? I don't think so. Joseph Smith was at his revelatory best when translating the BoM. Whether translating directly from the Brass Plates or straight from the spirit, his Isaiah insights were prophetic. He was the prophet of the restoration not latter-day arm of flesh scholars. It was his calling to hint at unsealing the book of Isaiah and it will be his calling again to unseal and retranslate the entire Bible. Read 2 Nephi 3, it is a two-part ministry, the second phase work of the Seer and Spokesman will result in the "convincing them" of their initial work that has already gone forth.

It remained for our time and for Gileadi who was specifically called by the Lord to do the new translation and to begin the unsealing of the book.

This is the height of hubris. JS had an actual call from the Lord. Gileadi is inspired at best. His pride blinds him. He is the same arm of flesh scholar that all other scholars are, acting as if they have the original text. Gileadi does not have access to the original text, nor does he have the calling of translator.

The English of 2 Nephi 8 is quite simple, sons are people, no matter how you look at it. All other sons or rather all other standard bearers will faint, except for these two because they are the Lord's standard bearers that he raises up.

The reason for these two being all throughout scripture is because of the prophesies of the reuniting of the two kingdoms, the Southern Kingdom and the Northern Kingdom. The standard bearer for each kingdom or rather the stay or the staff is the head of that kingdom. They reunite under one head, just as Aaron's staff consumed all other staffs of leadership.

It is the Hebrew style to call the offspring of inanimate things (like Zion and Jerusalem) sons and daughters.

Or maybe you’re married to a certain theory?

[Bronco73idi]

My testimony is of the scriptures, not the scholar.

As is mine.

I'm just in disagreement with your statement that Gileadi unsealed Isaiah. I question how a scholar can work with a non-original text and unseal it? An apostate Masoretic text does not unseal a book. The spirit unsealing the book of Isaiah is open to all who put forth the effort into Isaiah and many have done so before Gileadi. He has just had the biggest impact because of his background and education and he is the most prolific publisher.

I didn't give such credit to Avraham. Gileadi teaches that the scriptural prophecies become unsealed by them beginning to come to pass. It was the reason the BOM Isaiah passages hadn't been understood by the readers until now. We'd been blind to many things we cannot deny any more because the present is so clearly illustrated by these old Hebrew writings.

You say this, I went to a fireside to hear an apostle and he mocked Isaiah 6:10, ie 2 Nephi 16:10….

[Shawn Henry]

It is the Hebrew style to call the offspring of inanimate things (like Zion and Jerusalem) sons and daughters.

Or maybe you’re married to a certain theory?

I wrote all that and your only response is "Hebrew Style"?

Well, in any case, Hebrews first and foremost call their sons sons and their daughters daughters before they incorporate that into a literary style.

I'm not sure why anyone would look for any "theory" when we have the fact of a true prophet translating.

I'm suppose I'm just not understanding why anyone would place a translation of apostate scribes by a secular scholar above a prophet of God.

[Shawn Henry]

I didn't give such credit to Avraham.

I may have misunderstood you when you wrote: "I can also testify that Isaiah was a sealed book until, in the hands of Gileadi".

[Pazooka]

It is the Hebrew style to call the offspring of inanimate things (like Zion and Jerusalem) sons and daughters.

Or maybe you’re married to a certain theory?

I wrote all that and your only response is "Hebrew Style"?

Well, in any case, Hebrews first and foremost call their sons sons and their daughters daughters before they incorporate that into a literary style.

I'm not sure why anyone would look for any "theory" when we have the fact of a true prophet translating.

I'm suppose I'm just not understanding why anyone would place a translation of apostate scribes by a secular scholar above a prophet of God.

It just makes sense to consider all the evidence. God never once pronounced JS or the BofM perfect

[Shawn Henry]

It just makes sense to consider all the evidence. God never once pronounced JS or the BofM perfect

No, but he did pronounce it the most correct book, which would mean the most correct translation of Isaiah which would include at that time the apostate Masoretic text passed down by the arm of flesh.

Why are we counting the secret works of darkness and the precepts of men as "evidence"? You could line up a thousand ancient texts and one revelatory work from an actual prophet would trump them all. If we support Rob Smith in saying Joseph's translation is erroneous, then the entire BoM can be thrown under the bus.