NAB vs NKJV, NIV & RSV...difference in translation...Isaiah 63:9

[flatlanderjenn]

In reading a Protestant-written self-help/leadership book I’ve come across Isaiah 63:9. I was baffled in what the author wrote was the NIV verson, so I cross-checked in my NKJV, NAB and RSV.

In the RSV (Catholic), NIV & NKJV (both protestant) it reads:

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up (in 1 it’s, “lifted them up,” in 2 it’s “bore them”) and carried them all the days of old."

In the NAB (Catholic) is reads:

“In their every affliction. It was not a messenger or an angel, but he himself who saved them. Because of his love and pity, he redeemed them himself, lifting them and carrying them all the days of old.”

(bold emphasis is mine)

I’m baffled!

I’m thrilled when a Jehovah’s Witness comes to my door so I can share the faith with them, and share multiple scripture quotes that reveal Jesus is God in human flesh. If one were to ever bring up this passage, I could explain that we have to take the Bible as a whole, one passage doesn’t invalidate another, etc…but I don’t want to just “explain away” a difficult passage. And they’d never accept a NAB over NKJV or NWT.

I’ve never had a JW bring this up before; they always confess the Bible doesn’t reveal Jesus is an angel. But what is someone does bring up this quote someday???

How do I respond?

Is this passage talking of Jesus or someone else?

What is the Latin text for this?

Thanks in advance!

So grateful to have this Catholic Answers Forum!!!

 

[CalCatholic]

It appears that the NAB is using the Septuagint instead of the MT as the other cited translations. Here is the NETS translation of the Septuagint for the same highlighted verse, 'It was no ambassador or angel but the Lord himself that saved them, because he loved them and spared them…'

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Interesting. So the NAB is the most accurate in this case? I thought the NAB used mostly MT? What does RSV-CE use for this passage?

 

[TimothyH]

My RSV-CE says,

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them oall the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9 RSV-CE)

I sometimes use the Greek and Hebrew interlinear at Scripture4All.com as reference. The PDF with original Hebrew for Isaiah 63 is here. It leaves me with an understanding of how difficult it is to translate this stuff.

-Tim-

 

[Big_Dummy]

The word angel can be translated as messenager.

If you go back and read the text(see Exodus 14:19), that Isaiah 63:9 refers to you will see it was the Angel of the Lord who delivered them. The Angel of the Lord is known to be God himself.

Thus Isaiah is saying basically, it was not a creature like an angel or messenger(human) that delivered them, but it was God himself who delivered them as a theophany, known to us as the “Angel of the Lord” or “Angel of his Prescence”.

biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/theophany.html
preceptaustin.org/angel_of_the_lord.htm
studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6209

1 Corinthians 10:4
and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.

 

[flatlanderjenn]

You know what? I dug a little deeper in Googling and found this website: (http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/adventa.htm#Xmas1)

It’s from a Lutheran School of Theology - the closest to Catholic I could find. It says about Isaiah 63:9:

"This pericope is part of a communal lament that runs from 63:7 to 64:12. 63:7-14 speak of Yahweh’s acts of redemption in the past. In 63:15-64:5a, we have an appeal for help, including references to the present pitiful state of those who are praying. Next, in 64:5b-7 comes a confession of sins, and finally, in 64:8-12, we have a renewed appeal for help, which ties together earlier elements in this lament.

In v 7, the words “gracious deeds” and “steadfast love” refer to demonstrated acts of loyalty on Yahweh’s part. “His mercy” might be better rendered as “Yahweh’s motherly mercies.”

Verse 9 indicates that Yahweh does not delegate acts of salvation for Israel. It was no (second rate) messenger or angel that saved them, but God’s own face or presence. By love and pity Yahweh proved himself to be Israel’s best father or mother–the word “redeem” refers to kinship relationships.

Verse 9 also refers to Yahweh’s lifting up and carried Israel in all the days of old. Isa 46:3 articulates what is meant here: Jacob/Israel has been carried by Yahweh from their birth, carried from the womb."

That makes sense to me. I erroneously thought it was speaking of Jesus being savior but instead it’s talking about YHWH’s past acts of redemption. That fits in with Angel of the Lord, or of His Presence, being God Himself. But that part about YHWH being mother or motherly is kind-of weird, huh?

That scripture4all website looks awesome! Thanks for sharing!

 

[Big_Dummy]

This angel could not have been the God the Father, Scripture is clear: NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER AT ANY TIME (cf. John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 John 4:12). God the Father is invisible (cf. Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17). So if this angel of the LORD is not the Father (nor is it the Holy Spirit)2 who then? The most probable answer is that this angel was the pre-incarnate Jesus. In Zechariah 1:12 the angel of the LORD (Jesus Christ) prays to the LORD Almighty (Father) demonstrating a clear distinction. It is Christ who reveals, that is, explains the Father (cf. John 1:18). And in the New Testament we do not find “the” angel of the Lord only “an” (indefinite) angel of the Lord. Hence, I would assert, as others, that it was Jesus Christ the Eternal Word (pre-incarnate) who was the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament.
christiandefense.org/jw_deity.htm

John 6:46
not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.

 

[flatlanderjenn]

This angel could not have been the God the Father, Scripture is clear: NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER AT ANY TIME (cf. John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 John 4:12)…it was Jesus Christ the Eternal Word (pre-incarnate) who was the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament.
christiandefense.org/jw_deity.htm

John 6:46
not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.

Um…your answer is confusing.

You are saying that Jesus is not God, but an angel, and cite Zechariah 1:12, but where does it say that angel’s name is Jesus? Where does it say the angel is eternal? Where does it say the angel is the word of God?

You also state that no one has ever seen the Father. Have U read John 14:8-9? Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Also, didn’t Moses see God the Father while he was still alive? We can’t focus on certain passages and ignore others; we have to look at the bible as a whole.

Also, you state that Jesus (who is not God, only an angel) is eternal. How is it possible to be eternal besides God? Did God create Jesus? Or has Jesus (and possibly others) existed with God that Father side-by-side for eternity?

You sound like a Jehovah’s Witness but the website you linked is awesome and completely disproves that Jesus is a created being and is God Himself. Did U read the titles: Jesus is God in the OT, Jesus is God in the NT, and Jesus is Jehovah?

Jesus is not God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit, but is God the Son; three persons in one God. The website U linked helps people understand the divinity of Jesus, that He is and never was an angel, but is God Himself. It’s a great website.

 

[flatlanderjenn]

…If you go back and read the text(see Exodus 14:19), that Isaiah 63:9 refers to you will see it was the Angel of the Lord who delivered them. The Angel of the Lord is known to be God himself.

Thus Isaiah is saying basically, it was not a creature like an angel or messenger(human) that delivered them, but it was God himself who delivered them as a theophany, known to us as the “Angel of the Lord” or “Angel of his Prescence”…

This answer of yours makes sense. But it seems opposed to your later answer.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I don’t see how they conflict. Jesus or the Son of God is fully God. People did in fact see God in the OT. But, John tells us that people did not see God the Father. Since, to our knowledge the Holy Spirit is not manifested as having a body, then it is reasonable to think that the people in the OT saw the Son of God. Translation involves interpretation, which is why the differences in translation exists. The Angel of the Lord is not a creature, but is God himself.
Exodus 3
Moses and the Burning Bush

1 Meanwhile Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, [a] the priest of Midian. He led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, ** the mountain of God. 2 Then the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire within a bush. As Moses looked, he saw that the bush was on fire but was not consumed. 3 So Moses thought: I must go over and look at this remarkable sight. Why isn’t the bush burning up?
4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, **God called out to him **from the bush, “Moses, Moses!”

"Here I am," he answered.

5 "Do not come closer," He said. "Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then He continued, "**I am the God of your father, [c] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob**." Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.

In short, the Angel of the Lord is God. We know from John that no one has seen God the Father, but that does not rule out people from seeing the Son of God as the Angel of the Lord. Arians like Jehovah’s Witnesses likes to quote John 1:18 saying Jesus can not be God because there are people in the OT who have seen God. John makes it clear in John 6:46 that people did not see God the Father. The only reasonable solution to this problem is that people did in fact see God the Son in the OT. Arians do not have a good answer to this.

John 6:46 “**not that anyone has seen the Father **except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.”

John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son the One who is at the Father’s side — He has revealed Him.”**

 

[PJM]

=flatlanderjenn;8287686]In reading a Protestant-written self-help/leadership book I’ve come across Isaiah 63:9. I was baffled in what the author wrote was the NIV verson, so I cross-checked in my NKJV, NAB and RSV.

In the RSV (Catholic), NIV & NKJV (both protestant) it reads:

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up (in 1 it’s, “lifted them up,” in 2 it’s “bore them”) and carried them all the days of old."

In the NAB (Catholic) is reads:

“In their every affliction. It was not a messenger or an angel, but he himself who saved them. Because of his love and pity, he redeemed them himself, lifting them and carrying them all the days of old.”

(bold emphasis is mine)

I’m baffled!

I’m thrilled when a Jehovah’s Witness comes to my door so I can share the faith with them, and share multiple scripture quotes that reveal Jesus is God in human flesh. If one were to ever bring up this passage, I could explain that we have to take the Bible as a whole, one passage doesn’t invalidate another, etc…but I don’t want to just “explain away” a difficult passage. And they’d never accept a NAB over NKJV or NWT.

I’ve never had a JW bring this up before; they always confess the Bible doesn’t reveal Jesus is an angel. But what is someone does bring up this quote someday???

How do I respond?

Is this passage talking of Jesus or someone else?

What is the Latin text for this?

Thanks in advance!

So grateful to have this Catholic Answers Forum!!!

According to Haydock this referes to the Guardian of Christ Church, [the Holy Spirit?] not Christ Himself. QUOTE:… “Ver. 9. Presence, in high authority, The angel guardian [SPIRIT?] of the Church. Particular guardians also see God’s face,”

**Douay Rhiems Bible: Isa.63:9 **“In all their affliction he was not troubled, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love, and in his mercy he redeemed them, and he carried them and lifted them up all the days of old.”

"He [God] is not troubled because He knows the “gates of Hell shall not prevail.”

While it is Christ who is our “Savior” it is the Holy Spirit who guards the Church’s Teachings [John 14:16-17].

At least this is what I take it to mean:shrug:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Big_Dummy]

where does that source get the idea it was the Holy Spirit and not the Son of God?

 

[Big_Dummy]

On the Flesh of Christ (Tertullian)

For the Lord of the Vineyard sends even His Son to the labourers to require fruit, as well as His servants. Yet the Son will not therefore be counted as one of the servants because He undertook the office of a servant. I may, then, more easily say, if such an expression is to be hazarded, that the Son is actually an angel, that is, a messenger, from the Father, than that there is an angel in the Son. Forasmuch, however, as it has been declared concerning the Son Himself, “You have made Him a little lower than the angels” how will it appear that He put on the nature of angels if He was made lower than the angels, having become man, with flesh and soul as the Son of man? As “the Spirit of God,” however, and “the Power of the Highest,” Luke 1:35 can He be regarded as lower than the angels—He who is verily God, and the Son of God? Well, but as bearing human nature, He is so far made inferior to the angels; but as bearing angelic nature, He to the same degree loses that inferiority. This opinion will be very suitable for Ebion, who holds Jesus to be a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God; although He is, to be sure, in one respect more glorious than the prophets, inasmuch as he declares that there was an angel in Him, just as there was in Zechariah. Only it was never said by Christ, “And the angel, which spoke within me, said unto me.” Zechariah 1:14 Neither, indeed, was ever used by Christ that familiar phrase of all the prophets, “Thus says the Lord.” For He was Himself the Lord, who openly spoke by His own authority, prefacing His words with the formula, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” What need is there of further argument? Hear what Isaiah says in emphatic words, “It was no angel, nor deputy, but the Lord Himself who saved them.” **Isaiah 63:9 **

Chapter 15. The Valentinian Figment of Christ’s Flesh Being of a Spiritual Nature, Examined and Refuted Out of Scripture

Valentinus, indeed, on the strength of his heretical system, might consistently devise a spiritual flesh for Christ. Any one who refused to believe that that flesh was human might pretend it to be anything he liked, forasmuch as (and this remark is applicable to all heretics), if it was not human, and was not born of man, I do not see of what substance Christ Himself spoke when He called Himself man and the Son of man, saying: “But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth;” John 8:40 and “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath day.” Matthew 12:8 For it is of Him that Isaiah writes: “A man of suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of weakness;” and Jeremiah: “He is a man, and who has known Him?” and Daniel: “Upon the clouds (He came) as the Son of man.” Daniel 7:13 The Apostle Paul likewise says: “The man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man.” 1 Timothy 2:5 Also Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Him as verily human (when he says), “Jesus Christ was a man approved of God among you.” Acts 2:22 These passages alone ought to suffice as a prescriptive testimony in proof that Christ had human flesh derived from man, and not spiritual, and that His flesh was not composed of soul, nor of stellar substance, and that it was not an imaginary flesh; (and no doubt they would be sufficient) if heretics could only divest themselves of all their contentious warmth and artifice. For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus’ wretched faction, they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh; whence, too, it would be necessary that, if His flesh were like ours, it should be similarly born, not of the Spirit, nor of God, but of the will of man. Why, moreover, should it be born, not of corruptible [seed], but of incorruptible? Why, again, since His flesh has both risen and returned to heaven, is not ours, being like His, also taken up at once? Or else, why does not His flesh, since it is like ours, return in like manner to the ground, and suffer dissolution? Such objections even the heathen used constantly to bandy about. Was the Son of God reduced to such a depth of degradation? Again, if He rose again as a precedent for our hope, how is it that nothing like it has been thought desirable (to happen) to ourselves? Such views are not improper for heathens and they are fit and natural for the heretics too. For, indeed, what difference is there between them, except it be that the heathen, in not believing, do believe; while the heretics, in believing, do not believe? Then, again, they read: “You made Him a little less than angels;” and they deny the lower nature of that Christ who declares Himself to be, “not a man, but a worm;” who also had “no form nor comeliness, but His form was ignoble, despised more than all men, a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of weakness.” Here they discover a human being mingled with a divine one and so they deny the manhood. They believe that He died, and maintain that a being which has died was born of an incorruptible substance; as if, forsooth, corruptibility were something else than death! But our flesh, too, ought immediately to have risen again. Wait a while. Christ has not yet subdued His enemies, so as to be able to triumph over them in company with His friends.

Chapter 16. Christ’s Flesh in Nature, the Same as Ours, Only Sinless. The Difference Between Carnem Peccati and Peccatum Carnis: It is the Latter Which Christ Abolished. The Flesh of the First Adam, No Less Than that of the Second Adam, Not Received from Human Seed, Although as Entirely Human as Our Own, Which is Derived from It

newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

 

[PJM]

=Big Dummy;8313808]where does that source get the idea it was the Holy Spirit and not the Son of God?

DUH:shrug:

ONE GOD MEANS THEY ARE “ONE GOD” CO-EQUAL AND CO-ETERNAL RIGHT

ONE PERFECT. SHARED DIVINE NATURE… SO WHAT’S THE QUESTION?