BibleForums Christian Message Board

God says at the end of Genesis 1 that everything He had made was very good, so I think they were good. Perhaps the key is that God did not "see" that "night" and "heavens" were good at first, because there is nothing to see in darkness and empty space... that is until after God fills it with stars and birds. What do you think?

I thought of reasons why Jesus might have named the poor man Lazarus but left the rich man anonymous.

First, after the poor man and the rich man died, they can no longer be called poor or rich. Therefore, it is helpful to give the poor man a name, since the description "poor" no longer applies. Similarly, the rich man is never called rich after he dies. Jesus was a really wise story teller.

Second, the lesson is primarily a warning for listeners who identify with the rich man, so leaving him without a name makes it easier for the listener to identify with him.

Quote from: greenonions on September 15, 2021, 01:43:56 PM

The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?

I'm saying the word means "forever". That's all.

Besides "forever", olam can also mean the ancient past. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon says it can mean: long duration, antiquity, futurity.

Some examples where olam means the ancient past:

Deuteronomy 32:7 Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.
Isaiah 63:9 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 bore them, and carried them all the days of old. ... 11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying, “Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put his Holy Spirit among them?”
Amos 9:11In that day I will raise up the tent of David who is fallen, and close up its breaches, and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;
Micah 5:2But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.
Micah 7:14Shepherd your people with your staff, the flock of your heritage, who dwell by themselves in a forest, in the middle of fertile pasture land, let them feed; in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.
Malachi 3:4Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years.

Quote

Numbers 12:8 says that Moses saw God's form.

Deuteronomy also said that God spoke to Moses "face to face". The priestly blessing asked that God turn his face to us. But God doesn't have a body. He doesn't have a face. Deut 4:15. This is basic Jewish theology supported by our understanding of the bible. The text is simply anthromorphizing.

It could be anthropomorphizing when describing God's power as God's arm, or God's attention as God's face.

Quote

So you think the metaphysical event is visible?

In the mind, perhaps.

If it is in the mind, only one person should see it, right? If multiple people see the same thing in the mind at the same time at the same location, perhaps this thing has actually occupied a real physical location and appeared in that form. Exodus 24:9-11 talks about 74 people who saw God, including a paved work of sapphire stone under His feet. So it seems like God occupied a physical location and could be seen by multiple people in some form. Interesting how only the appearance of the sapphire stone was described (perhaps to prevent attempts at making an image), but they knew that God was above that. Do you agree that God was perceived to be at a particular location?

Quote

Interesting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).

I think kings had more latitude in these areas, particularly before the temple was built.

Numbers 18:3 They [Levites] shall keep your [Aaron's] commands and the duty of the whole Tent; only they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary and to the altar, that they not die, neither they nor you.

It sounds like only descendants of Aaron could go near the altar. Not even Levites were allowed to. I wonder if this rule applies to other altars that other people build out of stone. But people were only supposed to offer sacrifices at the place that God chooses. Even at the time of Gideon, there was an altar at Shiloh. At the time of Elijah, there was an altar in Jerusalem. I guess the exceptions need to be specifically commanded by God.

Exodus 20:25 If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stones; for if you lift up your tool on it, you have polluted it.
Deuteronomy 12:13 Be careful that you don’t offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which Yahweh chooses in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

Quote

Have you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?

I have not.

It's a story about a real life crime reporter who's wife converts to Christianity who tries to disprove the resurrection, but found out:
1) The proof of a resurrection can be simple: Jesus was dead and then people saw Him alive
2) There were multiple witnesses and group hallucinations don't happen
3) The crucifixion really killed Jesus according to some medical evidence

Quote from: greenonions on September 13, 2021, 01:29:22 AM

By God's mercy and God's truth iniquity is purged by God?

Well, let's look at the complete verse-

 Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged, and through fear of the Lord turn away from evil.

The second half of the verse is talking about what a person does, not God, so it seems logical that the first half of the verse is also talking about what a person does.

Also we have this outside reference of Daniel giving advice to king Nebuchadnezzar, in which he says that Nebuchadnezzar's merciful actions can remove iniquity-

Daniel 4:27 Indeed, O king, may my counsel please you, and with charity you will remove your sin and your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor...

I can see the importance of repentance in the form of "mercy and truth" in getting forgiveness.

I wish I had more insight on the "image of the Beast," but I don't. It appears to be symbolic, and pertains to something the Antichrist constructs in Europe to make people choose against true Christianity. "Babylon" is a euphemistic symbol for Rome, since John at the time was under Roman detention. It was easily understood as such by Christians at that time, who had known of the 4 Beasts of Dan 7, the last of which was Rome and the first of which was Babylon.

The Antichrist alliance rides upon the Roman confederation, which is synonymous with present-day Europe. And so, the False Prophet will be, as the Reformers thought, an end-time apostasy of the Catholic Pope. I wouldn't say the Catholic Church is Antichristian presently. But it certainly has a mix within it that is false religion and opposed to true Christianity. At some point, the Catholic Church will have to decide which side of the fence it is on as an organization.

So this false Pope will establish something within its East-West territory to produce worship towards Antichrist and against true Christianity. I don't know what precisely it is, but it probably doesn't matter. If we are on the right side of the fence, we'll know it when we see it. And it will happen  with the rise of Antichrist himself, who will consolidate 10 states under his power, presenting an unchallenged superpower on earth.

Thanks for your thoughts on the false prophet and Babylon.

Quote from: greenonions on September 06, 2021, 05:55:52 PM

Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem.

What are you talking about? It refers to David, who by the time the messiah comes will be from "ancient times".

Quote

If you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human.

That's great, but nothing forces one to understand the verse in that way. And Jews don't.

OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2

Quote

Another Bible verse that suggests the Messiah is divine is Isaiah 9:6-7, based on the names given, including "Mighty God". Verse 7 says he establishes the kingdom forever.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

This is talking about king Hezekiah though.

It is perfectly reasonable to translate it thus: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

You'll notice the last line of your quote. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this". In Hebrew it reads "קִנְאַ֛ת יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־זֹּֽאת". That's a unique phrase in the bible, and it occurs exactly three times in all of Tanach (what you would call the "OT"). Once here, once in Isaiah 37:32, and once in 2 Kings 19:31. If you read Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19, you'll see that the context of what "the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform" is saving Jerusalem and king Hezekiah from Sennacherib, king of Assyria. I don't think that people give enough importance to what happened. The Assyrians, the world's sole superpower, were turned back at Jerusalem. As a historical event, because that happened, Judaism survived. If the Assyrians win, they exile Judea, and just like the northern ten tribes, they are lost to history. That means 700 years later, there's no Jesus and no Christianity. It's a monumentous, world shaking event. 

You're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".

Yes, it was pretty momentous. The Assyrians nearly swallowed up Judah. Nevertheless, part of the miraculous workings of God is that after Judah was swallowed up by Babylon yet it was restored. And Israel was scattered all over the world and yet was reborn in 1948.

Isaiah 37:32 says that "out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant". Isaiah 9:6-7 says talks about an everlasting kingdom, which doesn't really fit for Hezekiah. The same phrase about the zeal of the LORD is used, but the superficial meaning of the words seems to be saying the LORD is accomplishing two different things. Similarly, these two different things can be done at different times. The word translated zeal is also used in Isaiah 42:13. I think it's translated jealousy in different parts of the Bible.

Quote

Solomon's psalm 72 starts off like a prayer for himself, but there are some things that seem to be more Messianic, i.e. outlasting the moon, dominion to the ends of the earth. I guess living forever doesn't prove someone is divine though. Do you think it is poetic hyperbole?

Psalm 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish,
    and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
    from the River to the ends of the earth.

That's...not a great translation. It could be rendered " In his days, may the righteous flourish..." which is more a request than a statement of fact. Psalms are generally not understood as prophecy by Jews. They're poems sung to God. As such, they will contain requests as a form of prayer.

Interesting. Yes, I suppose it could have been in the form of requests like "may the righteous flourish" rather than predictions. Well, I believe God will answer the prayer in the messianic era.

Quote

It clearly says that God called to Moses out of the middle of the bush. The angel is God.

Umm angels are not God. Angels are angels. That God called to Moses from a flame doesn't mean that the flame is God either. See Deuteronomy 4:15 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form...

Any form.

Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.

Quote

Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.

On holidays when Priests bless the congregation, "May the Lord bless you and protect you..." they face the people and raise their hands over their head in what has become the Vulcan salute (Leonard Nimoy was Jewish and aware of the practice and made it part of Star Trek lore). They don't look at their hands and neither does the congregation, everyone covers their face with a prayer shawl. It's because the divine presence is resting on their hands. It doesn't mean that it's something that can be seen. Yet we avert our eyes nonetheless.

Yes, I heard about the Vulcan salute being related to the priestly tradition. I don't remember the Bible talking about the divine presence resting on their hands. I remember the divine presence is above the Mercy Seat between the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies.

Quote

Genesis 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood near him. ...
Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. ...

Yes, the third angel had completed it's mission. It wasn't God and two angels. Again, go read Deuteronomy 4:15. God has no form. Period. 

Isn't it clear that the LORD is one of the three men who ate the food and talked to Abram?
Who is talking in Genesis 18:10? Was it one of the three men or God?
Who is talking in Genesis 18:13-14? Was it one of the three men or God?
Note that the speakers in Genesis 18:10 and 14 both say the same thing.

Exodus 24:9 NKJV Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.

Exodus 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”

The elders saw God. Moses saw God's back. God has feet. God has a face. God has a back. Therefore, God has a form, or at least He can assume a form.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.

Isaiah saw God!

Quote

Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?

Deuteronomy 4:15. 

Quote

I think this psalm is prophetic.

Okay, and you can think that. But that's not a compelling reason for me to think that.

Quote

It would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.

Yes. So I will direct you to 2 Samuel 8:18, which said that David's sons were priests. Obviously they too could not be priests, as they were from the tribe of Judah and not Levi. So obviously the term "priest" can mean something other than a descendant of Aaron. Perhaps high ranking officials? I will postulate thus: Let's have a look at Psalm 110 again. It begins "Of David a psalm." Then "“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (NKJV. I don't love this translation but the others are worse.) In this context, David is a "priest" like Melchizedek in that he is the king of Jerusalem just as Melchizedek was.

I was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher. If my understanding of David's sons as priests is correct, then David was not a priest in the sense of royal official, because the king does not normally act as an intermediary for himself.

Moreover, Melchizedek was the priest of God Most High and likely offered sacrifices. I think David was different from Melchizedek in that respect. The priest like Melchizedek would have a similar priesthood as Melchizedek who was a priest of God Most High. David was not a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest.

Quote

The phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.

So what if he did? It can still be about him.

Yes it could be about him, but I'm just suggesting that it doesn't necessarily say a Psalm about David.

Quote

The New Testament says these children are "born of God".

Right, so it's an NT thing. I'm free to see it otherwise.

Yes, but at least the NT did not forget to mention Jesus having children, which Isaiah 53:10 says the servant must have.

Quote

Jesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead.

I don't see how that would prove anything. Sure God can bring people back from the dead. See 2 Kings 4. That doesn't make the person God.

True. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.

----------------------
In an earlier post, I mentioned in Isaiah 48:16 where God sent someone with His Spirit. I was trying to provide an example where God had God's Spirit upon Him, and mentioning that the speaker was God.

Isaiah 48:16b WEB Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me with his Spirit.

But you are right, someone who has God's Spirit is not necessarily God Himself.

----------------------
I was thinking about Isaiah 53. Most of the things which you said the kings said are facts of history. Surely the kings knew they were evil for persecuting and killing people, right? Or do you think they were surprised that their cruelty could be called "iniquity" and "transgression"? The only surprising part of their report would be that the servant is innocent, right? But maybe they even knew the servant was innocent already.

Isaiah 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked,
    and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.

What new information or main point are the kings reporting in Isaiah 53:1-10 in your view? "we considered" in Isaiah 53:4 indicates that the speaker was mistaken, so what was the corrected message?Or are they simply astounded that Israel is exalted even though they were mistreated before? In my view, vicarious atonement would be surprising to the speaker of Isaiah 53:1-10.

Psalm 85:10 (NKJV) Mercy and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed.

We can see how the second part of the verse is true: righteousness in the messianic age will result in peace. As for the first part of the verse, is "mercy" the key to promote truth in a world where truth is hard to ascertain.

Possible ways mercy can promote truth:
- mercy to listen to all points of view vs. cancel culture
- mercy to care about others and not only our self-interest
- mercy to not focus on "winning" and demonizing those with whom we disagree
- mercy to face the consequences of the truth, like admitting we don't have all the answers
- mercy for "truth and reconciliation" activities

How do you think mercy and truth are related?

Quote from: greenonions on August 31, 2021, 12:32:29 PM

Suppose the Messiah's life has some resemblance to his ancestor David's story, or just take David's story as a possible scenario that may also occur in the Messiah's life. The Spirit of the LORD was on David after he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13). But David didn't become king in a practical sense until much later (2 Samuel 2:4). Similarly, the Messiah could have the Spirit on him long before he extends his kingdom to the nations in Isaiah 11:10.

Yeah but we're not talking about something that happens a short time later. According to your reading, the events in the chapter are separated by what, 2000 years or more? There's nothing internally in the chapter that would lead me to believe that. Why would God deliberately communicate in such a confusing manner?

It could be all future, and that verse 2 about the spirit resting on the Messiah is the future condition. It's just possible (based on other passages) that the future condition began earlier in time and continues until the future.

And notwithstanding that Jesus is God yet he also has "the spirit of God upon him" (which I never understood.)

I guess that is related to the concept of the Trinity.

Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to me and hear this: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it happened, I was there.” Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me with his Spirit.

Yahweh can send with his Spirit. The speaker appears to be God, based on verses 9-15, but you'll probably interpret the last sentence as Isaiah speaking.

Quote

Notice that Messiah is the conqueror of the nations in Isaiah 11:4. Did you notice that in Zechariah 12:1-9, it doesn't mention the Messiah leading the battle? It only says "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:8 ).

I'm not sure what your point here is.

That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.

Quote

So if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?

There's nothing blasphemous about saying "the Lord is righteous".

OK. I guess people just need to be careful not to call me by my first name.

Quote

Yes, the heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but God still appear in any form that He likes, including a flame in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2).

The burning bush wasn't God though.

Exodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.

Not the bush itself. God appeared like a flame of fire.

Quote

God looked human to Abraham (Genesis 18:1-33), Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), Gideon (Judges 6:11-24), and Samson's parents (Judges 13:2-23).

Uh, those were all angels, not God. It's in the text.

Yes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:

Genesis 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him ...
Genesis 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, ...
Genesis 18:17 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:20 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:26 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:33 Yahweh went his way ...
Genesis 32:30 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
Judges 6:14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, ...
Judges 6:16 Yahweh said to him, ...
Judges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”

Quote

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    being small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
    whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.

It sounds like this ruler existed from ancient times, suggesting the Messiah existed long before he was born, and is not an ordinary man.

King David was born in Bethlehem. The messiah is a descendant of David. Ergo "out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.".

I think it's interesting that many Christians seem to feel that Jews don't know what's in our own bible.

I'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?

Quote

If David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you".

It's not strange at all. David is also the subject of the Psalm. And who were the Psalms written for? The Levites, who chanted them in service. Now that we've established that, let's look at the psalm again-

In the Hebrew it begins "A Psalm of David". Why those first words aren't in most English translations I have no idea.

It continues: God (YHVH) said to my master (Adonee); "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

The Levites are talking about God speaking to their master, king David.

The English translation typically reads "The Lord said to my Lord", as if the two words "Lord" are the same, but they're not. They are two different Hebrew words and should be translated as such.

I agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?

Quote

Unless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]?

Why'd you add the words in brackets? It's not in the Psalm. Why can't it just be a poetic term? You know the Psalms are poems, right?

I added the brackets to suggest that if it was literal, God would probably be sitting on His throne in heaven. So David did not literally sit at God's right hand, but perhaps figuratively.

Verse 2: The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion

Who ruled in Zion? King David.

Yes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.

Quote

Which day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here?

KJV and ESV translate it as "day of power", but you should look at the other translations. NIV renders the verse as " Your troops will be willing on your day of battle". So yeah, when king David goes to war (he did that a lot, you know) his troops will be ready to fight for him. Very simple.

The word translated "power" or "battle" seems mean "ability" or "army" in other Bible verses. Your interpretation is possible.

Quote

Which heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?

He defeated many enemies of Israel. Surely you are aware of this.

I know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?

Quote

And because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.

It says "Will be raised up" not "Is already raised up". And I don't understand how Jesus i.e. God could also be God's servant.

I see your point. I guess this is a New Testament thing.

Philippians 2:5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name,

Quote

We were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.

Because Isaiah doesn't use the term with that meaning anywhere else. You want to use it here because you think it proves your point. That's a very bad reason to borrow terminology. It's intellectually dishonest.

I'm not borrowing terminology as strong evidence, but a possible explanation for a difficulty in the interpretation. It's like you saying "it is poetic". It's not strong evidence, but it offers a possible explanation for your interpretation. Does that make sense?

Quote

I understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.

It doesn't say the servant IS God's salvation. The end of the verse reads "...so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

We have different translations. This is from the World English Bible.

Isaiah 49:6 ... I will also give you as a light to the nations, that you may be my salvation to the end of the earth.”

My interlinear Bible has this:

u·nththi·k [and I give you] l-aur [for light of] guim [nations] l-eiuth [to to become of] ishuoth-i [salvation of me]

Quote

Agreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".

Yeah, but I mean again, it's one thing within a family because God says He will punish to the fourth generation.

As an aside, He also says that He will extend kindness for a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep his commands. We're not a thousand generations from Abraham so...

Good thing He didn't say a hundred generations.

Quote

So you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander?

They are bystanders. I don't know what you mean here.

OK. I was checking my understanding.

Quote

Are the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"

Perhaps its their hope? I don't see how verse 10 could be applied to Jesus regardless. He had no "seed" (descendants) and his days were cut short, not prolonged.

I guess this is a New Testament thing.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:

Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him!