REFUTING “Psalm 2:12 under siege”

DontNeedChrist:

This thread is a response to Xrusaoros Pegaso’s aka Anonymous Attribute’s forum that can be found here: Topic: Religion

He’s claiming Psalm 2:12 is “under siege” alluding to another forum post that shows that psalm as an example of a christian MISTRANSLATION. First off, the only “siege” Psalm 2:12 is under is the deceptive tactics the author of that thread is using to retrofit his jesus into it. This Psalm was originally written in Hebrew and no other language.

Xrusaoros Pegaso DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO READ, WRITE OR SPEAK HEBREW. All the sources he is using to defend his erroneous claims are from CHRISTIAN SOURCES. Not one is Jewish. Not one is a credible Hebrew source. This should be kept in mind whenever reading his uneducated claims.

The Hebrew for Tehillim (Psalms) 2:12 is
נַשְּׁקוּ־בַ֡ר פֶּן־יֶאֱנַ֚ף | וְתֹ֬אבְדוּ דֶ֗רֶךְ כִּֽי־יִבְעַ֣ר כִּמְעַ֣ט אַפּ֑וֹ אַ֜שְׁרֵ֗י כָּל־ח֥וֹסֵי בֽוֹ

An accurate JEWISH translation is:
“Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him.”

The KJV Christian translation is:
“ Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

DontNeedChrist:

First let’s examine the context:
This psalm was written by King David about himself on his coronation day as king. He (David) is speaking about the kings who are his enemies and seek to destroy him. Earlier in the psalm David wrote (line 2) that the kings who are against him are also against G-d, because David is G-d's messiah (anointed one). In line 12 David is again speaking about the kings who are against him.

David is telling the kings to foresake their idolatry and become pure -- praying only to G-d. He warns the kings that if they do not turn to the one true G-d He will become angry and those kings will surely perish.

Go back two lines and read the psalm from line 10 through line 12: "And now, [you] kings, be wise; be admonished, [you] judges of the earth. Serve the L-rd with fear, and rejoice with quaking. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him."

We can see the Psalm IN CONTEXT is not messianic and has nothing to do with jesus.

DontNeedChrist:

Now we will look at translations:
Why do the christian translations have "kiss the son" or "do homage to the son" when the word "son" does not appear in this psalm? Why do Jewish translations have "arm yourself with purity" or "yearn for purity"? It has to do with two languages: Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Hebrew word for "son of" is בן (ben). בן (ben) is the noun and its smichut case is בן.

In Aramaic the word for a son is בְּרָא (b'ra) which is the noun and its smichut case is בר (bar).

The christians translate the word בַר in Psalm 2:12 as if it were the Aramaic noun for "a son." One problem with this translation choice is that not one word of Aramaic is found in any of the psalms.

For the sake of argument, let's "assume" that for one word, and one word only, the psalms use the Aramaic in Psalm 2:12. Wouldn't the christian translators be correct then in using "kiss the son" or "do homage to the son?“ ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The christian translation is grammatically incorrect for Aramaic. There is no way it can be properly translated as "kiss the son" or "do homage to the son" because the Aramaic for "the" is not in the text!

If the word in Psalm 2:12 is in Aramaic then we would translate בַר as "a son" (not "the" son). If it were "THE son" it would have to be בְּרָא (b'ra)-- and the word בַר in T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 does not have an א (alef) at the end, thus giving us the definitive article "the."

Just as in Hebrew the definitive article meaning "the" is הַ (heh), in Aramaic the definitive article meaning "the" is א (alef).

And Psalm 2:12 is בַר (bar) not בְּרָא (b'ra).

So IF this word (the ONLY one in the entire 150 psalms) was Aramaic it would not be "the son" it would simply be "a son" -- "kiss a son." That doesn't do much for the idea that this "fits" jesus and thus the translators deceitfully translate it as "kiss THE son." But we know for a fact that even "kiss a son" is wrong because there are no Aramaic words at all in Psalms.

So בַר in the psalm cannot be "the son" and since there is no Aramaic in any of the 150 psalms the Christian translations of "kiss the son" or "do homage to the son" are not possible translations.

Does the text say "kiss" or "kissing"?

Possibly, but highly unlikely.

The verb used, נשׁק can mean "to kiss", but it has another meaning -- and that is "to arm" (meaning to equip with weapons).

The verb נַשְּׁקוּ is the masculine plural imperative inflection in the pi'él paradigm of the root נשׁק. It can mean either “kiss” or “arm” (as in bearing arms/weapons). . . But does kiss purity make any sense?

Nope -- but "arm yourself with purity" or "yearn for purity" does make sense.

In context of the psalm "kiss a son" makes no sense (because King David is speaking about the kings who come against him to defeat him). To arm oneself with purity DOES make sense given the context of the Psalm.

With all this said, pay attention to all the sources Xrusaoros Pegaso uses to prove his point. He cites a Jews for Jesus website, a KJV source and at the bottom he posts a video from a known anti semitic, hate-filled Baptist pastor who routinely twists and mangles Hebrew to try to show proof of jesus in the Tanach.

Does "XP" ever consult any Hebrew or Jewish resources?

NEVER.

Xrusaoros Pegasos, aka Anonymous Attributes has an agenda and it’s easily exposed.

DontNeedChrist:
Always consider the source.