General Discussion The Messiah and Isaiah 53

[Peergint]

"and he being wounded from transgression of us, being crushed from depravities of us." 
Doesn't this actually mean: "But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities"?
Again, I am only reading and learning.

To continue...

I have a problem with your statement that the Hebrew Bible calls the "servant" - singular spelling "them". Surely that doesn't make sense?
I looked up Isaiah 53:8 in the complete Jewish Bible and found the following:

After forcible arrest and sentencing,

he was taken away;
and none of his generation protested
his being cut off from the land of the living
for the crimes of my people,
who deserved the punishment themselves.
This Bible also mentions "he", singular. Could you please show me the Hebrew Bible translation as there is no mention of "them" here. Admitted this is not the Hebrew Bible.

This again from the Complete Jewish Bible:
Isaiah 43:10
“You are my witnesses,” says Adonai,

“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you can know and trust me
and understand that I am he —
no god was produced before me,
nor will any be after me.

I'm sorry but I cannot see any plurals here.

But it does make sense if you understand the language of Isaiah 52 and 53 is of a poetic structure.

In the Alcalay Hebrew-English Dictionary, page 1,132, the Hebrew word למו lamo, is translated correctly as "them."  Again, poetic language.  Something the prophets often had done was speak of the Jewish nation in the singular.

  Hosea 14: 6-8, the Hebrew language in poetic form speaks of Israel in the masculine singular.  The prophets never speak of an individual in the plural. So, the use of the Hebrew word "them" reveals that the servant of Isaiah 53 is not a single individual.  You've been provided with some excellent links of Rabbi Singer, Outreach Judaism,  answering much of your questions regarding Isaiah 53.   Keep in mind language such as "depravities" is not in the Hebrew verse and it reveals a Calvinistic Christian slant which was extremely hostile to Jews while very defensive of Original sin and the complete and utter depraved state of mankind after the fall. A concept foreign to Judaism.

I was looking online for the dictionary you quote but alas couldn't find one. 

I did however find the following from this website, https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based...ng-israel/:
“Lamo” (לָמוֹ) in Isaiah 53 verse 8

Rabbi Daniel Asur claims that according to verse 8, the character described as plural, not in singular, and therefore cannot be talking about the Messiah. He writes (from Hebrew): “The word ‘Lamo’ means ‘them’, and instead of the prophet writing ‘for the transgression of my people ‘he’ was punished’, he writes ‘Lamo’, meaning the servant is plural… that is why it is not possible for Jesus to be the Messiah.”
However, there are a few other possible aspects that Asur fails to acknowledge:

1. “Lamo” can be either plural or singular, as Isaiah elsewhere uses lamo to mean “to it,” not “to them,” Isaiah 44:15: “he makes an idol and bows down to it”. So, if we take lamo to refer to the servant, it could still mean “for him” as opposed to “for them.”
   
2. Septuagint (LXX): εἰς θάνατον (לַמָּוֶת) – The translators of the Septuagint saw a taf at the end of “lamo,” making it “lamavet” – to death. “He was led to death”.
   
3. NJPSV (New Jewish Publication Society Version) understood “nega‘ lamo” as
   “For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due”. The servant receives a stroke for those for whom he is suffering.
   

So then, we can see that the Messiah can fit perfectly with verse 8 in Isaiah chapter 53.

It would appear that Rueben Alcalay is just one of many writers who have differing opinions on this subject. 

It is true that my understanding of Hebrew writing is limited at best.