Mis-Translations! Mis-Interpretations (Part 1) Contradictions?

[William H.]

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm English HEBREW bible - Masoretic Text

This thread is for the purpose of exsposing common perversions of Scripture weather it be mistranslations/ transliterations or misinterpretations.

 

 

For the English reader that is interested in indepth biblestudy I suggest a KJV AND a "Strong's Exhuastive Concordance" this allows you to revert any word back to its orginal term and context. There are many website links with this (look at the study tools section in the margin -->)

 

The english versions of the word are not free from mis-translations. Please share as many as you like at any rate you like. I will be coming here to study what is posted to see if I see any I haven't caught.

__________________________

EXAMPLE:

Lk.14:26

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

 

We know this to be an obvious mistranslation. The orginal Greek word that was translated "hate" is in fact μισέω/ miseō/ mis-eh'-o - and means LOVE LESS in this context.

Not only is this a use of the term, but agrees here in context with all scripture unlike the mistranslation, which is evident within the comandments. Ex.20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Ex.5:16  Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Put God fisrt and give due respect to others - Mk.12:29-31,/ 1 Jn.2:9,11; 3:15; 4:20.... 

Oddly enough a muslim hadith tells muslims they should love their "prophet" (not God) more than their family. There is a saying that when muslims learn to love their families as much as they hate Jews then there will be a chance for peace.

_________________________ 

 

Feel free to use any English source even though I'm mainly interested in the ****KJV****! Just List the source you use when doing so.

I will start it off with an obvious mis-translation.
Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Is.50:4-9 *)

evil here would have been correctly translated Hardships. How the translators would have choosen Evil in this context is beyond me. ONE place such a translation would contridict the Word is Jas.4:7, when the correct translation agrees with all scripture.

For those without a Strong's or way to document such within the Greek here is a link of the term used in this area according to the Greek.
http://www.studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=4190

______.....*Turn the Other Cheek......______

In Matt 5 Yeshua builds a fence around Torah

Note the prior verse Matt.5:38 says its lawful to take an eye for an eye however this passage is directed to the Disciples of Christ in relation to ministry (Matt.4:19;5:2,13,16...) of the gospel (good news) thus the more edifying context of Matt 5:39 (Lk.6:29). If you go forth sowing seed and the truth offends (Gal.4:16) someone and they react from the flesh and haul off and slap you, would it be proper to forget your fruits in the spirit and result to taking your own vengance by striking back or would it serve your purpose (in Christ) to be the bigger man and endure this hardship? (as Christ did Matt 26:67)

When you "turn the other cheek" it immediatly causes the heartless attacker to consider his actions and your message!

One More for now! (this is Not a mis-translation but rather a relation!)
Note Satan name as it is given in the Greek:
Revelation 9:11 (King James Version)

11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

When we look at the term perdition in the greek see how it relates to Satan's name! http://www.studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=684
We also know what within the Word only one is condemned to perish by name and that one is Satan or "the son of perdition".
This name Apollyon in the Strongs relates back to the root which is the very Word that is translated perdition! # 622 &623 in the Greek!

LEAVEN

 leaven

[William H.]

Yes its another failed muslim attempt to discredit the bible:

Muslims always use same play book, anyway...... Gen.32:30 Yakov saw G-d appearing as an ANGEL (Angel/messenger of the LORD/ The term used is ELOHIM wich means devine judgement (authority) and all instruments there of Jn.1:18 is the Greek Theos which can be used in multiple ways to mention the Almighty as well as members of his authority but in this spacific use its is speaking of Hashem (YHVH) the Almighty as documented HERE at I. i (THeos) http://www.biblestudysite.com/98.htm //// God doesnt keep his anger Jer 3 doesnt contradict Jer 17 actually it CONFIRMS it. I will simpley show Jer 17 in context. His anger is in relation to the transgression of Israel. He exspresses that he is redeeming Israel through tribulation and yet He will never respect the transgression made. The wrath is on the transgression but i wouldnt expect muslims to understand atonement. The wrath is taken out on the transgression but the person is spared. //// Note your next issue  you list the later parsha first which shows your perversion.... Both man and animlas were created during the 6th day Gen.1 and animals listed first then man.... The parasha ends at Gen.2:3 which is a Hebrew paragraph which means the THEME changes. Creation is complete. The New them is that of HaAdam (the man) and everything in relation to him. Thats why you build the theme around him then you mention the animals (that were created) are brought to him for to be named Gen 1 basically said same thing without the detail of the new parsha Gen 1:24,26,30 when read in the Hebrew text and easy to see in English as well./// When one is justified in covenant then their relationship with G-d is counted unto them for righteousness. Its not the same claim as saying they have never transgressed. The Tanakh also confirms all fall short (sin) Is.64:6 /Ps.14:1-3/ Ecc.7:20 (thought you may have left such documentation out to attempt to claim this is new to Christian sources.) Abraham Gen.15:6/ And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.... Note it didnt say never transgressed Torah (sinned)/// Blind men... There are no discrepancies between the account of Matt 20 and mk 10 and Lk 18... They describe three miracles on four blind menone on approaching Jerichoone on leaving and two after he left...   http://www.biblestudysite.com/152.htm

[His_Will]

Interesting comments on Matthew (in Shem Tov's Hebrew!) Shem-Tob Hebrew

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iv.ii.html Papias - disciple of John proclaims Matt. collected the words in the Hebrew language..... http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/SDAcomms/Hebrew%20Gospel%20of%2...

https://youtu.be/QbmLdss5uqQ?list=PLBFC1F1F62354A720

Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25]... and more witnesses! http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/nt_origins.html

https://www.facebook.com/james.s.trimm/videos/vb.100000451674649/14...¬if_t=live_video¬if_id=1479417897431385 ... (Jean) "Dutillet", "Munster" and "Shem Tov's" - Hebrew Matthew

[William H.]

https://www.facebook.com/james.s.trimm/videos/3091401794218179/

“New hebrew riots version of the NT” 

[William H.]

Here is another failed muslim attempt to currupt the bible:

While muslims may not be the only ones to have questions on these areas they have to be amoung the most blind to any responce given to their questions. Anyway,

Mk.8 "There shall be no sign be (given)"= If there shall be a sign given. A Hebrew idiom= there is a sign given but the sentance is left unfinished, WHY? (Figurative- Aposiopesis-) cause again this is an Evil generation- they REJECT Messiah thus they dont precieve any sign given. The word "If" implies that there is no doubt about it / ei- if , putting the condition simply. Followed by the Indicative Mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact, the condition being unfullfilled , but no doubt being thrown upon the supposition (1 Cor,15:6)/ Cp. Gen.21:23 Deut.1:35 1 Kings 1:51... Matt.12 "master we would see a signfrom Thee" "An EVIL and adulterous generationseeketh after a signand there shall no sign be given unto IT" THey reject signs as they reject Messiah "but the sign of the prophet Jonahs" (REPENT vs.41). Their seeking of a sign in their rejection led to the crusifixtion vs.40.......... Hosam now lets look at your sources on muhammad who never claimed to be able to work miracles WHY? cause he claimed those miracles worked by Prophets before were what? REJECTED

___________________________

Quran tells muslims they are limited to understand SPIRIT (Surah /Al-Isra/ 17.85). This is one truth in quran muslims dont understand Spiritual things. This is why they dont understand Mashiach.

English translations:

17.085

YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say:   "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a         little that is communicated to you, (O men!)"

PICKTHAL: They are asking thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is          by command of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but         little.

SHAKIR: And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is one of          the commands of my Lord, and you are not given aught of          knowledge but a little.

___No one will list one miracle (prophacy) of mohammad___

mohammad said himself he didnt have the ability to work miracles (feel free to document one prophacy!:)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 379 Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection." There are many verses in Quran that reaffirm this last Hadith, proving that muhammad never performed any miracle and found it useless. In the following verse muhammad is acknowledging that other prophets before him came with miracles or clear signs but still people rejected them, highlighting the futility of miracles as the proof of his revelation. Q. 03: 138 They (also) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?" if you are truthful? All along, the unbelievers asked muhammad to perform a miracle so that they could believe. All they got in response was, Q. 17: 90 They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth, And he would reply: Q. 17: 93 Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?" People doubted muhammad because they saw nothing extraordinary or miraculous in him. Q. 17: 94 And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger? Q. 25: 7 And they say: "What sort of a messenger is this, who eats food, and walks through the streets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to give admonition with him? Q. 25: 8 "Or (Why) has not a treasure been bestowed on him, or why has he (not) a garden for enjoyment?" The wicked say: "Ye follow none other than a man bewitched." But muhammad kept telling them that he is just an ordinary man not an angel, meaning people should not expect miracles from him! Q. 17: 95 Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger. The common sense dictates that no one would deny and call a man who performs such mighty miracles like splitting the moon, as believed by all the Muslims a mad man or possessed. But the people who knew him actually called him by these names. Q. 15: 06 They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!. No one would demand him miracles if he had already performed one Q. 15: 07 Why do you not bring to us the angels if you are of the truthful ones? But muhammad responded Q. 15: 08 We send not the angels down except for just cause: if they came (to the ungodly), behold! no respite would they have! The Quraishites kept asking for a sign or a miracle to believe and muhammad kept saying that he is only a warner. Q. 13: 07 "And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide." There are many more ayat that tell the same story. People asking miracles and him saying I am just a man, just like you, only a warner. A clear proof that muhammad never performed any miracles is in this verse where it says that people rejected even other messengers who came with miracles and clear signs, meaning miracles are not helpful. Q. 3: 184 Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment. In the above verses muhammad is denying any supernatural power. If he could perform the miracles attributed to him in those Ahadith, what is the meaning of these verses? In the following verse he clearly rejects miracles as the proof of prophethood comparing them to witchcrafts. Q. 2: 3 Their hearts toying as with trifles. The wrong-doers conceal their private counsels, (saying), "Is this (one) more than a man like yourselves? Will ye go to witchcraft with your eyes open?" (Suras * 17:59, 88:93; 13:7,30; 6:37,109,124; 7:203; 2:87,99,118-119,151, 252; 3:183). shows mohammad didnt work miracles!

[William H.]

[His_Will]

Here is another lame muslim attempt to inject muhammad into the tanakh (ot). Their claim is:

They say Ahmad= Muhammad and thus ignore proper Hebrew and the subject matter. The Individual is obviously Jacob (Israel) and Is.42:1 *NEVER says "Ahmad". The Hebrew word highlighted is "tamak" NOT "ahmad". Islam is dependant upon perverting the Word of G-d. Thats why when you exspose their curruption of the Hebrew here all they are left to say is our sources are currupted when they infact so they are desperate to pervert them to mention muhammad.

The aleph is SILENT like Ayin.

Muslim pervert the term here like many that try to pervert Hebrew they simpley attempt to sound out the Characters as follows: First letter ALEPH 'A' second letter CHET 'H' third letter MEM 'M' fourth letter DALET 'D'. (this type of messed up perversion of Hebrew reminds me of someone i recently met that said "Noah walked with Aluwahym", and when i asked who or what is "Aluwahym" they responded with "In Hebrew it is spelled aleph lamed waw hay yode mem," they were trying to say ELOHIM!) Jews laugh at such a post cause first of all while it appears to be a dalet at the "end", ךְ is not seen this way. Note the ֶת - tef!

אֶתְמָך

אֶתְמָ athmk

Strong's rendering of the verse gives the proper texts for those not real educated in Hebrew

הןH2005  עבדיH5650  אתמךH8551  בו  בחיריH972  רצתהH7521  נפשׁיH5315  נתתיH5414

8551- Tamak 

Ahmad simpley isnt a part of the texts thus its a poor attempt to try and mention muhammad

[His_Will]

Some critics of the bible want to claim that since Ex.34:14 syas G-d is a jealous G-d that it conflicts with Gal.5:19-20 were we are told envy (jealousy) is a sin. So many critics of the bible never bother to look at the actual texts. Gal.5:19-20 mentions "phthonos" which is "ill will" and (its root is phtheiro- to shrivel/ wither, spoil ruin, detroy), while it can be translated as jealously it is Not "qannâ'" in the context it is used in Ex.34, which is to be angry with zeal. G-d has a righteous anger (indignation) and when you are told he is angry at those that are in idolatry he has every reason to be. He isnt angry out of ill will towards them he is angry out of his righteous will cause he wants the best for you and that doesnt include going after other gods. Both these verses agree with 2 Pet.3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

[His_Will]

This one is more of misinterpretation than mistranslation (and i thought i had posted this one here but dont currently see it).

Some point to 2 Samuel24:1 and say it contradicts 1 Chron. 21:1.

2 sam-  And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chron.- And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Now the two verses used seperate words in the English KJV (moved/ provoked) but in the Hebrew the same word is used in both places (suth- H#5496) however it seems the translators of the kjv understood the context!

In 2 Sam "he moved" = he suffered(allowed) him to be moved. Its a Hebrew idiom (and also by modern usage), a person is said to do that which he allows (permits) to be done.In 2 Sam. we have the historical fact. In 1 Chron. we have the real event from the divine standpoint. In 2 Sam. the exoteric in 1 Chron. the esoteric. Thus it was by G-D's permission but Satan's suggestion that David number Israel. (Jas.1:13-14)

 

 

[His_Will]

Misinterpretation/ I doubt this lame attempt to pervert Is.53:9 will be very common but wanted to share just in case one sees this attempt.

 

The CLAIM:

Isa 53:9 "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his DEATHS; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." In Isa 53:9 the word b'motaYv means "in his deaths." The addition of the Hebrew letter "yud" in this construct tells you that it is PLURAL. If it was singular it would be b'moto and not b'motaYv. This certainly is not about the Christian messiah, as they believe he died once for all.

THE (my) RESPONCE:

LOL @ (lets keep them anonymous) "Is.53:9 " And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich strong>in his death>; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."...

The Hebrew Word maveth is translated as "in his death" of course "in his" isnt part of this Hebrew term the translators felt it was implied by the sentance structure and i agree this English translation is Correct.

<....MAVETH- death (natural or violent); concretely the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively pestilence, ruin: - (be) dead ([-ly]), death, die (-d).....>

  Thus when it says "*he made *his *grave *with the *wicked, and *with the *rich in his *death" Matveth is shared amoung the individual and the rich (with/plural) and that which they share is place /state- grave thus your ignorant of what was said and the Hebrew. (in his death/ in their deaths/ With). It should be obvious to you now how the English Does apply to the Hebrew.

We also have a English version of the Tanakh which says: "And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."

Gave his grave to the wicked AND the wealthy... (With/ And/ Plural) / " with his (thier) kinds of Death" ... See its Obvious I gave the true definition of Maveth which includes death and doesnt require it be "deaths". The kinds (plural relation) relates back to the fact that it includes the rich and the wicked. Not that someone is gonna die several times LOL @ your perverted interpretation (translation)."

To sum it all up. The verse NEVER said any individual died several (plural) deaths. You cant Claim knowledge of the Hebrew to pervert the verse like that. Further conformation: Heb.9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

[William H.]

CAN God "look" upon sin? ___...

Can God see/view our sin? YES.

Sadly many have taken scripture out of context on this subject. Some relative verses are:

__________

Hab.1:13 "Thou art of purer eyes than to *behold (H#7200) evil, and canst not *look(H#5027) on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?"

The term for "behold" is min raah (Hebrew strongs #7200) -

A primitive root; to see, literally or figuratively (in numerous applications, direct and implied, transitively, intransitively and causatively): - advise self, appear, approve, behold, X certainly, consider, discern, (make to) enjoy, have experience, gaze, take heed, X indeed, X joyfully, lo, look (on, one another, one on another, one upon another, out, up, upon), mark, meet, X be near, perceive, present, provide, regard, (have) respect, (fore-, cause to, let) see (-r, -m, one another), shew (self), X sight of others, (e-) spy, stare, X surely, X think, view, visions.

The term "nabat" is the term translated as "look" and "lookest" (Hebrew #5027)-

A primitive root; to scan, that is, look intently at; by implication to regard with pleasure, favor or care: - (cause to) behold, consider, look (down), regard, have respect, see.

The verse is simply saying God doesnt look upon sin with respect or favor.

Ps.5:4-5 "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

⁵ The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity" This verse confirms the last in proper context and is Not saying that God cant look upon sin.

Is.59:2 "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." (this verse is again saying God doesnt look on sin with favor and "face" (to face) is often used as a Hebraism to mean in close relation (1 on 1). Its not claiming that G-d cant see your sin or cant look upon sin.)

________________

Time after time we see God mention the iniquity he sees in others (both individually and as a nation). He sees ALL. The following verses are problematic for those who took the prior ones out of context!

* Proverbs 15:3 "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."

NOTE: the word translated as behold HERE is "tsâphâh" a totally different term than the one used in Hab.1:13 and is more basic- #6822/ A primitive root; properly to lean forward, that is, to peer into the distance; by implication to observe, await: - behold, espy, look up (well), wait for, (keep the) watch (-man).

Job 34:29 "When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only:"

Heb.4:13 " Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."

Job.28:24 "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;"

Job 31:4  "Doth not he see my ways, and count all my steps?" ?????????

* Job.34:21-22 "For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.²² There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves."

Pro.5:21 "For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his goings."

* Jer.16:17 "For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes."

2 Chron. 16:9 "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars"

Jer.23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord."

Jer.32:19 " Great in counsel, and mighty in work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings:"

The conclusion is that God does see sin. He sees and knows Everything! He does Not look on sin with favor.

Ps.66:18 "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me"

In closing Ps.22 is about the events of the cross to any with eyes and ears. Within the Psalm it clearly says (vs.24) " For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard."... Ps.11:5

[His_Will]

Quickly addressing the Claim by bible critics that Torah tells victims they must marry their rapists or they other way around.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."Deut.22 (:28- 29).

Deut.22 (:28- 29) does not force a victim to marry their rapist. To claim so totally ignores Jewish culture and adds to the texts. It is best FOR him if they marry cause If/when (they shall) they are married they are considered One (echad/ Gen.2:24) so there would be no transgression if this takes place because its showing a willing bond of two being one thus there is no further arguement of weather one raped its self (there is no transgression). They have become One. This is laidout here in the law. Its not to say you can rape then just buy the girl by forcing her father to accept pay and her to just submit to being victimized. What a dark misinterpretation. The Girl has to accept and the payment is done in honor not a cheap way to self justify someone. Jewish tradition- The guy goes to the location of the lady (ussually a home) and greets the father. He shows the father how he would be able to provide for his daughter. He pronounces his love for her and *asks for her fathers blessing. He pays the father a sum of thanks out of his devotion for the girl and her upbringing, character, and to show he can provide for such a lady. Once attaining the Fathers blessing he again goes to the lady with the blessing (ussually down the hall) where the woman is (preparing a meal) and Greets her (knocks). If she (opens the door that means she) accepts.. so on and so on....So IF they marry you cant come against him cause it would be to come against Her as well for something she didnt do (and something that doesnt exsist between them) cause again they are one and this relates to them being one. To claim this tradition is the woman Being Sold is cold and full of holes. (If they dont marry guess what? He would have recieved the punishment)

Also if they were just having premarital sex (depends on how you translate "lay hold") and then it was "found out" it would be best they both marry to honor the bond they were having properly anyway.

[His_Will]

There are those who will attempt to tell you that men didnt begin to recieve The Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) until pentecost. I say these people are sadly mistaken and haven't studied scripture very much on the subject. The scripture clearly says Yochanan (John) the baptist was filled with it from his mother's (Elizabeth's) womb (Lk.1:41). It came upon Elizabeth and Mary (of course we know Yeshua was Full of it (Lk.1:35).

Acts 2:4 says those on pentecost were "Filled" with the Holy Spirit that day.

Filled- (the Greek) plētho 

A prolonged form of a primary word

πλέω pleō (which appears only as an alternate in certain tenses and in the reduplicated form of πίμπλημι pimplēmi to "fill" (literally or figuratively [imbue, influence, supply]); specifically to fulfil (time): - accomplish, full (. . . come), furnish.

This isnt to say that the disciples never recieved insight through The Holy Spirit prior to that pentecost day cause Christ clearly said to Peter (after Peter gave the responce that Yeshua was the Messiah, the son of the living G-D) that this was Not carnal knowledge but revelation given by The Father in heaven (via the Spirit of truth). We can see mention of the Ruach Hakodesh throughout scripture (including the Tanakh/O.T.).

̄