I was researching these verses for a Gospel Doctrine lesson and came to the same conclusion (I was heavily influenced by Gileadi). How often a few verses of Isaiah are taken out of context to mean something that was not intended!

Another interesting translation of this phrase is in the “Message Bible”:

Is that so? And who do you think you are to teach us?
Who are you to lord it over us?
We’re not babies in diapers
to be talked down to by such as you—
‘Da, da, da, da,
blah, blah, blah, blah.
That’s a good little girl,
that’s a good little boy.’”

I would be interested to see your ideas on another concept from chapter 28, namely the “Covenant with Death”. My feeling is that it is closely related to the Secret Combinations of the Book of Mormon and that it is far more pervasive in modern America than any of us want to admit.

I wrote a pretty comprehensive analysis of verse 10 here mostly using content from the above discussion. A little bit is new, but the main reason for writing it there is to catalog and organize the comments into what will hopefuly become a nice web reference for scripture commentary. Feel free to proofread, improve, or comment on the content posted there.

Richard, thanks for posting that translation. I think the NIV “just” in v. 9 makes the reading Kevin and John are advocating much more clear than it is in the RSV (and KJV of course). Interestingly, the NAS also includes the “just”.

To be clear (since re-reading my posts makes me realize I haven’t been very clear), I’m advocating a different reading of v. 9 where the prophet or God is teaching those that are more mature than babes—those that have been weaned. However, a closer look at Heb 5:14 weakens my argument rather than stengthens it like I thought, since it contrasts someone that is “of full age” (not just someone who is weaned) to those still needing milk. Psalms 131:2 also seems to emphasize the child attributes (relative to an adult, as opposed to the mature attributes relative to an infant) of a weaned child. Bottom line is I’m more and more convinced that Kevin and John’s take makes the most sense….

9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?

10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [a] ;
a little here, a little there.”

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,

12 to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.

13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there—
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.

Let me add a couple of other Bible study aids. You all probably already know about these but some may not.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

It has the Bible in 45 languages, 19 in English. 7 in Spanish, 2 in Italian, 3 in German, 2 in French, etc.

Another contains a host of commentaries and aids in addition to other translations available for download. It allows side-by-side coimparisions of passages/verses.

Richard C.

http://esword.com/

I like thinking of v. 10 as an opposition quote, but is there a good reason to think v. 9 is too? In particular, I think the “them that are weaned from the milk” part of the verse makes more sense as a statement (as opposed to a question) developing the understanding motif. This is, arguably, the interpretation intimated by the Isaiah allusion in Hebrews 5:12-14.

Also, what about bringing the haste motif (vv. 4 and 16) in? That is, the wine makes Ephraim’s leaders drunk (as opposed to the positive connotation of wine in 25:6 and 27:2) because of their hasty (and superficial?) treatment of God’s “lines and precepts”. This view would complement the reading of tsaw as a slur of mitswah. This would also resolve the tension with the BOM and D&C “line” and “precept” verses—presumably the underlying Hebrew for the BOM and D&C verses would be the unslurred mitswah form (signified by the change of word order, though I think this claim is a stretch).

HALOT stands for Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

HALOT- Koehler and Baumgartner’s Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Much more recent than BDB.

HALOT is generally regarded as the primary English-Hebrew lexicon (and German-Hebrew for the original, as the English is a translation.)