J'ai souligné le mot qui semble poser problème. A cet égard, un commentateur américain a écrit :
The big error is in the word “for”. It corrupts the true meaning of Isa. 65:20. Fortunately, we have John’s Rev 21 written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which works as a good check-and-balance mechanism to put us back onto the right path.
Using the word “for” as the conjunction makes the latter consequent phrases to be a result for its earlier antecedent phrases. That is to say, 'There shall be no more an infant of days FOR he shall die a hundred years old.', and 'There shall be no more an old man who has not filled his days FOR the hundred years old sinner shall be accursed.' But if young men die at a hundred years old, then where do old men come from? Is everyone to die at the hundred years old threshold? We must understand that this is a poetic rendering; else it just does not make sense. We are talking of a spiritual Jerusalem where the citizens are to "be glad and rejoice for ever in that which God create" (verse 18). No infant is to be born (or die). As long as there is death, there will be crying and weeping. There will be no differentiation of young man and old man; I do not believe there is a concept of 'physical age' in a spiritual body.
When we use the word “that” as the conjunction to tie in the antecedent and consequent phrases, it resonances and amplifies the overall meaning, ‘There shall be no more thence an infant of days that young man shall die a hundred years old’, and ‘There shall be no more an old man who hath not filled his days that a sinning hundred years old shall be accursed’. No more death and no more sin (unrighteousness), and no more contradiction.
Strong #834 [‘that’]: A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number). Hence, “who” should be a better word relative to the ‘old man’.
Strong #3588 [‘for’]: a primitive particle (a conjunction or preposition), indicating casual relations of all kinds, antecedent or consequent. It has been translated in the OT as “that, for, because, when, as though, as, because that, but, then, certainly, except, surely, since”. Using the word “for” reverses the meaning in its antecedent phrase “shall be no more thence an infant of days”, but using the word “that” retains and amplifies its antecedent phrases. I believe contextual wise, “for” fit better here.
Strong #5288 [‘a child’]: a noun, used 238 times and have been translated as “young man-76, servant-54, child-44, lad-33, young-16, children-7, youth-6, babe, boys, young’. And ‘young man’ and ‘youth’ are used more frequently than ‘child’ and ‘children’ in the OT.
Strong #2398 [‘the sinner’]: a primitive root, a verb, also used 238 times and have been translated as “sin (sinned, sinning)-188, purify-11, cleanse-8, sinner-8, committed-6, offended-4, blame-2, done-2, fault, harm, loss, miss, offender, purge, reconciliation, sinful, trespass;’. Almost 80% of the times, it was translated as a verb - sin, sinned, sinning. In only 10 times was it used as a noun like ‘sinner’. It was translated 8 times as ‘sinner’ – twice in Proverbs, 5 times in Ecclesiastes (strangely, only in these 2 books of ‘wise sayings’) and the last one being Isa 65:20. While the word ‘sinner’ in Isa 65:20 will not be a problem, I believe “sinning” (a verb) is a better choice. (Hey, I am not a Hebrew expert).
And how would one expect God to convey the blissfulness of spiritual life in New Jerusalem that mortals could understand? God uses the language, analogies and experiences of man, his anticipated supposition of Utopia – “They shall not build, and another inhabit; …. They shall not labour in vain, …. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain”. But there are definitely more than what these words could describe. (1 Cor 2:9)