Well Seeker then you should have understood that most people like Alex also, jump to the conclusion that this story did not allready happen in the past but is for some weird reason foretelling the coming of a failed messiah.(he did not deliver, nor was it the intent to fullfill all the obligations)So to avoid all the nonsense modern translations are obviously making it clear where the appellative clause begins, and as such not translating it.<quoted text>
All that I did was to quote from a Jewish source and ask why they did not translate only that part of that verse while they translated the rest of the entire chapter. And I know you read what I actually asked correctly the first time.
My research has not found what you have posted.
Your last point was not clearly stated at all.
I also pointed out that you would first need to understand grammar...the use of the revolving vav in particular...so as to understand.
So i gave you various languages and translations (what are you whining about? If your versio does not give it then i gave a plausible explanation, but it's up to you to ontinue your search).
My preference when reading it as a sentence is that the little prince born then would encorporate all the hope and expectations of the people and with the help of g-d accomplish them.
The other option is simply a recitation of what people will call the then newborn messiah.
Envisage a war devestated landscape and people captive, a tired mom and some old dude jumping up and down in elation.
Mind messiahs come a dime a dozen, but are only THE deliverer when accomplishing all.
Failure means to be forgotten.
All kings are annointed and supposed to work on what is expected of them. Are thus 'messiahsingen' along.