Nairaland Forum

Deep Sight:


THIS IS EMPHATIC PROOF! ! ! !

Need I say more? Is the context of this prophecy not glaring? In spite of the foregoing, how can you apply it to Christ?

This makes it staggeringly clear that Christ is not the one referred to here, surely?

It does not help if all that you do in the face of glaring evidence from the scriptures is to say  - "I am quite happy to leave you to that thought."

That simply gives the impression that there is nothing you can advance in rebuttal of the clear scripture, and therefore seek cover in silence.

I think it is more than emphatically sealed that the prophecy was given to King Ahaz and for a specific time and specific events - which cannot be related to the time of Christ.

@DeepSight:

You perfectly embody the scripture that describes Christ's encounter with Satan after He prayed - its like "let me try this, no, it doesn't work. I'll try another. no way" etc.

Rabbi Singer didn't work even with your squatting on verse 20 so you go away for a season (?) and come back with this. But why did you stop at Chapter 8? Why didn't you continue till Isa 9:7 which continues the entire story of the prophecy and after your fulfillment continues the prophecy describing again Messiah.

The "young woman's" son would be named "Immanuel". Was that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz?

One young child would eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject wrong and choose right. Before the OTHER would know how to say "dad" or "Mum", Assyria would carry away the wealth of Damascus. Are these the same things or the same child? Immanuel means "God with us" whist Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means - booty taken before the child speaks.

This name predicted the swiftness of impending destruction. Note also that the name is given before the son is conceived by the prophets wife which Isaiah was careful to document and date. Why then would this son be confused with the Immanuel to be born AS A SIGN. Mahershalalhashbaz's birth was not a sign but a time mark from which to measure the truth of Isaiah's prediction. That is the reason for taking the witnesses to record the time and the promise followed by the conception by Isaiah's wife, here called "the prophetess." There is no such time limitation related to the virgin birth child of chapter seven; except that Samaria and Damascus would be kingless when he became aware of his own moral accountability. Here there is a very strict time limit attached to the event predicted. It would be a matter of a few years from the time the prediction was recorded until the beginning of the end for Damascus and Samaria.

Another thing on this matter - the Hebrew word in the text that is translated virgin is "almah." It has a definite article in Hebrew as can be seen in the last word in the first line in the Hebrew text above. It is "ha'almah" or literally "the virgin." Only after the beginning of the Christian dispensation did Jewish scholars decide to start to insist that the word means a young woman who is not necessarily a virgin and therefore they say a virgin birth was not predicted. Irenaeus was the first one to answer that argument and his points have not been improved upon since 140AD. One of the most telling arguments he uses is that the Septuagint translators (Jews themselves who had closer ties to the authors than todays jews) not only translated the verse here but they told what it meant, to them, before the advent of Jesus. It is obvious from their translation that they believed that one who would be called "God with us" required a virgin birth.

Jewish Sages Who Translated the Septuagint Version of Isaiah in 285 BC believed that "ha'almah" meant THE Virgin and not A Young Woman. Thus they used the words "ha parthenos" (the virgin) for the Hebrew "ha-'almah"

Again DeepSight, this argument tires me personally - The list I quote from you above shows a case of still courtroom tactics, leading the witness, judges, and onlookers plus you're even the judge yourself. A judge that has decided before accepting the case. Whats the point then of the conversation when you've judged? Why ask for evidence when you know that whatever is said, you'll search for something else to say till everyone is tired and irritable then you can say we're violent due to denial? Stick with your theories that we are lying and allow us hold our understanding. Life continues.

Forcing this issue to continue will be achieved only via mockery of the sort that starts to show above - in red! Like Inesqor said - enjoy yourself. There was obviously never a desire to hear/listen/consider.

nuclearboy:

You perfectly embody the scripture that describes Christ's encounter with Satan after He prayed - its like "let me try this, no, it doesn't work. I'll try another. no way" etc.

Rabbi Singer didn't work even with your squatting on verse 20 so you go away for a season (?) and come back with this.

Of course; a sort of 'bait-and-switch' and an example of why pursuing a discussion is often not a worthwhile exercise.

nuclearboy:
But why did you stop at Chapter 8? Why didn't you continue till Isa 9:7 which continues the entire story of the prophecy and after your fulfillment continues the prophecy describing again Messiah.

Or even beyond to Isaiah 11 or going through until Isaiah 61? Let me use a form of backward chronology to demonstrate why the quoted point is extremely important.

Let us start with the New Testament in Luke 4

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”e

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.

So what do we have? Jesus read Isaiah 61 and said that the prophecy in that book was fulfilled in Himself. This tells us that Isaiah 61 is a Messianic prophecy.

OK so we know that Isaiah 61 is about Jesus; it makes two references (among others) (a) the Spirit of the Lord is upon Him and (b) He will bring good news to the poor.

Now see the connection --- read Isaiah 11!

2.The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him--the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD .

and

4. but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

In any event in reading the whole of Isaiah 11 one will see clearly that Isaiah 11 is another Messianic prophecy i.e. one referring to Jesus Christ. In its own right an important verse in Isaiah 11 is verse 1

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

Remember that we have already shown that Isaiah 11 is a Messianic prophecy referring to Jesus Christ. Now that shoot from the stump of Jesse in Isaiah 11:1 who is ruler and judge (11:4) is also identified in Isaiah 9 and in particular

6. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

I think the connection so far is pretty clear if not in fact self-evident.

Moreover: two critical points follow. Firstly, it is widely agreed even by Jewish Scholars that Isaiah 9:6 is Messianic i.e. refers to the Messiah that the Jews are/were expecting; (we Christians of course believe that Messiah to have come as and is Jesus Christ). Secondly, it is also widely accepted even by objective Jewish scholars that the child referred to in Isaiah 9:6 is the same child referred to in Isaiah 7:14!

Meaning what? Meaning that the child to be born by the "young woman" (or the virgin) is the Messiah! And so we bring it back home to Isaiah 7:14!


Now what I have done is a very simple trace back ---- the whole of the Book of Isaiah is riddled with Messianic prophecies and of course Christians will know that further connections can be made.

My homily to Christians on this forum: please do not be intimidated by mockers and the spiritually blind no matter how "intellectual" sounding their arguments may appear; always remember the Spirit of God in you and that that is greater than anything in and of the world; remember, 'Let God be true and every man a liar'!

Listen to Micah for another Messianic prophecy:

2. “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins are from of old,

from ancient times.”

Or try the NASB rendering:

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Oh by the way, in relation to

nuclearboy:
. . .The "young woman's" son would be named "Immanuel". Was that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? . . .

Is the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3 who gave birth to the Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz the same person as the "young woman" (or the virgin) in Isaiah 7:14?

Note that the prophetess is widely seen to be Isaiah's wife, so not likely to be a "young woman" or for that matter a virgin especially as Isaiah already had a son named Shear-Jashub (Isaiah 7:3) who, presumably, was by his wife "the prophetess" --------------- unless it can be proved that Isaiah was definitely or probably polygamous, for which I'd like to see the evidence.

@DeepSight:

You perfectly embody the scripture that describes Christ's encounter with Satan after He prayed - its like "let me try this, no, it doesn't work. I'll try another. no way" etc.

Nuc: speaking most sincerely and form the bottom of my heart – there is just one thing I would request of you – and for whatever camaraderie we might have shared or do share I implore you to grant it – please stop making assumptions about my motives.

I have already told you that it is my earnest wish to discuss freely and openly in an atmosphere devoid of rancour or bitterness. I therefore implore you not to assume that I do this for comedy, or for an indecipherable trade of some sort; or simply as a merchant of mockery and skepticism.

If you will have a look at all the points that I made, you will see that those were sourced not from my culinary handbook, but from the bible – however much you might wish to state that I have derived a wrong understanding therefrom. I therefore adjure you to take an approach of a mutual deep-dive into the scripture, whereat if I am wrong, or have a flawed or incomplete understanding, you may with a firm but friendly hand set me aright – without reaching unnecessary conclusions regarding motive, or in this instance, proceeding to compare me with the satan. That is hardly in the spirit of our new lease of life, is it?

Please let us presume the best of one another: and only work with such light and pleasant impressions as much as possible.

Rabbi Singer didn't work even with your squatting on verse 20 so you go away for a season (?) and come back with this.

I did not go anywhere, dear friend.

But why did you stop at Chapter 8? Why didn't you continue till Isa 9:7 which continues the entire story of the prophecy and after your fulfillment continues the prophecy describing again Messiah.

You will be happy to note that I introduced the Chapter 8 fulfillment into this discussion: I might equally ask why that fulfillment had been studiously avoided by those who wished to read the messiah into Isaiah 7?

The "young woman's" son would be named "Immanuel". Was that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz?

It is a notorious fact that many different names have been ascribed to one single person: and in scripture you yourself are aware of the fact that not only does God himself have many given names, but his chosen ones have at times had special names given to them. I might as well ask you the key question then, following from your own question – why was Jesus not named Imanuel, while on earth – since that is the name supposedly commanded to be given to him? ? ?

This makes it clear that there may be multiple designated names – just as surely as I know that as an African you must perforce yourself have a number of names, and not just one name.

Now, as I will argue below, the reference in Isaiah 7:14 was highly specific – and cannot be drawn in the manner that you seek.

One young child would eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject wrong and choose right. Before the OTHER would know how to say "dad" or "Mum", Assyria would carry away the wealth of Damascus. Are these the same things or the same child? Immanuel means "God with us" whist Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means - booty taken before the child speaks.

No, no, no Nuclear, and thrice again no! Really and sincerely no!

For what you have done above is to suddenly, mysteriously, and without any grounds, derive from nowhere TWO children in the prophecy, whereas ONLY ONE is spoken of!

There are many things that make this obvious but I shall simply use a few. Here they are, and please do well to note each one carefully –

The Lord himself told King Ahaz to request a SIGN – King Ahaz refused, saying that he could not test the Lord – and then at this the Lord went on to say that he would anyhow himself give the sign to Ahaz: The verses –

[10] Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,

[11] "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."

[12] But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."

[13] Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign:

Before proceeding further I hope you recognize the import of the forgoing – namely that Lord wanted to give a sign to King Ahaz. Thus the manifestation that followed was a sign for King Ahaz – this simply means that it could not be something that would happen long after Ahaz was dead: as that would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Lord in giving the sign: for he had specifically asked Ahaz to request the sign: and when Ahaz refused, he specifically stated that he would himself give the sign regardless.

Accordingly I state to you that the sign to be given was a sign for Ahaz and it therefore would be illogical to state that the sign was given centuries after Ahaz had died.

This would be an even more unseemly proposition, especially when we consider the fact that immediately after the prophecy is recorded, an instance is given in the next Chapter that perfectly matches the prophecy! Why then would you ignore that instance, suddenly create TWO children, when only ONE was spoken of, and then leap centuries after Ahaz’s death to locate the prophecy in Jesus of Nazareth?

As I already earlier noted, there are number of reasons why it is absolutely inconceivable to locate that prophecy in Jesus. Some of these reasons are –

1. The prophecy was specific to ONE child. Read again, it states – The [alma] will be with child and will give birth to A son, and will call him Immanuel.

2. It thereafter shows exactly what THAT son would do:

He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."

Accordingly it is incontrovertible that the very same son referred to in Isaiah 7:14 IS THE SON OF WHICH IT IS SAID THAT THE KING OF ASSYRIA WOULD ARRIVE AND PLUNDER BEFORE.

You cannot deny this because it is said clearly - The [alma] will be with child and will give birth to A son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey. . . But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. . .[the Lord] will bring the king of Assyria.

Thus it is clear that –

1. The son spoken of was ONE son (and not two different ones)
2. He would come to age BEFORE the coming of the King of Assyria.

This cannot be said of Jesus. Jesus was born centuries after the coming of the plunder of the King of Assyria. This is a fact.

And that which closes this matter is the fulfillment contained in the next Chapter, which specifically states in Verses 3 – 4 that –

1. A prophetess gave birth and –
2. That before the son knew to say ‘father’ or “mother”, the King of Assyria had plundered the wealth of Damascus.

Nuclear is there anyway in heaven that you can sincerely deny that the child stated in Isaiah 7:14 – of whom it is said the King of Assyria will plunder before, is NOT that child stated in the next Chapter, whom it is equally stated of: that before he reaches maturity, the King of Assyria would plunder before? ? ?

If you can sincerely state that, or contend that, I guess I will have to crawl away without further comments: know only that I have made it very plain, and the text makes it very plain that it is the same child referred to: else can you explain why it is said in each instance that before the child reaches maturity the King of Assyria must plunder? ? ?

Was the King of Assyria still around to plunder when Jesus was born, or reached maturity? ? ? Therefore Jesus logically could not be the object of that prophecy.

This is so simple and flows with such logical ease that I am yet at a loss as to how for stating this, you wind up comparing me with “satan.”

That, you must agree, is the height of intolerance of divergent opinion.

Enigma:

Oh by the way, in relation to
Is the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3 who gave birth to the Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz the same person as the "young woman" (or the virgin) in Isaiah 7:14?

Certainly; it must be the same woman. For otherwise why would the prophecy in Isaiah 7 state that before the child reaches Maturity the King of Assyria would plunder?

And then it was said of the prophetess' son that before he reached maturity, the King of Assyria Plundered.

That is pretty obvious, my good man.

Note that the prophetess is widely seen to be Isaiah's wife, so not likely to be a "young woman" or for that matter a virgin especially as Isaiah already had a son named Shear-Jashub (Isaiah 7:3) who, presumably, was by his wife "the prophetess" --------------- unless it can be proved that Isaiah was definitely or probably polygamous, for which I'd like to see the evidence.

There is absolutely no reason to presume that Isaiah's wife could not be a young woman: you know very well that it was a common practice in those times for older men to marry very young maidens indeed. Nor is the word Betulah used; but alma. I am also happy to note that they other inferences you made are only "presumably" so.

For the general; for the contention that the prophetesses delivery would not be worthy to be called a "sign" - this is wrong and misfooted. For any prophecy that reaches fulfillment is a sign - especially when so specifically stated and specifically fulfilled: that is surely a sign.

Thanks and best regards.

This is the view of Jewish Scholars as presented on the Wiki Page on ISAIAH 7:14.

Nuke, please take the time to read it. It is deeply illuminating. Particularly it should interest you that in relation to the use of the article "the" before 'almah', Isaiah's original Hebrew, reads (transliterated): Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel. The word almah is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, it is argued that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. As such, the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.

There are many deep points to be gleaned from this write-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

Context
In chapters 7-12 of the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah narrates the Syro-Ephraimite War. In the 8th century BCE, Assyria was a great regional power.[1] The smaller nations of Syria (often called Aram) and the Northern Kingdom of Israel (often called Ephraim because of the main tribe) formed a coalition in defense against the oncoming threat. They had previously been tributary nations to Assyria, and they finally decided to break away. The Southern Kingdom of Judah was loyal to Assyria and refused to join the coalition. Judah was ruled by King Ahaz. In 735 BCE, Syria, under Rezin, and Israel, under Pekah, attempted to depose Ahaz through an invasion. Judah was being defeated and, according to 2 Chronicles, lost 120,000 troops in just one day. Many significant officials were killed, including the king's son. Many others were taken away as slaves. (Telling of the same battle, 2 Kings 16:5 mentions no casualties and states that Rezin and Pekah failed to defeat Ahaz.)

Ahaz king of Jerusalem was besieged. Through Isaiah, God sends a message. Ahaz is reluctant to accept it, but is told he will get a sign. So Isaiah 7:10-17 states:

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:

11 יא שְׁאַל-לְךָ אוֹת, מֵעִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ; הַעְמֵק שְׁאָלָה, אוֹ הַגְבֵּהַּ לְמָעְלָה.

'Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

12 יב וַיֹּאמֶר, אָחָז: לֹא-אֶשְׁאַל וְלֹא-אֲנַסֶּה, אֶת-יְהוָה.

But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.'

13 יג וַיֹּאמֶר, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא בֵּית דָּוִד: הַמְעַט מִכֶּם הַלְאוֹת אֲנָשִׁים, כִּי תַלְאוּ גַּם אֶת-אֱלֹהָי.

And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?

יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (The literal translation of the original Hebrew words reads: "Therefore shall-give my-lord he [himself] to you sign behold the-young-woman conceived (is pregnant) and-beareth son and- calleth name-his immanuel."

15 טו חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ, יֹאכֵל--לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע, וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב.

Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 טז כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר, מָאֹס בָּרָע--וּבָחֹר בַּטּוֹב: תֵּעָזֵב הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה קָץ, מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי מְלָכֶיהָ.

Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

יז יָבִיא יְהוָה עָלֶיךָ, וְעַל-עַמְּךָ וְעַל-בֵּית אָבִיךָ, יָמִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא-בָאוּ, לְמִיּוֹם סוּר-אֶפְרַיִם מֵעַל יְהוּדָה: אֵת, מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר. {פ} 17

The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria'.[2]

Not a prophecy of Jesus, nor "The Messiah", nor a future virgin birth


Thus Jews understand that God indicated he was sending a "sign" in the days of Ahaz (who lived many centuries before Jesus). Isaiah wanted King Ahaz to wait for God to give him support in this troublesome time instead of making alliances with Assyria[3].

Moreover, Jews observe that there is no indication that Immanuel will be the Messiah, whatever the timing of his birth.

Isaiah's original Hebrew, reads (transliterated): Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel. The word almah is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, it is argued that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. As such, the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[4] The Jewish tradition has accordingly never considered Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy. Jewish scholars argue that this is a Christian misinterpretation.

Meaning of “almah’”
[/b]Jewish scholars argue that the word betulah is used instead of almah in verses where a reference to a virgin is clearly intended (see Genesis 24:16, Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus 21:14, and Deuteronomy 22:13-21) and that almah is more correctly translated as "young woman."

Jewish tradition states that the "young woman" was in fact Isaiah’s wife and the birth of the child is recorded later in Isaiah 8:3, although that child is not named "Immanuel" but "Maher-shalal-hash-baz".

As an example of how '[almah] is used, in Proverbs 30:18-20:

18 There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not:

19 יט דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר;
דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה

The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman.

20 כ כֵּן, דֶּרֶךְ אִשָּׁה-- מְנָאָפֶת אָכְלָה, וּמָחֲתָה פִיהָ; וְאָמְרָה, לֹא-פָעַלְתִּי אָוֶן
So is the way of an adulterous woman;
she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: 'I have done no wickedness.'[5]

[b]In this context it is argued, "the way of a man with a young woman," [almah] does not appear to have the connotations of a virgin.

Christian apologists have sometimes argued that the translation as "virgin" in many Christian translations of Isaiah 7:14 is justified by pointing to the Septuagint version of Isaiah, and arguing that the Septuagint, which was translated by Jews, used the word virgin, so the original must have been understood to mean virgin.[6]

This argument has problems: One, the Letter of Aristeas, which dates to second century BCE, says that the Septuagint was a translation by Jews only of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Josephus Flavius similarly states that, at least under Ptolemy Philadelphus, only the Law was translated, and something similar is stated in the Talmud.[6] The Septuagint was tampered with by the Church and the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.[6]

Furthermore, the word parthenos, which some Christian translators insist means virgin, and is used in the Septuagint section containing Isaiah 7:14, does not mean virgin.[6] Those who take this position appeal to how parthenos is employed in Genesis 34:3[6], where Dinah is called parthenos even after she has been Molested. The word parthenos only later on in time came to mean virgin, but originally meant young woman.[6]

Article in “ha-almah’”
The word “ha” is generally translated as the definite article “the”. Some interpreters (e.g. the authors of the New English Translation) however believe that its use here means that the young woman was present to the conversation, and thus render “ha-almah’” as “this young woman”. That is taken to refer to either a member of the royal family or the “prophetess” mentioned in Isaiah 8.

Adjective “harah הָרָה ” and time of pregnancy
The adjective “harah הָרָה ” is used predicatively. From the narrator’s perspective, Jewish scholars argue that this generally means a past, or present, or imminent future pregnancy.[7] With that in mind, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 may also be rendered as either “the [or this] young woman is pregnant” or “the [or this] young woman will soon be pregnant”.

[b]Naming of Immanuel
[/b]The verb "karat קָרָאת" has mostly been taken as an archaic form of the third feminine singular, and rendered as “she will name”. The name itself, meaning “God [is] with us”, Judaism argues while noble, does not imply a divine nature of the boy. Such theophoric names are common in the Hebrew Bible.

@DeepSight:

What I say is what I sincerely honestly believe. You believe we are deliberately trying to make Christ what he is not! Fine, AND we believe you are displaying a spirit that has manifested over the course of the ages in many forms - that of the anti-christ! Why is that not fine with you? What is the purpose of this conversation for you? To upturn everything that has been said, believed and taught about christianity. What is that if not anti-Christ?

You believe in a cold impersonal God who made things and allows you do your thing, recycling people over and over. What tyoe of God do you think a devil would wish anyone to believe in? Is it a Father to some who is an enemy to some who is an avenger and a leveller cum justifying force in circumstances OR a cold impersonal force not bothered with you (thus encouraging that you do as you wish in the belief that once you can self-justify, you're right?)?

I'm done arguing over a non-issue which will make no difference to you anyway. Upside of it is, it makes no difference to me too. Since you believe Isaiah's son was "Immanuel", I have no reason to argue with you. The Jews who argue against Jesus have a good friend in your further dissemination of their folly. "the almah is pregnant" is significantly idiotic on their part and kicks them in the teeth - if she was pregnant, why did God again "prophesy" that to Isaiah concerning his wife and what would be a sign in a young woman being pregnant. Dumb! Like our MOGs here, they defend their religion.

Do me a favor and don't bait me with "staggering silence" etc. The only staggering issue here is the difference between our views.

Hi pls note that the sign and prophecy is not just pregnancy but the facts regarding the king of assyria as applicable to that child. So its not i.dio.tic.

You said nothing on the many other significant points raised which make it clear it was a sign to be given during Ahaz's lifetime?

Well. Do note in that case you are as obstinate as u accuse me of being.

Deep Sight:

Hi pls note that the sign and prophecy is not just pregnancy but the facts regarding the king of assyria as applicable to that child. So its not i.dio.tic.

You said nothing on the many other significant points raised which make it clear it was a sign to be given during Ahaz's lifetime?

Well. Do note in that case you are as obstinate as u accuse me of being.

Deep Sight, the way you are going, you may have to open another apology thread to the christians pretty soon. You are running the risk of hurting their feelings yet again with your arguementations so far in this thread. Good job, though.

Deep Sight:

Hi pls note that the sign and prophecy is not just pregnancy but the facts regarding the king of assyria as applicable to that child. So its not i.dio.tic.

You said nothing on the many other significant points raised which make it clear it was a sign to be given during Ahaz's lifetime?

Well. Do note in that case you are as obstinate as u accuse me of being.

Obstinacy? What would you like I say? Or I ought keel over and bark in glee? I'm not the one seeking second-hand points to throw, am I?

One question you may want to ask yourself is this - WHAT CAN ANY HUMAN SAY THAT WILL HAVE IMPACT ON THE END YOU DECIDED BEFORE WE STARTED? I suspect the answer will tell you why nobody wants to continue - this is going nowhere and baiting people will result only in a fight. Not wanting such, why don't we simply allow you the stage and find truly profitable enterprise?

You've made up your mind and settling this specific issue will only result in you searching the web for something else to say. You've evidenced that too brazenly.

Say hi to the good Rabbi Singer.

I thought am the only one in that position. i can see it coming apology of apologies. 1,2,3 apology again 1,2,3 aoplogy for what! Enough of this BS apology. . . . C'mon na by force say you must engage lord deepsight? ? Shoe no dey get size. A beg make una go sitdown. . . And stop crying like some bit.c.h arss all the time. Or better still viaro should come in.

Abbiamo sono felice . . . Deepsight bravo!

Jenwitemi:

Deep Sight, the way you are going, you may have to open another apology thread to the christians pretty soon. You are running the risk of hurting their feelings yet again with your arguementations so far in this thread. Good job, though. a

nuclearboy:

. . .
You've made up your mind and settling this specific issue will only result in you searching the web for something else to say. You've evidenced that too brazenly. . . .

Say hi to the good Rabbi Singer.

Do you see? See also how many questions thst we posed and points that we raised that he studiously avoided in each post only to jump to another thing. The latest is jumping to Wikipedia to quote a sizable chunk without even placing it in quotes, even granted it is acknowledged;  a lawyer not realising the potential misrepresentation in that. I mean this is something that even first year law students are taught about!

In any event quoting wikipedia indiscriminately is, to the informed, a very obvious sign of poor scholarship.

^ Enigma it is beyond belief that you could look at an extract in a post where the very first line announced the source, and the link also provided, and begin to insinuate plagiarism.

It surprises me that you would do that in preference to simply addressing the many varied points raised therein and within my two posts preceding that. This has become an unfortunate pattern: and whereas I have gone to great lengths to be open and civil, and to address issues and not persons, you persist with this approach which I must tell you has become most tiresome indeed.

Address the issues if you will, or . . . - [sigh] - ignore them.

^^^

Enigma:

See also how many questions thst we posed and points that we raised that he studiously avoided in each post only to jump to another thing.

Deep Sight:

Enigma it is beyond belief that you could look at an extract in a post where the very first line announced the source, and the link also provided, and begin to insinuate plagiarism.

So if you were using such material  in legal writing it will not be in quotations or at least indentation so as to avoid misrepresentation or misunderstandin; they did not teach you that in University or Law School? And, by the way, I did not accuse you of plagiarism.

Address the issues if you will, or . . . - [sigh] - ignore them.

Did you not notice that I had already started ignoring some of your "points/issues"?

EDITED

^^^ I did respond to some comments of yours, see the post No.  above and a lot of your concerns were addresed in my posts to Nuclearboy. If there are things you believe I have missed within my posts, please point them out.

Contrariwise, there is a great deal in my last few posts that you have absoluetly refused to respond to. After accusing me of plagiarism for an extract the source of which I acknowledged, and also provided the link therewith, you also refused to address the many deep and certain points contained therein.

Why don't you take the hand of fellowship I extended in a recent thread and change your approach to my arguments. You needn't imagine that I do this for malice, you know?

Today is Sunday, and I am just coming from Church. Let's be good, yes?

Enigma:

So if you were using such material  in legal writing it will not be in quotations or at least indentation so as to avoid misrepresentation or misunderstandin; they did not teach you that in University or Law School? And, by the way, i did not accuse you of plagiarism.


did you not notice that i had already started ignoring some of your"points/issues"?

HERE -

This is the view of Jewish Scholars as presented on the Wiki Page on ISAIAH 7:14.

Nuke, please take the time to read it. It is deeply illuminating. Particularly it should interest you that in relation to the use of the article "the" before 'almah', Isaiah's original Hebrew, reads (transliterated): Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel. The word almah is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, it is argued that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. As such, the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.

There are many deep points to be gleaned from this write-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

I stated the source and provided the link: I don't know what else you want me to do or say. You quibble over indentations and quotation marks in spite of this: do you no think that is rather quibbling over finicky irrelevancies, especially given that the source is stated and the link provided?

Address issues please, or (as is your wont) simply ignore me for the contemptible, lowlife irrelevant bambino that you so often depict me as.

Deep Sight:

Contrariwise, there is a great deal in my last few posts that you have absoluetly refused to respond to. After accusing me of plagiarism for an extract the source of which I acknowledged, and also provided the link therewith, you also refused to address the many deep and certain points contained therein.

Now you are asking me to debate with Wikipedia?

Interesting!

Deep Sight:

Address issues please, or (as is your wont) simply ignore me for the contemptible, lowlife irrelevant bambino that you so often depict me as.

It may be that you are these things which you describe yourself but that is not simply why I ignore some of your "points". As I've said before once you have provided "EMPHATIC" proof of something or made the thing "staggeringly clear --- especially a thing so monumental as saying Jesus was not of a virgin birth ---- then your "points" are not worth bothering about.

This is simply because such statements betray ignorance of scholarship ----- do you know how long the debate on Isaiah 7:14 has been going on? Do you know when it first started? Apart from Wikipedia and Rabbi Singer, have/had you read any scholarly material on the debate? I put it to you that if you had, you will not be so unwise to speak of "EMPHATIC" or "staggeringly clear" proof. 

Enigma:

Now you are asking me to debate with Wikipedia?

Interesting!

You really do know how to tire a man, Enigma.

1. I had made many arguments above before referring you to the views of Jewish Scholars as presented on that Wiki Page. You did not respond to those.

2. What is wrong with research? Do you not soooooo many times refer me and others to links to sources which argue one point or the other? In this very thread you have provided two such links. What did I do? I went over and read them and then responded commenting on them. I did not say "do you expect me to argue with x or y internet page" - I dealt with the issues. I did not know that wikipedia is a contemptible site of ill repute that is not worth referring to. I expect you to address the points and not cover under - "i cannot respond to wikipedia" - or do that which you do best - simply ignore the id.iotic plagiarist called Deep Sight.

3. If you are above responding to wiki, then you may respond to that which I had stated myself.

Deep Sight:

You really do know how to tire a man, Enigma.

1. I had made many arguments above before referring you to the views of Jewish Scholars as presented on that Wiki Page. You did not respond to those.

2. What is wrong with research? Do you not soooooo many times refer me and others to links to sources which argue one point or the other? In this very thread you have provided two such links. What did I do? I went over and read them and then responded commenting on them. I did not say "do you expect me to argue with x or y internet page" - I dealt with the issues. I did not know that wikipedia is a contemptible site of ill repute that is not worth referring to. I expect you to address the points and not cover under - "i cannot respond to wikipedia" - or do that which you do best - simply ignore the id.iotic plagiarist called Deep Sight.

3. If you are above responding to wiki, then you may respond to that which I had stated myself.

Refer to my last post; you should learn that if you want to speak about research, Wikipedia is at best only a place to start, it is not something with which to seek to impress others about research or scholarly acumen! 

The Isa 7:14 debate has been on since Christ walked the earth. The Bible itself bears witness to the Jews not wanting to accept His claim when He read Isa 61 and ascribed it to Himself. Why any human would then today ask that Jewish authorities be taken seriously over what they themselves show themselves to be biased over amazes me.

What would anyone expect a Jewish opponent of Christ to say? These are people that He stood toe to toe with even here because they had their own conception what the Messiah ought to be (based on their desires) and thus rejected Him. Elementary scholarship even states they sent Him to the cross in hopes that He'd call upon the power He used for His miracles to oppose the Romans. That was their desire anyway, for an earthly sensual messiah who'd make them masters of earth.

What is instructive is that Jews accepted Isa 7:14 to refer to a virgin birth until the fulfillment came and put their religion and way of life at risk. So todays Jews are only acting a script. No Christian will take a Jews perspective as being a serious or honest one if only based on this.

Enigma has stated something which I also subscribe to. DeepSight says He has PROVED IT. He says he is STAGGERINGLY right, EMPHATICALLY cleared the air. So whats the noise about? Why argue what is proved staggeringly? Or sit on air? What gain is there in such since it is EMPHATICALLY INELUCTABLE?

Is there some doubt in your "ineluctable" mind? OR fear that your monumental scholarship may be based on a lie? If not, you've solved it for yourself and 2+2 = your answer! QED. So there's no point to this "conversation". Luckily too, the gallery you play to has showed up to applaud your staggering gait.

clapping, fades out! final word - no work done as usual!

^^^ I seek not to impress Enigma - I seek to get you to address the points made therein.

If you will not or cannot address the points, fair enough - simply say so - but do not bandy as an excuse the fact that I referred you to wikipedia.

You did not say anything to the many points made BEFORE i referred you there. Such as -

Deep Sight:


It is a notorious fact that many different names have been ascribed to one single person: and in scripture you yourself are aware of the fact that not only does God himself have many given names, but his chosen ones have at times had special names given to them. I might as well ask you the key question then, following from your own question – why was Jesus not named Imanuel, while on earth – since that is the name supposedly commanded to be given to him? ? ?

This makes it clear that there may be multiple designated names – just as surely as I know that as an African you must perforce yourself have a number of names, and not just one name.

Now, as I will argue below, the reference in Isaiah 7:14 was highly specific – and cannot be drawn in the manner that you seek.



The Lord himself told King Ahaz to request a SIGN – King Ahaz refused, saying that he could not test the Lord – and then at this the Lord went on to say that he would anyhow himself give the sign to Ahaz: The verses –

[10] Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,

[11] "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."

[12] But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."

[13] Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign:

Before proceeding further I hope you recognize the import of the forgoing – namely that Lord wanted to give a sign to King Ahaz. Thus the manifestation that followed was a sign for King Ahaz – this simply means that it could not be something that would happen long after Ahaz was dead: as that would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Lord in giving the sign: for he had specifically asked Ahaz to request the sign: and when Ahaz refused, he specifically stated that he would himself give the sign regardless.

Accordingly I state to you that the sign to be given was a sign for Ahaz and it therefore would be illogical to state that the sign was given centuries after Ahaz had died.

This would be an even more unseemly proposition, especially when we consider the fact that immediately after the prophecy is recorded, an instance is given in the next Chapter that perfectly matches the prophecy! Why then would you ignore that instance, suddenly create TWO children, when only ONE was spoken of, and then leap centuries after Ahaz’s death to locate the prophecy in Jesus of Nazareth?

As I already earlier noted, there are number of reasons why it is absolutely inconceivable to locate that prophecy in Jesus. Some of these reasons are –

1. The prophecy was specific to ONE child. Read again, it states – The [alma] will be with child and will give birth to A son, and will call him Immanuel.

2. It thereafter shows exactly what THAT son would do:

He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."

Accordingly it is incontrovertible that the very same son referred to in Isaiah 7:14 IS THE SON OF WHICH IT IS SAID THAT THE KING OF ASSYRIA WOULD ARRIVE AND PLUNDER BEFORE.

You cannot deny this because it is said clearly - The [alma] will be with child and will give birth to A son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey. . . But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. . .[the Lord] will bring the king of Assyria.

Thus it is clear that –

1. The son spoken of was ONE son (and not two different ones)
2. He would come to age BEFORE the coming of the King of Assyria.

This cannot be said of Jesus. Jesus was born centuries after the coming of the plunder of the King of Assyria. This is a fact.

And that which closes this matter is the fulfillment contained in the next Chapter, which specifically states in Verses 3 – 4 that –

1. A prophetess gave birth and –
2. That before the son knew to say ‘father’ or “mother”, the King of Assyria had plundered the wealth of Damascus.

Nuclear is there anyway in heaven that you can sincerely deny that the child stated in Isaiah 7:14 – of whom it is said the King of Assyria will plunder before, is NOT that child stated in the next Chapter, whom it is equally stated of: that before he reaches maturity, the King of Assyria would plunder before? ? ?

If you can sincerely state that, or contend that, I guess I will have to crawl away without further comments: know only that I have made it very plain, and the text makes it very plain that it is the same child referred to: else can you explain why it is said in each instance that before the child reaches maturity the King of Assyria must plunder? ? ?

Was the King of Assyria still around to plunder when Jesus was born, or reached maturity? ? ? Therefore Jesus logically could not be the object of that prophecy.

Thus it emerges as rather unfortunate for you to hold on to the extract from wikipedia and state that you cannot "argue against wikipedia."

Patience wears thin, and I hold myself from stating just how exactly your approach appears.

I really have tried, and I don't know what else to say.

^^^ You have provided "EMPHATIC" proof and made things staggeringly clear, aren't you happy enough with that? What is there to debate after that?

However, I do know that extremely clever people had been arguing this issue for 2000 years and we have yet to see "EMPHATIC" or "staggeringly clear" proof from them --- only from you.

nuclearboy:


What is instructive is that Jews accepted Isa 7:14 to refer to a virgin birth until the fulfillment came and put their religion and way of life at risk. So todays Jews are only acting a script. No Christian will take a Jews perspective as being a serious or honest one if only based on this.

This is false - see here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14
". . . Furthermore, the word parthenos, which some Christian translators insist means virgin, and is used in the Septuagint section containing Isaiah 7:14, does not mean virgin.[6] Those who take this position appeal to how parthenos is employed in Genesis 34:3[6], where Dinah is called parthenos even after she has been despoiled. The word parthenos only later on in time came to mean virgin, but originally meant young woman.[6]"

Enigma has stated something which I also subscribe to. DeepSight says He has PROVED IT. He says he is STAGGERINGLY right, EMPHATICALLY cleared the air. So whats the noise about? Why argue what is proved staggeringly? Or sit on air? What gain is there in such since it is EMPHATICALLY INELUCTABLE?

My use of those words is all that you need to refuse to offer a counter-argument?

Is there some doubt in your "ineluctable" mind? OR fear that your monumental scholarship may be based on a lie? If not, you've solved it for yourself and 2+2 = your answer! QED. So there's no point to this "conversation". Luckily too, the gallery you play to has showed up to applaud your staggering gait.

I did plead with you to stop making assumptions regarding my motives.

I am surprised you starkly refuse to see that the sign was to be given to Ahaz and in his lifetime, and that the selfsame sign is subsequently described in the next chapter as having been delivered precisely. In all your clamour that I am rejecting 'truth' - have you spared a thought for what rejection of truth may be contained in this alone on your part?

You say that I have made up my mind and will not change it: let me ask you in all honesty -- > is that not precisely true of you? Is there any degree of evidence that can be presented to you to change your mind? You know very well that there is not.

As a post script, and leaving the issue to rest, let me just leave you with the questions I left Inesxie with -

Now please tell me in all searing and sincere honestly - please, please, please, please, please - and if only for the number of "pleases" i have laboured to write, please tell me truly - if that story (the virgin birth) was told to you as part of african heritage, say perhaps with regard to a Yoruba Priest, Prophet or Incarnation, would you, Nuclearboy, not regard that as a myth?

Enigma:

^^^ You have provided "EMPHATIC" proof and made things staggeringly clear, aren't you happy enough with that? What is there to debate after that?

However, I do know that extremely clever people had been arguing this issue for 2000 years and we have yet to see "EMPHATIC" or "staggeringly clear" proof from them --- only from you.

In view of the context regarding the sign being given to Ahaz, and added to that the description of the timing of the fulfillment in terms of the plunder of the King of Assyria. . .that is doubtless emphatic proof. . .it is simply obvious that for 2000 years those determined to deploy the verse in favour of the Nazarene would not accept the glaring fact. . .

^^^ So why are you then asking us to continue debating with you?

Okay then. . .Curtains closed!

QED proven by Deep Sight in 2010: Jesus was not born of a virgin.  This after 2000 years of debate by all those unintellgent people in world history.

Nobel Committe, do you hear?
Pullitzer Prize people where are you?
Honorary doctorate people where are you?

Or is it a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and all that . . .?

^^^ Don't be a naughty boy. . .still talking after the curtains have been closed!

You are trying to peep back in -

Deep Sight:

Okay then. . .Curtains closed!

Seconded and praises to God for those 4 words.

I take that to mean you will sit quietly, weeping/suffering on the inside for us poor deluded worshippers of a non-virgin's Son, right? Or conversely, arrogantly look at our conversations, shake your head and allow us further delude ourselves peaceably, ehn?

Please remember our delusions inform us to be fair, honest, straight-forward, charitable, not mercenary and above all to express love. Thus, these delusions remain harmless, infact beneficial and not to be scorned or condemned. You will allow us this peace forthwith ehn? Or do these also fall under your hammer as being against your studies and plans?