The following text is the entire text of Isaiah 7. Please, read it carefully and see if you get the context of the events it describes. Part 2 is on the thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 7.

1 [/b]When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
[b] 2 [/b]Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
[b] 3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field.
4 [/b]Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.
[b]5 [/b]Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying,
[b]6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it."
7 [/b]Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'It will not take place,
it will not happen,

[b] 8 [/b]for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.

[b] 9 [/b]The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.' "

[b]10 [/b]Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
[b]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 a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
16 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.
17 [/b]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."
[b]18 [/b]In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria.
[b]19 [/b]They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes.
[b]20 [/b]In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River —the king of Assyria—to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also.
[b]21 [/b]In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats.
[b]22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey.
23 [/b]In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, there will be only briers and thorns.
[b]24 Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns.
25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the context set with events in the life-time of the main characters in the narration?
OR
Is it describing events (prophesying) many centuries hence?


Now, let's see if I understand the context and the narrative. Basically, Ahaz, King of Judah, is under siege from an alliance his enemies and his prospects do not look good. The Lord send the prophet Isaiah to cheers him up and re-assure him that with the Lord's help he should not have to worry one bit.

Then the Lord asked Ahaz to ask the Lord for a sign, whose occurrence would ensure Ahaz that the Lord was on his side. But Ahaz is reluctant to ask the Lord for a sign. Isaiah urges him to ask the Lord for a sign, but he is still unwilling to put the Lord to the test.

Isaiah then says the Lord will give him a sign anyway to show him (Ahaz) that the Lord was with him in his time of trouble. And that the sign was going to the a "virgin shall give birth to a son who will be called Immanuel". With that sign (the birth of Immanuel) Ahaz would know that the Lord was with him and;

7 "It will not take place, it will not happen",

That the enemies would not triumph (overpower) of Judah.


That is the understanding I get from reading the entire chapter in the context in which it is set. The entire defines its own context. With that in mind, how come verse 14 is generally used by Christians as the prophecy of Jesus's virgin birth some 800 years hence?


If you thought that this was really this was bad, well you would be wrong, because it gets worse. There is a mistranslation error in the text which gives it a completely different but significant twist. The errors lies in verse 14;

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The original word in the Hebrew text was almah, which means young woman; NOT virgin.

The error in translation crept in when the Hebrew text was translated into the Greek bible (Septuagint) and that error has remained in most translations derived from the Greek. In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated as "parthenos" (="virgin". This is accepted as a mistranslation by the majority of OT Hebrew scholars.

That Christian have build a theology out of this FRAUD is simply pathetic. See below for the responses from some Christians apologetics (viz. Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep) for the kind of twisted logic, obfuscation they manifest in defense of the characteristic Christian intellectual dishonestly.

Part 2 of this thread contains the source material I have used in composing this thread. I have also invited Christian scholars on this forum to critique my source so that a balanced view of the understanding of this text may be arrived at. So go to Part 2 to examine the scholarly reviews from our Christian friends on the forum.


Also see Part 2 here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html

=====================================================================================================

Some of my other threads


The Dangers Of Religious Fundamentalism To Intellectualism
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110955.msg1929006#msg1929006

Was Jesus The Prophesied Messiah? Let's Look At The Evidence.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html

What Are Your Chances Of Being Saved?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113283.0.html

Who Wrote The Gospels And When Were They Written?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113277.0.html#msg1962589

God Selects The Rulers Of Countries; G W Bush, Sadam, Pol Pot, Abacha, Hitler
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113186.0.html#msg1961537

Cannibalism In The Bible: Det 28:53-57, Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9, Ezek 5:10, Lam 4:10
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113181.0.html#msg1961343

What Are The Core Tenets (doctrines, Value And Virtues) Of Christainity?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112990.0.html

What Fate For Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Constantine And Tomás De Torquemada?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112997.0.html#msg1958617

Is The Doctrine Of Trinity Biblical? The Johannine Comma
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112865.0.html#msg1957266

On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 2
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112848.0.html

How Is Salvation Achieved?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112833.0.html

Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles And Some History: Who Was Jesus?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112697.msg1954632#msg1954632

Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles: Old Testament Stories
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112679.msg1954426#msg1954426

Human Sacrifice In The Bible: Lev 27: 29 & Judges 11
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112584.msg1953340#msg1953340

Please, Please, Please: Christians - Read Read Read Your Bibles
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112578.msg1953311#msg1953311

When Was Jesus Crucified?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112557.msg1952665#msg1952665

On Conversion To A Religion (christianity Or I-slam)
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112547.msg1952353#msg1952353

Faith-healers And Tele-evangelists
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112398.msg1950528#msg1950528

Where Did Sin Originate?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112377.msg1950291#msg1950291

For The Non-beleivers Only, 1
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112262.msg1948957#msg1948957

Would Christains Be Criminals And Offenders If They Were Not Christians?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112259.msg1948919#msg1948919

On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 1
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112240.msg1948631#msg1948631

Has Atheism Got Principle? No
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112216.msg1948180#msg1948180

It Is Biblical To Have Sex (and Lots Of It) Before Marriage
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112139.msg1946940#msg1946940

Should The Old Testament Laws Be Observed In The Modern Era?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112114.msg1946682#msg1946682

Founding A State or Nation On Religious Principles
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112086.msg1946268#msg1946268

Great Books About Non-belief
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111928.msg1943935#msg1943935

Who Are The Self-declared Non-believer? Resources For You
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111806.msg1942137#msg1942137

Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111677.msg1939992#msg1939992

What Is The Evidence That The Bible Is The Word Of God?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113161.0.html#msg1960928

Archbishop Cause Furore Over Sharia Law In The Uk
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111645.msg1939155#msg1939155

Eminent Christian Scientist (francis Collins) Explains The Evolution Of Humans
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111482.msg1936158#msg1936158

Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111474.msg1936099#msg1936099

Why Biology Is So Important To Our Modern World
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111466.msg1935975#msg1935975

Genesis Vs Genetics
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111227.msg1932655#msg1932655

Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111474.0.html

Jesus Genealogy
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111222.msg1932616#msg1932616

£300 (three - Hundred Pound Sterling) Essay Competition
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111143.msg1931508#msg1931508

Beware Of Religious Fundamentalism In Your University Campuses
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110965.msg1929160#msg1929160

====================================================================================================

therationa:


Is the context set with events in the life-time of the main characters in the narration?

OR

Is it describing events (prophesying) many centuries hence?

How could a 'prophecy' be describing what is occuring as the speaker was declaring those words? If there's any reason why you would suppose that it could not have been pointing to events at a later period after Isaiah's day, please let's read it and then we shall oblige you a spirited discussion thereto.

One thing I ask (as I always do): please stay on course and don't scoot off to see this thread die prematurely! Do you care to oblige?

stimulus:

How could a 'prophecy' be describing what is occuring as the speaker was declaring those words? If there's any reason why you would suppose that it could not have been pointing to events at a later period after Isaiah's day, please let's read it and then we shall oblige you a spirited discussion thereto.

One thing I ask (as I always do): please stay on course and don't scoot off to see this thread die prematurely! Do you care to oblige?

Well, it seems clear to me that the Isaiah 7 is talking about event within the lifetime of the characters in the narrative? Do you concur with that?

@therationa,

therationa:

Well, it seems clear to me that the Isaiah 7 is talking about event within the lifetime of the characters in the narrative? Do you concur with that?

No, I don't concur with that - and my reasons are sevral, of which I'd try and be concies:

(a) the nature of Biblical prophecies

(b) the nature of its fulfillment

(c) the context of the prophecy in question.

These and more have proven helpful when reading any prophecy in the Bible; and that was what I applied in the passage dealing with the 2nd Coming as discussed earlier in one of your threads.

Now, lets look at he text carefully

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 a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

In verses 10, 11 and 12, the LORD is asking Ahaz to ask the LORD for a sign, but Ahaz is reluctant to ask the LORD for a sign, for fear of putting the LORD to the test.

In verse 13, Isaiah, steps in and urges Ahaz to ask the LORD for a sign, lest the LORD's patience be tried

In verse 14, Isaiah says, "the Lord himself will give you [Ahaz] a sign.

And the sign is that "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

The birth of the virgin was given as a sign to Ahaz, correct? Well, that is what the text says. From this analysis, this sign was meant to happen in the lifetime of Ahaz or his generation, at the very most.

Matthew 12 : 38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Uhm but Jonah didnt live during the generation of the scribes and pharisees asking for a "sign".

4Him:

Matthew 12 : 38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Uhm but Jonah didnt live during the generation of the scribes and pharisees asking for a "sign".

4HIM, with respect, we are talking about Isaiah 7, not the stuff you just posted.

therationa:

4HIM, with respect, we are talking about Isaiah 7, not the stuff you just posted.

with all due respect you dont seem to be able to think logically especially since u've made up ur mind what to believe.
You cannot disconnect the the the book of Matthew from that of Isaiah . . . i simply used that example to show u how the term "sign" is used as regards to bible prophecy.

Simply because Isaiah says, "the Lord himself will give you [Ahaz] a sign. does not mean that sign would occur during the lifetime of Ahaz.

Sir therationa, your lack of ability to connect dots worries me. Even the ancient jews did not think so . . . look at this . . .

Matthew 2: 4 And when he (Herod) had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

But Ahaz was long dead . . . why were these guys still expecting the sign?

John 4: 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

uh oh . . . but Ahaz had long died centuries ago . . . why was this woman of Samaria still expecting the Messiah if Isaiah's prophecy was meant to occur during Ahaz's lifetime?

Therationa . . . pls these questions of urs continue to make a mockery of ur intellect.

4Him:

with all due respect you don't seem to be able to think logically especially since u've made up your mind what to believe.
You cannot disconnect the the the book of Matthew from that of Isaiah . . . i simply used that example to show u how the term "sign" is used as regards to bible prophecy.

Simply because Isaiah says, "the Lord himself will give you [Ahaz] a sign. does not mean that sign would occur during the lifetime of Ahaz.

Sir therationa, your lack of ability to connect dots worries me. Even the ancient jews did not think so . . . look at this . . .

Matthew 2: 4 And when he (Herod) had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

But Ahaz was long dead . . . why were these guys still expecting the sign?

John 4: 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

uh oh . . . but Ahaz had long died centuries ago . . . why was this woman of Samaria still expecting the Messiah if Isaiah's prophecy was meant to occur during Ahaz's lifetime?

Therationa . . . please these questions of urs continue to make a mockery of your intellect.

I am asking questions, you guys respond with insults - a characteristically christian behaviour as I have observed.

@therationa,

therationa:

4HIM, with respect, we are talking about Isaiah 7, not the stuff you just posted.

I think we should be willing to be open enough to discuss issues - which is why I think 4Him's rejoinder is applicable here as a pointer to one of the things I offered earlier when looking at the nature of Biblical prophecies.

However, let me look at yours:

therationa:

In verses 10, 11 and 12, the LORD is asking Ahaz to ask the LORD for a sign, but Ahaz is reluctant to ask the LORD for a sign, for fear of putting the LORD to the test.

In verse 13, Isaiah, steps in and urges Ahaz to ask the LORD for a sign, lest the LORD's patience be tried

In verse 14, Isaiah says, "the Lord himself will give you [Ahaz] a sign.

And the sign is that "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

The birth of the virgin was given as a sign to Ahaz, correct? Well, that is what the text says. From this analysis, this sign was meant to happen in the lifetime of Ahaz or his generation, at the very most.

I understand your ideology; but I think you're missing the point.

First, you'd have to understand the context of the prophecy which Isaiah declared in the presence of Ahaz; and that it was declared directly to him does not necessarily mean that it was about him or that it would happen in his time.

When prophets make pronouncements that were particularly in direct refrence to an individual (whether Kings, men in authority, nations collectively, single families, etc), it is not difficult to see the context and understand the prophecies. An example that was directed specifically to Ahaz is found in verse 17 of that same Isaiah 7 -

"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."

The "days which have not come" were specifically pronounced to come upon specific individuals and their relations - and we do not have to be hard pressed for answers to seek out who was intended there. That is just an example of the kind of prophecy that you had inferred.

However, looking at Isaiah 7:10-14 collectively can only be understood when we begin to read from the very first verse and also go on till we get to verse 16. In brief, the events that led to this prophetic declaration was broader than merely Ahaz! That is attested to by verse 13 that declares that the prophecy was to "the house of David"! It was to the entire nation and not just to a mere King Ahaz!

Read verses 13 and 14 collectively now:

¹³[/b]And he said, Hear ye now, [b]O house of David; Is it a small thing
for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
¹⁴[/b]Therefore the Lord himself shall give [b]you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
call his name Immanuel.

See? It was directed to the whole house of David which was indicative of the nation of Israel. This is why we find the Bible saying that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22).

When we come to verse 16, then we understand clearly that it was[b] not[/b] directed as an event to occur in Ahaz' day. How do we know that? Let me point it out in verse 16 --

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil,
and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest
shall be forsaken of both her kings."

Here is the answer we are looking for - the epoch when the prophecy was to occur! It says that before the child would mature to be able to distinguish between good and evil (a parabolism referring to moral development), the land that Ahaz abhorred shall be forsaken of both her kings! What does this mean? It simply means that foreign (Gentile) powers would then be in place! The verse following (verse 18 through to 25) describe the events, peoples and effects of the occurence of this prophecy of verses 13 and 14.


I could go on; but I hope the foregoing has helped to clear the air about two things:

(a) who was it intended or directed at? - not merely to Ahaz, but to the whole house of David!

(b) when was it to occur? - not in Ahaz day; but at a time beyond his day, when Gentile powers would rule over Israel.

therationa:

I am asking questions, you guys respond with insults - a characteristically christian behaviour as I have observed.

The insults aside, we have often been willing to address your questions. Perhaps it does not speak well of our friends to decline such invitations and hear us out.

Cheers.

therationa:

I am asking questions, you guys respond with insults - a characteristically christian behaviour as I have observed.

those were not insults at all . . . however one characteristic athiest behaviour is that while they cry for "answers" they are more likely to be more interested in picking out tiny specks of "insults" admist the sea of "answers" which they are not really interested in.

I have some more text to the original post.

desperately grasping for straws now are we? I see you have as usual dishonestly, deliberately and conveniently ignored all the answers you have recieved so far . . . rather prefering to sneak in another "question" in ur miserable attempt to find some contradiction of sorts.

All the gospels were careful enough to let us know that Christ was not concieved of naturally but was concieved of the Holy Ghost . . . alma or not . . . Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived.

Pls add more contradictions.

Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep you are welcome NOT to post any replies to my posts. You may post but do NOT expect a direct response from me. You guys are just simply childish and dishonest.

therationa:

Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep you are welcome NOT to post any replies to my posts. You may post but do NOT expect a direct response from me. You guys are just simply childish and dishonest.

but you kept begging for "answers" . . . Tired of being shown up?

@therationa,

therationa:

I have some more text to the original post.

I'd be pleased to let you know that I considered them in my reply; and the two important issues in yours have been addressed soundly, viz:

(a) the recipients of the prophecy was to the house of David (Isaiah 7:13 & 14), and not just to Ahaz.

(b) the time was clearly stated - when the land that was abhorred would be foresakken of both her kings, and not during Ahaz' day.

Do you have anything to counter these two answers? I'd be glad to consider it.

therationa:

Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep you are welcome NOT to post any replies to my posts. You may post but do NOT expect a direct response from me. You guys are just simply childish and dishonest.

Same response from the other thread: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html#msg1963913)

Enjoy!

- - - -


@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep you are welcome NOT to post any replies to my posts.

I knew it wouldn't take long before you begged us not to reply to your posts. This says volumes about your pretended scholarship. Well done!

therationa:

You may post but do NOT expect a direct response from me.

I've never expected any sane response from you, let alone a "direct" response. You can cry hooha now because a plagiarist is always left without materials to plagiarize as answers for his drivels.

therationa:

You guys are just simply childish and dishonest.

Haha! We were being childish and dishonest - for providing honest and mature answers?

Please therationa, go home and weep! Such begging and mewling are below your age!

therationa:

Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep you are welcome NOT to post any replies to my posts. You may post but do NOT expect a direct response from me. You guys are just simply childish and dishonest.

i'm trying so hard to remember when you ever gave a direct response . . .

@4Him,

4Him:

but you kept begging for "answers" . . . Tired of being shown up?

Heheha!  The tory don change! Now he's singin solo! One of my friends ('Tunde') challenged me as to why I didn't show up the last two days, particularly was not interested on the threads by therationa. I could almost have prophesied that he (therationa) would soon beg and begin to mewl in several threads - has it not happened now TUNDE?


        Bobo "Tuneri" (TUNDE), wetin I tell you[b] yesterday[/b]?



Now, see how the guy therationa dey sweat to transform into a cursing machine:

therationa:


That Christian have build a theology out of this FRAUD is simply pathetic.
 See below for the responses from some Christians apologetics (Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep) for the kind of twisted logic, obfuscation they manifest in defense of this intellectual dishonestly.

Abeg make una help me ask this chap wetin dey bite am! What is his grounds of allegations that we are offering twisted logic and intellectual dishonesty in our responses, especially where he has had nothing tangible to offer in defence of his arguments?

Abi therationa, did you fail to see verse 13 that clearly says the prophecy was to the "HOUSE of DAVID"? And what about the verse 17 that declares specifically what Ahaz was to experience in his day?

Like I said, just go home and weep! Such begging and mewling are below your age!

I am asking questions, you guys respond with insults - a characteristically christian behaviour as I have observed.

Yes it is usual with brainwhashed Christians,and the bigger their faith the bigger the insults

This is how polite therationa can be:

therationa:


That Christian have build a theology out of this FRAUD is simply pathetic.
See below for the responses from some Christians apologetics (Stimulus, 4HIM and Imhotep) for the kind of twisted logic, obfuscation they manifest in defense of this intellectual dishonestly.

He seems to be begging to be rude to others, but cannot endure being addressed in the same manner. Very typical of self-acclaimed apprentices.

Definitinon ->

"Almah ("עלמה" or plural: alamot ("עלמות" is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl"


The Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin"



@therationa, your scholarship is not impressive.

I have shamefully copied this article (Kenneth E. Nahigian ) from this website http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2virgi93.html. This should show you that scholarly opinion is not cut and dry. I would advise you read the site because it is better formated there. This will remain a matter of dispute for many years to come. It always easy to find material that defend ones, this is one of the materials I relied on. There are many more.

Would you care to show me the material you relied on so I can take a balanced view?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Prophecy is a muddy science, and Bible prophecy more muddy than most. Take those Old Testament prophecies. Evangelists never tire of telling us that hundreds were fulfilled in the life of Jesus, far too many to be called coincidence. But how many of these are real, and how many are prophetia ex eventu--prophecies constructed after the fact, products of careful selection and interpretation?

To get an idea, let's look at the most famous, the prophecy of the child Immanuel as presented in the Gospel of Matthew:

Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (1:22-23 , KJV).

Most good Christians take this at face value, assured that the prophet Isaiah did indeed describe Jesus' miraculous conception and birth seven hundred years before. But did he? Authorities are nearly unanimous. The answer is no.

What did Isaiah really say? Turning to Isaiah 7:14 (Masoretic text), we find his precise words:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, ha'almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew's interpretation of this passage has several problems, the largest hanging on the Hebrew word 'almah. Writing in Greek, the gospel author turned almah into parthenos , a word usually (but not always) meaning "virgin." In fact, he had a precedent for this; the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews of his day, did indeed use parthenos in the Isaiah passage. But the Septuagint was for the most part a notoriously sloppy translation, and its version of Isaiah was generally more error-ridden than the rest. By the Middle Ages, the Jews had abandoned the Septuagint, and later Greek translations, by Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien and others, did not use the word parthenos. (The Septuagint, commonly known as the LXX, is still favored by Eastern Orthodox churches.)

Assuredly, the Hebrew Old Testament predating the Septuagint used 'almah, so what did the word mean? While rare in the Hebrew Bible, almah does occur here and there, notably in Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 , but an examination of the contexts of these passages will show nothing to suggest that the noun imputed virginity.

On the other hand, a male youth in the Old Testament was called na'ar or elem, the feminine forms of which were na'arah and 'almah respectively. The limited usage of elem (lad or stripling) in the Old Testament nowhere implied sexual purity; thus an 'almah was an adolescent female, virgin or not, just as an elem was an adolescent male. In fact, one verse does seem to use 'almah in reference to a nonvirgin. This is Proverbs 30:19 , which listed four things too marvelous to understand: the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden ( 'almah). To say the least, "the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20 , NAB). It seems odd writer that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace.

Aside from this, the Torah does, in fact, have an explicit word for virgin (betulah or bethulah), which is always used where the context requires virginity. (For confirmation, see Genesis 24:16 , Leviticus 21:14 , and Deuteronomy 22:15-19 ). Even Isaiah used it in 62:5 . Its nonuse in the "Immanuel" passage is a rather loud hint that Isaiah spoke only of a young woman, not specifically of a virgin.

More to the point, nearly all modern commentaries agree with Talmudic scholars that Isaiah's "sign" had nothing to do with a messiah. Reviewing half a dozen for this article, I found only one dissenter. Significantly, it was one that spouted the fundamentalist party line on every other issue. Interested readers can jaunt to the library and peruse the massive Interpreter's Bible (Vol. 5, pp. 217-22), one of the most authoritative works in the field. Or more succinctly, try the popular Harper's Bible Dictionary (Paul J, Achtemeier, gen. ed., 1985), page 419, where this statement is found:

It is clear, however, that, Isaiah 7:14 did not speak of the miraculous birth of Jesus centuries later, The sign of Immanuel offered by the prophet to Ahaz had to do with the imminent birth of a child, of a mother known to Ahaz and Isaiah, and signified God's presence with his people,

Indeed, Isaiah's word for "sign" was 'ot, which in the Hebrew Bible invariably indicated an imminent sign or omen, not one in the far future. Keep reading, in fact, and you will see Isaiah's sign appear just a few verses later (Is. 8:3-4 ), when a certain prophetess gives birth to a son--a child whom God called "Immanuel" in verse 8. By contrast, nowhere in the New Testament did any character ever call Jesus Immanuel. Why the confusion? Of course, the author of the Gospel of Matthew had a vested interest in the nascent church and wanted to ground the new Christian mythos in Jewish prophecy whenever possible. Almost all scholars agree this "Matthew" was not the apostle but rather a Greek-speaking Christian living in or near Antioch of Syria, who wrote about A.D. 90, about two generations after the crucifixion. Very likely, he was familiar with only the Septuagint version of Isaiah. (That Matthew wrote the first gospel was a tradition started by Bishop Papias of Hieropolos in the second century.)

Also, of course, the early Christians would have liked a virgin-born savior anyway, out of sheer competitiveness, because so many other rival religions had one. (Mithra, Zoroaster, Adonis, and Dionysus were just a few.) More- over, we know the gospel writers were not adverse to massaging and even manufacturing details in order to "flesh out" the Jesus story. That is why, for example, you find such conflicting genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 .

All things considered, it is hardly surprising that "Matthew" would pull Isaiah a bit out of context and try to wring a new meaning from it. What is surprising is that this literary sleight of hand grew to become such a cornerstone of Christendom and still has modern fundamentalists so befuddled. So let's dust off our Bibles (I like the New Revised English Bible best for clarity and the Revised Standard Version for beauty) and reread the Immanuel prophecy--in context.

The setting is the Syro-Ephraimite war (ca. 734 B.C.). Wicked King Ahaz of Judah was frantic about Ephraim (another name for the northern kingdom, Israel) and Damascus (capital of Syria), which were plotting a preemptive strike. Isaiah enters, offering a sign. Ahaz demurs. Isaiah storms at him for his lack of faith and then provides a sign anyway: A male child would be born. Before this child is old enough to know to "refuse evil and choose the good," Assyria would lay waste both Samaria and Damascus (7:16 ). [This sub-prophecy, in fact, came true in 2 Kings 16:9 ; 17:5-6 .] Then, to punish Ahaz, Assyria itself, with Egypt, would arise as a far greater threat.

Think about this. If Ahaz was concerned with an imminent attack from Samaria and Syria, why offer a sign that would not occur for seven centuries? To Ahaz this would be no sign at all. Also, if the Immanuel child was God incarnate, how could Isaiah speak of a time when Immanuel would not know enough to choose good over evil? What about divine omniscience? Note also the striking parallel between verses 7:16 and 8:4 . Here is Isaiah prophesying almost identically about both children. The more closely you look, the more difficult to deny that these two are identical. You can hardly blame evangelicals for seeing a special significance in the name Immanu'el, Hebrew for "God with us," but such language and imagery was right at home in the world of old Jewish nomenclature, where every other proper name seemed a reminder of God's presence. Thus we have Isaiah, which means "God's help"; Michael , "Like unto God"; Israel," "Striving with God"; Elihu, "He is my God"; Adonijah , "Yahweh Lord"; and a host of others.

Then again, some apologists try to rescue their favored exegesis by equating both Immanuel and Jesus with the child mentioned a bit later in chapter 9, "Unto us a child is born, " It is tempting. This section, while obscure, is in fact one of the most powerful and poetic passages in the Old Testament. It may well be an early messianic prophecy (I like to think it is), but in fairness, note that most Jewish scholars (who should know better than evangelicals) insist it is an ode praising Hezekiah, Ahaz's righteous son (2 Chron. 29 ), who came to the throne in 720 B.C. and centralized the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. The various titles ascribed to him, such as "Prince of Peace" and "Everlasting Father," were apparently honorifics used by the ancient Jews for favorite kings. (You find the same sort of bread-buttering in Egyptian hymns to the pharaoh and in Babylonian royal eulogies.) Hebrew scholars also remind us, gently, that the key Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.

A moot point. For reasons stated earlier, we cannot use the child in Isaiah 9:6 as a bridge connecting Immanuel to Jesus. As Old Testament prophecies of the Christian Messiah go, this one, like so many others, has been overrated.

=================================================================================

imhotep:

Definitinon ->

"Almah ("עלמה" or plural: alamot ("עלמות" is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl"


The Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin"



@therationa, your scholarship is not impressive.

In fact, Imhotep, I would be VERY much oblige if you could provide me like your SCHOLARLY critique of the document on the site (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2virgi93.html ). I would also appreciate it if you could provide your sources so I can cross-reference them. I am sure such an approach would help in my understanding of Isaiah 7 and the virgin prophecy. Thankx

therationa:

In fact, Imhotep, I would be VERY much oblige if you could provide me like your SCHOLARLY critique of the document on the site (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2virgi93.html ). I would also appreciate it if you could provide your sources so I can cross-reference them. I am sure such an approach would help in my understanding of Isaiah 7 and the virgin prophecy. Thankx

From the same Imhotep you clearly requested NOT to respond to any of ur posts again at least TWICE?

you dont seem to have a shred of shame

4Him:

From the same Imhotep you clearly requested NOT to respond to any of your posts again at least TWICE?

you don't seem to have a shred of shame

Why did he post on this thread then?

BTW, I used the word MAY, meaning he could choose to or not. I also say "that you guys should not expect" a response, meaning I reserve the right to respond. Do you understand this language?

therationa:

Why did he post on this thread then?

BTW, I used the word MAY, meaning he could choose to or not. I also say "that you guys should not expect" a response, meaning I reserve the right to respond. Do you understand this language?

you're a hypocrite. We should not expect a response from you and YET you expect to coerce a response from Imhotep? Do you understand the use of language urself?