Thank you Nuclear.

I am indeed aware that the Rabbi is obviously arguing what would be expected from the Jewish perspective: he is, after all, a Rabbi. I am nonetheless happy to note that you did not allow this from distracting you from approaching the meat of the matter.

I would like you to concentrate on that verse again - (see portions highlighted) -

"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and[b] the way of a man with a young woman [/b] [b’alma].  This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

Do you think it probable that the writer would be referring in his analogy to a virgin - that which is unpoilt - and deploy that same analogy to describe the ways of an adulterous woman? ? ? ?

Think sincerely about that!

Secondly - but of no less noteworthiness - is the fact that the analogy he draws talks about leaving no effect; no trace.

STOP!

If he was referring to a virgin, that would not fly because after a virgin is disvirgined, there is indeed a major trace: the rupture of the closure. However if the woman is not a virgin, then such evidence is not seen - there is no rupture, and therefore no trace. This can only mean that the "alma" he used in his analogy was "young woman" in the sense of one who is not a virgin. This is further evinced by his immediate comparison therewith to an adulterous woman.

These are two serious thoughts I believe you should reflect on. It matters not that this is one out of seven: what it does show us is that "alma" as used there COULD NOT refer to "virgin" and this flies against your claim that every instance of the usage refers to virgins.

@Deep Sight:

In the sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30, as with many other proverbs; one needs to be very careful not to read out of context.

Watch out for colons and semicolons, the sayings follow the pattern below:

Pattern: {topic introduction}{colon / semicolon}{continuation}

If the punctuation uses a colon, then Agur begins next to list his views. If there is a semi-colon, the views continue in the next verse. But a FULL STOP or EXCLAMATION MARK? That's the end of that view.

See my point here is that the v20 is the START of a new viewpoint which stands alone (can you see that the colon is in the SAME verse?). Dont lump it with v18-v19, whcih stand alone. v17 stands alone too. v15-v16 stand alone. v11-v14 stand alone as a description of the "four temperaments", etc etc.

Dont forget that the bible was not written in verses originally. The scriptures are broken into verses for easy reference.

Summary: keep reading till you see a full stop,. When you see a full stop, stop and breathe and meditate. Reload, refresh, the next thing after the full stop is another viewpoint.

Cheers.

Here is what I'm talking about in my post above. Please examine Proverbs 30:11-23 carefully:

I am not including the full thing for the sake of space, but feel free to examine it yourself in the NIV or any other translation that pays proper attention to punctuation details.

(Proverbs 30:11-23) NIV:
10 "Do not slander a servant to his master,
       or he will curse you, and you will pay for it.

11 "There are those who curse their fathers
       and do not bless their mothers;

12 those who are pure in their own eyes
       and yet are not cleansed of their filth;

13 those whose eyes are ever so haughty,
       whose glances are so disdainful;

14 those whose teeth are swords
       and whose jaws are set with knives
       to devour the poor from the earth,
       the needy from among mankind.

15 "The leech has two daughters.
       'Give! Give!' they cry.
       "There are three things that are never satisfied,
       four that never say, 'Enough!':

16 the grave, [c] the barren womb,
       land, which is never satisfied with water,
       and fire, which never says, 'Enough!'

17 "The eye that mocks a father,
       that scorns obedience to a mother,
       will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley,
       will be eaten by the vultures.

18 "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
       four that I do not understand:

19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
       the way of a snake on a rock,
       the way of a ship on the high seas,
       and the way of a man with a maiden.

20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
       She eats and wipes her mouth
       and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'

21 "Under three things the earth trembles,
       under four it cannot bear up:

22 a servant who becomes king,
       a fool who is full of food,

23 an unloved woman who is married,
       and a maidservant who displaces her mistress.

Even Eugene Peterson's The Message, as controversial as some believe it is, put it this way:

18-19 Three things amaze me,
   no, four things I'll never understand—
      how an eagle flies so high in the sky,
      how a snake glides over a rock,
      how a ship navigates the ocean,
      why adolescents act the way they do.

20 Here's how a pr0stitute operates:
   she has sex with her client,
Takes a bath,
   then asks, "Who's next?"

InesQor:

20 Here's how a pr0stitute operates:
   she has sex with her client,
Takes a bath,
   then asks, "Who's next?"

I just love The Message!

Look, only a person with an agenda like the Rabbi can make that kind of interpretation. In addition to InesQor's two posts, even if you were to link the two sections the words "adulterous woman" do not qualify or refer to "young woman" specifically but refer to and qualify the way of something i.e. an activity. This thing is really simple and only people with an agenda do this kind of thing.

One of the world's all time leading authorities on these Semitic languages, himself a Jew and not a particular friend of Christianity, agrees that the rendering in Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin' is correct.

The Peshitta Aramaic (Aramaic Tanakh), a Jewish document which even predates translated independently of and from documents predating the Septuagint renders alma as "B'tulta" (see similarity to Bethulah?) i.e. as virgin. See here http://www.peshitta.org/

The Septuagint also a Jewish document which predates Christianity translates it as virgin.

And all that is before we consider the evidence for Mary's virginity elsewhere ---- including her own very words as to her virginity i.e. to effect of "How can I get pregnant when I am still a virgin"?


Edited corrected dating info and added further info on Septuagint.

So many brilliant replies! I especially like Enigmas' "How then shall this be so, seeing as I am still a virgin". Such a expertly woven lie will leave traces somewhere but this all fits especially with the frankness of it all.

Inesqor has clarified something I didn't think ought take time but which DS jumped upon - punctuations and text that go together. Why again, I ask, would verse 20 be lumped together with 18 and 19? Would you lump 17 with 15 & 16 or is this a case of "selectiveness"?

After all this, you still need to explain how 14% ever became pass mark! That is, of course, assuming that you get the 14% - frankly, the two possibilities you have for marks here are 0% and "nothing".

I dunno how one can ever hope to show that the bible never meant that Jesus was a virgin birth. It's impossible and a bit ridiculous. If there's a one in seven chance that alma meant young woman there, are we then to consider the remaining six as useless? Also it would be some miracle, as the bible implies, for a young woman to have sex and give birth. Some miracle indeed. This is not worth debating. I don't believe in the virgin birth but it's not because of a 'the bible never said so, see here, look' mentality

The piece in the following link is relatively long but he who perseveres with it to the end will learn a useful thing or two. Also, compare the level of scholarship with the risible nonsense from the Rabbi.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT



Addendum: A somewhat easier read but still pretty decent too http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/

@ Inesqor - I can only say how sad it is that one is to be advised to read the bible conjunctively at all times: and once such a conjunctive reading does not suit your purpose, you now advise one to read it disjunctively. I find that unfortunate in the extreme.

It is abundantly clear that the authour drew up those four analogies and then applied them in the context of an adulterous woman. You cannot therefore seek to contrive a totally inapt disjunctive reading to save the day.

If the disjunctive reading pleases you; so be it.

vescucci:

I dunno how one can ever hope to show that the bible never meant that Jesus was a virgin birth. It's impossible and a bit ridiculous. If there's a one in seven chance that alma meant young woman there, are we then to consider the remaining six as useless? Also it would be some miracle, as the bible implies, for a young woman to have intimacy and give birth. Some miracle indeed. This is not worth debating. I don't believe in the virgin birth but it's not because of a 'the bible never said so, see here, look' mentality

I think you have seriously misconceived the issues. I also wonder if you do not accede that there are mistranslations and misunderstandings within scripture.

Particularly, there is no such thing as a "one in seven chance that alma means young woman": - " ALMA DOES MEAN "YOUNG WOMAN" - Don't take my word for it, go fetch a Hebrew Concordance. The word for virgin is Betulah.

You said "are the other six references to be ignored". . .Sir, I am sorry, but I am not convinced that you have actually taken the time to read those references. For if you have, you would see that there is nothing within those references to suggest that "alma" as used in each did not mean "young woman."

I think it will be useful if you understand that mistranslations and misunderstandings within scripture and intra-scriptural cross referencing has actually had a serious effect on much within the bible. If you cannot see that, or do not know that. . .well.

nuclearboy:

So many brilliant replies!

I hope that you are more concerned with truth than you are with brilliant replies. Search carefully, I advise, and with an open mind.

After all this, you still need to explain how 14% ever became pass mark!

This simply shows you are yet to grasp the import of that which was set out above.

Translations cannot be about percentages: and indeed I simply do not have the energy right now to address your other six refernces - because I have seen them and there is nothing in the context of each to suggest that it was not a reference to "Young Woman".

Folks - Fact is "Alma" means young woman. That is not something that any amount of argument can change. The proper word for virgin is "Betulah." Don't take my word for it: do some light research and you will see the facts are the facts and cannot be changed.

I don't want to go around in circles. That which I set out in my Post No,  # 96 above is clear enough and i believe ends the matter for the truly objective.

It beats me that Inesqor advises disjunctive reading in order to evade the obvious.

@ Enigma -

I read your links. Let me just say that I have always found that it always takes the lengthiest essays to explain away things that are obvious in the reverse. That is what you have construed as "scholarship." When a truth is plain and clear, it takes a great deal of grammar to obfuscate it. That account's for the sheer length of the first essay.

Notwithstanding, i extracted this from that very essay - Any body can see the zillions of concessions contained within it which powerfully argue my case for me - and defeat the intendment of the authour. Particularly I hope Nuke and Vesc can see the seven references and can see that there is simply no way that Nuke'S CLAIM that all the other verses refer strictly to virgins can be sustained. That claim is simply false. In each of the references, the translation as "young woman" is most apt and fit for the context.

The Hebrew <almah> does not necessarily mean a virgin.  It means a
young girl of marriageable age _ who is presumed to be a virgin. 

The OT uses the word <almah> only seven times:  Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8;
Prov 30:19; Ps 68:26; Songs 1:3 and 6:8, plus, of course Isaiah
7:14. 

[size=16pt]Out of these only Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 seemed
clear enough to the Septuagint translators that they rendered it
by <parthenos,> which, of course, definitely means virgin.[/size]

In Gen 24:43 Isaac is on his way to find a bride for himself.  He
then proposes to God that he will stand by the well of water, and
asks that the <almah> who comes out to draw water, and who offers
water for both him and his camels may be the one he should take as
a bride. 

Exodus 2:8 tells how the daughter of Pharaoh told the
sister of the infant Moses to get a Hebrew woman to nurse him.  We
would think likely that the sister was a virgin, since she seems
to be still living with her mother.  But the Septuagint was being
quite careful:  it used the broader word <neanis, young woman.> 

Proverbs 30:19 says the author cannot understand a few things. 
One of them is "the way of a man with an <almah.>"  It seems to
mean his desire for intercourse.  That of course could be true
even if she were not a virgin.  Yet a young man in general would
want a virgin.39  Even so, the LXX did not render by <parthenos> _
in fact, it changed the sense, rendering <en neoteti> _ the writer
of Proverbs does not understand the way of a man "in his youth."

40 
Psalm 68:26 speaks of the <alamoth> playing with timbrels in a
victory procession _ we would say most likely, at least, they are
virgins.  But the LXX stayed with the more generic <neanis> again. 


Songs 1:3 is not very clear:  "Therefore do the <alamoth> love
you."  O. Kaiser thinks that in Songs 6:8 "virginity . . . is
certainly ruled out."  We do not agree, for the verse says: 
"There are 60 queens, 80 concubines, and <alamoth> without
number."  Now if a girl is neither a queen, nor a concubine, it
seems likely she is still a virgin.  But the LXX again stayed with
<neanis.>

Vesc, look at the "other six" references. . .can you tell me that these are NOT references to young women and are strictly references to virgins? ? ?

So when Nuke talks about "one out of seven" . . . I am sorry, but that is just a pipe dream on a sunny afternoon.

Deep Sight:

@ Inesqor - I can only say how sad it is that one is to be advised to read the bible conjunctively at all times: and once such a conjunctive reading does not suit your purpose, you now advise one to read it disjunctively. I find that unfortunate in the extreme.

It is abundantly clear that the authour drew up those four analogies and then applied them in the context of an adulterous woman. You cannot therefore seek to contrive a totally inapt disjunctive reading to save the day.

If the disjunctive reading pleases you; so be it.

@Deep Sight:

What are you talking about now?

Everybody knows that proverbs are DISJUNCTIVE. They are a collection of wise sayings. Why should you, Deep Sight, select the ones to conjoin?

DO you have otherwise proof? Or have I ever lumped proverbs together? This is a simple case of literature comprehension!

I am evading NOTHING. Even parts of the Bible that are not proverbs and such, you still need to read with care.

I didnt expect you to agree, but your reasons for disagreeing in this case, is just. . . offpoint IMHO.

@Deep Sight. You're right. I did not take time out to read all the seven references in toto. I assumed you and Nuke were in concordance with the 1 in 7 thingie. I thought there was only one verse, one bone of contention. Now I have seen the other verses. I agree that the young woman fits virtually all, as it should being the literal translation, but I also think people would not go around calling young women virgins except it serves a purpose like with Mary. You won't introduce your daughter to your friend: 'Hey Mark, meet my virgin daughter.' I believe at an age, that would be taken for granted. Especially given the Jewish laws against fornication and adultery. Nevertheless this shouldn't be conclusive proof. Frankly, I'd say the lot of the references in the OT are of little or no significance except the Isaiah verse. I've discovered that many of the NT writers tailor their writings to suit almost all the prophecies in the OT even without seeing anything for themselves and that's what happened there. I can show an example of this. It is just misplaced zealousness. It was expected that there would be a virgin birth and therefore, a virgin birth is reported in the NT. All I'm saying is, you cannot use the NT to prove there was never a virgin birth because I think it is clear what the NT meant despite its choice of words. And in any case, Mary's declaration of confoundment as to the whole Jesus business is proof enough. Plus you don't go saying: behold! when you're gonna do something mundane like making a 'young woman' conceive through normal means

InesQor:

@Deep Sight:

What are you talking about now? 

Everybody knows that proverbs are DISJUNCTIVE. They are a collection of wise sayings. Why should you, Deep Sight, select the ones to conjoin?

DO you have otherwise proof?  Or have I ever lumped proverbs together? This is a simple case of literature comprehension!

I am evading NOTHING. Even parts of the Bible that are not proverbs and such, you still need to read with care.

I didnt expect you to agree, but your reasons for disagreeing in this case, is just. . . offpoint IMHO.

Well this is very unfortunate indeed. All of a sudden a proverb which is stated in a very clear analoguous sense should be read disjunctively. We could hear you, if the talk was about different proverbs altogether. But certainly NOT when the text reads -

Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

Verse 18 - There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand:

19 - the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma]. 

20 - This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

NOW TO HAMMER HOME THE POINT: - THE NEXT VERSES ALL FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN - OF STATING A NUMERICAL FIGURE (JUST AS "THREE" IN VERSE 18 - AND PROCEEDING TO LIST THINGS WITH ANALOGIES. HERE GOES -

Verse 21 -  "Under three things the earth trembles,
       under four it cannot bear up:

22 - a servant who becomes king,
       a fool who is full of food,

23 - an unloved woman who is married,
       and a maidservant who displaces her mistress.

AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT YET AGAIN -

Verse 24 - Four things on earth are small,
       yet they are extremely wise:

25 Ants are creatures of little strength,
       yet they store up their food in the summer;

26 coneys [d] are creatures of little power,
       yet they make their home in the crags;

27 locusts have no king,
       yet they advance together in ranks;

28 a lizard can be caught with the hand,
       yet it is found in kings' palaces.

AND YET AGAIN -

Verse 29 - "There are three things that are stately in their stride,
       four that move with stately bearing:

30 a lion, mighty among beasts,
       who retreats before nothing;

31 a strutting rooster, a he-goat,
       and a king with his army around him. [e]

32 "If you have played the fool and exalted yourself,
       or if you have planned evil,
       clap your hand over your mouth!

33 For as churning the milk produces butter,
       and as twisting the nose produces blood,
       so stirring up anger produces strife."

So it is abundantly clear that AFTER he mentions his numerical figure and lists of things, he goes straight ahead to give give his context in what he has said. Otherwise can you tell me why verse 20 appears interjected as a lonely intrusion in the flow of lists which he continues to give in the same order? This is an eminent case for conjunctive reading of each list - and it is altogether unseemly for you to seek to isolate the import of verse 20 within this flow and argue for a disjunctive reading.

At all events, I have said that you may read the passage whichever way you please.

There is, however, a question I asked you earlier: and you never answered it: please do so now, and please do so with all honesty: at all events EVERYONE knows the honest answer to this question, so let's hear YOU: - Here is the question again -

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, Inesqor, not regard that as a myth?

@ Topic -

Do we consider the ancients who believed that their kings were incarnations of gods and goddesses - to have been adopting an intellectual or anti-intellectual stance?

Why then would we insist that our own belief that a virgin woman gave birth after ministrations from the Holy Ghost  - is not anti-intellectual but supra-intellectual? ? ?

The ancients could claim the same supra-intellectualism for their beliefs, no?

It thus is obvious that this is a simple case of  - "If THEY believe a supernatural thing, it is d.aft and mythical, but if WE believe a supernatural thing, it is not d.aft but supra-intellectual!"

That's blatant double-standards.

I wonder, how authoritative is the Septuagint as a rendering of the Hebrew Old Testament.

^^^ Anybody's claim, anybody's view, anybody's guess; but you needn't worry about that - all you need to do is go to the original Hebrew itself, AND ALL MISTRANSLATIONS END THERE.

For "Alma" and "Betulah" are plainly two different words - no argument there.

Deep Sight:

@ Topic -

Do we consider the ancients who believed that their kings were incarnations of gods and goddesses - to have been adopting an intellectual or anti-intellectual stance?

Why then would we insist that our own belief that a virgin woman gave birth after ministrations from the Holy Ghost  - is not anti-intellectual but supra-intellectual? ? ?

The ancients could claim the same supra-intellectualism for their beliefs, no?

It thus is obvious that this is a simple case of  - "If THEY belief a supernatural thing, it is d.aft and mythical, but if WE believe a supernatural thing, it is not d.aft but supra-intellectual!"

That's blatant double-standards.

How, then, is the faith of any people, however false, to be refuted, though it may have arrived at such a pitch of blindness as to confess some idol to be the creator both of heaven and of earth?  As, according to your own admission, you cannot reason upon matters of faith, you have no right to attack others upon a matter with regard to which you think you ought yourself to be unassailed.

Abelard, Sic et Non

Peter Abelard (Latin: Petrus Abaelardus or Abailard; French: Pierre Abélard) (1079 – April 21, 1142) was a medieval French scholastic philosopher, theologian and preeminent logician. The story of his affair with and love for Héloïse has become legendary. The Chambers Biographical Dictionary describes him as "the keenest thinker and boldest theologian of the 12th Century".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard

@Deep Sight:

I maintain that verse 20 is not necessarily explaining the earlier verses. I will leave it at that.

As for the virgin birth, I know there is a similar virgin birth story in the Ifa religion, which I have once practised. It never convinced me as Christ's did. Your point is thus moot.

^ Do you think there is any other virgin birth story that has any chance of convincing you, aside from the one within your religion?

What is the definition of special pleading?

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

You are citing the virgin birth as an exemption to the generally accepted rule as to how pregnancies arise. . . can you justify the exemption? If you cannot, then this is special pleading and is eminently anti-intellectual.

Perhaps I should even ask altogether if there is any supernatural incident or phenomena recorded by any other religion [/b]which [b]you would believe in or give credence to other than those supernatural phenomena storied by your own religion?

Are supernatural phenomena a sole preserve of Christianity?

If not, is there any reason that we should doubt the stories of the incarnation of Vishnu and other ancient deities etc?

It is a false argument to pretend that the question is whether 'alma' means 'young woman'. Of course in very literal terms it means young woman; even before the debate kicked off, I gave this in post no 67 on page 3 http://www.secondexodus.com/html/jewishcatholicdialogue/virginbirth.htm

When you visit the link you see this:

The Scripture says, Is 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Before Christian theologians who came centuries later translated alma as virgin, the Septuagint, the rabbis’ own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, two centuries before Jesus’ arrival on earth, translated Is 7:14 alma into Greek as parthenos, virgin. Why would the rabbis have done that?

The Hebrew word alma, from the root alm, does indeed mean a young woman. During the Old Testament days it meant a very young woman, often too young to bear children. An alma would not likely have been of sexual interest to an elem, a boy at that age, and so was always regarded as a virgin. The same root alm also gives us the Hebrew word alum, hidden, secret, unknown. Moreover, the Torah required that a young woman of marriageable age be a virgin. Deut 22:20 “But if … the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then … the men of her city shall stone her to death.” An alma was apt to be a virgin at the time of her marriage!

So, yes alma means young woman literally but the norm was that the alma was a virgin. Apart from that, some specific contexts confirm even when 'alma' (young woman) is used that the young woman being spoken of is a virgin. This was nuclearboy's point and this much is evident from his post no 70 that 'alma' was used in situations that could only refer to virgins.

The key issue is whether alma as used in Isaiah 7:14 was intended to mean a virgin. Even the context of the verse shows that the 'alma' referred to was to be a virgin otherwise what was the 'sign' and what was to be miraculous about it to be a sign? Even ancient Jewish documents which predate Christianity agree on this point as with the Aramaic Tanakh that I referred to. As I have said before also, the Septuagint which also well predates Christianity translates 'alma' into a word that certainly means virgin i.e. 'parthenos'. Despite attempts by some to disparage both, serious scholars agree that neither of this was a case of Christians 'fixing' things ---- considering they both predate Christianity; rather both were the renderings that the compilers of both documents believed to be accurate in respect of the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14.

Now the claim is made that the Hebrew word for 'virgin' is 'Bethulah'. That may be true but this is where the importance of context comes in because even 'Bethulah' is used in the Bible to refer to women who are not virgins. Similarly the Greek word for virgin, 'parthenos', is used to refer to women who are not virgins.  

Also we raised the point about Mary asking 'how can I get pregnant when I am a virgin'?

So that 'alma' means young woman is not questioned; even some Christian English language Bible versions use the rendering 'young woman' such as RSV etc as in the quote above from the article I referred to. The point then is, that it means young woman is a wholly insufficient argument to hold that it does not also mean 'virgin' or cannot refer to 'virgin'.

Let us take these words: 'young woman', 'maid', 'maiden', 'girl', 'young girl': which one of those means that the entity is not a virgin?

Let us also consider the Yoruba word 'wundia' ---- does that mean the person is not a virgin?

I also asked before elsewhere: which single word means 'virgin' in
(a) Yoruba
(b) Igbo
(c) Hausa?

Ah by the way on Proverbs 30:20, as I explained before, even if we say it is a continuation of verse 19 what is being compared is not an 'alma' (young woman) and 'an adulterous woman'. Rather, what is being compared are "the ways" of X or of Y or of Z.

One of the important things in an aspiration to be 'intellectual' is objectivity and an honest appraisal of the facts; I think this should be brought into bear in an assessment of the concerned verses and, in particular, in the assessment of Isaiah 7:14 which is the critical passage and not this Proverbs digression.

Thank you Enigma.

However with reference to your insistence that we look to Isaiah 7: 14 - I herewith post the whole of the chapter uptill and immediately after that verse - and I need do no more to show that the sign referred to was within the context of King Ahaz, who asked for a sign: and the prophecy specifically stated -

"Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 [size=16pt]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 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[/size]."

- - -> THUS MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE CHILD REFERRED TO WOULD -

1. Have a time before he knows to reject wrong and chose right (could not be christ because christ is said to be perfect and sinless)

2. Would be born BEFORE the bringing of the King of Assyria (could not be christ because Christ was born centuries after that event,.

THIS IS EMPHATIC PROOF! ! ! !


Here is the whole chapter, which seals the point -

1 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.
2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with [a] Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, [b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 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. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 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 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
       " 'It will not take place,
       it will not happen,

8 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.

9 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.' "


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 [size=16pt]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: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 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 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."[/size]

Need I say more?

Is the context of this prophecy not glaring?

In spite of the foregoing, how can you apply it to Christ?

^^^

I have said all I need to say on the topic for now; perhaps if I see anything worth addressing further later on I will address it.

In the meantime if you think you have found "EMPHATIC" proof that the Bible does not speak of the virgin birth, I am quite happy to leave you to that thought.

Well you were the one in your penultimate post who insisted that we concentrate on Isaiah 7.14.

I have pasted the whole chapter above - read it. There is no denying that it says that there will be a sign and that a young woman will bear a son

AND THAT THE SON 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 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."

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 say this because you have oft accused me of not reading/ understanding the scripture before posting. I have given you the full context of the scripture you requested and it is very glaring indeed that that could not be a reference to Christ. So what's up now?

Again, if you think it makes it "staggeringly clear", then I am happy to leave you with that thought.

Aite. I see you have no plausible response to offer against that which the scripture clearly conveys.

Just for full measure I will go ahead to quote the rest of the passage. It says -

18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 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. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [f] —the king of Assyria—to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 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 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, [g] there will be only briers and thorns. 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.

So. . . !

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.

Can we all now see how terribly easy it is to seize upon a single verse - Isaiah 7:14 - and claim that it is a reference to Christ - but a reading of the whole chapter shows ABSOLUTELY OTHERWISE!

Conjunctive reading. . .or will Inesqor now tell us again to read this disjunctively as well, Lol.

Deep Sight:

Aite. I see you have no plausible response to offer against that which the scripture clearly conveys. . . .

If you really think that, then you are even less clever than I thought!

Let's not worry about cleverness. While you keep silent, I will proceed to round-off the evidence -

Now, just to show that the Prophecy in Isaiah 7;14 was fulfilled shortly thereafter, Have a look at the next chapter -  

1 The LORD said to me, "Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [a] 2 And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me."
[size=16pt]3 Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."[/size]

- - -> Which squares perfectly with the prophecy which had said that before the child knows his right from wrong, there would be plunder by the King of Assyria!

WOW! ! !

So . . . should we read the bible disjunctively or conjunctively? And does one 'style and fashion' exclude the other, or can they both be valid.

Did the Hebrews read their bibles disjunctively or conjunctively?

Did the writers of the NT read the OT disjunctively or conjunctively?

To read it conjunctively, does that mean to use the same faculties that we use to read english literature and make sense of it? Or does it require another faculty, say a 'spirit-filled' faculty for understanding.

Ah. History repeats itself even in the short span of a few threads. I think I'll just be a passive reader from now on. Ceteris paribus

What History?

What do you make of the full Isaiah Chapter, its direction at King Ahaz, the fact that it says that the child will for a time do wrong until he knows right, the fact that it says that by the time he knows right the King of Assyria will have plundered the land, and the fact that in the next chapter a prophetess is said to give birth to a child, and before he knows his right from wrong, the King of Assyria had plundered the land.

It is frustrating for people to cite a verse (Isaiah 7:14) and when the full context and fulfillment are clearly revealed, everyone sneaks away in silence, choosing to "reserve their comments!"

Interesting.

@Deep Sight: Every human experience is a special pleading because we are ALL independent agents, with our own means of reasoning out the experience.

My reasons for believing in the virgin birth transcend what I can explain here, it's my experience, which I cant expect you to understand. As I have said once in the past, quoting an NLer (dunno who right now), it's like arguing with a mother that she was never pregnant. I have gone beyond understanding the virgin birth, it's a trivial matter to my faith now.

But then, to each man his own. As I already said earlier on in this thread, I believe intelligence is in two differing forms, though similar in construct. The spiritual is not to be understood logically. That does not make it anti-intellectual. Calling it anti-intellectual is rather short-sighted, because then you act like you know all forms of intelligence.

What are all the forms of intelligence in existence? I can presume you know but might not want to reply.

I see you are having a ball here. Enjoy!