₦airaland Forum

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. . .

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?

^^^ 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.

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.

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 -

[size=16pt]This is the view of Jewish Scholars as presented on the Wiki Page on ISAIAH 7:14.[/size]

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.

[size=16pt]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14[/size]

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.

^^^ 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 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.

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.

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.

[b]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]

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 raped. 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.

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.

@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.

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!"

Genesis creation narrative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, describes a supernatural beginning of the earth and life, and culminates in the creation of humanity in the image of God. As a creation myth it is similar to several ancient Mesopotamian creation stories, differing from them in its monotheistic outlook

Why do you think there are great similarities amongst the Mesopotamian creation myths?

Pastor AIO:
To have been present at the creation is not enough to make one the Logos.  The Logos is the MEANS by which the world is created.  That is quite different from merely being a witness to it.  If I see you sleeping with your wife that does not mean that I have myself slept with your wife.

Well you must agree that not all elements are on all-fours in all the myths you cited. Thus for me the mere fact that the similarity is not mutatis mutandis does not operate to obviate the similarity.

Jn. 1.2 does state that the word was with God in the beginning. . .same as Orunlima is said to be. . . Jesus own words speak about having observed everything that the father did - just as Orunmila is said to have done. . . the similarities needn't be exact - as you yourself have shown in your examples.

Personally if I were to try to find a parallel for the logos in yoruba mythology or philosophical thinking then I would go for Ori.  Ori is said to have the authority, it is said to be the Eleda eni, one's creator and it is understood as the format of existence.

Very well. This could be the parallel then. By the time we speak of Orunmila, Ori and Oldumare. . .the Trinity is complete - especially as the functions are not too different. . .your Ori could be the equivalent of Holy Spirit. . .

Orunmila being witness to the works of God is quite different from being God.  I think that in order to say that 2 myths have anything in common it requires the presentation of more than just one commonality.  In your case the only thing they have in common is the fact that logos and Orunmila were both present at the creation.

That is surely not true? Is Orunmila not said to have incarnated just as the Logos is said to have in John 1? That is a second similarity. See here -

Among West Africans, Orunmila is recognized as a primordial Irunmole that was present both at the beginning of Creation and then again amongst them as a prophet that taught an advanced form of spiritual knowledge and ethics, during visits to earth in physical form or through his disciples.

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

And just as in John, 1 - is said to participate in creation - a third similarity : see here -

Orunmila was in heaven assisting Olodumare with the organization and creation of the universe. because of his great assistance and vast wisdom and knowledge, Olodumare sent Orunmila to Earth with Oduduwa to complete the creation and organization of the world, to make it habitable for humans.

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

And undeniably, these three functions or similarities are absolutely core to the activity and ontology of the logos described in the bible, no?

However in the iconography of the Garden of Eden we find not only 1) a tree in the middle, 2)rivers running  out of the garden (a source of water), 3)A serpent and 4)a goddess closely connected to the tree, and 5) the fruit of the tree which confers enlightenment, and the 6)goddess offering the fruit of the tree to the man.  How many common elements is that?

1. I have shown you that the Orunmila also has at least three very key similarities/ functions. And very core similarities identical to those that are core to the activity. ontology of the logos. Not one similarity, as you claimed.

2. You have drawn a very wide parallel. . .the story of Buddha under a Tree is very different from the Eden Story, do I need to go into this?

3. I do accept that there can be common absorption of these lores from a spiritual source, or as you say, beyond time and space. . . but as you equally noted one should be wary of conflating things unduly.

4. Given that it is possible to draw from a common spiritual source, would you be so bold as to deny that it is also possible to draw from a common historical, cultural or geographical source?

5. Would you not say that given that both occur (sourced from beyond time and space/ and sourced from common historical source) . . . which would you say is more common in this physical world?

6. Surely you do not deny that many similarities in myths are caused by the spread and corruption of a single ancient myth? Or would you say that this does NOT occur AT ALL?

I did not say that there are different corruptions of an original myth.  In fact that statement makes it clear to me how far apart our viewpoints are.  You are still in the paradigm that I mentioned where a myth starts far back in history and mutates over time, and is passed on from culture to culture when they come into contact with each other.  That is not the paradigm via which I understand this phenomenon.  I believe these myths to hail, not from some source in ancient history (in time), but rather from a source beyond time.  So 2 different cultures don't even have to come into contact with each other in order to share the same myths or mythological iconography.  Just like the yodelling of the Congolese Pygmies and the Swiss mountain dwellers.  They don't have to have come into contact to share this cultural trait.  They could have arrived at it independently.

I accept this. For me there is no doubt that it is true. However note the latter questions above, and surely do not suggest to me that this is the ONLY way in which myths spread across the world. Or that ALL myths which appear to have similar motifs are therefore irrevocably ALL sourced from beyond time and space. . .

If that were the case do you not think that there would be greater universal agreement in such matters as the death of christ?  

In other words, I'm talking about one source beyond time (in eternity) that anyone at any point in time (history) at any place (geography)  can have access to.  These images sprout unbidden and enter into the folklore of peoples.  And yes they may interpret them variously.

Again, accepted.

What if the legend does not describe something that took place on this earth but in another world?

@ Pastor - That there are common threads in mythology cannot be denied. I cannot go over this all over again, I have said everything I have to say in the thread "Four Noble Truths." In one instance you are ready to see similarities but in another instance of equally clear similarities you say - "I don't think that it is right or fair on either tradition to be mixing and conflating them."

Basically you are able to draw similarities about trees and fruits, but this -

Orunmila is called enikeji olodumare. Olodumare's second in command. Eleri Ipin - that is witness to creation. Apparently when Olodumare was creating the world he was there observing everything, thereby giving him the knowledge of how everything works.

- - - - which contains strong similarities with that which is conveyed in the first three verses of John 1 - you shy away from 'mixing and conflating'. . . I could just as well adjure you not to 'mix and conflate' the other traditions you mentioned, some of which are not even as compelling in similarity as this one. . .

Now let us carefully note that there can indeed be different corruptions of the same original myth. Nevertheless not all myths containing the same motifs are related. Trees are an exceedingly common object and I do know of hundreds of myths regarding trees back in my native Cape Coast, Ghana, but I tell you, these have nothing, I say, nothing, to do with Eden or Buddha or even related ideas.

You seem to be mis understanding me, as well as being inconsistent yourself. I could never deny common threads in mythology. And your example in your last post entirely resonates with me. I leave it.

Let us focus on IFA. My intendment on this thread was to learn from the fountain of your traditional knowledge. . .let us concentrate on that. . .

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! ! !

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.

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?

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?

^ 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?

Pastor AIO:
To the extent that the story of Adam in the bible does not tally with anything said about orunmila in yoruba religion, I would say that Adam cannot be Orunmila.

You do not see an inconsistency in your views to the extent that you have laboured to draw strings of similarity in religious lore which is identical to the inter-faith attempt of the sort being advanced by Negro Ntns. I did not revert on your serpent and Boddhi/ Eden Trees response above because when I earlier checked out your links there was more to suggest asymmetry than symmetry and I did not wish to go round in circles. It just seems interesting to me that you have turned about to play "spot the differences". . .

^^^ 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.

@ 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.

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?

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.

Accepted. But such extreme self denial (of the nature of the fasting he undertook) for the causes he was advocating is not something I would imagine can be superficially done. It requires belief. Conviction even, I would say. But I do understand that which you have said.

Alright. Since I have already written an epistle in the previous thread on my view, I doin't want to simply repeat myself. This is a view from a Jewish Scolar & Rabbi on the word "Alma."

What do you think of his argument?

For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.”  The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”  The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus.  The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

How accurate is this Christian claim?  The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures.  If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous.  The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times.  If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

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 the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma].  This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.  What do these three things all have in common?  They leave no trace.  After the eagle has flown across the sky, determining that the eagle had ever flown there is impossible.  Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail).  After a ship has moved across the sea, the water comes together behind it and there is no way to tell that a ship had ever passed through there.  Similarly, King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them.  Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.”  The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin.  On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children.  Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma.  Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

I think it is rather very obvious indeed that the hebrew "alma" means young woman - and your argument that it refers to virgins only is flawed, as shown by the Rabbi in his argument above. In the previous thread I pointed out to you that ALL young women were expected to be chaste, and as such, expected to be virgins when not married - and for this reason once one was an "alma" one was also expected to be a virgin. This is a social presumption and does not in any way mean that the word "alma" meant "virgin" for it does not. It means 'young woman" - and has been used in the OT to refer to even a woman having s.ex!

In the light of this, you must agree that it is certainly anti-the-evidence (if not anti-intellectual) to insist that, contrary to the known laws of nature, Jesus was delivered by a virgin.

MyJoe:
Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi at about the same time and even long after could not rise above these wretched sentiments he was born with, a matter I have had cause to elaborate on in another thread in this section not too long ago, yet the world worships the sound of his name as though he were some blend of Jesus and Vishnu.

Although you have already in the past extensively discussed Ghandi's failings in this regard, let us also note that the man did do quite some good work with regard to addressing some of the ills related to untouchability -

In September 1932, while in jail, Gandhi undertook a "fast unto death" to improve the status of the Hindu Untouchables. The British, by permitting the Untouchables to be considered as a separate part of the Indian electorate, were, according to Gandhi, countenancing an injustice. Although he was himself a member of an upper caste, Gandhi was the great leader of the movement in India dedicated to eradicating the unjust social and economic aspects of the caste system.

http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htm

The advancement of equality in the caste system is largely due to Gandhi. Gandhi was a member of the merchant caste. He was later called Mahatma, meaning "great soul". He went beyond the divisions of castes and took an untouchable child into his own home, breaking all requirements of tradition. The child was called the untouchables harijan (children of God). Gandhi persuaded the Indian National Congress to adopt a resolution in support of harijan uplift (Lamb 145), and published a magazine called Harijan, which was devoted to the welfare of the untouchables.

http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/s97/india/gandhi.htm

His requirement on his farms in South Africa that everyone share in such tasks comes up in an early scene in the movie Gandhi. Since Gandhi equated suffering with holiness, he saw the Untouchables as hallowed by their miserable treatment and so called them "Harijans" (Hari=Vis.n.u). Later Gandhi went on fasts in the hope of improving the condition of the Untouchables, or at least to avoid their being politically classified as non-Hindus.

http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm

Now, I do not propose to argue that which you have already conclusively shown in an earlier thread - namely that the man indeed had his failings in this regard especially in his youth in South Africa - but I think it is unfair to state that he "could not rise above these wretched sentiments," in light of the foregoing. I think he did some work to improve the system.

You needn't refer me to all that you already did refer me to in the earlier thread. I have taken note of all that and I quite agree he seemed rather bigoted especially in the earlier years. I only ask you to also take a balanced view by acknowledging the positive work that he did do in his later life which helped to create greater unity.