Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

Of course this has been discussed here before.But there is one more problem:The reference to eating"curds and honey" in 7:15 directly links to 7:21-25 indicating that this part of the prophecy, too must occur before the child is "knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" Yet this neither happened in the days of Ahaz, nor in the early years of Jesus' life.

THe problem with the interpretation you quote is that it offers absoluely no reason as to why a small part of that prophecy should be ripped out of context and regarded as referring to a second event as well. I can't see that this is a rational procedure for interpreting a text.So I think we have to conclude that this prophecy can't be rationally seen as referring to Jesus without presupposing Christian doctrine (and therefore completely worthless as an argument FOR Christian doctrine).

Firstly Mike,even if there were other valid prophecies they would not change my analysis of this case.Secondly I have not made any claim which justifies your assertiosns about me. Pure assertion is your way.Thirdly if you did have lots of valid prophecies you ought to ask yourself why people even bother to use this one as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. AND if you think that they ought to be discussed you ought to do it instead of just asserting that they exist.Thirdly you make take the attitude that anything you don't like is "rubbish" but that simply shows that you are irrational.

Mike, the rules of this forum call for reasonable discussion and respect.I do not think that lying about me because you personally dislike the conclusions I have reached falls within either category.My position is not irrational nor is it based on simply following what Brian has said (indeed my views on the text had largely formed before coming to this forum and so far as I know I am the first here to emphasise the significance of "curds and honey" - I certainly do not remember seeing it in any of Brians posts).And let me say that no matter how many lies you tell about me it will not convert me to your religion. Indeed on the basis of "by their fruti you shall know them" the best thing you could to to support Christianity would be to deny that you are a Christian at all.

It is not the case that prophecies "must" be meaningless to non-beleivers. If we could confirm that some of Daniels predictions (those of a Greek conquest of the Middle East, followed by a division of the Empire) were written before the fact they would certainly present a strong case for fulfilled prophecy.But in this case the only reason for reading any of Isaiah 7 as referring to Jesus is the claim in Matthew to that effect. But it is not a viable reading of the text of Isaiah - Isaiah's child is only a temporal marker and the events he is supposed to mark are part of the context that has been discarded. It is not that prophecy must be unreasonable to unbelievers - it is that only believers are unreasonable enough to accept such a "prophecy".

Since I already pointed out the lies in the message you were replying to (and you can add the fact that you called by analysis bankrupt without identifying ANYTHING that was wrong with it) it seems pointless to repeat the information.That you could call your response "objective" when it consists of fabrications cncocted as an excuse to deny the truth is just another lie.I'm sorry that your religion drives you to lying to suppress the truth, but it's hardly a good advertisement for Christianity, is it ? But all too typical of creationism.

Well Mike, the thing is that I already pointed out where you were lying - and all you did was ignore that and demand that explain again. Since you've already done that once - and since you could easily go back and reread the post I can only conclude that you are indulging in another dishonest ploy.But since you insist Mike - just to make sure everyone knows just how dishonest you are, Message 15 is full of lies.We can go through it sentence by sentence.

quote:

---

Rubbish

---

Lie 1 - you did not point out even one error.

quote:

---

We don't hold that one scripture proves Christ - but many. And many the more point to him, and have only described him.

---

A clear strawman - while in context this pretends to be describing my position it has no basis in anything I actually said.

quote:

---

Thus your rational procedure - is one of assertion, to no end.

---

Another lie. No sensible person would deny that ripping a fragment of text completely out of its context was not a valid metohd of intepretation. It's too easy to misrepresent the text by doing so

quote:

---

For the many outdo the few - and the few you cling on to, are desperate reminders of your impulse of wrongful endeavours.

---

Yet another lie. If you have seen my previous comments on such claims you would know that I have answers to many more. If you have not then you have no way of knowing that I cling to one example as you falsely claim. And you are quick to accuse me of engaging in "wrongful endeavours"

quote:

---

You're straining at a nat - and swallowing a camel.

---

Yet another lie - you don't even try to say what the "camel" is - or why rejecting an obviously invalid interpretation of a prophecy is "straining at a nat [sic]".And of course you lie again in Message 17 as I pointed out in Message 19Neither message contains any valid criticisms of any point I have raised. Both make false personal attacks instead. Any reasonable person would think THAT a clearer example of "intolerant rage" than the injured party complaining about undeserved abuse.So stop whining just because you got caught misbehaving. Again.

All I ask of Mike is that if he wants to rpely to my posts that hea) Read them properlyb) Answer them with reasonable and rational responses rather than making false personal attacks.If Mike cannot manage that much then he needs to be sent to Boot Camp or banned.