Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 202 (59199)
10-03-2003 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-03-2003 12:50 AM


Well there's far less ambiguity than you claim.
Firstly you would have it that the prophecy mixes up events of the near future and events that are ccenturies away - but there is no justification for that. Indeed it is contradicted by the use of the child as a "sign" and by the clear linkage of verse 15 with verse 22. There are also the parallels with the prophecy in Isaiah 8 - where it is clear that the child's birth and development are used to "bracket" the prophesied events - in exactly the same way.
I am glad that you have (finally !) realised that the prophecy goes on to the end of the chapter (which is so obvious that I don't see how any *careful* reader could possibly have missed it).
And I bet you can't find ONE scholar who interprets the text as you do on the basis of Isaiah alone. You may be able to find "literal minded" scholars who insist otherwise -- but they do so AGAINST a literal reading of Isaiah 7 preferring to assume that Matthew 1:23 is the whole of the meaning (which is why the rest of hte prophecy is so often ignored by Christians).
(Of course it is hardly the sole abuse of prophecy in Matthew - Matthew 2:18 takes part of a prophecy of the *return* of the Lost Tribes out of context ! the prophecy is Jeremiah 30-31)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2003 12:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dilyias
Member (Idle past 1366 days)
Posts: 21
From: Minnesota
Joined: 10-02-2003


Message 32 of 202 (59264)
10-03-2003 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Amlodhi
10-02-2003 11:33 PM


Amlodhi,
Let me be the first to welcome you to this forum.
Thank you!
However, the grammatical suffix (which is used to justify the "you" translation) actually indicates the 2nd person, masculine , singular. IOW, it has been suggested that since the "child/sign" would necessarily need to be a prominent figure in the life of Ahaz, that it was one of Ahaz's wifes or concubines that Isaiah referred to as "the young woman". Consequently, it would be Ahaz himself (masc. sing.)whom Isaiah addressed as "you".
Interesting, I had not thought of it as the king's wife...but yes that makes a lot of sense. I chose feminine because in other parts of the OT that form referred to 2nd person feminine.
Namaste'
Are you Buddhist?
-Eric

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Amlodhi, posted 10-02-2003 11:33 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2003 7:28 PM Dilyias has not replied

  
Dilyias
Member (Idle past 1366 days)
Posts: 21
From: Minnesota
Joined: 10-02-2003


Message 33 of 202 (59270)
10-03-2003 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-03-2003 12:50 AM


--Perhaps I am not understanding what your actual position is on this prophecy. I am assuming you are stating that this prophecy in it's original context actually refers to Jesus Christ. Forgive me if I am off base here. Forgive me if I repeat myself in this post --
quote:
I do not dispute that the house of David at the time of the prophecy was the kingdom of Judah under Ahaz. My contention is that after King Ahaz was offered a sign/prophecy for the there and then and declined, the Lord then proclaimed a prophecy of a future birth to the house of David.
It makes no sense (to me) that the Lord would, for no apparent reason, give Ahaz a sign for something completely related when he (through Isaiah) had spent that last few discourses with him discussing the two kings. The threat of the two kings was hot on everyone's mind. What benefit to king Ahaz and those standing around him would a xxx year future prophecy provide? How would the birth of a savior to save all from sins many years later make any difference on the two kings that the house feared? He did not say the future birth would be TO the house of David - he merely stated that a unclassified young woman would give birth to a son. This young child was a sign, nothing was stated of his actual actions beyond normal child growth (knowing how to choose between right and wrong) bearing any significance.
Not only do I not find any sufficient evidence prior to the prophecy to make this gigantic leap, but it just does not make sense.
quote:
The Lord was clearly ticked after Ahaz, representing the House of David declined the offer, which by the way was offered to assure Ahaz that what the Lord had promised about these two threatening kingdoms would come to pass. So the Lord said that He was going to give a sign anyhow, not for the there and then, but for the future.
Where in the text do you find the Lord claim that the prophecy is distant future? (Which is what you infer with Christ).
This is what I see. Isaiah asks, "Ask for a sign from ..God.". He then says, "Do you consider it too insignificant..to try the patience of my God. FOR THIS REASON God himself will give you a sign.."
Yes, Ahaz turned down asking for a sign, but to me it seems that Isaiah is saying that God will give him a sign anyway, give him a second chance.
Isaiah condemns Ahaz for not asking of a sign re: the two kings and in the same breath says God will provide a sign. I don't see Isaiah stopping here to explain that this sign will be referring to something completely unrelated. I'm sure all listening to Isaiah would have no idea that God changed subjects on them so abruptly if in fact he did as you suggest.
quote:
There would be a boy child to be born WHICH WOULD KNOW to refuse the evil and to do the good. He would have a simple diet. Though he is to be God with us he would not come eating king's food as a king messiah would be expected to do.
How is it that when the boy knows how to choose good over evil you seem to think it can only refer to Christ? This can refer to any growing child. Isaiah refers only to this as a time tracking piece, i.e. before the child knows how to choose good over evil the two kings will be destroyed..
The rest of the chapter expounds on this and leaves the boy out of it.
quote:
Nice try Eric but it doesn't wash. Unlike this prophecy, the Genesis 16 text to Sarah specifically addresses the woman Sarah directly "you shall call..." because she is being addressed personally in that text. Not so here. The woman is the third person, clearly not present.
You may be correct - This was an assumption on my part. It very well could be that the Isaiah was talking to the king and the young woman was present, only Isaiah did not speak to her directly. It appears that he is talking about a woman that is pregnant or will be very soon. But you are right - I am assuming here. However this theory is equally valid as yours that the woman is not in the room at all.
quote:
There's some ambiguous stuff here in this chapter and in all fairness, I can see where you people are coming from. As I analyze it I am becoming more aware that there are reasons for you to interpret as you do, but I also see why the translators, the writers of the NT and most literal minded scholars support my contention that it is a prophecy of the future child Jesus who did indeed choose to do the good and not the evil.
And, being an ex-Christian, I understand where you are coming from as well. I believe that the story was thought to be of Christ mainly because Matthew translated from the Septuagint (instead of the Hebrew) when he specified that the prophecy was regarding a virgin (because the Greek translation did use "virgin").
But my main point is : Without looking at to NT I don't see any need to interpret Isaiah 7 as anything other than a local prophecy directly related to the two kings as specified in 7:16.
I also have a bias: I've spent time looking at almost all "Jesus" related prophecies and I find a lot that , in their original context, have nothing to do with a messiah at all. Some even referred to those acting evil/sinful. So it is a combination of all of these as a whole that make me suspicious when one is claimed to be speaking of Jesus/a Messiah in their original context.
quote:
It wasn't intended for that purpose. Why? Because:
1. God had already assured them of the defeat via the prophet Isaiah, that they needn't worry.
2. Ahaz, spokesman and head of the then House of David, declined a sign/prophecy for the then and there.
3. The prophecy went way beyond the life of child that would be born then and there, even beyond the reign of Ahaz, when Judah itself would feel the wrath and sword of the Assyrians. The prophecy doesn't actually end until the end of chapter 7
1. Yes, God assured Azah in 7:7. Ok, so why then did he ask Ahaz to ask for a sign in verse 10 if he "needn't worry" ? Why, because we humans are doubtful! And probably the same reasons that God decided to give Ahaz a sign after all.
Unless, of course you take the "sign to be asked for" in verse 10 to also relate to Christ. hmmm. "God will not allow the two kings to attack you. Now, ask for a confirming sign from God [that he will send his son Jesus to save you from your sins]! You refuse? God himself will then give you a sign..When the boy.. The land of the two kings you fear will be destroyed! [And Jesus will come to save you from your sins]." (Sorry, that came out rather comical..this was not my intent) That still doesn't seem to work.. The two don't relate with each other.
2. He declined to ask for one. Isaiah than asked him why he tried the patience of his God. (i.e. God was waiting to give a sign to Ahaz that everything would be ok). This does not mean that Ahaz rejected for the then and there. Ahaz REFUSED TO ASK/TEST/PROVOKE God. (Sidenote: Didn't Jesus do the same when Satan tempted him? Although Jesus was alone at the time, and most likely would not tell people of what happened when he came back (doesn't fit his character), so the wilderness story is most likely lore..) . Bottom line - it does not say that Ahaz refused to accept a sign, only ask for one.
3. Yes it goes way beyond the child (who you assume to be talking about Christ?) and refers to things that will happen after the child is born, but before Christ was born. Thus it cannot be referring to Christ. The extent of the child's purpose is to narrow down the length of the prophecy, i.e. 4-6 years or somewhere in there.
I realize I could be wrong but this is how I see it from my studies..
Peace,
Eric
[This message has been edited by Dilyias, 10-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2003 12:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-11-2003 8:17 PM Dilyias has not replied
 Message 37 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-11-2003 8:35 PM Dilyias has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 202 (59279)
10-03-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dilyias
10-03-2003 3:54 PM


Hello Eric,
quote:
Originally posted by Dilyias
Are you Buddhist?
No, I'm a simple humanist. But, as you have surmised, the term is Sanskrit.
Fact is, I just like the sentiment it expresses. I have heard a few interpretations as to its meaning, but the one that I prefer is:
Namaste' - "That place in me, bows to that place in you where we are the same."
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dilyias, posted 10-03-2003 3:54 PM Dilyias has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 202 (59297)
10-03-2003 10:17 PM


I guess I've spent as much time as I care to on the details of this prophecy. Again, I believe I'm with the more conservative scholars in that this is a prophecy of Jesus and the NT bears it out. We could argue the details until the cows come home, but there's other stuff I want to spend some time on unless something specifically significant comes up. It's apparent nobody's budging on this, no matter what is said on either side of the debate.

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 36 of 202 (60562)
10-11-2003 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dilyias
10-03-2003 5:07 PM


New Arguments
Now that buzsaw has resigned from this thread, I would like to present some evidence which he appeared to be unaware of. I am currently preparing a study of all the supposed Messianic prophecies in the book of Isaiah and hope to eventually demonstrate how Isaiah 7:14 fits into that collection. Let me begin, however, by returning to part of the debate which I fear has been neglected.
The challenge was made that the Hebrew word for virgin used in Isaiah 7:14, almah, is not the word for a true virgin. It was said that the word "bethulah" would have been used if the writer had been referring to a true virgin. This is incorrect. Bethulah is used many times in Scripture and gives great indication of referring simply to a young girl married or unmarried, virgin or not. See for instance the first biblical usage of this word in Genesis 24:16. "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her:" If bethulah referred only to true virgins, why would the writer include the phrase, "neither had any man known her." The inclusion of this phrase along side many of the usages of bethulah in the Bible strongly indicates that bethulah does not refer only to true virgins. In fact, in Joel 1:8, the Bible uses this word in direct reference to a married woman. "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth."
In contrast, the word "almah" is used very few times in Scripture and gives very strong indication of referring only to true virgins. The most prominent usage is found in the Song of Solomon 6:8. "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number." Here the word "almah" is used in direct contrast to references to women who are no longer virgins. Thus there is evidence that the biblical writers used almah only as a reference to true virgins.
Therefore we see that the use of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 indicates that the prophecy was one of true virgin birth, whereas the use of the word "bethulah" could have indicated a prophecy of any particular birth. This is one of the reasons that I believe this passage is a prophecy of the birth of Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dilyias, posted 10-03-2003 5:07 PM Dilyias has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 6:02 AM w_fortenberry has replied
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 10-18-2003 10:48 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 37 of 202 (60564)
10-11-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dilyias
10-03-2003 5:07 PM


Another aspect of this prophecy which has not been fully dealt with is the statement found in verse 16. "...the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." It has been assumed that this is a reference to the kings of Syria and Israel. However, I would like to point out that the Bible only mentions one land not two. Thus it could not be a reference to both Israel and Syria. It is possible, if one of these two nations had two kings, that the prophecy refers to that nation only, but I would like to postulate that the prophecy is instead a prediction that the land of Israel would be forsaken of both the king of Israel and the king of Judah. This proposal would thus explain why in verse 17 Isaiah focuses on the coming judgment of Judah. "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." This postulation would also necessitate that the prophecy be a reference to a child born many years in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dilyias, posted 10-03-2003 5:07 PM Dilyias has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Amlodhi, posted 10-12-2003 12:44 AM w_fortenberry has replied
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 6:11 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 202 (60579)
10-12-2003 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by w_fortenberry
10-11-2003 8:35 PM


Hello w_fortenberry,
I don't have a great deal of time to go into depth tonight, but I would be happy to discuss this with you.
As to almah vs. betulah, though I have seen it argued both ways, I think that in the end it becomes irrelevant.
The first thing to consider is, what did Isaiah's contemporary audience understand him to say? It would strain credulity beyond all limits to think that Isaiah's audience heard, "A woman is going to have a child while still a virgo intactus!"
The only thing that makes any sense is that Isaiah either said that the "young woman" will conceive, or he said that "the virgin" will conceive. Either way is fine since virgins conceive everyday (of course at that point they are no longer virgins).
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry
I would like to point out that the Bible only mentions one land not two.
This ignores the fact that Syria and Ephraim had formed a confederacy.
quote:
w_fortenberry:
. . . the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
The house of David would never abhor Judea. But they certainly did abhor the Syria/Ephraim coalition right about then.
quote:
w_fortenberry
I would like to postulate that the prophecy is instead a prediction that the land of Israel would be forsaken of both the king of Israel and the king of Judah.
You'd really have to stretch the numbers to make this work. Isaiah 7:16 says; "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good . . (etc.)" Since Tiglath-Pileser III overthrew Syria in 732 b.c., Isaiah's prediction to Ahaz must have taken place some time before this date. Then, since Ahaz was succeeded by Hezekiah in 720 b.c., this would make the child c. 12 yrs. old at a minimum before both Pekah and Ahaz ceased to be king. It seems to me that he should have been able to discern good from bad long before that age.
quote:
w_fortenberry
This postulation would also necessitate that the prophecy be a reference to a child born many years in the future.
This ignores the obvious connection between vss. 15 & 22. The fact that both of these verses are included here and juxtaposed with each other makes the sense crystal clear. After Judea is overrun by Assyria, the land is desolated and the people are reduced to the nomadic diet of butter and wild honey. Isaiah 7:15 "Butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good."
IOW, when the child observes Judea (including himself) reduced to this nomadic diet, (all because Ahaz kow-towed to Tiglath-Pileser III and set up an Assyrian altar in the temple instead of trusting in God), it will serve as a striking lesson to him (as well as everyone else in Judea) that he should choose the good rather than the evil.
The context of Isaiah chapter 7 makes it effortlessly clear that the child of vs. 14 would be living at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Judea. The contortions that some people go through in an attempt to make it mean something else should be a clear indication that Matthew's assertion was nothing beyond an allegorical eisegesis.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-11-2003 8:35 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 6:14 AM Amlodhi has replied
 Message 55 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-18-2003 7:39 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 202 (60614)
10-12-2003 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by w_fortenberry
10-11-2003 8:17 PM


Re: New Arguments
It may well be that neither almah nor bethulah exactly correcponds to the English "virgin" (certainly the Greek Parthenos does not). However it is certain that bethulah has stronger connotations of virginity than almah - even Strong's admits that almah could be used of a newly-married woman. So if Isaiah specifically meant a virgin birth bethulah would be preferred over almah.
I also disagree with your comments on 24:16 - I would say that it is repeating the fact of her viriginity for emphasis.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 10-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-11-2003 8:17 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-18-2003 8:07 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 202 (60615)
10-12-2003 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by w_fortenberry
10-11-2003 8:35 PM


Well the NASB has a slightly different translation "...the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." The Darby translation is similiar so it is necessary for your argument that these two translations are in error.
There is also the question of whether "land" is to be taken as referring to a counry rather than a region. If "land" can refer to both Syria and Israel then it would be best read as doing so. Certainly Isaiah 7:1-9 are quite clear about the threat from the kings of Israel and Syria and it is very unlikely that any other two kings would be meant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-11-2003 8:35 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 202 (60616)
10-12-2003 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Amlodhi
10-12-2003 12:44 AM


My understanding is that the people of Judah were able to remain in their cities and lving as agriculturalists rather than pastoral nomads because Ahaz submitted to Assyria (therefore thwarting the prophecy). Things may have gotten to that extent for a time when Hezekaiah revolted - certainly the Assyrians did a lot of damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Amlodhi, posted 10-12-2003 12:44 AM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Amlodhi, posted 10-12-2003 1:46 PM PaulK has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 202 (60628)
10-12-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
10-12-2003 6:14 AM


Hi PaulK,
As I mentioned, I was forced by time to be brief in my post. Thank you for all of the additional (and IMO, correct) points that you brought up.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulK
My understanding is that the people of Judah (during the reign of Ahaz) were able to remain in their cities and living as agriculturalists rather than pastoral nomads . . .
Definitely, it was only when Sargon (II) died in 705 b.c. that Hezekiah stopped paying tribute to Assyria which resulted in the devastation of Judah and the subsequent siege of Jerusalem (c. 701 b.c.) by Sennacherib.
quote:
PaulK
. . . because Ahaz submitted to Assyria (therefore thwarting the prophecy).
That is an interesting statement.
Isaiah 7:17 "The Lord shall bring upon thee and upon thy people . . ."
A quick check of the Hebrew reveals that the "thee" in the above verse is in the masculine singular form and must therefore refer to Ahaz as opposed to the earlier indicated "house of David".
Therefore it does seem to indicate (as you say) that Ahaz would (personally) experience the devastation of Judah.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 6:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 2:19 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 202 (60630)
10-12-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Amlodhi
10-12-2003 1:46 PM


It's even simpler than that. The whole of the prophecy has to fit into the years between the birth of the child, and the child being old enough to "know good from evil". According to 2 Kings 18:13 Sennacharib attacked in the 14th year of Hezekaiah's reign.
The child's birth would have to be in Ahaz' reign - since the fall of Syria was during Ahaz' reign - probably in the first few years (see 2 Kings 15-16 - Pekah's reign overlapped with the first 3 years of Ahaz' putting the attacks within that period, and the fall of Syria appears to be not long after). So the 14th year of Hezekaiah's reign is clearly too late - even if the fall of Syria was at the end of Ahaz' reign and not near the beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Amlodhi, posted 10-12-2003 1:46 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Amlodhi, posted 10-12-2003 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 202 (60642)
10-12-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
10-12-2003 2:19 PM


Hi PaulK,
quote:
Originally posted by PaulK
It's even simpler than that. The whole of the prophecy has to fit into the years between the birth of the child, and the child being old enough to "know good from evil". According to 2 Kings 18:13 Sennacharib attacked in the 14th year of Hezekaiah's reign.
Remember, there are two parts to the prophecy. All that needs to happen before the child is old enough to choose the good, etc. is for Rezin (Syria) and Pekah (Israel) to be removed. The second part, the devastation of Judah, can happen later.
quote:
PaulK:
The child's birth would have to be in Ahaz' reign - since the fall of Syria was during Ahaz' reign - probably in the first few years (see 2 Kings 15-16 - Pekah's reign overlapped with the first 3 years of Ahaz' putting the attacks within that period, and the fall of Syria appears to be not long after).
My reply was in response to w_fortenberry's postulate that the two kings of verse 16 were Ahaz and Pekah. Since (as you mentioned) Ahaz took the throne in the 17th year of Pekah's 20 yr. reign, the prophecy of Isaiah had to have occurred within the first three years of Ahaz's reign. Thus since Ahaz reigned for 16 years, the child would have been at least 12 yrs. old (allowing for normal gestation) before both Pekah and Ahaz were gone. This would make the child too old for Pekah and Ahaz to be the two kings referred to in verse 16 as w_fortenberry suggested.
Since both Pekah (Israel) and Rezin (Syria) were both killed within c. 4 yrs. of Ahaz's ascension it is these two kings that match the first part of the prophecy as well as the additional context of the chapter.
quote:
PaulK:
So the 14th year of Hezekaiah's reign is clearly too late - even if the fall of Syria was at the end of Ahaz' reign and not near the beginning.
Certainly, Hezekiah's reign is only applicable to the second part of the prophecy (the devastation of Judah). The fall of Syria occurred in the first part of Ahaz's reign. Tiglath-Pileser III took Damascus (Syria) in 732 b.c. (the 4th year of Ahaz's reign)and Rezin was killed at this time. In the same year, Hoshea killed Pekah (Israel) but was unable to ascend to kingship at this time. Hoshea finally succeeded to the throne of Israel in the 12th year of Ahaz's reign and ruled for 9 years. It was then (c. 715) that Israel was dispersed.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 2:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2003 6:09 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 202 (60646)
10-12-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Amlodhi
10-12-2003 5:50 PM


You're missing the significance of the child eating curds and honey in verse 15. In verse 22 it is stated that everyone left in Judah will eat curds and honey, because of the return to a pastoral nomadic life.
The intent is clear - the whole of the prophecy will be fulfilled by that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Amlodhi, posted 10-12-2003 5:50 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 12:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024