Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 103 of 202 (290958)
02-27-2006 8:14 PM


Re: Jews and Isaiah 7:14
faith writes:
Yes, and all the EXCELLENT translators of the Greek into other languages translated THAT word "virgin" in their own language. Perhaps it is because Dinah was RAPED, she was not a SLUT, which is what NOT calling her a virgin at that point might have implied.
rape victim ≠ virgin. try again?
faith writes:
Who knows, but you aren't a translator and neither am I. I trust the experts. You should too isntead of having the arrogance to put your own ruminations over their expertise.
no, you don't trust the experts. you trust the experts who agree with the particular viewpoint you already subscribe to. did you fail to see the expert above who cited numerous examples in other works of greek literature where parthenos does not mean "virgin?"
faith writes:
I didn't say it "always" means "virgin." I said it is the Greek word that explicitly specifically DOES mean "virgin" however, however, and I also said that it was TRANSLATED as "virgin" into umpteen other languages by KNOWLEDGEABLE TRANSLATORS, which you are not!!!!
keep in mind, you're addressing this point at someone who probably speaks a little hebrew.
faith writes:
You are talking about modern translations. You are talking about Jewish translators who are positively allergic to any meaning that might validate Christianity. The fact remains that the Jewish translators of the Septuagint used "parthenos" and the GREEK-SPEAKING WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT understood it to mean VIRGIN, and all the translations done from the Septuagint into other languages used that language's term for "virgin.l"
except that you fail to read the bits that show that parthenos doesn't clearly and certainly mean "virgin" as in "posesses an intact hymen."
faith writes:
Where "Almah" is used in teh Song of Songs is not for the Shulamite but for the Daughters of Jerusalem who are virgins.
the reference to "undefiled" is in the singular. are the queens and concubines also virgins? maybe that "undefiled" noun means virgin?
[further editted to comply with adminpd's suggestion i identify whom i am responding to]
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-28-2006 10:53 PM


  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 134 of 202 (293787)
03-09-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rawel Singh
03-09-2006 11:59 AM


wrong jesus
We seem to rely only on Isaiah for the prophecy. There is a very explicit prophcy being given by God to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-18...
wrong jesus. the "messiah" prophecied in deuteronomy is the one who will lead the israelites into the promised land, who is probably not coincidentally named yehoshua -- though in this case it's normally rendered "joshua."
i would imagine that jesus was very purposefully named for joshua.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-09-2006 11:59 AM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-09-2006 9:36 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 162 of 202 (294395)
03-12-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
03-12-2006 12:49 AM


Re: Yet another example of parts of Isaiah that must be ignored
Often these OT messianic prophecies include the end time of the 2nd advent of Jesus when he rules and reigns in his millenial kingdom, the church age, being a silent mystery to the prophets.
so not fulfilled (yet) then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2006 12:49 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-12-2006 3:17 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 169 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2006 1:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 202 (296532)
03-18-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Buzsaw
03-12-2006 1:08 PM


the classic reverse strawman fallacy
That's not what I said nor what I implied.
really? let's look again. first, jar asked:
quote:
When during Jesus life did the King of Assyria shave the Hebrews heads, the hair of their legs and take off their beards?
instead of providing an answer (indeed, you could not have found one in the bible), you wrote:
quote:
"In that day" is indicative of a general period of time relative to the messianic era. Often these OT messianic prophecies include the end time of the 2nd advent of Jesus when he rules and reigns in his millenial kingdom, the church age, being a silent mystery to the prophets.
in other words, that bit of the prophecy applies to "the end time, the church age" and not something that happened (past tense) during the life of jesus. something that will happen during the "2nd advent of Jesus when he rules and reigns in his millenial kingdom." we can tell that because given the two things it could be referring to, it's not one of them. so it must be the other.
in other words, not fulfilled (yet), but will be during the second coming.
how is that not what you said or implied?
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-18-2006 09:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2006 1:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2006 11:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 199 of 202 (296687)
03-19-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Buzsaw
03-19-2006 11:06 PM


Re: the classic reverse strawman fallacy
Read the text.
1. The Lord, not the King of Assyria, does the shaving.
2. The shaving text is quite ambiguous as to exactly what it means, but in context it appears to be related to the desolation of the land involving the King of Assyria with just what that involvement is being what is ambiguous. "That is hired in the parts beyond the river with the King of Assyria" The previous verse as well as verses following all deal with the desolation of the land of Assyria and the region in general.
3. Factoring in all the verses of the prophecy with the repetition of the phrase "in that day" applied to the growing in of "thorns and briers" et al, there's no way you can apply it to the short term there and then.
buz, this is pointless.
i asked a simple question of clarification. you said that the prophecies include the end times in response to a question about when some event happened. i don't care about the event, or the semantics, or whatever excuse you're using to dodge my simple little question. i'm not even trying to make some snarky point here. i was just verifying what you're saying.
has it happened yet? or will it happen in the end times? is it fulfilled, or does it still remain to be fulfilled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2006 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024