|
Author
|
Topic: Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
Message 144 of 202 (294303)
03-11-2006 2:55 PM
|
|
|
Maybe this will get the thread back on topic
The following is a post I proposed to start a discussion of Isaiah 7:14:
The rendering of Isaiah 7:14 seems to come up in discussions of a number of topics, but I don't see any threads that focus on the verse itself. If there are any, perhaps this post should be included with them.
Some Bibles use the word virgin in this passage, while others use young woman. Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Christians say this verse predicts the virgin birth of Jesus, who they maintain is the deity come down to earth to be with us. However, this citation has been poorly translated, taken out of context, and is not messianic in any event. (Note, by the way, how the book of Matthew in the Christian Bible misquotes this verse). Poor Translation: The Hebrew word for virgin is "betula". The root of the word is so specific that the Hebrew scriptures mention it with reference to stained bedsheets. However, the word used in Is 7:14 is "alma" which most dictionaries translate as "young woman." The word "alma" is found only seven times in scripture. In some places, it could mean either "virgin" or "young woman" but two verses suggest that an "alma" need not be virginal (Proverbs 30:19 -- "the way of a man with an alma", which is usually sexual -- and Song of Songs 6:8 -- "queens, concubines, and almas", the first two clearly not virginal, which suggests the third also is not.) To think the prophet would have used "alma" rather than the unequivocal "betula" strains credulity.
http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah7.html I am a bit leery of the unequivocal statement that queens are "clearly not virginal," though perhaps one could only become a queen by being the wife of a king in Bible times. Also, just because two (or one) of those in a list has a certain characteristic, doesn't necessarily make it all that farfetched to think the others have to have it. Nonetheless, despite those reservations, I tend to think that the rendering young woman fits the context better than virgin, for reasons that are better articulated by the author of the page than anything I could say. The passage in Isaiah 7 is simply not intended as a Messianic prophecy. One problem that seems to occur with attempts to discuss this issue (besides the inevitable thread drift that happens on many bulletin boards) is that many people have a way of assuming a priori that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, then expect it to be rendered in such a way that Jesus fulfills the prophecy. I suppose we can argue for "dual fulfillment," with one fulfillment being literal, and the other, "greater" fulfillment being "spritual." But it seems that we still want Jesus to be a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 7 and other Old Testament prophecies, even if that means accepting awkward or difficult translations of these passages. I don't know where, if anywhere, we can go from here.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 145 by ramoss, posted 03-11-2006 4:57 PM | | DeclinetoState has not replied | | | Message 146 by jar, posted 03-11-2006 5:19 PM | | DeclinetoState has not replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
A stretch?
Sadly, I must say that I think it's quite a stretch to say that Isaiah ch. 7 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Still, I suppose it's not an impossible one. It just seems that the context of Isaiah 7 points to a relatively short time between the prophecy and its fulfillment. Does anyone know for sure if the Greek word parthenos, which some here say the rabbis or scholars who put together the Septuagint used for Hebrew almah, really means "virgin"? Can it also mean "young woman" (for example, like the German word Jungfrau, which literally means "young woman" but is often--always?--translated "virgin")?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 165 by ramoss, posted 03-12-2006 8:46 AM | | DeclinetoState has replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 172 of 202 (294514)
03-12-2006 1:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by ramoss
03-12-2006 8:46 AM
|
|
Parthenos not a virgin?
If parthenos does not necessarily mean "virgin," then the whole bit about a prophecy of a virgin birth is at best suspect, and at worst a load of rubbish, isn't it? Did the meaning of parthenos change from "young woman" to "virgin" over time? Is it possible that when the LXX was written, it meant "young woman," but by the time of the birth of Jesus (or at least when the Gospels were written), it meant "virgin"? (This would not necessarily have any effect, one way or the other, on the historicity of the virgin birth, but now we're getting close to a topic for another thread.) This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 03-12-2006 01:18 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by ramoss, posted 03-12-2006 8:46 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 187 of 202 (296617)
03-19-2006 2:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by ramoss
03-18-2006 10:38 AM
|
|
Matthew claims fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy
ramoss writes: In Isaiah's own words, the signs are himself, and his sons. In context. No other persons writing involved, Even flow of storyline in his writing. NO need for somebody to reinterpret what is said from another book, written hunreds of years later. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(Matthew 1:22, 23, KJV) The idea that Jesus' birth fulfills an Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah comes from Matthew ch. 1. It's not a creation of latter-day fundamentalists. (If it were, we could dismiss the "fundies" but continue to accept Jesus.) Such being the case (i.e., that Matthew apparently misquotes Isaiah) then, does it justify dismissing the entire gospel account? The entire New Testament? Can we safely say that there is no good reason to believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by ramoss, posted 03-18-2006 10:38 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 188 by jar, posted 03-19-2006 2:24 PM | | DeclinetoState has replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 189 of 202 (296643)
03-19-2006 5:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
03-19-2006 2:24 PM
|
|
Re: Matthew claims fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy
But if we're expecting God to be perfect, then (many would suggest) His Word must be perfect, too. It obviously isn't--unless someone is able to satisfactorily explain away the problem of Isaiah 7 and other problems, which so far hasn't happened.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by jar, posted 03-19-2006 2:24 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 190 by PaulK, posted 03-19-2006 6:02 PM | | DeclinetoState has replied | | | Message 191 by jar, posted 03-19-2006 6:06 PM | | DeclinetoState has not replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 200 of 202 (296693)
03-20-2006 1:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
03-19-2006 6:02 PM
|
|
Re: Matthew claims fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy
PaulK writes: The Bible itself never claims to be the literal Word of God. At most some parts of it are claimed to be - typically prophets repeating messages that they say were sent to them from God. Can you find one book in the Bible which is clearly written as if God were the author ? It's not hard to find books which were written as if a human writer were the primary author - and Isaiah is one of them. The claim is that the "human" authors wrote entirely under divine inspiration; therefore, their words are perfect. This gets difficult when one notes discrepancies and inconsistencies even in supposedly pristine texts (i.e., texts that don't show errors in copying or transmission). Herepton's comment that there are no errors is, of course, difficult if not impossible to defend if one looks carefully at many Bible passages, such as those in the N.T. that quote from the O.T. (such as Matthew's quote from Isaiah 7), or even when comparing passages in Chronicles with those in Samuel and Kings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 190 by PaulK, posted 03-19-2006 6:02 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 201 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 2:44 AM | | DeclinetoState has replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6468 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 202 of 202 (296794)
03-20-2006 12:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
03-20-2006 2:44 AM
|
|
Re: Matthew claims fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy
All they have is 2 Timothy 3:16. And there are numerous problems in interpreting that as they do. From the vagueness of the statement to the question of authorship to the fact that it does not claim to be scripture or clearly identify which books it does refer to (if Paul wrote it he would ahve to mean the Septuagint and not a single NT book)..
Some claim that 2 Timothy itself was not inspired, and therefore should not considered "Scripture." Even if we accept the passage as itself being inspired, PaulK's comment then leaves us to wonder: Did Paul (or whoever wrote 2 Timothy) also have in mind the Apocrypha, which was (presumably) a large part of the Old Testament extant at the time? In other words, appealing to 2 Timothy to solve the questions of Isaiah 7, as attractive as that may be at first, tends to open up another proverbial can of worms.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 2:44 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2