Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

So as not to get in topical hot water over in the no Bible thread, I thought it best to open a thread on this, beginning with my response to PaulK here:

quote:

---

Isaiah 7:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian's statement:
This may need a seperate thread but just to deal with Buzsaw's points (Buzsaw have you READ all of Isiah 7, with Isaiah 8 ?)

---

As a matter of fact, I have read it a number of times, carefully and prayerfully.

quote:

---

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz statement:
1. It was a prophecy of a future birth.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian's response:
Aside from the fact that the verse can be read as indicating that the young woman *is* with child, it is clear that the birth is in the *near* future.
The child is a sign that Syria nad Isreal - who had been raiding Judah - would shortly be conquered and cease to be a threat.

---

You better reread, carefully and prayerfully, PaulK. God assured the prophet Isaiah that Syria and Ephriam would be defeated. This promise was to be relayed to Ahaz by the prophet. Ahas needed no sign about that. So God offered Ahas the opportunity to ask any sign....about anything he wished from above or from beneith. Ahaz declined the offer so then God, being a bit ticked with Ahaz said something like, 'ok bud, since you decline I gonna give the whole house of David a sign. Then he said a righteous person who was to be called Immanuel (meaning, 'God with us'} would be born of a woman. Then God went on to say this would be in a future day after thus and thus would happen in the land, etc. So very clearly, this prophecy was not about the there and then, but given to the house of David, i.e. Israel for a future birth of a messianic person. The Jews of the NT understood that, and any objective carefull reader of this in conjunction with the Micah 5 prophecy which I've already commented on in the 'no Bible' thread cannot logically come to any other conclusion.

quote:

---

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Buz:
2. OT scriptural practice was to name the father of one having been born or to be born, not themother. Geneologies nearly always list the fathers and sons. It would be very unusual to say a young woman was to bear a son. This would implicate adultery.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PaulK response:
This point cofnuses NAMING the father with indicating that a woman is pregnant. It is not unusual to say that a woman would bear a child - unless you think that men normally give birth !. It would be unusual to name the mother and not thre father - but the mother is not named.

---

Not named, but that's beside the point. Regardless, the father/son male role would be prophesied with such terms as is used in other prophecies concerning Christ where he is referred to as the 'son of David.' This prophecy is clearly given in this rare language to indicate a miraculous birth. Thus the NT reference to it as such.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-26-2003]

quote:

---

However, the prophecy in Isaiah DOES give an indication of when the birth would have to happen - and you don't quote those verses - either because your "careful reading" missed their significance or because they contradict what you say.

​

7:15-16 explain more of the nature of the sign (NASB)
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

---

This, to me, indicates that when messiah comes he will not eat like a king who eats kings food with all the fineries and wine. He will eat simple food. Jesus had no earthly home and lived in the wilderness. He was a rugged manly individual who lived off the land in perfect health.

quote:

---

16 " For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

---

.........And guess what? Rome had defeated all, including Syria and Ephraim, hadn't it, by the time Jesus was born?So far, so good, with prophecy on tract.

quote:

---

7:16 clearly states that the child is a sign of the defeat of Israel and Syria - and that that defeat will occur within a few years of the birth (i.e. a number of years equivalent to the age at which a child would be held to be bable to understand "good" and "evil"). Therefore the only RATIONAL reading is that the child will be born BEFORE that event.

---

Not at all. Jesus was the first child to be able, according to the gospel accounts, to go into the Temple and dialogue with the chief priests, scribes and other elders of Israel concerning things pertaining to good and evil. That's what this is referring to. This child is to be a very unique individual. And that, Jesus was. This again is aother of the scores of marvelous fulfillments of OT Biblical prophecy which you are failing to recognize or acknowledge, for in doing so, your entire philosophy of life and origins disintegrates.I'll rest my case here for now. Gotta run, but will get back when I can.

1. The prophecy was given by God to the whole house of David, meaning a significant prophecy concerning the nation of Israel. It was not given to or for Ahaz who declined a prophecy.2. I'm not ignoring the knowing between good and evil bit. I'm saying it is not about a person maturing, but about a unique person described as one who fits the term, Immanual, meaning God with us who will be able to understand all things and teach these things and to actually resist the evil and do the good. He will be a perfect individual in God's eyes. Before he appears, both kingdoms will be forsaken of their kings. Clearly a future event. He goes on to tell of the days to come when many things will be changed. This birth is way out in the future from the day it was given. If you can't see that, I'm not going to sit here going over and over about it. I've stated my position and you'll have to go with whatever suits you.

quote:

---

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ... before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, ... The LORD shall bring upon thee, ... the King of Assyria." Isaiah 7:14-17 KJV
"By the time this child is weaned ... the mighty king of Assyria will come with his great army!" vss. 16,17 Living Bible
By the time he is weaned, (age 3 to 4 in that culture) the Assyrians "will come."

​

You gots to think in context Buzz!

---

Better get your context in order, Doc. The prophecy of the sons birth and data concerning his nature are addressed before Assyria is mentioned in verse 17. And note that according to verse 16 the two kingdoms will be gone BEFORE the son is born as also stated in verse 16. Nothing in verse 17 says the son will preceed the fall of Ephraim and Assyria. The living Bible has departed from the text and erroneously add words not there as it so often and liberally does. Verse 17 says that "days that have not come." It does not say atol that the Assyrians will come before the child is weaned. This is totally spun out of whole cloth. What the Hebrew text, according to my interlinear is saying is that days, not kings, will come. Ephraim and Assyria will be dealt with before those "days," is the implication of the text. Nothing about the weaning of the child is in the text. This's why these translators who think their job is interpretation irritate me greatly. They also irritate God who always instructed that the text be left as written. The Jewish scribes understood this and meticulously adhered to it. Only in our days of the prophesied apostacy have they so blatantly undertook to shred the truth into oblivion and deceive with their own personal nonsense. Had the early writers and copiers been so careless, alas, we'd have no semblence of what was actually written by now. Thankfully they, for the most part, had more respect and fear of such tampering.

quote:

---

1) Guess you ought to read it again.
7:14 ""Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign..."
The "you" is Ahaz. If you want to argue 7:13 then "House of David" there also clearly refers to Ahaz. Moreover I have already shown that the birth has to take place during the reign of Ahaz
2) I have been quite clear about what you are ignoring. And what you are ignoring is that the SIGN has to precede fulfilment of the prophecy.

​

Is that too difficult for you to understand ?

---

But note in verse 13 who is addressed: "Hear YOU now, O House of David; is it a small thing for YOU (house of Israel) to weary men......." then the very next verse, "Therefore the Lord himself will give YOU (house of Israel) a sign:........"The last mention of Ahaz is in verse 12 where he himself is speaking, not the Lord, telling the Lord he declines the offer for a sign to him personally.I understand that you have a lot in stake for the sake of your philosophy in debunking the prophetic significance of this, PaulK, but spinning what is said and to whom it is said will not dispel it's prophetic profoundness.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-29-2003]

I can see it's a total waste of time arguing with a crowd of whom, no matter how logical and factual one gets none of whom are going to acknowledge anything that smacks of credibility for the Bible. I've shown to whom the prophecy was given and that events requiring a period of time must be accomplished before the "God with us"/Immanuel child is born. The other child in chapter 8 has no bearing on the first child prophecy and is given for the benefit of the there and then when the northern kingdoms would be defeated. The thorns and briers and nomad land description was to come in the day of the Imanuel child.' This description of the future land was to come at a period of time, I say a period of time, when the Imanuel child would be born. Shortly after Jesus, Immanuel, came, the land did indeed become devastated and stayed so until modern day prophecies of Israel's latter day return ensued.No matter what I say I'll be shouted down by a chorus of folks with a personal ideological agenda at stake and I'm sorry, but I'm too busy for argumentation in futility.

quote:

---

You flatter yourself. You have been neither logical nor factual.
I cannot speak for the others but I find the Bible quite credible. On the other hand, I find your inability to understand it quite incredible.

---

Put it this way. You're fine with it so long as the supernaturalness of it doesn't exist.

quote:

---

No one denies that "a period of time must be accomplished." The scripture is clear about that. And that period of time comes to an end before the child can distinguish between good and evil.

---

........don't forget, THIS CHILD KNOWS ONLY TO DO THE GOOD and is called Imannuel.

quote:

---

This theory ignores much of the prophecy: including the age of the child when the devastation begins, and the identity of the one who will accomplish that devastation, "namely the king of Assyria."

---

The age of the child is not addressed. When this uniquie Immanuel child appears who is able to distinguish between the good and the evil AND TO DO ONLY THE GOOD, the land will be become desolate and the prophecy will be fulfilled AS PROPHECIED TO THE WHOLE HOUSE OF DAVID, not specifically to Ahaz who declined a sign. The translators of the most reliable and literate translations and the NT bear out my interpretation that this is reference to the virgin Mary and if you skeptics want to revise to suit your guarded agendas, that's your perogative. As I said, I'm not sitting here adnausium going over this.

quote:

---

My 'personal ideology' has no bearing on what is written in the book. You have been asked to respond to the facts: what is written in the book. Show us that you actually understand what is written on the page before you. Show us the 'logic' and 'facts' to which you allude. It appears that you see only every other word. I am simply reading the Bible and reporting what I read.

---

Yah sure, and as I've stated, the best scholars in this agree with me.

quote:

---

We are not as stupid as you seem to think.

---

......And of course, you're fully aware that I've not even hinted that you're stupid, now, have I. You're all smart like foxes enough to know if you ever acknowledge one eentsy bit of something supernatural in the Bible, your secularistic ideological gooses are cooked.Why should I waste my time in this kind of futil dialogue?

quote:

---

Buzsaw, but I find it interesting that you do not seem to understand what "House of David" refers to here. It refers to King Ahaz, his royal court, and his family - as I will show. (If you do understand this and I misread your posts, I apologize)
The first verses summarizes the story of the two kings who failed to triumph over king Ahaz. We then see the detail..

​

In 7.2 it states that it was reported to the house of David that the two kings of Syria and Pekah are planning to attack Jerusalem. The house of David (i.e. the kingly/royal court), and all the people (common) were shaken.

​

God asks Isaiah to tell the king to stay calm and not worry about this news. He says that the kings will not prevail.

​

God again (through Isaiah) appears in Ahaz's court to tell him to ask for a sign, and Ahaz says he will not put God to the test. Then Isaiah (on behalf of God) replies to Ahaz (possibly to the whole court that is there listening) and asks if it is too much to ask for a sign. He then most likely points to a woman standing in the room and says, "here, this young woman is (or is about to be) pregnant and will give birth to a son. You (talking to the woman) will name him..."

---

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. 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. 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.I have my Hebrew Interlinear in front of me and there is narry a hint in the literal wording about a woman present who was the woman of the prophecy as you are alleging. Nor does the text say as you suggest, "you will call him Immanuel." It says "she shall call his name Immanuel."

quote:

---

Quick point here - I chose to translate this as "you will call him" because this Hebrew verb in this context makes the most sense translated this way, as it was in, for example Genesis 16:11 where the Lord talks to Abram's wife "You are now pregnant and are about to give birth to a son. You are to call him Ishmael". It makes even more sense when you think about how all of this was a discourse in the court in front of king Ahaz and the royal court.

---

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. Not only that, but at the time period of the prophesied child much would happen with the economy and the land. 65 years would pass before Ephriam was wasted and beyond that the Lord goes on to prophesy further about the land.NOTE ALSO in verse 17, Interlinear: "Jehovah shall bring the king of Assyria on YOU, (still addressing the house of David, i.e. Judah, the southern kingdom) and your people, and on your father's house, days which have not come since the days Ephriaim turned aside from Judah." And yes, after Assyria dealt with Syria and Israel, problems arose with the house of David/Judah and Assyria invaded, conquering much of Judah and besieging Jerusalem. There was some effectual resistance there and Hezekiah's kingdom was partly spared, but Judah eventually was carried off to exile in Babylon and never recovered to significance or self rule thereafter.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.

quote:

---

What good would this prophecy do to a House of Israel that was worried about being attacked by two kings if it spoke about some messiah hundreds of years later?

---

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 which 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.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-02-2003]

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.

Hi w_fortenberry. Thanks for coming aboard. Your two posts make a lota sense. My 1901 American Standard Bible is about as literal as they get. Both the translators of this text as well as the King James translators agree with you that almah should be translated virgin because that's how their interlinears and their translations have translated it. I would regard their expertise to be more reliable than our counterparts here on the forum.Thanks also for your 2nd post. You seem to have done your homework on these prophecies. May God bless you!.

quote:

---

From my point of view it is quite true that Ahaz' submission to Tiglath Pileser thwarted the prophecy. The Assyrians did not attack Judah within the time limit and therefore the prophecy failed. If Ahaz had tried to remain independant it is likely - or at least more likely that the prophecy would have been fulfilled

---

Could it be that your understanding of the prophecy failed, PaulK?

Oops, Sorry fortenberry. I posted a comment on geneology before reading your message and before I realized there was a geneology thread on Jesus.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-18-2003]

Whew!! Thanks w_fortenberry for showing up and taking the time to go into debth so masterfully on this interesting subject. This's what Christ and Biblical Christianity needs here in town is more Biblical experts able to articulate, having the knowledge of the truth in these somewhat complex discussions. May God bless you richly, Jehovah, that is, and I surely hope you're here to stay. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-18-2003]

quote:

---

Oy Vey!

---

Poor looser.

quote:

---

So, you agree with w_fortenberry? Good. Because Isaiah 7 refers to "almah" (girl). :As he stated, "bethulah" means virgin in the technical sense. It's the word common in levitical law. But not what is used here - almah is.
In short, Isaiah 7 does *NOT* state that a virgin will give birth. It states that a girl will give birth.

---

Yup, I gotta go with Fortenberry. He's the one who's done the necessary homework in this debate. Evidently the experts, the Biblically fundamental translators of the more accurate and literal translations agree with him also, as they have translated it, 'virgin.' Are you going to document something to rebut Fortenberry's posts to support your claims?