Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

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.

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.

Amlodhi,I have a few questions and comments regarding your recent posts.I. In regards to the differences between almah and bethulah, you stated: Could you please explain how this idea would "strain credulity beyond all limits"?II. In regards to the "one land" mentioned in these verses, you stated: The formation of a confederacy does not in any way require the dissolvement of two nations into one. America and Britain have entered into many confederacies throughout history, yet the two remain completely independent nations. Thus the confederacy between Ephraim and Syria does not necessitate that they were the one land mentioned in this passage.III. You also made an absolute statement about the house of David. This is a very interesting statement. Are you saying that it would be impossible for a nation to be abhorred by its king?IV. You had much to say about the time in which you think the child must have been born. The only direct indication given in the passage for the time of the child’s birth is the statement that he will not know how to choose good over evil until after the loss of two unnamed kings. The Bible does not tell us how long after this loss the child will gain his discernment. It merely states that the child will know to choose between good and evil sometime after the land has lost both kings. Now, it would be highly irregular for a child to know how to choose good over evil before he is even conceived. Therefore a child born 700 years future to this prophecy would definitely meet the qualification of not discerning good from evil until after the land was forsaken of both her kings.V. You also mentioned a possible correlation between verses 15 and 22 as evidence for your position You are correct in pointing out this correlation. Verse 15 gives us an unusual diet for this child, and verse 22 tells us the origin of this diet. In verse 22 we are told that everyone left in the land will be reduced to a diet of butter and wild honey, and verse 15 also tells us that the child will eat butter and honey. However, the context does not give any indication that the incidents of these two verses occur simultaneously. It only indicates that the diet of the child will be the same as that of those left in the land. The purpose of the diet is given in verse 15 as teaching to know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good. This diet is imposed on the people of the land in verse 22 precisely because they had chosen evil instead of good; they were reduced to nomadic conditions as a result of their decision. Chapter 8 outlines the choice of good that this condition will teach them, and chapter 9:1-8 presents the result of choosing good.In chapter 9, we also find another passage concerning a child. It has already been pointed out that the context of Isaiah 7:14 extends from chapter 7 through chapter 9. The grammatical structure of this context is such that verses 1-13 of chapter 7 are presented as a background and introduction to this passage. Verses 14-16 then present the main prophecy, and verse 17 of 7 through verse 22 of chapter 8 provides an explanation of the events leading up to the fulfillment of this prophecy. Chapter 9 then tells of the culmination of these events at the completion of the prophecy itself in verses 1-8. The final verses of chapter 9 conclude this passage with an application of the prophecy to the current situation of Israel and Judah. Thus the child whose birth is prophesied in chapter 7 is the same child whose life is described in chapter 9.In chapter 7, we are told that the child would be born of a virgin (almah), that he would be called Immanuel (God with us), and that he would eat a diet of butter and honey. In chapter 9, we find that he will rule from the throne of David forever; that he will bring peace, judgment, and justice; and that he will be given names applying only to one who is God: The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Such a child could only be the Christ.In fact, in reading through the book of Isaiah, one can compare the child of chapters 7-9 to the rod out of the stem of Jesse in Isaiah 11:1-5, the corner stone laid in Zion in Isaiah 28:16, my servant in Isaiah 42:1-7, the salvation placed in Zion in Isaiah 46:13, my servant called from the womb in Isaiah 49:1-7, his servant who gave his back to the smiters in Isaiah 50:4-10, my servant who bore the sins of many in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the Redeemer that shall come to Zion in Isaiah 59:20, the light which is come in Isaiah 60:1-3 (compare with 9:2), thy salvation cometh in Isaiah 62:11-12, and the seed brought forth out of Jacob in Isaiah 65:9. That all these prophecies refer to a single individual is easily seen in the constant repetition among them of his characteristics. The only single individual that I know of to whom each of these prophecies has been attributed is Jesus Christ.His virgin birth is declared in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35
He is claimed to be the rod out of Jesse in Luke 3:32, Acts 13:22-23, Romans 15:8-12, Revelation 5:5, and Revelation 22:16
He is named as the corner stone in Acts 4:10-11, Ephesians 2:20, and I Peter 2:5-6
He is said to be the servant of Isaiah 42:1-7 in Matthew 12:15-20 and Philippians 2:7
He is the salvation placed in Zion in Titus 2:11-14
He is proclaimed as the servant called from the womb in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:23
He gave his back to the smiters in Matthew 27:26-30, Mark 14:65 and 15:15, Luke 22:63-65, and John 19:1-3
He bore the sins of many in Colossians 1:14, I Timothy 2:5-6, Titus 2:14, and Hebrews 9:28
He is the redeemer that came to Zion in Romans 11:26
He is the light which is come in Matthew 4:16, Luke 1:79, Luke 2:32, John 1:9, John 3:19, John 8:12, and Ephesians 5:14
He is the salvation that came in Luke 2:30
And He is declared to be the seed brought out Jacob in Luke 1:32-33 and Luke 3:34To the best of my knowledge, no other single individual has been attributed with having fulfilled all of these prophecies in himself.

PaulK,I presented evidence regarding the usage of almah in Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a true virgin. Your response was, You claim that your conclusion is certain but you have presented no evidence (aside from a vague reference to Strong's) by which I may determine its certainty for myself. You are certainly free to hold whatever opinion you prefer, but I would recomend that you present evidence to prove it.According to my study of bethulah's usage in Scripture, it is used to refer to any young lady. It's primary use is as a term of comparison with young men and contrast with the infants and the elderly. The emphasis, so far as I can tell, is on age and gender rather than virginity.Most Bible software will allow you to search for words in the original languages. If you have some of this software, you might want to study each of the passages in which either bethulah or almah is used. I would recomend that you at least study Joel 1:8, Job 31:1, Psalm 148:12, Isaiah 23:4, Isaiah 62:5, Jeremiah 18:13, Lamentations 2:21, Ezekiel 9:6, Exodus 2:8, and Song of Solomon 6:8.

sidelined,The participants of this thread are currently discussing the prophecy of Isaiah chapter 7. There is another thread which is devoted to discussing the lineage of Jesus. Perhaps you should ask your question there.

ConsequentAtheist,Thank you for joining the discussion. You posted a quote with the following comment. Is this the only example you have of a possible interchanging of the two words? Please notice that almah is not used as a synonym of bethulah in this passage; rather, it is used as a synonym of nahara. Nahara is a very generic term corresponding to our English word girl, and its relationship to almah is similar to the relationship between our words girl and virgin where girl refers to a general class of individuals and virgin refers to a more specific category of individuals within that main class.You should also note that the words nahara and almah occur within quotes of a certain individual while the word bethulah does not. This further limits the possibility that bethulah and almah are directly interchangeable within this passage.Your quote also included a comment on the legal uses of bethulah. You have not provided any evidence of such legal contexts, but what you say may be true. There are many terms that take on a different meaning when used in different jargons. However, this statement does not address any possible legal definitions of the word almah. Surely when addressing the royal family of Judah, Isaiah would have used a jargon befitting of the occasion. What meaning do you propose for the legal usage of the word almah?

Rei,Let me begin by asking that if you wish to say what I have stated then please say what I have stated.You stated that: There are three English terms which we could compare to the Hebrew words mentioned so far in this discussion. We can compare girl to nahara, young lady to bethulah, and virgin to almah. The relationship between these words is very similar in the two languages.In English the word girl can refer to just about any young female and is even occasionally used in sentimental references to elderly ladies. Likewise, the Hebrew word nahara is used in reference to young females in general.The English term young lady is very similar to our word girl, but it carries certain connotations which in some areas will limit its use. For instance, it is almost always used to describe a female of the younger of any two generations rather than the elder although it is still sometimes used as a sentimental address to the elderly. This term is not limited by virginity; however, it is somewhat limited to chastity. This term is often employed when one is referring to a young mother and is seldom withdrawn from references to rape victims. It is even properly used in reference to young ladies who are seeking to change from a previously promiscuous lifestyle. But the term young lady is almost never used to describe an active harlot except in a purely ironic or sarcastic sense. The Hebrew word bethulah is very similar; it does not demand virginity, but it almost always carries a connotation of chastity. Thus in a legal or literal sense referring to an unmarried woman as a young lady often implies that she is a virgin, but the term itself is not so limited.The English word virgin (in its current context) stands in stark contrast to the previous two. It is not limited by age or gender in any way. It may refer to a girl of 10, a young lady of 25, a woman of 42, or an elderly lady of 87. Its sole limitation is that it is used only in reference to one that is untouched (the actual meaning of the word) sexually. It is never used as an expression of sentimentality toward an elderly married lady, nor is it ever used in reference to a penitent harlot. It is only used for those who are true virgins. The Hebrew word almah is very similar to our word virgin. It too is only used in reference to true virgins and never to young ladies in general.

ConsequentAtheist,You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Compare with Which of these sources are you relying on? One states that bethulah is distinct from almah and means specifically a virgin while the other claims that the two are interchangeable with very similar meanings. What is your position on this matter?Can you provide a single instance in which almah is used in reference to a young lady who is not a virgin? Such references can be found for bethulah. Are you willing to address the usage of bethulah in Joel 1:8 and Isaiah 47:1-15? Can you explain the usage of bethulah in Jeremiah 18:13, 31:4, and 31:21 in light of the statements found in Jeremiah 3:6-8? These references all present bethulah as a referring to a female who has already lost her virginity. Based on its usage in the Bible, almah would not have been the correct word to use in these verses. Isaiah 23:4 uses bethulah simply as the female counterpart to a young man. Virginity is not a requirement for this role in which bethulah is often used. Isaiah 23:12 is a reference to a wicked city not to a chaste woman. Isaiah 37:22 is a very vague figurative reference which gives no indication of the presence or lack of virginity. Isaiah 47:1 is a reference to a city which in the same passage is described as being married and having children (Isaiah 47:8-9). And Isaiah 62:5 is simply a statement about a young man marrying a young lady. Virginity is not a requirement for marriage nor even for a happy marriage. I have already presented the full context of this passage in light of other prophecies found in the book of Isaiah. You must be very knowledgeable of this book. Most people would only mention that Mark does not provide an account of Christ’s birth and conclude that he does not address this topic at all. As you know, this would be an incorrect assumption, for the virgin birth can be found all throughout the book of Mark. Even a very cursory study of the book would reveal that Mark often refers to Christ as both the Son of Man and the Son of God. He is referred to as the son of David in Mark 10:47 and 12:35 and even as the son of Mary in Mark 6:3. However, Mark never refers to Christ as the son of Joseph, a very interesting discovery since it was very common in those days to refer to individuals as the sons of their fathers. Mark refers to Christ as the Son of Man through His birth into the Davidic line via His mother Mary and as the Son of God who is described as His Father in Mark 8:38, 13:32, and 14:36. Thus Mark shows Christ to be the Son of God born through Mary.This knowledge of the virgin birth of Christ can also be seen in the question Jesus asked in Mark 12:35-37.

quote:

---

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?

---

Thus Mark considered Christ to be both David’s son and his Lord. He was both his descendent and his Creator.These results can be discovered in just a cursory study of the topic. I am sure that with a more in depth study I could find more, but this is not the thread for in depth studies of the Book of Mark.

PaulK,You stated, Allow me to point out that almah is never used in Scripture as the feminine equivalent of a young man. Bethulah, on the other hand, is used as such quite often. Consider Deuteronomy 32:25, II Chronicles 36:17, Psalms 78:63 and 148:12, Isaiah 23:4, Jeremiah 31:13and 51:22, Lamentations 1:18 and 2:21, Amos 8:13, and Zechariah 9:17.You further stated, Did you read my previous posts (37 and 55) on this topic? If so, please point out to me what part of those posts requires further clarification, and I will do my best to help you understand my position.You also stated, First of all, let me suggest the following reference regarding the word almah. The definitions found here and in most other sources that I have available are in basic agreement with the definition which I have proposed. In fact, the only source which you have mentioned also agrees with this definition, only you forgot to include that part of it in your quote. Perhaps our sources agree with each other because they are the same source. If you will notice, crosswalk.com does a very good job of giving credit to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament for the Hebrew definitions found on their site.Now, let me point out that I did not define almah as meaning untouched. I did incorrectly state this as the literal definition of the word virgin. I was under the impression that this was the primary meaning of the word. I have since found that untouched is only a secondary function of virgin in which its primary application as a reference to a female who has not experienced sexual intercourse is used in the personification of any object which has not been handled by man. (By the way, this definition of virgin is from Webster’s New International Dictionary Second Edition, Unabridged)In your most recent post you stated, I have provided a very large number of Scripture references which support my position, and I have also provided some sources in this post for your consideration. However, let me mention that you have only provided one source for your position. That source was misnamed, misquoted, and misapplied! Perhaps you could provide another.You further question whether I have done my homework. I could ask you the same thing. If you compare our posts, you will find that one of us posts very detailed, well written, and well prepared arguments while the other posts short jabs at his opponents character containing multiple misspellings and grammatical errors and evidencing a very hasty reading of previous posts. Which of these has done his homework?Perhaps you should take some time to review your position. Having responded too quickly to my arguments, it is possible that you have accepted your position just as hastily. Let me recommend that you take a week or so and study the argument to its fullest before continuing. If you have any questions about my position, just ask me for an explanation, and I will do my best to supply one.

PaulK,Please forgive the long delay. I took the time to review all of the evidence you have presented in this thread and to submit it to a thorough examination. I trust you have done the same regarding the evidence I have provided. In light of that study, I would like to point out a few things from your recent reply.You opened your post with: I have made several attempts to provide you with an explanation of what I think you are asking. It is apparent that you have not accepted my explanations, yet you have not informed me of any flaws you might have found in my reasoning. You have simply repeated your claim that I have not given a "reasonable explanation." Perhaps if you could tell me what you find unreasonable about my posts, then I would be able to provide a more reasonable explanation.You continued with this statement: Here again, you have not informed me of which part of my post you are attempting to refute. Perhaps I could ask a question which will help clarify this. You have referred to the purpose of the sign, but may I ask, what in this passage are you referring to as "the sign" and why do you think that this is "the sign"? If you could answer this question for me, it would help me to understand your position.You also attempted to attack my sources by stating: First of all let me point out that what one wishes to be true does not necessarily prevent him from telling the truth.Secondly allow me a moment of perplexity as I consider the implications of debating with one who denies his own sources. If you recall, I mentioned in post 77 that we are using the exact same source. I am sure then that you understand how confusing it was to read your response. Are you really admitting that you have been relying on inerrantist propaganda all this time?Terribly confusing, is it not? But let me add a few more questions to the mix. You didn't think much of my examples for the following reason: Here I am extremely confused. I thought that I had posted 11 references supporting my statement, yet you claim that they are less impressive if you say that 4 of them don't apply. What about the other 7? If you are correct and the 4 you mention do not apply to the topic, then why haven't you attempted to refute the ones which you think do apply? Surely seven verses is not too much for you to study, especially when you consider that I have presented a total of 74 verses in support of my position. Maybe instead of refuting my verses you could provide 74 verses which support your position. You have only mentioned 9 references outside of Isaiah 7 so far and 5 of those were simply in response to a previous mention of those verses by myself. Do you have more than 4 verses which you think support your position?I would also be interested in knowing why you think the usage of bachuwr in these passages lessens their applicability to my position.You then mentioned three verses which you said "quite clearly refer to virginity." First, let me make the same request of you that I made of Rei. "If you wish to say what I have stated, then please say what I have stated." In other words, please do not misquote me. In the realm of copy-and-paste such errors should never occur.You claimed that I have presented bethulah as meaning "young woman." This is not correct. I presented bethulah as being very similar to the term "young lady." This is an important distinction, for, as I stated, this term is somewhat limited to chastity. In reference to the word bethulah, I precisely stated, "it does not demand virginity, but it almost always carries a connotation of chastity."This definition of bethulah is in keeping with its usage in the aforementioned passages. According to the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis; and The Theological Wordbook fo the Old Testament, the word is used in reference to chastity; and, according to context, virginity is here considered the main determinate for chastity. Thus it is translated virgin.You further declared: Here again you have misquoted me. I did not say that almah is "ALWAYS" used in reference to true virgins; I said that it is "only used in reference to true virgins." I should have prefaced this statement with the qualifier of in the Bible, but I assumed that this qualification would be understood by the context of this debate.Now, the word almah is used 7 times in Scripture. I occurs in Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8, and Isaiah 7:14. Perhaps you could tell me which of these verses supports your claim that "almah is never used when it would specifically mean 'virgin'."You again misquoted me when you said: I do not recall ever claiming this meaning for the word almah. I did claim this meaning for the word virgin, but I certainly did not do so without support. In post 77, I stated that "this definition of virgin is from Webster’s New International Dictionary Second Edition, Unabridged."And finally, you keep suggesting that I have not "done my homework." Why don't we just let the homework speak for itself? Surely if I have done as little study and preparation as you say, then such negligence will be apparent in my posts. And if you have done more study than I have, then you will be able to adequately refute my statements. If the Bible is correct in stating that "even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right," then everyone else on this thread already knows which of us has truly done his homework.

As I said, the "homework" speaks for itself.