Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

OK so you say that have read Isaiah 7 very carefully and prayerfully - and as I will show you then ignored what it said.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.
16 " For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.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.7:15 is also relevant if you read the rest of the chapter - it is a reference to 7:22
"... and because of the abundance of the milk produced he will eat curds, for everyone that is left within the land will eat curds and honey."But that is part of a prediction that the Assyrians will come and that the people of Judah will return to a nomadic life.What does any of this have to do with Jesus ? Israel and Assyria were logn gone by the time Jesus was born. Syria was a Roman Province. None of these events happened durng Jesus childhood.The only conclusion a RATIONAL reader of Isaiah can come to is that the child of Isaiah 7:14 (abe: is) Jesus. A RATIONAL reader would know that Israel, Syria and the Assyrians were all threats during the reign of Ahaz and conclude that Isaiah 7 referred to events of that time and not the distant future.You do not even explain why your "logic" requires you to assume that Isaiah and Micah were talking about the same person. Nor do you explain why yur "logic' requires you to red Isaiah 7 as referring to the distant future.And you reject your own point about genealogies - you say that the father should be named rather than the mother. Well we have no name, and no genealogy - just an observation that a young woman is or will be pregnant. Now in my view the young woman was known to Ahaz and Isaiah (but you can't accept that) and that the father's name was implicit. I would suggest that Isaiah was talking about one of Ahaz' wives or concubines - probably a wife. Others suggest that Isaiah's wife is meant, believing that the child of Isaiah 8 is the same as the child of Isaiah 7.In the light of Isaiah 7:15-16 either alternative is clearly better than your assumption that it must mean some unknown woman in the distant future. So until you can explain why it is "logical" to ignore the two verses directly following Isaiah 7:14 it is clear that a careful reader CANNOT logically come to your conclusion. Indeed it would be better to ask how your "careful" reading somehow managed to miss the significance of these two verses leading you to a clearly false conclusion.This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 03-20-2006 11:21 AM

But you aren't discussing Isaiah 7 which is the topic of this thread. Do you have anything to say about the points have been raised ?The simplest objection to your points is that since no such govenremnt has been set up it the prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and so it cannot be used as evidence that Jesus is the Messiah.

THe Brittanica entry on Isaiah states

quote:

---

First Isaiah contains the words and prophecies of Isaiah, a most important 8th-century BCE prophet of Judah, written either by himself or his contemporary followers in Jerusalem (from c. 740 to 700 BCE), along with some later additions, such as chapters 24-27 and 33-39. The first of these two additions was probably written by a later disciple or disciples of Isaiah about 500 BCE; the second addition is divided into two sections--chapters 33-35, written during or after the exile to Babylon in 586 BCE, and chapters 36-39, which drew from the source used by the Deuteronomic historian in II Kings, chapters 18-19. The second major section of Isaiah, which may be designated Second Isaiah even though it has been divided because of chronology into Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah, was written by members of the "school" of Isaiah in Babylon: chapters 40-55 were written prior to and after the conquest of Babylon in 539 by the Persian king Cyrus II the Great, and chapters 56-66 were composed after the return from the Babylonian Exile in 538.

---

The main criteria appear to be content - the two portions of Second Isaiah deal with concenrs appropriate to those periods. However I would expect style to be an issue, too.

Quite frankly it should be clear to everyone that you are ignoring my points and twisting the text to suit a predetermined conclusion.It is not clear from Isaiah 7 that the child is to be a unique individual because all the child does is live to be old enough to tell good from evil and eat curds and honey (along with everyone else left in Judah - but you ignore that part of the prophecy). Granted the last did not happen - but if it had then many children would have done as much.The child has to be born BEFORE the events to be a meaningful sign - the whole point of a sign is to indicate that the prophecy WILL be imminently fulfilled. That is a clear fact that no rational reader could deny.The fact that you have to resort to these measures proves that you do not truly respect the Bible - if you did you would care about what it said - rather than twisting it to agree with your beliefs about what it SHOULD say. It is your belief system that has disintegrated.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-28-2003]

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 Ahaz2) 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 ?I don't think so. So why don't you answer the point instead of misrepresenting it ?

Well if you want to add the fact that Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, that it is Ahaz' actions that are attributed to the "House of David" in verse 12 to the list of things you have to ignore, well what's one more.The fact is that you don't answer my main point.The child is a sign. Before he is old enough to know good from evil Syria and Israel will be defeated and the prophecy will be fulfilled. The child will eat curds and honey (verse 15) because all of Judah will be eating curds and honey (verse 22).I don't see how you can possibly miss the fact that you are evading a very simple point. The sign has to come before the fulfilment. What else is the purpose of a sign ? You even have to ignore the clear link between verses 15 and 22.And please explain to me why I would worship you and you falsehoods if my "philosophy" were not "at stake". Whatever I believed my integrity and honesty would compel me to reject your distortions.

You're right of course.If you really investigate Isaiah 8 - and for some reasons many translations obscure it - the name of the child there is "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" (8:3) meaning "Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey" (8:2).
And the reason for that name is (8:5) "for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria"Now obviously a toddler is not going to go off and loot Damascus and Samaria, so the name has to be symbolic.This prophecy parallels that of chapter 7 - the child is a passive sign, marking the time of the events of the prophecy - so it is obvious that the names in both prophecies are symbolic.

So essentially your problem is that we won't simply accept what you say even though it is obviously false.You HAVE to know that you've been dodging my points. It's just too obvious.You haven't been logical you've just made excuses and evaded issues.And you complain that you aren't believed. Well that's because you're so obviously wrong and because you can't support your case.The chapter 8 prophecy is clearly related in content and form - of course we come back to the fact that you won't accept the truth because it contradicts your beliefs.Now again you misrepresent the prophecy. As I point out Verse 22 is linked to verse 15. It therefore follows that if the period of thorns refers to the aftermath of the Jewish War (35-40 years AFTER Jesus died) the child could not be old enough to "tell good from evil" until AD70 - and even if we give a generous allowance for that age could not have been born much before AD60.So please stop prtending that you've "won" the argument and are being shouted down. You've been proven wrong, it's clear that you are contradicting the Bible because it clashes with your beliefds and if anyone has been trying to shout people down it is your cries of victoryI am sorry that you feel that you can't discuss these matters unless people accept your opibnions as unchallengable truth butthere would be no point in such a discussion. Since you obviously feel there is no point in any real discussion I suggest you leave this board - because discussion is what it is here for.

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)

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Well two mistakes here. Firstly I was using the NASB as a reference and secondly my point is based less on grammatical niceties than on the purpose of signs.While a literalist could insist that it only means that at SOME point in the child's life the devastation would arrive that would miss the point of a sign. The sign explicitly links the child having reached the age of discernment to the devastation. If it meant at some point in his life after that then why not state that it would happen during the child's lifetime ? Or link the prediction to some other event ?The only reading that makes sense is to indicate that the devastation will occur by that time.