Summations Only

You keep on makign claims that can be shown to be false.I gave examples of parthnos being used for non-virgins.There is also the case of a young married couple in Rome where their tomb refers to the married woman as 'parthenos' (a Jewish couple).It seems odd that you will drag you heel on this, when there is an example of Parthenos being used as a non-virgin right in the Septuagint.

If you check back with when I first introduced parthenos into the discussion, I mentioned that it almost always meant virgin.Was I not less than 100% absolute about parthenos = virgin ?
Now perhaps I have not seen your submissions yet.
But they would be little surprise to me as this is not the first time I have reviewed issues related to the almah / parthenos debate. Have a link to this ? So we have two words - almah in Hebrew and parthenos in Greek. Neither is 100% absolutely and exclusively only virgin.I do not read either Hebrew or Greek. But even in the English language, "virgin" might at some time refer to " a freshman, a neophyte, an apprentice, a novice, a beginner, a rookie, a rook, a greenhorn, a tenderfoot, a newbie, a recruit."Now and many years from now someone could unearth the English usage of "virgin" to refer to something other than a woman who has not had sex with a man.So why should I be surprised that in Hebrew almah could take on varied senses or in Greek parthenos could also take on various senses.I think you have no slam dunk for a failed prophecy.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You mean Gen. 34:4.Umm, before you provided this example, I already submitted it.
Go back and check. I care about accuracy too.My quotation read:

quote:

---

"The LXX renders the word by parthenos which almost always means "virgin." Yet even with this word there are exceptions: Genesis 34:4 refers to Dinah as a parthenos even though the previous verse makes it clear she is no longer a virgin."

---

And out of curiosity. Please give me an example of prophetic words in the Bible that you DO regard as having been fulfilled.I mean anywhere in either Old or New Testament. Do you have a couple examples that serve for you as standard models of what a fulfilled prophecy should look like ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

"almost always".. Is that like "a little bit pregnant'.In the time frame when the extended septiguaint was translated.. it did not.I already showed that 'Almah' does not mean virgin. .. which is the original. Then you say 'Almost always'.. so, when we look at the context.. we see that it is NOT a virgin, since Isaiah had sexual relations with that woman.You keep ignoring context. You keep on quoting a source (Glenn Miller), who is not educated in Hebrew , or Greek.In context.. it is NOT virgin. Unless you want to yank context away from the sentence, and invoke 'magical thinking', it can not mean virgin.Yanking context away from the sentence, and invoking 'magical thinking' is not rational.

I asked:

quote:

---

And out of curiosity. Please give me an example of prophetic words in the Bible that you DO regard as having been fulfilled.

​

I mean anywhere in either Old or New Testament. Do you have a couple examples that serve for you as standard models of what a fulfilled prophecy should look like ?

---

Let's look at your model and see if your criteria for judging these things is consistent in how you judge Jesus' birth as compared to Isaiah 7:14 .I hope your next post to me will include your one or two strongest examples of fulfilled prophecy.If you don't have any examples to serve as models, that's a problem.
I might assume then that no example could ever meet your criteria. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think we would just get into throwing scholars up against each other. I do not read or write ancient Hebrew or Greek. I don't know that you do either.Because I do have to rely on others knowing the linguistics and history doesn't prompt me to dismiss Glenn Miller's rather lengthy multi nuanced article on the debate.But another website discussion says (with some objection below)

quote:

---

The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.

​

Dr. Cyrus Gordon

---

" Jewish and Christian scholars would be hard pressed to deny that the Greek term parthenos and the Hebrew term almah may have been used interchangeably by those Jewish communities that adopted the Septuagint. "Then I read this objection and assertion:

quote:

---

"On the other hand, J. Gresham Machen, who has done a definitive study on this passage, asserts that the translation in the Septuagint of the Hebrew word almah as parthenos cannot be used to show a Jewish doctrine of the virgin birth, for one also finds the word parthenos used in the Septuagint to translate the word na'arah, which merely means "young girl."

​

For Machen, the very fact that the passage does not have a history of Jewish messianic interpretation and the very unlikelihood of this passage being interpreted messianically makes the New Testament account all the more credible. In other words, the gospel writer, Matthew, was not trying to fit Jesus' life into a traditional mold, but rather turned to Scripture to explain what had taken place in the event of the virgin birth.

​

One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah. Nor can a serious student lightly dismiss the word as having no possible reference to a miraculous conception.
"

---

Somone else points out

quote:

---

Hebrew word Almah= Maiden in English

​

English word Maiden= Betulah in Hebrew

​

Hebrew word Betulah= Virgin in English

​

then we can acknowlege almah as virgin as well.....

​

That question is going in circle and going nowhere..

​

Almah means virgin period. Jewish corruption and arguments against the new testament simply don't have the stomic the answer to their claim. anyone can go to http://www.freetranslation.com and type in maiden and find that word translated as Betulah. Mind you the entire web tells christians that Almah is maiden in english. if maiden is betulah and betulah is the word for virgin. What is the problem if Mary is a Almah a virgin?

---

Copied from a Jews4Jesus website.

Well.. it has to be unambiguous, and it has to be shown that it was considered a messianic prophecy BEFORE the l fulfillment, and it has to be translated properly and in context. Those are the major ones. IT can't be 'written to' in a poor manner.Choose your best 3 or 4... and we can do an analysis of them.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

If this is in response to my request to YOU to submit a model or two of fulfilled prophecy, it does not have to be messianic. Any prophetic prediction fulfilled is what I ask you to show me.

quote:

---

Those are the major ones. IT can't be 'written to' in a poor manner.
Choose your best 3 or 4... and we can do an analysis of them.

---

Unless there is some post I haven't read yet, you seem not to understand.YOU are the one I ask to provide an example or two.What I believe have provided you rejected.
So YOU put forth your example of fulfilled predictive prophecy from anywhere in the Bible - Old or New Testament.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The prophecies in Isaiah were fulfilled, and withing 20 years of their utterance as has been pointed out to you numerous times.The point is that they do not have anything to do with Jesus.

I am not making a claim of ANY full filled prophecy. All I see is that you are avoiding supporting your claims. It has been demonstrated very completely that Isaiah 7:14, if you look at it in context... was a sign to King Ahaz about the King of Assyria, and it was written down after the fact.It's not my job to support your claims.. it is up to you to support your claims.The claim is 'there is scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah'. When it comes to your claim about Isaiah 7:14.. that claims has been shown to be wanting.

I assume then that up front, you don't believe ANY example would get past your ever shifting goalpost.I think then it would be more honest of you to just state fulfilled prophecy has never existed.Wouldn't I be wasting my time if you conceal that no possible sample could serve as a kind of model for others to be similar to ?Even up to now you want to be less than forthright about your intention to reject prophecy and fulfillment on general principle. "what was spoken ... saying ... " specifically is "Behold, the virgin [almah, parthenos, virgin, etc] shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel" (which means God with us) (Matt.1:23) Its absolutely close enough for me.And a dual prophecy I accept because God does things like that sometimes. Until He secures exactly what He desires He can do something once and then again.Ie. the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea miraculously in the Exodus from Egypt. Then they crossed the Jordon river similarly miraculously 40 some years latter going into Canaan.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Give me your example specifically - Chapter - verses?

Too funny. Have you ever read the Bible?Isaiah 7:7-9 and Isaiah 7:14-17.The prophecy is that Israel and Aram were attacking Judah and the King of Judah feared they would win, but God sends a prophecy that Ahaz need not worry about them, they would get destroyed.And that happened. Assyria conquered Israel (and carted off much of the population) and Aram and Ephraim but not Judah.The Prophecy was fulfilled at that point.

Hi jaywill,I think you're being rather unreasonable here.After all, just because someone does not think that any fulfilled prophecy exists, doesn't mean that they will never believe it. If someone is genuinely of the opinion that no fulfilled prophecy has been shown to exist, you need to take them at their word, not assume that their lack of belief is due to bias. That is bad faith on your part and no way to conduct a discussion.Consider;Can you show me any genuine examples of alien abduction? No? If not, I will have to conclude that you are biased against aliens. Clearly no example could be good enough for you.Can you show me a real example of fairies being photographed at the bottom of someone's garden? Just one or two? No? Then I shall assume that you are simply being closed minded because you hate fairies.Can you show me an example of a purely Islamic prophecy which has been fulfilled? If not, then I have no choice but to judge that your hatred of Islam has blinded you to the truth of the words of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). You hater you.Do you see what I'm getting at?In contrast, it would seem perfectly reasonable to demand that ramoss give you a set of criteria by that would convince him that a prophecy is genuine. That would be completely fair. But demanding that ramoss provide examples of things that he doesn't believe exist is pointless.I think you would be better off trying to reach agreement on what a fulfilled prophecy ought to look like. Then, if you can agree on that, you can move on to test the Bible's prophecies against those criteria. that would seem like a reasonable approach. Here is one attempt to do this, taken from The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn`t

quote:

---

Criteria of a "real" prophecy:

​

In order for a prophecy to be considered a truly supernaturally inspired prediction, one might argue that it should meet a number of criteria.

​

In the text below:
"Prophecy" refers to a prediction of the future, and
"Event" is the happening that is said to fulfill the prophecy.

​

Six suggested criteria are:

​

1 The prophecy must be clear and unambiguous. It must not allow for a multitude of possible events. For example, Ezekiel 39 fails this test. It makes a prediction involving two military powers: Gog and Magog. "Gog has been interpreted as Gyges, king of Lydia, the Goths, and even a modern or future leader of Russia. Magaog has been interpreted as the Scythains, the Chaldeans, the Huns and modern-day Russia among others." Almost any military conflict in history could be cited as a fulfilment of this prophecy.

​

2 The event must be a fulfillment of the prediction. That is, the prophecy and the event must be related. Some feel that Isaiah 7:14 predicts the virgin birth of Jesus. It is commonly quoted at Christmas time. But it can be argued that Isaiah's prediction describes a birth which happened centuries before Jesus, and may or may not have been fulfilled in the 8th century BCE. Jesus was born circa 4 to 7 BCE.

​

3 The event must have actually happened. Countless predictions of the end of the world have failed; the world continued as normal afterwards. Ideally, there should be historical or archaeological evidence that the event really occurred.

​

4 The prophecy must have happened before the event. The book of Daniel describes a Jewish hero, Daniel, who many believe lived at the beginning of the 6th century BCE. It discusses the rise of various empires in Daniel's future. But religious liberals generally believe that the book was written about 166 BCE. If the liberals are correct, then most of the predictions in the book about the rise of various empires were not predictions of the future inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were actually historical recollections of the past written after the events really happened.

​

5 The event must not have been artificially created by a person who knew of the prophecy, with the intent of fulfilling it. For example, during a crucifixion by the Roman army, the legs of the victims were generally broken. This hastened their death by asphyxiation. But the Gospels record that Jesus' bones were not broken. When the Roman guards came to break his legs, they found that he had already died. There are a number of possible scenarios about this event. Three are:
i As John 19:31-37 states, this happened "... that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken..." In this case, the prophecy came true in spite of the odds against it happening.
ii Jesus might have been physically exhausted as a result of his scouring and blood loss. He may have died on the stake or cross earlier than expected. Thus the Roman soldiers had no need to break his legs. Jesus intact legs were correctly reported by the Gospel writer(s).
iii The guards might have followed standard procedure by breaking his legs. But the author(s) of the Gospel of John may have ignored this event, and written that it did not happen, in order that a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures would be fulfilled.

​

In this example, it would be impossible to tell if the prophecy:
i Came true because it was divinely inspired.
ii Came true by chance, due to an accidental occurrence.
iii Did not come true, but was fraudulently reported as having happening. Reporting of the event was falsified in order to make it appear as if the prediction in the Hebrew Scriptures came true.

​

6 The prophecy must not have been a logical guess. For example, a person in mid-1939 who prophesized that a European war would break out before 1950 would simply have been describing the inevitable outcome of pre-existing Nazi expansion plans and activities. Hundreds of millions of people at that time expected a European war. A physic might predict a major volcanic eruption and a serious earthquake rated at over six on the Richter scale somewhere in the world during the current year. But these events are so likely to occur each year that the prophecy would be a sure thing. Similarly an ancient prophet might notice the Assyrian army approaching Israel from the East, conquering country after country in its path. He might quite logically guess that Israel was next.

---

That's just an example, but it is the kind of thing you should be seeking, rather than asking ramoss to provide examples, which just comes across as silly.You are not a mind reader. There's no point in you sitting there and telling ramoss what he thinks. If you are interested in what ramoss thinks, you could try asking him, instead of scolding him for attitudes that you merely imagine him to hold.Just my two cents.Mutate and Survive

I agree with you that God fulfilled His promise to rid Ahaz of his enemies. I am willing to look more into the history of the matter.But here is what some of us also notice.
The words "God with us" are not trivial, insignificant or mere idle words. The words "God with us" are exceedingly weighty.Now for the wicked king Ahaz to have his two enemies taken away meets Ahaz's need. This prophecy takes care of the disappointing evil Ahaz. But God still has His need to be with man. He has His need which is more than just freeing Ahaz from his enemies.Therefore the principle of dual fulfillment is possible. God has not arrived yet at the fulfillment of His need. Though He has taken care of wayward Ahaz's need, God is still not WITH the people as God desires. That is a higher priority.So we have these specific words, not concerning Assyria, but concerning God being with His people - "Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel" THESE SPECIFIC WORDS ... God Almighty can AGAIN fulfill in One like the Man the Son of God Who fully manifested God in a human man and AMONG His fellow human men and women.This meets God's need to truly manifest God with humanity and that much more so than the Assyrians coming through and cutting throats upon combatants.So I believe these words God again fulfills in a manner MORE related to His eternal purpose. You have to realize the God WITH US is the conclusion of the entire revelation of the Bible. History concludes with a city New Jerusalem - "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, ...and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them and be their God." (Rev. 21:3) God with us is exceedingly central to the purpose of the existence of everything. He created the universe to fulfill God being with us.Because it is so central to the eternal purpose of God, He would revisit these words in a greater fuflfillment than the invasion of Assyria. He would specifically have a greater fulfillment in the coming of God as a man in Jesus Christ.My second point is less important. That is that the words "Ephraim will be shattered as a people". As one complains over the exact meaning of "almah" someone also could complain about what it exactly means for Ephraim to be "shattered as a people". It could be arguable to someone wanting to move the goalpost around to prove a "failed prophecy."In Ezekiel's description of the allotment of the land during the messianic age he mentions Ephraim - "Now these are the names of the tribes ... And alongside the border of Manaseh, from the east side to the west side, Ephraim, one portion. And alongside the border of Ephraim from the east side even to the west side, Ruben, one portion." (Ezek. 48:1,5,6) If one wanted to put on the stubburn hat of a skeptic he could complain that Isaiah 7:8 was not fulfilled because Ephraim is still around as a people in some age after the Assyrian envasion.Now you may scoff that this would be unreasonable as a criticism. But it is not more unreasonable than someone pointing out that no Gospel records Mary calling Jesus "Emmanuel".So even with your example, which incidently I concur with, one could raise objection that it was a failed prophecy. Ephraim was not "shattered as a people" and was mentioned after this Assyrian invasion. That is depending on how fussy you want to be about phraseology.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.