How the NT quotes Tanach texts

quote:

---

As I say, the context itself requires that "virgin" be meant.

---

This is not true. What IS true is that the context demands that the woman lives in, and gives birth in, the time of King Ahaz of Judah.

Parthenos does not exclusively mean "virgin". And using almah instead of betulah is an odd choice if "virgin" was the intended meaning.The idea of some future meaning also has problems. Why should we imagine that a part of the prophecy - and only part of it - has some additional meaning, unrelated to the remaining text of the prophecy?

quote:

---

If the girl in Ahaz' time was married, "Betulah" which specifically refers to a virgin wouldn't have worked, but "Almah" works for both situations, the current and the future prophetic.

---

In other words it "works" because almah does NOT specifically mean virgin.

quote:

---

The name "Immanuel" is a pointer to its prophetic meaning.

---

Hardly. It's a pointer to the meaning of the sign given to Ahaz.

quote:

---

Most of the discussions I found online emphasize that for the Jews to translate "almah" as "parthenos" in the Septuagint is a clear sign that they understood the word in that context to mean "virgin," despite all the Pharisaical insistence to the contrary.

---

That probably has more to do with the biases and prejudices of the people involved. Let's not forget that you insisted above that the context demanded that almah meant "virgin" - until I corrected you. Who knows how many such errors are repeated when there is nobody to correct them?

quote:

---

Look, when referring to an unmarried young woman, "almah" DOES mean "virgin" but it is ambiguous, depending on context, unlike "betulah," which always refers to a virgin, and I did lose track of the fact that in the context of Ahaz' time the young woman would not have been a virgin because a miraculous conception was not the promise in that context, so she must have been married, and "almah" works for that too.

---

You're going to provide some evidence that almah means virgin! rather than simply referring to a young woman as the etymology strongly suggests.

quote:

---

The miraculous context is the future prophetic context and "Immanuel" in that context refers to its meaning, "God with us," which is a description of Messiah.

---

The trouble is that this "context" you refer to is completely absent from the text of Isaiah. And there's no reason to think that the name Immanuel is anything other than explaining the meaning of the sign, as is clearly the case for the child in Isaiah 8.

quote:

---

And again, the choice of "parthenos" does show that the Jews understood "almah" to refer to a virgin prophetically. "Parthenos" is also ambiguous, again necessary in the context of God's sign to Ahaz, but also having the connotation of "virgin."

---

Since we don't know why the translator chose that word (and I've seen it written that the translation of Isaiah is not that great) it really doesn't show any such thing. Of course with your claimed skill at critical thinking you ought to realise that much.

quote:

---

But apparently you don't want to be enlightened about how prophecy works in the Bible, you prefer your one-dimensional view of it.

---

Yes Faith, I know you hate it when people care about the truth. And if you think that Biblical prophecy is primarily about prediction you don't know the first thing about it.If you want me to believe you then you need serious evidence, not dubious rationalisations.

No, it wasn't saying that at all. The next chapter has a perfectly ordinary birth used in just the same way. The birth is a time marker for the predicted events. That's why Faith's point was an ignorant mistake - it ignored the actual context.

quote:

---

Ill be helping my brother or sister Faith, here, in dismantling, the comical approach set out by secular fundamental humanists, in trying to argue from scripture, that scripture cannot have a meaning to the future

---

Fath is not an insane worshiper of Star Trek, and displaying your lunacy does nothing to help her.

quote:

---

But as always Ill be doing it from a purely logical standpoint, which should quickly dismiss the nonesense, of people who do not believe in God or inspiration, that such things cannot apply

---

As you've demonstrated here you have no understanding of logic. None.A liar for Jesus is pathetic. A liar for Spock is even worse.

quote:

---

If you start from the proposition, that its claims to divine guidance and inspiration are not true, then there is no reason to be concerned whether the writer meant, virgin or young women

---

Wrong.

quote:

---

You want to be logical and rational, please, have at it

---

Certainly, Attempting to have a rational discussion with you is a complete waste of time. So go away.

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you.

quote:

---

Unbelievable

​

These are the kind of statements that make you a filthy, unobjective, intellectually dishonest liar.

---

Wow, you really hate people who actually know what the Bible says.

quote:

---

There is no one that ignores the entirity of the context more than a secular fundamental humanist. You pretend that you believe or understand, what the writer is trying to communicate, then blatently ignore and deny any claim to the miraculous, divine guidance.

---

Ironically, I was paying MORE attention to the context than ded2daworld - or Faith when she made the earlier post. To her credit Faith has retracted the claim, acknowledging the actual context. If your idea of helping Faith is to abuse people who correct her - AFTER she has accepted the correction - then you offer the sort of "help" she is better off without.

quote:

---

You do understand the willful stupidity and blatant arrogance for assuming such an alledged, misguided evaluation on Faiths part, correct

---

I'm not aware of any reason why reading Isaiah 7 and 8 and knowing what they say should be called any of the above.

quote:

---

Im sorry PaulK, please tell me again, who does not understand sound reasoning. Your ignorance of such things is either willful or you really are that silly

---

Obviously it is you, since all you offer is arrogant bluster in opposition to a statement based on sound reasoning. As I said, thank you for proving my point.

quote:

---

Do you really think you can dismiss the NTs and Christians claims to fulfilled prophecy without understanding and starting with simple sound reasoning

---

Apparently you think you can dismiss my statement without even understanding what it referred to, let alone the reasoning.

quote:

---

Come now PaulK you can do much better than that

---

Given your complete inability to rebut my point - or even attempt to do so - it seems that I did far better than you can manage. Edited by PaulK, : typo correction no substantive change

quote:

---

Absolutely not. those are clinical observations I made. Your filty in the respect you are dirty intellectually. Your unobjective, because you use the context when it suits your purposes

---

In fact they were outright lies.

quote:

---

Really Paul, you should remove yourself from an emotional approach, to a logical one. My help came in the form of demonstrating that you dont really believe the context, or accept the context

---

I don't think that false and unsubstantiated accusations are "help", nor are they "logical" - and of course they demonstrate nothing.

quote:

---

You cherry pick it until it has assited your pathetic, irrational approach

---

And yet another false and unsubstantiated accusation.

quote:

---

Lets see. Since you clearly believe the text concerning the immediate conclusions, concerning Virgin or Young women, may I also assume you believe Isa was actually inspired by God to write these things?

---

I believe that the text says what it says. Whether it was inspired or not is irrelevant to that. Therefore you have no need to make any assumption about my beliefs on the matter.

quote:

---

My silly little fellow anyone can dismiss a statement or assertion, because they statements and assertion, not arguments.

​

If you feel like you have presented an actual argument, please restate it and I will be happy to address it

---

Before I do that please tell me which point of Faith's I was referring to. What reasons do I give in my post to contradict it ?

[quote] Sorry they cant be lies when I have clearly demonstrated that you cannot follow or accept the context, when you do not follow or accept the entire context. Your not being objective
[.quyote]Of course you're lying again because you've demonstrated nothing of the sort You haven't even tried to. All you've done is make unsubstantiated assertions.Trying to claim that you aren't a liar by telling an obvious lie is hardly logical !

quote:

---

Wrong, inspiration gives it a meaning or meanings that God supposed for the text and not the author. In other words inspiration gives it a right to be about what God wants

---

In other words you claim that God is too stupid to write what he means as an excuse to twist and distort the text.

quote:

---

Defining a word here or there in the context is not the same as including it in its entire context

---

Amazingly you managed to say something that is actually true. Too bad that in reality it favours my point - the one you are supposed to be arguing against (and can't).So, just to make one useful and relevant point here - trying to argue that almah means "virgin" is not only fallacious, it is irrelevant when the whole thrust of the prophecy places the fulfilment in the reign of King Ahaz, and the birth of the child is not that fulfilment at all, just a temporal marker to show that the fulfilment will be soon.

quote:

---

Of course I do, if your assumptions are cockeyed and unobjective

---

Typical Bertot irrationality. There is no reason to make an irrelevant assumption.

quote:

---

Watch, (pay very close attention to what I am about to say) here is the problem in a nutshell. You and others claim these prophecies in the Old Testament do not refer to Christ.

---

Which is concluded from the actual text of the prophecy, which rules out that interpretation.Now at this point I should mention that this is a mere diversion. The topic at issue was my criticism of a point attributed to Faith by ded2daworld. A point which you have not even attempted to rebut.

quote:

---

Now here is the semi-quasi delimma. I have all this evidence supporting the Old Test. I have all this evidence supporting the NT, inspired writers as well, concerning, of whom this refers. Evidence of internal and external nature

---

Claiming to have evidence is mere assertion. Especially when that "evidence" is merely an excuse to twist the text.

quote:

---

Now watch this. Here come along a bunch of people, with no evidence to support thier position, that it does not refer to Christ and ALL they have to support thier contentions is outright disagreement

---

In other words people say something you don't like and you start lying about them. Because there are good reasons in the text of Isaiah 7 itself to conclude that the prophecy there is not about Jesus.
Falsely declaring that an argument does not exist is not logical, and the fact that you choose to lie only demonstrates your inability to answer that argument.Now let us point out that in the actual issue we are supposedly discussing YOU have offered no evidence at all. Simple denial (and slander)

quote:

---

No actual evidence just disbelief and disagreement, with no external or internal supporting evidence for thier assertion

---

This, of course is just repeating the same lie.

quote:

---

You see there is a difference in just disagreeing and an actual body of internal and external evidence. Obviously you have none

---

The only thing obvious is that you haven't bothered to find out. And very likely you don't even know what the prophecy of Isaiah 7 says.

quote:

---

No Im not going to do your homework for you. You can in very simple terms and in a couple of lines, support the idea that you actually accept the context, as you boast, when in fact you dont

---

In other words you don't even understand the statement that you chose to call a lie. What further proof do we need that you are irrational and dishonest ?

quote:

---

Now that I have went down your rabbit trail, perhaps you could get to the task of an actaul attempt, to try and refute my arguments

---

You quoted the wrong text, as anyone who follows the chain back can easily see.Now to any rational person it is necessary to understand a statement before it can honestly be called a lie. And any rational person can see that you have not even attempted to address the statement which you called a lie - no evidence of it's falsity has been offered at all.The question of whether you understand it is therefore quite relevant. And the fact that you can't even find it when any competent person should have no difficulty at all in doing so only reinforces the point.

quote:

---

Will try again, as I know anyone that can think is paying attention, except yourself of course. You lie and are unobjective because you do not and refuse to take the entirity of the text into context. The book of Isa is not just chapter seven, its the entire book

---

That wasn't even trying. It's just more unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

A person that will not tell the truth about rejecting the actual inspiration and pretend to understand the text is a liar

---

Well that's another lie.

quote:

---

And herein lies the problem at its core, you pretend to be speaking for God, when you dont believe in God, dont believe the text is inspired and you generally believe it to be myth in the first place

---

Of course you're lying again. I never said or implied that I was speaking for God at all.

quote:

---

Because you fail to accept or believe in inspiration and divine guidance, you fail to understand that only inspiration in another context can explain that this prophecy in Isa is a shadow and type of what was actually revealed to Mary by inspiration as well

---

So here we have the REAL issue: People who DON'T assume that Matthew's Gospel is unquestionably and literally correct will see the obvious fact that it takes Isaiah 7:14 out of context, and the use of it does not agree with the context. You wish to suppress this truth by calling anyone who points it out a liar.So in fact, you are a liar and a bully and an enemy of the truth.

quote:

---

Now you are free to believe whatever you want about a single word, but when you fail to accept and clearly reject inspiration, you have much bigger logical problems than samantics

---

And here you prove - yet again - that you have no understanding of logic. There is no LOGICAL problem in failing to make an assumption.

quote:

---

You are starting in the middle of an argument (or chapter/letter) where you should have begun at the beiginning. But this is your problem

---

That could be more fairly said of you. Your argument rests on the assertion that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, but you have offered no reason to believe that at all. You haven't even offered any support for the idea that the Gospel of Matthew is even relevant.

quote:

---

No only that, you are dishonest to include inspiration and pretend for argument sake that you actually do. this makes you dishonest

---

In fact I have said that the claim that Isaiah is inspired isn't relevant to the understanding of this text. For you to claim otherwise is dishonest. Meanwhile you have failed to even show that my position is false, let alone that I could be considered dishonest for holding it.

quote:

---

How would going down your rabbit trail extricate you from your problem> The passage and hunfreds of others like it are either a shadow or type of Christ or they are not. Starting in the middle of or examining your problem on a small scale wont help you out

---

In other words you don't wish to defend your false accusation, which started this subthread. You called my statement a lie without even understanding what I was referring to, which by the way shows a woeful inability to read any text in context - and proves that you are a liar.

quote:

---

Paul, in context was there an actual prophecy fulfilled?

---

A rational person would understand that we have to understand the prophecy before we can say that. Thus the answer to this question cannot be relevant to understanding the text of the prophecy.

quote:

---

Since you have already argued in context and by indirect implication that a prophecy actually took place and a fulfillment took place, you are assuming, indirectly and for argument sake that inspiration was involved.

---

This is a lie.

quote:

---

So if that is the case, why would you NOT assume Matthews inspiration, since the NT touts and has the same type of evidence to support its claims

---

Since I am not assuming inspiration of either book (and since the question of evidence is far from as simple as you claim) your question is mistaken.

quote:

---

IOWs, wouldnt Matthews claims and contextual statements be as valid as Isa's. Why do you assume Matthew is incorrect or a liar, when inspiration is involved, in both contexts

---

Since you don't believe that Isaiah means what it says, why assume that Matthew means what you think it says ? If they are both inspired isn't it more likely that Isaiah means what it says and your interpretation of Matthew is wrong ?

quote:

---

Really I didnt know that. Your indirect implication, for argument sake is that a prophecy took place, a fulfillment took place. Your further indirect implication is that inspiration is involved, especially since you want to be so contextual correct

---

Of course you didn't know that because you are completely ignorant of logic. And since your "indirect implication" is your invention you have no point.

quote:

---

Wow this is like being a teacher in a nursery room. No my argument does not rest on the assertion that Matthew is inspired. It rest on the fact that in the context of Isa you are assuming by indirect implication and argument sake Isa's claim to inspiration, because you want to be so faithful to the context and the exact meaning of words

---

I can well believe that infants are able to see through your lies.However, if you do not assume that Matthew is inspired you do not even have a motivation to twist the text of Isaiah to match Matthew in particular.

quote:

---

Paul in context did a prophecy and a fulfillment take place?

---

That is irrelevant to the interpretation of the text as I have demonstrated with sound reasoning above.

quote:

---

I called your statement a lie, because of what it indirectly implies and your inability to understand anything in context

---

You can't know what it implies without knowing what it means. So you called it a lie because you're a liar.

quote:

---

I have read your entire post in this thread and there is NOTHING that would detract or make my arguments misguided, misdirected or invalid

---

You touched off this subthread by calling one of my statements a lie. You claim to have read every post I've made in this thread, but you still don't know what that statement was referring to. If you had done a decent job of reading my posts you WOULD know. Obviously you didn't.Edited by PaulK, : fix minor errorsEdited by PaulK, : Fixed tag

quote:

---

It cant be a subthread to argue the meaning of the text from a contextual and argument standpoint.

---

I agree. SO I'm going to drop all the stuff off of the original topic.I said: You responded with this accusation:

quote:

---

Unbelievable

​

These are the kind of statements that make you a filthy, unobjective, intellectually dishonest liar

---

Please substantiate your accusation or apologise and retract it.