Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

I have moved this response from the thread No such thing as the 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!The prophecy is repeated but this time the child's name is Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah is so sure about this that he has his prediction recorded by "faithful witnesses."In his first prediction Isaiah had said, "the virgin shall conceive" (Modern language Bible). In the second go around he says, The holy spirit tells me that both of these kids were Isaiah's children. In one instance he calls their mother, the "young woman" (almah) and in the other he calls her the "prophetess" (nebiah). I cannot say whether they were married. I doubt it. But they did work the same profession. Isaiah already had one son (by her?); a son who went with him when he visited Ahaz to make the famous prediction concerning the Assyrian invasion. Imma', his second son, and Maher', his third, were merely incidental to the point of the prophecy; objective examples of how shortly the invasion would begin. ("before he is weaned" "before he can talk")The names of all three sons are political statements!Further evidence of the contemporary nature of Isaiah's prediction is found in verses 7 through 10 of chapter eight. He compares the Assyrian army to the Euphrates saying, The last four words, 'God is with us' are a translation of the word Immanuel.Isaiah is already talking to his son Immanuel.To make a long story short, the Assyrians did come, and did kick butt; and Isaiah's prediction did come true. Considering the fact that the Assyrian empire was long dead by the time JC arrived, He could not have fulfilled the requirements of this prophecy, even if he had wanted to do so.I stumbled upon this in my reading many years ago and it angered me that I had been so gullible. I was horrified at the ignorance of my Bible instructors. I could accuse them of lying but I think they were merely unwitting parrots of a Roman Catholic tradition.Need I say more? ------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

Are you reading what you write? So why mention verse 17?
And there is nothing anywhere in this narrative about the fall of Assyria. I don't expect you to have read the whole, entire verse. But why don't you? Do you not have access to this version? Here is the entire quote:

quote:

---

By the time this child is weaned and knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Syria--will both be dead

---

Sounds a lot like:

quote:

---

before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

---

Yes? You are confusing verses 16 and 17. The "implication" is: that the coming conflict will be as bad or worse than anything which has happened to them since those days. The allusion to "days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah;" is a reminder of the terrible 'civil' war which Ephraim waged to achieve Israeli independence.Assyria is not about to fall, by this prophecy.Assyria is going to come in like a Euphrates flood and wipe out the kings of Israel and Syria.BTW: In case you are not aware of this - Syria and Assyria are two different players in this story. IMO Your tirade against translators in general may also implicate your own favorite versions. I study a variety of translations simultaneously and then form my own opinion of what the ancient authors had in mind.db

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. 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. 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." 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. Somehow I doubt that. Or, Too busy to get your theory shot full of holes?We are not as stupid as you seem to think.db

You're fine with it so long as it is supernatural. But this consideration is irrelevant. If you would have me believe that this is a prophecy concerning JC, then I would appreciate an open and honest discussion of the facts. You pretend that this is a quote. We are not as blind as you might think. If you would maintain that this is a quote, you should quote it and give reference to its location and the version in which it is given this way. Otherwise, I can only imagine that you have manufactured it yourself. Ahaz is the head of the house. He represents the WHOLE HOUSE. You seem to think that Isaiah intended to address every administration of the House of David for the next 500 years! Seems to me that the leap of illogic in this doctrine was made long ago by a gospel writer who could not read the Hebrew scripture, but could read the Greek - Septuagint. The Greek 'parthenos' carries a different connotation than does the Hebrew 'almah.' The apostle John was able to read the Hebrew, and he makes no comment on the subject of Mary's 'virginity.' Besides, all girls are virgins and some are still 'virgins' on the night they get pregnant. To the Romans, whose word we are using here, 'virgin' did not necessarily make any comment on sexual experience. The Hebrew word 'bethulah' does make such comment but the Hebrew word 'almah' does not. Why have you not explored this particularly telling piece of evidence? I could say the same thing, of course, but it would be a different list of scholars. You have behaved as if you think we are.

• You have refused to address the role which the king of Assyria plays in this.
• You have pretended that statements regarding the child's age do not exist.
• You have shown no appreciation for the linguistic problem -

The Hebrew word 'almah' makes no comment regarding sexual experience and gets translated to the indifferent Latin word: 'virgin,' which may be translated into English as 'young woman,' and even 'young married woman.' Don't waste your time. Take care to present your case convincingly. Address each problematic issue more thoroughly, and include all the pertinent evidence in your consideration. If you can fully explore with us the three bulleted items above, then I for one will feel that we have done something worthwhile here.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

Greetings Amlodhi,I find it interesting that despite the numerous discrepancies found in the so-called synoptic gospels, many people continue to assert that none of these writers could have been wrong about anything at all.I wonder if you have considered the scholarly conjecture that Matthew was unable to read Hebrew? Because of this, it is supposed, he got his reading of Isaiah from the Septuagint.The Greek term 'parthenos' makes no concrete comment on the sexual experience of the girl in question; leaving interpretation open to the reader. Hebrew, on the other hand, reserves a special term for what we commonly call virginity. {a lack of sexual experience}The word 'virgin' is, of course, Latin; and the Latin may be understood in a variety of ways including, young married woman. The New Collegiate Latin & English DictionaryThe apostle John, who could read Hebrew, makes no comment regarding the 'virgin birth.' Because he could read Hebrew, John had to know that Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah was ludicrous. And Matthew had to know that his take on it played well to a heathen audience already primed to embrace such supernatural fantasies.I wonder if Matthew realized the error of his heresy, or the impact it might have on future generations of people who also could not read Hebrew?db------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

I stated the case as I did because I have no authority to cite. I probably heard it while watching one of those BBC programs on biblical themes. They typically feature commentary from notable, well published, highly placed and yes, freethinking, theologians. I believe the messages following your question lend credibility to the fact that this opinion is out there. For me, Matthew's misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14 is adequate evidence to suspect that the "conjecture" may be substantive. Aside from that, I am rather naive in the matter. But thanks for the challenge. I hope you are able to discover a quote to the effect from some recognized authority.db

Hello again Amlohdi

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amlohdi:
It is not only inconsistent with human propensity for elaboration and error, but it is also nowhere stated that the NT writings must be inerrant.

---

I have often wondered how those who quote Paul at 2 Timothy 3:16 can at the same time relegate to apocryphal status many of the very scriptures which he, and other apostles, utilized for teaching, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness.And then, imagine that Paul's writing's should fall under his definition of "inspired" even though they were certainly not included among the "holy" scriptures as they were known to him!

quote:

---

Amlohdi
one must wonder at his seeming failure to understand certain Jewish literary idioms such a parallelism

---

After noticing how Matthew tends to double the numbers given by Mark (Mark - 'there was this blind man'. Matt. - 'there were these two blind men', etc.), I had to laugh when he quotes the OT on the subject of the Christ riding into Jerusalem on an ass. The way Matthew writes it, I got the impression that he expected Jesus to be riding the ass, AND the colt at the same time.

quote:

---

Amlohdi
When time allows, I would be interested to find out whether those areas of Matthew that are said to argue for a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original are completely separate from those areas that are said to be dependent on Mark.

---

A great question. I am not the one to explore that with you but I would love to hear your conclusions as they become evident.

quote:

---

Amlohdi
My understanding is that, as far as can be known, "almah" can be understood to mean a young woman either unmarried or married up until the time of her first child. To me, it makes no difference because the young woman in question could have been (and likely was) virginal right up until the incident which caused her to conceive.

---

LOL! Aren't they all?

quote:

---

Amlohdi
When Paul preached his gospel to the Bereans, what did he and/or they base it on? Acts 17:11 ". . . and (the Bereans) searched the scriptures (OT) daily, whether those things (that Paul told them) were so."

---

Off the cuff I'd say, Septuagint. There were few Jews in that time who could actually read Hebrew, and pretty much everyone could read Greek. At least that is how I understand the demographic at this point in my study.db

Thanks for the corroboration Brian.For me, discovering Matthew's 'error' was marvelous; and it was reassuring to note that St. John was unimpressed by what, if it were true, would be a fabulous, unprecedented miracle worthy of telling and retelling (as indeed the deluded have done). I am content to imagine that at least a few of these boys were more or less level headed.db

If, two hundred years before Christ, Jews in general had understood Hebrew, there would have been no call for them to create a Greek translation of their sacred text. But they did, and it became wildly popular among Jews throughout the world; a world dominated by people who spoke Greek.If, during the time of Christ, Jews in general had understood Hebrew, there would have been no call for the Apostles to create the New Testament in Greek. But they did, and it became wildly popular among Jews throughout the world; a world dominated by the Greek Empire.I will avoid boring the savvy reader with an historical review of the history of Bible translation. Suffice it to say that the Roman Empire called for production of a Latin Bible; and the British Empire called for production of an English Bible; and, of course, the Americans required a Bible in their own unique language. Aside from this: Every religion and denomination of a religion, requires its own special version of the Bible.Why can't everyone simply learn to read God's handwriting? All Bibles include terms and concepts which are difficult for people of another race and time. Many terms remain untranslated from the foreign language originals. Some of these terms are of obscure meaning; grasped by scholars but impossible to translate directly. Some terms are left intact because they have become familiar through prolonged usage in worship service (whether or not the worshipers understand the meaning).Virgin is such a word. It is Latin, really. There is no meaningfully equivalent sound in Hebrew or Greek. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Latin speaking peoples to translate it. Even so, my Latin dictionary makes it clear that the people of Rome did not give it the meaning which so many Americans do. To those who penned the Latin Bible, "virginity" meant girlhood and a "virgin" could be a young married woman. If you study the way Parthenos is used in the New Testament, I believe you will find that it is not inconsistent with the Latin's perception of their own word: virginis.My Thorndike Barnhart offers, as the second definition of "virgin," The American Heritage Dictionary does not offer this option, which suggests to me that the editors may be unaware of the scholarship surrounding this word, or are prejudiced against any definition which may dilute the musky Christian odor which this term has come to exude.Once used by Latin speaking peoples in reference to any girl, irrespective of sexual experience, the word virgin has become something which, in ancient time, it was not.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Long before Jesus appeared on the scene, Hebrew had become a dead language. Only a few advanced scholars were familiar with it to the extent of being able to offer credibly authoritative translations. Kids learned Aramaic at home and Greek in school. In Jesus' day, the official language of Empire was Latin, although many were still fluent in Greek. In the time of Christ, Latin was rapidly supplanting Greek as the international language. The future of Christianity was destined to be carried out primarily in Latin. The Greek text does not seem to be identifying a particular language so much as it is referring to an un-named dialect being used by the Hebrew people. The Greek Testament actually uses the term dialektos. The New Living Translation (NLT) reads:

quote:

---

"... he addressed them in their own language, Aramaic."

---

This seems a reasonable rendering based on what is known of Jewish life in those times, AND the fact that Thayer flatly states that this was not a reference to the language in which the Old Testament was written. hereI don't think so but if you'd like to chart that, I'd be glad to consider it with you.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Indeed. The same may be said of Latin usage in the Roman church. You wouldn't purposely withhold information would you?The Textus Receptus reading is as follows:

quote:

---

"EBRAIDI DIALEKTO"

---

And it's Acts 21:40. Please try to avoid misdirecting our viewers. I know how it is done, and it's a lot like work! The burden of evidence is yours my friend. The chart is yours to construct. And the reward should be well worth the effort. Yes?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

What I related was a simple observation. The fact that Jewish priests received an education does not diminish the fact that most Jews, indeed, most people in general, were uneducated and illiterate.Until relatively recent times, every important document produced by the Christian Church was created in Latin and every educated person was required to learn to read and write Latin. Even so, these educated persons lived in a world where the overwhelming majority were functionally illiterate.The fact that educated Christians understood Latin had no significant bearing on the linguistic realities of the untutored masses. I submit that the Jewish reality was very much the same. Even now, with more people than ever claiming to understand Hebrew, we have more diversity of translation than ever before. Even so, all those students and masters of ancient Hebrew represent but a tiny fraction of the population at large. Which is to say, the language being used by Hebrew people. This comment is not intended to identify the name of the language but rather the name of the people using the language. It is an aside of the story, a parenthetical, with the point being that Paul spoke a variety of languages. The truth of this is strongly implied by the Roman officer who seemed to be impressed with Paul's multilingual capability. When Paul addressed the officer, the officer replied with surprise, saying:

quote:

---

You speak Greek?

---

Cut and paste is not what I meant by 'work.' You have raised more objections than you have answered. I won't try to show you what I expected but I will give you a clue: If you employ the scientific method in your Bible study, you will discover things which no one in your congregation has ever imagined possible.This message has been edited by doctrbill, 03-03-2006 12:05 AM

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Not at all.The people were Hebrew.The Hebrew people spoke a dialect based on neither Greek nor Roman.They spoke a dialect they had learned while captives in The Land of Aram.Hebrew, - the ancient language of their distant ancestors, was something else again.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Don't be so hard on yourself, Buzz.I've never thought of you as a "Dead Horse."

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -