Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

The early greek and the later greek had a meaning change for the term Parthenos. If you look at Genesis 34, parthenos was refered to Dinah after she was 'defiled'.However, if you look at the term ALMAH, there are several incidences where it is used with someone who was not a virgin. For example, in the song of solomon uses almah in a very erotic, non-virgin setting.What does some very very conservative say? So, even that source will say that Almah does not always mean virgin, (although it can refer to a virgin).How about, let us look at Isaiah 7:14 in CONTEXT with the text that is
right after it. Let us look at Isaiah 8:3-4 Ok. this shows that Isaiah went to his wife, and got her pregnant. The sign to King Ahaz was 'For before the child has to knowlege to cry, my father and my mother'. (i.e.. a time period before the child can speak), The king of Assyria will get kicked out of Damascus and Samaria. This is quite clear. Isaiah was giving a sign to King Ahaz,
and it was somethign that was IMMEDIATE, not something that happened 600 years later. A sign that happened so far into the future would have been meaningless to King Ahaz.Now.. how about looking to see if there is any confirmation about having the son of Isaiah be the 'sign' for king Ahaz. We find that,
just a few paragraphs later, in Isaiah 8:18 In this sentance, Isaiah confirms that yes, it is his son that was talked about in 8:3-4, and his wife in 7:14. THis is all items that
Isaiah it talking about after the fect, mind you..about predictions he had that came true. While the woman getting pregant, and giving birth was a sign, it was a sign to King Ahaz, and was fullfilled at that time. It was not a prophecy for 600 years later. It was not a sign for 'the messiah'. That concept really didn't appear until the 2nd century B.C.E.

quote:

---

But the great majority of the usage of these virgin words in both the OT and NT were to signify virginity as per context and to signify young woman was the exception. Correct?

---

Did not you read? The meaning of the word 'virgin' in that time period did not mean a sexual pure person.And, when it comes to Isaiah 7:14, by the context, it does not mean a sexual pure person. It means a young woman, and is specifically refering to Isaiah's wife.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-01-2006 09:22 PM

Buzz,If Isaiah 7:14 in Greek (parthenos) is 'virgin', why is it used for
a term for a woman that has been raped (see Genesis 34, diniah was refered to as a 'parthenos' after she was 'defiled'.How do you accont for the use of 'parthenos' in by homer in the Illiad, where someone was call 'Actor, son of the Astyoche, the honored maiden (parthenos), and in Aristophanes Cloud, where a 'parthnos' exposed her child on the moutain top. How do you explain the term 'Parthnos' by Sophicales in Trachiniae, who refered to Iole after she slept with hercules.Obviously, the term 'parthnos' did not mean sexual pure in the time frame that the Septauguint was translated.

You do realise that many of those passages do not use the term 'almah' in the hebrew, but rather the term bethulah??

The key point the word you were pointing to in the hebrew is not Almah for any of those.And, for context, if you read Isaiah 7:14, it is not about someone who was 'sexually pure' at birth, but Isaiah's wife. You have not addressed that particular point.

One problem I see with yoru statement about Deut. 18:18 is that it doesn't specifically say that it woudl be a specific prophet. It was definately not about the messiah, but rather prophets in general.In additon, the word's 'The lord will raise up' indicates that any prophet will be from the Jews own people, not from an outside source.So, Deut 18:18 was talking to the Jews about the prophets for the Jews. It was not talking about Mohammed. He was not from the Jews. He was not for the Jews. While Mohammed was a prophet for the Islamic faith, he did not fit into the parameters set forth in Deut. for being a prophet for the Jews. And Deut. was specificaly talking about prophets for the Jews.

One problem with the 'dual' prophecy concept is that there is not reason from the context to think it would be a dual propehcy. Why should one line , isolated from all other, and mistranslated be considered a "prophecy" for something that is alledged to have happened 600 years later. Not only that, it only had to be reinterpreted AFTER the alleged event.

Just what good is a sign to King Ahaz if it is 600 years in the future.If you read what the prophecy actually is, before the child is able to know good and evil (in other words, he is a toddler able to talk), the king of assyira will lose a couple of cities. The enemy of Juddah is clearly pointed out to be the King of Assyria.

Well, there are some examples where Pathenos is not refering to a virgin.In Genesis 34, Dinah was refered to as 'parthenos' after she was raped.There is also the use of Parthnos by Homer. He used Parthnos to refer to
Astyoche, the honored maiden, who had already born a child.IN Aristophanes Clouds 530, a "parthenos" was refered to someone who had exposed her child on a mountain top.Pindar, in Pythian (3.34) used parthenos for a woman who had slept with a number of men.

And what is your supporting evidence of this? And htis has to do with Isaish 7 in what manner?

NO that is the whole point.Isaiah 7 was fullfilled in Isaiah 8:3. The proof of this is Isaiah 8:18.Isaiah 8:3 This shows that Isaiah was specifically referring to his wife.As a reinforcement of this, look at Isaiah 8:18 And hosea had nothing to do with Isaiah at all.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-17-2006 07:13 PM

Yes, kkng ahaz said he di dnot want to 'test the lord'. Isaiah said, he was goign to give the sign never the lexs.In Isaiah's own words, the signs are himself, and his sons.In context. No other persons writing involved, Even flow of storyline in his writing. NO need for somebody to reinterpret what is said from another book, written hunreds of years later.

No, actually, it will happen before that child (Isaiah's son) would be old be a toddler.Guess what.. that is what happened. The king of assyria lost a couple of cities that King Ahaz was contending with him about.See.. it had come true.. in King Ahaz's time. The sign of god was not so much the son.. but the amount of time period between the conception of the son, and the time he could start talking, and understanding right from wrong. It happened by the time Isaiahs son was a toddler.See. So simple. So complete within itself. It was written about after the fact. Isaiah's prediction and fullfillment is all carried within Isaiah. No need to go wandering out and find something written 700 years later to explain it.