Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

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 ?

quote:

---

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 Ahaz
2) 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 ?

---

But note in verse 13 who is addressed: "Hear YOU now, O House of David; is it a small thing for YOU (house of Israel) to weary men......." then the very next verse, "Therefore the Lord himself will give YOU (house of Israel) a sign:........"The last mention of Ahaz is in verse 12 where he himself is speaking, not the Lord, telling the Lord he declines the offer for a sign to him personally.I understand that you have a lot in stake for the sake of your philosophy in debunking the prophetic significance of this, PaulK, but spinning what is said and to whom it is said will not dispel it's prophetic profoundness.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-29-2003]

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.

I also think that Christians have no idea what Immanuelle actually means.Although it does mean 'God with us' they appear to wrongly think that it means that God is there amongst them, like it refers to Jesus being God amongst us (with us).What Immanuelle means in the context of Isaiah 7 is that the child that is born as a sign to Ahaz will prove that God is 'with us' in purpose. It only means that when the child is born Ahaz will know that God is with him in his quest to defeat his enemies.This is yet another example of Christian authors blatantly ripping a few lines out of context in a desparate attempt to make Jesus into something he simply wasn't.Brian

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

But note in verse 13 who is addressed: "Hear YOU now, O House of David; is it a small thing for YOU (house of Israel) to weary men......." then the very next verse, "Therefore the Lord himself will give YOU (house of Israel) a sign:........"

---

As PaulK has done an admirable job of demonstrating, the text clearly states that the child of Is. 7:14 would be living during the time of the Assyrian invasion.In addition to indicating that the two kings (Ephraim/Syria) would be destroyed by Assyria, the prophecy is subsequently expanded to predict that Judea itself would later be devastated (although Jerusalem would not be destroyed). This, as PaulK has pointed out, is what is meant in Is. 7:22 that all the people of Judea (including the child of Is. 7:14) would be reduced to the nomadic herders diet of milk and wild honey. Why? Because all the crops and fields are laid waste as is indicated in Is. 7: 23-24 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines . . . it shall even be for briers and thorns. (24) . . . because all the land shall become briers and thorns.While this certainly supports the idea that the sign was intended for the contemporary generation of Isaiah, the question you must ask yourself is, "Was all the land laid waste and reduced to briers and thorns in the time of Jesus?"As to the "house of David" reference, it was quite common to refer to the ruling monarchy by this designation; much as U.S. citizens refer to the presidency as the "white house".You need only look at Is.7:2 to understand that this is so:Is. 7:2 "And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. . ."Note that this quite clearly indicates that the contemporary house of David (IOW the currently ruling monarchy) was told that Ephraim and Syria had formed an alliance. It would be total nonsense to suggest that this information was intended for some future "house of David".Likewise, the sign given to the "house of David" referred to a few verses later in Is. 7:13 concerns the contemporary ruling monarchy.Not only is this supported by Is.7:2 and the context of the remaining verses in the chapter, but also by Isaiah's very words, i.e. ". . . Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?"To whom was Isaiah speaking? It was the contemporary monarchy of Ahaz that was wearying men and God by kowtowing to Tiglath-Pileser III (the Assyrian king) instead of putting their trust in God. Thus, it was this contemporary house of David that Isaiah was addressing and it was this contemporay house of David that would receive the sign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

I understand that you have a lot in stake for the sake of your philosophy in debunking the prophetic significance of this, PaulK, but spinning what is said and to whom it is said will not dispel it's prophetic profoundness.

---

Most will understand that this type of attempt at misdirection is merely a desperate substitute for reasoned argument and supporting evidence.Namaste'Amodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 09-29-2003]

You know, the only prediction that I'd say that the Bible has made for after its conception as a complete, unalterable book (i.e., so that things couldn't be fudged) is the book of Revelations. Of course, it hasn't come true. Any explanations from the Fundies here as to why the apocalypse is a bit... um... late?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I can see it's a total waste of time arguing with a crowd of whom, no matter how logical and factual one gets none of whom are going to acknowledge anything that smacks of credibility for the Bible. I've shown to whom the prophecy was given and that events requiring a period of time must be accomplished before the "God with us"/Immanuel child is born. The other child in chapter 8 has no bearing on the first child prophecy and is given for the benefit of the there and then when the northern kingdoms would be defeated. The thorns and briers and nomad land description was to come in the day of the Imanuel child.' This description of the future land was to come at a period of time, I say a period of time, when the Imanuel child would be born. Shortly after Jesus, Immanuel, came, the land did indeed become devastated and stayed so until modern day prophecies of Israel's latter day return ensued.No matter what I say I'll be shouted down by a chorus of folks with a personal ideological agenda at stake and I'm sorry, but I'm too busy for argumentation in futility.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Put it this way. You're fine with it so long as the supernaturalness of it doesn't exist.

quote:

---

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.

---

........don't forget, THIS CHILD KNOWS ONLY TO DO THE GOOD and is called Imannuel.

quote:

---

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."

---

The age of the child is not addressed. When this uniquie Immanuel child appears who is able to distinguish between the good and the evil AND TO DO ONLY THE GOOD, the land will be become desolate and the prophecy will be fulfilled AS PROPHECIED TO THE WHOLE HOUSE OF DAVID, not specifically to Ahaz who declined a sign. The translators of the most reliable and literate translations and the NT bear out my interpretation that this is reference to the virgin Mary and if you skeptics want to revise to suit your guarded agendas, that's your perogative. As I said, I'm not sitting here adnausium going over this.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yah sure, and as I've stated, the best scholars in this agree with me.

quote:

---

We are not as stupid as you seem to think.

---

......And of course, you're fully aware that I've not even hinted that you're stupid, now, have I. You're all smart like foxes enough to know if you ever acknowledge one eentsy bit of something supernatural in the Bible, your secularistic ideological gooses are cooked.Why should I waste my time in this kind of futil dialogue?

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.

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

Buzsaw, but I find it interesting that you do not seem to understand what "House of David" refers to here. It refers to King Ahaz, his royal court, and his family - as I will show. (If you do understand this and I misread your posts, I apologize)The first verses summarizes the story of the two kings who failed to triumph over king Ahaz. We then see the detail..In 7.2 it states that it was reported to the house of David that the two kings of Syria and Pekah are planning to attack Jerusalem. The house of David (i.e. the kingly/royal court), and all the people (common) were shaken.God asks Isaiah to tell the king to stay calm and not worry about this news. He says that the kings will not prevail.God again (through Isaiah) appears in Ahaz's court to tell him to ask for a sign, and Ahaz says he will not put God to the test. Then Isaiah (on behalf of God) replies to Ahaz (possibly to the whole court that is there listening) and asks if it is too much to ask for a sign. He then most likely points to a woman standing in the room and says, "here, this young woman is (or is about to be) pregnant and will give birth to a son. You (talking to the woman) will name him..."Quick point here - I chose to translate this as "you will call him" because this Hebrew verb in this context makes the most sense translated this way, as it was in, for example Genesis 16:11 where the Lord talks to Abram's wife "You are now pregnant and are about to give birth to a son. You are to call him Ishmael". It makes even more sense when you think about how all of this was a discourse in the court in front of king Ahaz and the royal court. I.E. Isaiah is standing before the king and his advisors and probably many others.Isaiah then goes on to say "Before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right.." which refers to the time when a child begins to know right and wrong and have a conscience. Children were expected to choose right when reaching a certain age. This does not , as you claim, infer that the child can only or would only choose right (supernaturally or not) - - it only speaks of a period where a child can recognize how to choose right from wrong.Isaiah then continues, "..the land of the two kings (mentioned above) you (king Ahaz, representing the entire house of Ahaz and his people) fear will abandoned."What good would this prophecy do to a House of Israel that was worried about being attacked by two kings if it spoke about some messiah hundreds of years later?-Eric

Hello Dilvias,Let me be the first to welcome you to this forum.Also, thank you for reinforcing the point I had made to buzsaw in a previous post regarding the sign of Is. 7:14 being intended for the contemporary house of David.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dilvias

​

I chose to translate this as "you will call him" because this Hebrew verb in this context makes the most sense translated this way . . .

---

You do bring up a further interesting point here regarding the translation of "v'QaRaT", translated in the KJV as "and she will call (his name . . .)". You are correct that this has been alternately (and perhaps more properly) translated as "you shall call (his name . . .)". Indeed, some translations have "thou shalt call", cf. LXX, Aquinus, Symmacus and Theodotus).However, the grammatical suffix (which is used to justify the "you" translation) actually indicates the 2nd person, masculine , singular. IOW, it has been suggested that since the "child/sign" would necessarily need to be a prominent figure in the life of Ahaz, that it was one of Ahaz's wifes or concubines that Isaiah referred to as "the young woman". Consequently, it would be Ahaz himself (masc. sing.)whom Isaiah addressed as "you".Some even suggest that this "young woman" was Abijah and that the child was in fact Hezekiah, which would (in some ways) also be consistent with the descriptions and succession dates provided in later chapters.I hope you stick around. It would be fun to discuss with you some of the implications involved.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-02-2003]

quote:

---

Buzsaw, but I find it interesting that you do not seem to understand what "House of David" refers to here. It refers to King Ahaz, his royal court, and his family - as I will show. (If you do understand this and I misread your posts, I apologize)
The first verses summarizes the story of the two kings who failed to triumph over king Ahaz. We then see the detail..

​

In 7.2 it states that it was reported to the house of David that the two kings of Syria and Pekah are planning to attack Jerusalem. The house of David (i.e. the kingly/royal court), and all the people (common) were shaken.

​

God asks Isaiah to tell the king to stay calm and not worry about this news. He says that the kings will not prevail.

​

God again (through Isaiah) appears in Ahaz's court to tell him to ask for a sign, and Ahaz says he will not put God to the test. Then Isaiah (on behalf of God) replies to Ahaz (possibly to the whole court that is there listening) and asks if it is too much to ask for a sign. He then most likely points to a woman standing in the room and says, "here, this young woman is (or is about to be) pregnant and will give birth to a son. You (talking to the woman) will name him..."

---

I do not dispute that the house of David at the time of the prophecy was the kingdom of Judah under Ahaz. My contention is that after King Ahaz was offered a sign/prophecy for the there and then and declined, the Lord then proclaimed a prophecy of a future birth to the house of David. The Lord was clearly ticked after Ahaz, representing the House of David declined the offer, which by the way was offered to assure Ahaz that what the Lord had promised about these two threatening kingdoms would come to pass. So the Lord said that He was going to give a sign anyhow, not for the there and then, but for the future. There would be a boy child to be born WHICH WOULD KNOW to refuse the evil and to do the good. He would have a simple diet. Though he is to be God with us he would not come eating king's food as a king messiah would be expected to do.I have my Hebrew Interlinear in front of me and there is narry a hint in the literal wording about a woman present who was the woman of the prophecy as you are alleging. Nor does the text say as you suggest, "you will call him Immanuel." It says "she shall call his name Immanuel."

quote:

---

Quick point here - I chose to translate this as "you will call him" because this Hebrew verb in this context makes the most sense translated this way, as it was in, for example Genesis 16:11 where the Lord talks to Abram's wife "You are now pregnant and are about to give birth to a son. You are to call him Ishmael". It makes even more sense when you think about how all of this was a discourse in the court in front of king Ahaz and the royal court.

---

Nice try Eric but it doesn't wash. Unlike this prophecy, the Genesis 16 text to Sarah specifically addresses the woman Sarah directly "you shall call..." because she is being addressed personally in that text. Not so here. The woman is the third person, clearly not present. Not only that, but at the time period of the prophesied child much would happen with the economy and the land. 65 years would pass before Ephriam was wasted and beyond that the Lord goes on to prophesy further about the land.NOTE ALSO in verse 17, Interlinear: "Jehovah shall bring the king of Assyria on YOU, (still addressing the house of David, i.e. Judah, the southern kingdom) and your people, and on your father's house, days which have not come since the days Ephriaim turned aside from Judah." And yes, after Assyria dealt with Syria and Israel, problems arose with the house of David/Judah and Assyria invaded, conquering much of Judah and besieging Jerusalem. There was some effectual resistance there and Hezekiah's kingdom was partly spared, but Judah eventually was carried off to exile in Babylon and never recovered to significance or self rule thereafter.There's some ambiguous stuff here in this chapter and in all fairness, I can see where you people are coming from. As I analyze it I am becoming more aware that there are reasons for you to interpret as you do, but I also see why the translators, the writers of the NT and most literal minded scholars support my contention that it is a prophecy of the future child Jesus who did indeed choose to do the good and not the evil.

quote:

---

What good would this prophecy do to a House of Israel that was worried about being attacked by two kings if it spoke about some messiah hundreds of years later?

---

It wasn't intended for that purpose. Why? Because:
1. God had already assured them of the defeat via the prophet Isaiah, that they needn't worry.
2. Ahaz, spokesman and head of the then House of David, declined a sign/prophecy for the then and there.
3. The prophecy went way beyond the life of child which would be born then and there, even beyond the reign of Ahaz, when Judah itself would feel the wrath and sword of the Assyrians. The prophecy doesn't actually end until the end of chapter 7.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-02-2003]