Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

Does it occur to any of the believers here that there's something kind of off-kilter about threads such as this one?What I mean is, if everything in the bible were as obvious and clear as many of you say it is, then this discussion wouldn't even be possible. We would all be funamentalist christians because the prophecies would be just so obviously true.I still think that what IS obvious is that the believers are not basing their belief on the veracity of the prophecies, but instead believe certain things BEFORE they investigate any prophecy, and then twist and turn and interpret heavily in order to force the Bible to confirm what they already believe.

PaulK,You stated, Allow me to point out that almah is never used in Scripture as the feminine equivalent of a young man. Bethulah, on the other hand, is used as such quite often. Consider Deuteronomy 32:25, II Chronicles 36:17, Psalms 78:63 and 148:12, Isaiah 23:4, Jeremiah 31:13and 51:22, Lamentations 1:18 and 2:21, Amos 8:13, and Zechariah 9:17.You further stated, Did you read my previous posts (37 and 55) on this topic? If so, please point out to me what part of those posts requires further clarification, and I will do my best to help you understand my position.You also stated, First of all, let me suggest the following reference regarding the word almah. The definitions found here and in most other sources that I have available are in basic agreement with the definition which I have proposed. In fact, the only source which you have mentioned also agrees with this definition, only you forgot to include that part of it in your quote. Perhaps our sources agree with each other because they are the same source. If you will notice, crosswalk.com does a very good job of giving credit to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament for the Hebrew definitions found on their site.Now, let me point out that I did not define almah as meaning untouched. I did incorrectly state this as the literal definition of the word virgin. I was under the impression that this was the primary meaning of the word. I have since found that untouched is only a secondary function of virgin in which its primary application as a reference to a female who has not experienced sexual intercourse is used in the personification of any object which has not been handled by man. (By the way, this definition of virgin is from Webster’s New International Dictionary Second Edition, Unabridged)In your most recent post you stated, I have provided a very large number of Scripture references which support my position, and I have also provided some sources in this post for your consideration. However, let me mention that you have only provided one source for your position. That source was misnamed, misquoted, and misapplied! Perhaps you could provide another.You further question whether I have done my homework. I could ask you the same thing. If you compare our posts, you will find that one of us posts very detailed, well written, and well prepared arguments while the other posts short jabs at his opponents character containing multiple misspellings and grammatical errors and evidencing a very hasty reading of previous posts. Which of these has done his homework?Perhaps you should take some time to review your position. Having responded too quickly to my arguments, it is possible that you have accepted your position just as hastily. Let me recommend that you take a week or so and study the argument to its fullest before continuing. If you have any questions about my position, just ask me for an explanation, and I will do my best to supply one.

OK neither of your posts 37 or 55 addresses the question of how the sign could follow the fulfulment. The purpose of the sign is to indicate that the fulfilment is close - not that it happened centuries in the past.From the rest of your post it appears that you are relying on the apologetic work of inerrantists who wsih to maintain that the translation of Isaiah as referring to a virgin birth is correct for religious reasons (why else do they say that there is "no instance where it can be PROVED 'alma designates a young woman who is not a virgin." - empahsis mine - unless they know that they do not have a positive case that it DOES mean virgin ?)As for your examples they become less impressive when it is noted that Deuteronomy 32:25 uses "bachuwr" for "young man" rather than "elem", Jeremiah 13:31 does the same and does not even link the two (and Jeremaiah is full of references to the "virgin of Israel").
The 2 Lamentations entries use the same word for young man.And what about, say Leviticus 21:14 ? Or Deuteronomy 22:23 and 28 ?
Both Deuteronomy 22 references refer to a "Na'arah" (that is a girl) who is "bethulah". That would be redundant if bethulah meant "young woman" as you say - and it looks unlikely to be an example of repetition for effect. All three seem to quite clearly refer to virginity. On the other hand almah is never used when it would specifically mean "virgin". You claimed that almah is ALWAYS used "in reference to true virgins" - yet the only example where virginity is known, is where the same woman is also called "bethulah"I also notice that you offer no reference where almah is used to refer to a woman who is not young, but still a virgin - despite the fact that you clearly claimed this meaning with no support. Obviously you have not done as much homework as you would have us believe.

Prophecy is a muddy science, and Bible prophecy more muddy than most. Take those Old Testament prophecies. Evangelists never tire of telling us that hundreds were fulfilled in the life of Jesus, far too many to be called coincidence. But how many of these are real, and how many are prophetia ex eventu--prophecies constructed after the fact, products of careful selection and interpretation?To get an idea, let's look at the most famous, the prophecy of the child Immanuel as presented in the Gospel of Matthew: Most good Christians take this at face value, assured that the prophet Isaiah did indeed describe Jesus' miraculous conception and birth seven hundred years before. But did he? Authorities are nearly unanimous. The answer is no.What did Isaiah really say? Turning to Isaiah 7:14 (Masoretic text), we find his precise words: Matthew's interpretation of this passage has several problems, the largest hanging on the Hebrew word 'almah. Writing in Greek, the gospel author turned almah into parthenos, a word usually (but not always) meaning "virgin." In fact, he had a precedent for this; the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews of his day, did indeed use parthenos in the Isaiah passage. But the Septuagint was for the most part a notoriously sloppy translation, and its version of Isaiah was generally more error-ridden than the rest. By the Middle Ages, the Jews had abandoned the Septuagint, and later Greek translations, by Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien and others, did not use the word parthenos. (The Septuagint, commonly known as the LXX, is still favored by Eastern Orthodox churches.)Liberal "higher critics" deny the element of prediction or foretelling in prophecy. Their assumption is that a prophet was a man of "his own time" who spoke only to men "of his own time." That tells only half the story. God's prophets spoke to men of their own time about those things which were of concern and significance, but they also spoke of those things which were future and which would be of concern and significance to all, from those then living to those who would see the fulfillment of the prophecy and to those who would live after that fulfillment and read the inspired record of the prophecy and its fulfillment. Contrary to the "critics," Biblical prophecy was not written after the fact, ambiguous, artificially fulfilled, nor just a phenomenon common to all religions and peoples. No well-attested evidence of one miraculous "prophecy" has ever been found outside the Bible!

quote:

---

Does it occur to any of the believers here that there's something kind of off-kilter about threads such as this one?
What I mean is, if everything in the bible were as obvious and clear as many of you say it is, then this discussion wouldn't even be possible. We would all be funamentalist christians because the prophecies would be just so obviously true.

​

I still think that what IS obvious is that the believers are not basing their belief on the veracity of the prophecies, but instead believe certain things BEFORE they investigate any prophecy, and then twist and turn and interpret heavily in order to force the Bible to confirm what they already believe.

---

Schraf, it's been obvious to objective folks for a looooong time as to what this prophecy is about. The one and only reason this thread is so long is that the ideology of you people falls if you were to admit anything supernatural. So on and on the bunch of you go to grasp anything you can possibly think up in your determined efforts to refute the supernatural.

Buz, stop for a second. If our goal was just to discredit a prophecy, we'd point out that details about Jesus's supposed life could easily have been tweaked after the fact; after all, there aren't any Roman records (despite their meticulous record keeping) that even mention him, so there's no way to confirm it.Did you stop and think for a second that maybe - just maybe - to a person reading it, that the prophecy is anything *but* clear that it's about Jesus?If it were a clear prophecy, people would have used the method that I mentioned in the first paragraph.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Buz, stop for a second. If our goal was just to discredit a prophecy, we'd point out that details about Jesus's supposed life could easily have been tweaked after the fact; after all, there aren't any Roman records (despite their meticulous record keeping) that even mention him, so there's no way to confirm it.

---

LOL, Rei. Tweaking the life and death of Jesus is easier said than done. The original would be tweakers were the Jewish religious leaders and others who tried to cover up the resurrection. The would be tweakers have failed all the way from then til now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

Schraf, it's been obvious to objective folks for a looooong time as to what this prophecy is about. . . .the bunch of you go to grasp anything you can possibly think up in your determined efforts to refute the supernatural.

---

No buzsaw, no ulterior motive is required. The majority of the fundamentally religious people I talk to regard the Isaiah 7 passages as a "dual" prophecy. IOW, the Spirit tells them that there was both a contemporary historical fulfillment and a future fulfillment in the birth of Christ.They say that verses 15 & 16 cannot apply to Jesus because that would imply that there was a time when Jesus did not know how to discern good from evil.Consider the following excerpt by Tim Haile:

quote:

---

Did Jesus Have to "Learn the Difference" Between Right and Wrong?

​

(Some people) appear to have overlooked the fact that the (Isaiah 7:14) prophecy is a dual prophecy. This means it had an imminent, literal fulfillment, perceptible to Isaiah's audience, and it also had a future, spiritual fulfillment. This later aspect of the prophecy is discussed in Matthew 1:23.

​

No person on the earth today has the kind of guidance that Matthew had in providing commentary on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. He was told which part of the Isaiah 7 prophecy was Messianic. Obviously, some brethren are comfortable going beyond what Matthew said, for they assert that verse 15 of Isaiah 7 also applied to Christ. By so doing, they go beyond the doctrine of Christ and become guilty of perverting Christ's gospel by adding their opinions to it (2 John 9; Gal. 1:7-9).

​

The inspired writer Matthew only applied Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus. It is presumptuous and wrong to apply verses 15 and 16 to Jesus.

---

These people are true (and presumably "Spirit led") believers and they are not trying to "deny the supernatural". And yet they don't attempt to divorce these writings of Isaiah from their historical context. They simply assert that there is an additional underlying meaning to Isaiah 7:14 which can be applied to the birth of Jesus.Thus there are many Christians who disagree with your assessment that Isaiah chapter 7 refers only to a supernatural future event.Therefore, prejudice is not required for a contemporary historical reading of Isaiah chapter 7. I only differ with these other Christians in that I see no reason to attach a later allegorical prophecy fulfillment to the historical context.Namaste'Amlodhi

Yes Buz, it has been quite obvious that the you are trying to force the text into your preconcieved ideas rather than paying attention to what it actually says.It is absolutely clear that the Bible contradicts your beliefs to the point where you are unable to actually READ what the Bible says.
Surely even you have noticed that you cannot refute the reasoning behind the other readings that have been given.

quote:

---

Tweaking the life and death of Jesus is easier said than done. The original would be tweakers were the Jewish religious leaders and others who tried to cover up the resurrection. The would be tweakers have failed all the way from then til now.

---

Actually, the original tweakers are the writers of the gospels themselves.That's why John is so radically different from the other three gosples, for example.Also, translators have tweaked all kinds of things over time.There is no original text of the Bible.

I think Mendy was saying the bible has held up (OT anyway) without change. Do you have documentation to back up the tweaking of translators?

quote:

---

No buzsaw, no ulterior motive is required. The majority of the fundamentally religious people I talk to regard the Isaiah 7 passages as a "dual" prophecy. IOW, the Spirit tells them that there was both a contemporary historical fulfillment and a future fulfillment in the birth of Christ.

---

Fundamentally religious?? I guess that could range all the way from the prophet Muhammed to Conservative Baptists for reference. Anyhow, I've been among Biblical fundies for 58 years from age 10 when I became a Christian, and none of those who've said anything about this prophecy nor the many who've preached on it consider it to have a dual interpretation.

quote:

---

That's why John is so radically different from the other three gosples, for example.

​

Also, translators have tweaked all kinds of things over time.

---

All the gospels have a different slant on the message for the purpose/role each was to play in the finished cannon, but pretty much consistently without any contradiction.The closest I know of as to translators tweaking the message of this specific prophecy would be the RSV, when they revised the 1901 to change virgin to young woman. I remember when I was a kid, the fuss that was made over that by Biblical fundie folk. Imo, some of the modern translators such as the NIV people have done a lot worse with little fuss from fundies, many of who use this translation. Christians considered to be Biblical fundies today aren't what they use to be in many respects. For the most part they've become more charismatic and less doctrinal with more hipe and less wholesome holiness.

Read Deuteronomy 32:8, comparing the Septuagint and DSS witnesses (and, just for fun, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) with the later Masoretic and Onkelos. Then, if you're serious, read Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law.

quote:

---

All the gospels have a different slant on the message for the purpose/role each was to play in the finished cannon, but pretty much consistently without any contradiction.

---

I would contend that the reasons the Gospels changed were mostly sociopolitical.In addition, John paints Christ as a much more symbolic "sacrificial lamb" who's sacrifice had to do with an eternal, spiritual salvation.That's why the timing of the crucifiction is changed in John.The other three gospels are talking about Jesus coming back very soon as a military leader to conquer all of Israel's enemies, but by the time John was written, it was pretty clear that this was not going to happen. That's the reframing, or tweaking of making Jesus' sacrifice a symbolic one for all of the future.