Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on January 06, 2025, 03:19:22 PM
-
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 came up on the Matthew thread. Over Christmas, I came across this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aQkUPoK1U) by two Israeli Christians discussing whether or not Isaiah was referring just to a young woman or to a virgin. They used Isaiah 54:4-5 as evidence that the word almah means an adolescent woman, who is unmarried, as implied by the parallelism in verses 4-5, which I've indicated using green and blue highlights:
1Sing, O barren one, who did not bear;
break forth into singing and cry aloud,
you who have not been in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord.
2“Enlarge the place of your tent,
and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out;
do not hold back; lengthen your cords
and strengthen your stakes.
3For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left,
and your offspring will possess the nations
and will people the desolate cities.
4Fear not, for you will not be ashamed;
be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced;
for you will forget the shame of your youth (alumayik),
and the reproach of your widowhood (almenutayik) you will remember no more.
5For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
The shame of her youth is remedied by God becoming her husband, and the reproach of her widowhood is remedied by God becoming her redeemer. These have in common the lack of a husband. This could indicate that the word almah carries the meaning of being an unmarried young woman, and by implication given the Hebrew culture, a virgin.
As pointed out in the comments, verse 1 refers to a woman who is sterile, not an unmarried woman. Does this influence the meaning of verses 4 and 5? The thought seems to jump from sterility (v1) to lack of a husband (v4-5)?
-
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 came up on the Matthew thread. Over Christmas, I came across this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aQkUPoK1U) by two Israeli Christians discussing whether or not Isaiah was referring just to a young woman or to a virgin. They used Isaiah 54:4-5 as evidence that the word almah means an adolescent woman, who is unmarried, as implied by the parallelism in verses 4-5, which I've indicated using green and blue highlights:
1Sing, O barren one, who did not bear;
break forth into singing and cry aloud,
you who have not been in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord.
2“Enlarge the place of your tent,
and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out;
do not hold back; lengthen your cords
and strengthen your stakes.
3For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left,
and your offspring will possess the nations
and will people the desolate cities.
4Fear not, for you will not be ashamed;
be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced;
for you will forget the shame of your youth (alumayik),
and the reproach of your widowhood (almenutayik) you will remember no more.
5For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
The shame of her youth is remedied by God becoming her husband, and the reproach of her widowhood is remedied by God becoming her redeemer. These have in common the lack of a husband. This could indicate that the word almah carries the meaning of being an unmarried young woman, and by implication given the Hebrew culture, a virgin.
As pointed out in the comments, verse 1 refers to a woman who is sterile, not an unmarried woman. Does this influence the meaning of verses 4 and 5? The thought seems to jump from sterility (v1) to lack of a husband (v4-5)?
As it stands, that prophecy could well apply to the conception of John the Baptist ( who is apparently considered more important than Jesus in certain cultures)
My tongue is somewhat in my cheek.
-
Or Isiah was predicting for the King of Israel that his enemies who were then besieging Jerusalem would be dispersed before the child of a woman currently pregnant learns to know the difference between good and bad.
-
As it stands, that prophecy could well apply to the conception of John the Baptist ( who is apparently considered more important than Jesus in certain cultures)
I know you are joking a little but it couldn't refer to John the Baptist since it is not a prophecy about the birth of a child at all. It's actually a prophecy about the fate of King Ahaz's enemies and the birth and development of the child is merely a means to put a time scale to it.
This is actually a pretty strong argument against Spud's interpretation. If "virgin" is meant, the time scale requires a miracle to occur i.e.e never. It's would be like the difference between "Spurs will win the Premier League when I learn to milk this cow" and "Spurs will win the Premier League when I learn to milk this bull". The latter says it is never going to happen.
-
I know you are joking a little but it couldn't refer to John the Baptist since it is not a prophecy about the birth of a child at all. It's actually a prophecy about the fate of King Ahaz's enemies and the birth and development of the child is merely a means to put a time scale to it.
This is actually a pretty strong argument against Spud's interpretation. If "virgin" is meant, the time scale requires a miracle to occur i.e.e never. It's would be like the difference between "Spurs will when the Premier League when I learn to milk this cow" and "Spurs will when the Premier League when I learn to milk this bull". The latter says it is never going to happen.
Bit befuddled here. What you and Maeght say is certainly true of Isaiah 7:14. I was referring to the verses Spud brings in support from chapter 54, with its specific reference to a barren woman. No idea whether this has any specific reference to contemporary events then at all, or whether it's something more generalised, such as you often find in Isaiah, such as the famous text about "The Mountain of the Lord". Now there's a pious hope, considering the shit the world's in now.
-
Bit befuddled here. What you and Maeght say is certainly true of Isaiah 7:14. I was referring to the verses Spud brings in support from chapter 54, with its specific reference to a barren woman. No idea whether this has any specific reference to contemporary events then at all, or whether it's something more generalised, such as you often find in Isaiah, such as the famous text about "The Mountain of the Lord". Now there's a pious hope, considering the shit the world's in now.
The young woman/virgin part relates to Isaiah 7:14 doesn't it? Wasn't really sure what point Spud was trying to make (my fault probably) but essentially if Isaiah is talking about something other than Jesus, does it really matter?
-
The young woman/virgin part relates to Isaiah 7:14 doesn't it? Wasn't really sure what point Spud was trying to make (my fault probably) but essentially if Isaiah is talking about something other than Jesus, does it really matter?
Yup, that's certainly true. And it certainly don't matter. Following fundamentalists down rabbit holes can be dangerous.
-
The young woman/virgin part relates to Isaiah 7:14 doesn't it? Wasn't really sure what point Spud was trying to make (my fault probably) but essentially if Isaiah is talking about something other than Jesus, does it really matter?
Spud is trying to construct an argument that the word used in Isaiah 7:14 is (or, at least, could be) "virgin". He thinks that arguing that something is possible is equivalent to arguing it is probable. It's a standard fundamentalist tactic. You look at the opposing argument and focus on a bit you think you can refute and then, if you do refute it, you triumphantly call the whole argument refuted.
It's basically taking a statement composed of lots of "ors" and treating it as if it is lots of "ands". For example, Spud asserts that Isaiah 7:14 is a Merssianic prophecy and that Jesus fulfilled it. In response, I make the following points:
- The word used in Isaiah is not "virgin"
- The prophecy is not a Messianic prophecy
- Matthew* could have read the prophecy and written his story to pretend it had been fulfilled
Spud assumes that all of these must be true for the refutation to work and therefore concentrates on what he perceives to be the easiest point to overturn my argument. Whereas, in reality, only one pf my points needs to be true.
In fact, the observation that Matthew knew Isaiah destroys any argument that prophecies of Isaiah fulfilled by Jesus prove Jesus is the Messiah because Matthew could obviously have made up the fulfilment.
*By "Matthew" I mean the author of the eponymous gospel, not the disciple and apostle.
-
Spud is trying to construct an argument that the word used in Isaiah 7:14 is (or, at least, could be) "virgin".
Actually I was arguing that as well as being a young woman, an almah has never been married.
-
Actually I was arguing that as well as being a young woman, an almah has never been married.
To what end?
-
To what end?
It would demonstrate that she is a virgin. Not the same as saying that the word means a virgin.
-
It would demonstrate that she is a virgin. Not the same as saying that the word means a virgin.
The she in Isaiah is currently pregnant so not a virgin.
-
It would demonstrate that she is a virgin. Not the same as saying that the word means a virgin.
I take it that you do realise that unmarried women are not necessarily virgins?
-
The she in Isaiah is currently pregnant so not a virgin.
To clarify, for people familiar with the King James translation, there is no main verb in the Hebrew text, only an adjective and a participle. No expert on ancient Hebrew myself, but this would seem to indicate "The pregnant young woman is about to give birth".
So indeed, not a virgin.
-
To me the main point on all this is that in no way is Isaiah a clear prophecy of Jesus's birth. It is all about interpretation (have heard an interpretation that it is a warning to the King of Judah about ignoring God's promise to protect Judah and making military plans - that Isaiah was referring to a Prince about to be born who would accept God's promise and replace him) and trying to link it to the claim (not a fact) of a virgin birth later on. Meanings and uses of words change and translations can alter meanings. All interesting to study but not something to base beliefs on I would say.
-
........
In fact, the observation that Matthew knew Isaiah destroys any argument that prophecies of Isaiah fulfilled by Jesus prove Jesus is the Messiah because Matthew could obviously have made up the fulfilment.
*By "Matthew" I mean the author of the eponymous gospel, not the disciple and apostle.
Just to add something to that (which is probably quite well known). It's not difficult to see how 'Matthew' could have done this, since Charles Jennens, the librettist of Handel's oratorio Messiah, demonstrates the method exactly. The majority of the first two parts of Messiah are made up of quotes from the Old Testament which purport to refer the coming incarnation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part in fact, while starting with a brief quote from John "Behold the Lamb of God...", switches back to the Old Testament and tells the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection using quotes entirely from there. While it is possible that the writers of the synoptics may have been aware of a few oral traditions relating to the life of the historical Jesus, and found OT texts to match, it seems to me very likely that Mark, and then Matthew and Luke used the appropriate OT texts and wove a narrative out of them.
I don't know if Mark uses only some of the texts which Jennens centuries later cites, and Matthew adds a few more, or whether they both use all the same ones. I may be nerdy enough to find out.
Obviously Mark doesn't refer to any birth narratives.
-
Just to add something to that (which is probably quite well known). It's not difficult to see how 'Matthew' could have done this, since Charles Jennens, the librettist of Handel's oratorio Messiah, demonstrates the method exactly. The majority of the first two parts of Messiah are made up of quotes from the Old Testament which purport to refer the coming incarnation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part in fact, while starting with a brief quote from John "Behold the Lamb of God...", switches back to the Old Testament and tells the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection using quotes entirely from there. While it is possible that the writers of the synoptics may have been aware of a few oral traditions relating to the life of the historical Jesus, and found OT texts to match, it seems to me very likely that Mark, and then Matthew and Luke used the appropriate OT texts and wove a narrative out of them.
I don't know if Mark uses only some of the texts which Jennens centuries later cites, and Matthew adds a few more, or whether they both use all the same ones. I may be nerdy enough to find out.
Obviously Mark doesn't refer to any birth narratives.
Yep.
-
Just to add something to that (which is probably quite well known). It's not difficult to see how 'Matthew' could have done this, since Charles Jennens, the librettist of Handel's oratorio Messiah, demonstrates the method exactly. The majority of the first two parts of Messiah are made up of quotes from the Old Testament which purport to refer the coming incarnation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part in fact, while starting with a brief quote from John "Behold the Lamb of God...", switches back to the Old Testament and tells the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection using quotes entirely from there. While it is possible that the writers of the synoptics may have been aware of a few oral traditions relating to the life of the historical Jesus, and found OT texts to match, it seems to me very likely that Mark, and then Matthew and Luke used the appropriate OT texts and wove a narrative out of them.
I don't know if Mark uses only some of the texts which Jennens centuries later cites, and Matthew adds a few more, or whether they both use all the same ones. I may be nerdy enough to find out.
Obviously Mark doesn't refer to any birth narratives.
It's really difficult to say. The particular OT quotations chosen may have been selected because they somehow matched the details people thought they knew about Jesus or the narrative may have been fabricated by weaving the OT quotations together. I think a bit of both is going on.
I lean towards the former because some of the so called Messianic prophecies really do not look like Messianic prophecies when you read them in context. This one, for example: if I was trawling through Isaiah (in the Septuagint) looking for Messianic prophecies, I would not look at 7:14 unless I already had a miraculous birth in mind.
On the other hand, the being born in Bethlehem part is something that Matthew and Luke probably picked out and then wove their narratives around because they are both pretty unconvincing explanations as to how a native of Nazareth got to be born in Bethlehem.
-
I take it that you do realise that unmarried women are not necessarily virgins?
Yes, but if there was premarital sexual activity, it's odd that the text doesn't mention it. Given that Isaiah offered Ahaz a miraculous sign, it would be reasonable to interpret the pregnancy as miraculous.
-
Yes, but if there was premarital sexual activity, it's odd that the text doesn't mention it. Given that Isaiah offered Ahaz a miraculous sign, it would be reasonable to interpret the pregnancy as miraculous.
Not at all.
-
Furthermore, Gill's commentary shows that the son born to the maiden could not have been a son of Ahaz, nor of Isaiah. We are told nothing of Immanuel's identity other than that the land of Judah is his land (Isaiah 8:8 )
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isaiah 8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in Isaiah 8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned
-
Not at all.
So you would say that the pregnant maiden represents any maiden who happens to be pregnant at the time?
-
So you would say that the pregnant maiden represents any maiden who happens to be pregnant at the time?
Quite possibly, yes. The reference to the maiden may simply be putting a timescale on predicted events. An alternative interpretation I have seen is that the child referred to is a Prince fathered by Ahaz that Isaiah is predicting will take over from him. In what way would the maiden's status be relevant to a sign from Isiah to Ahaz?
Have you read the Wikipedia page on Immanuel which talks about the context and interpretations?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel)
-
Quite possibly, yes. The reference to the maiden may simply be putting a timescale on predicted events.
Gill says this timescale is made using shear jashub, Isaiah's son who he has with him. An alternative interpretation I have seen is that the child referred to is a Prince fathered by Ahaz that Isaiah is predicting will take over from him. In what way would the maiden's status be relevant to a sign from Isiah to Ahaz?
Her being a pregnant virgin would be a sign that the prophecy about Rezin and Pekah is from God. child has a divine origin.
Even if the fulfillment happens a long time in the future, shows that the Davidic dynasty will continue until the Messiah is born, so Ahaz doesn't need to worry because his descendents will continue.
Have you read the Wikipedia page on Immanuel which talks about the context and interpretations?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel)
I did glance at it, but it looked quite complicated. My last post but one quoted Gill on why Immanuel can't be a son of Ahaz.
-
Her being a pregnant virgin indicates that the child has a divine origin.
Congratulations Spud - that is certainly in the top ten of examples of mindless theobollocks.
-
I did glance at it, but it looked quite complicated. My last post but one quoted Gill on why Immanuel can't be a son of Ahaz.
Gill would need to debate that with the scholar who wrote the article I read.
-
Congratulations Spud - that is certainly in the top ten of examples of mindless theobollocks.
Thank you Gordon. Message edited.
-
Thank you Gordon. Message edited.
Unless they had IVF back then, 'pregnant virgin' seems like an oxymoron. Your edit achieved nothing.
-
Yes, but if there was premarital sexual activity, it's odd that the text doesn't mention it.
No it isn't.
Given that Isaiah offered Ahaz a miraculous sign, it would be reasonable to interpret the pregnancy as miraculous.
No, he offered a sign. No need for any miracles. He's just saying "your enemies will be gone by a certain time".
-
Gill says this timescale is made using shear jashub, Isaiah's son who he has with him. Her being a pregnant virgin would be a sign that the prophecy about Rezin and Pekah is from God. child has a divine origin.
Even if the fulfillment happens a long time in the future, shows that the Davidic dynasty will continue until the Messiah is born, so Ahaz doesn't need to worry because his descendents will continue.I did glance at it, but it looked quite complicated. My last post but one quoted Gill on why Immanuel can't be a son of Ahaz.
The problem you are having is because this is not a Messianic prophecy. Nobody thought it was until Matthew trawled through the Septuagint looking for stuff that might be related to virgin births. There's no indication that Isaiah 7:14 was about anything except current events at the time of Ahaz. There's no Jewish tradition that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth.
This is just another example of Christians retconning the Old Testament.
-
No it isn't.
If she had got pregnant the usual way she would not be called an almah.
No, he offered a sign. No need for any miracles. He's just saying "your enemies will be gone by a certain time".
<<Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11“Ask a sign of the Lord yourf God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13And heg said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold...>>
If this sign consisted only of a woman giving birth and naming him God is with us, it wouldn't be very convincing. Barnes says,
<<Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled. As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was able to deliver the land, the word here denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected "only" by Yahweh.>>
I don't quite understand how this was a sign to Ahaz if it didn't happen until later, but I think Barnes is right.
-
Have you read the Wikipedia page yet?
-
If she had got pregnant the usual way she would not be called an almah.
Yes she would. "Almah" means "young woman".
<<Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11“Ask a sign of the Lord yourf God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13And heg said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold...>>
If this sign consisted only of a woman giving birth and naming him God is with us, it wouldn't be very convincing. Barnes says,
<<Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled. As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was able to deliver the land, the word here denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected "only" by Yahweh.>>
I don't quite understand how this was a sign to Ahaz if it didn't happen until later, but I think Barnes is right.
It was a sign for Ahaz. Even if it was a miraculous birth it is not a messianic prophecy.
-
Yes she would. "Almah" means "young woman".
But all other examples refer to unmarried young women. The English word 'virgin' can refer either to the state of being a virgin (applicable to men also) or it can refer more generally to a young woman who has not yet married, as in the parable of the ten virgins. This type is more commonly known as a maiden, and is designated a virgin because she hasn't yet married.
A woman who was pregnant by a man would more likely be called an ishshah in Hebrew. An example is Genesis 36:20 where Tamar is referred to as a woman (ishshah), having slept with Judah. The reason for Tamar's pregnancy is also explained, as she is not married. That suggests that there would be some comment in Isaiah 7, had the almah conceived naturally.
So Isaiah 7 does actually seem to be talking about a miraculous conception, unless it means, the virgin will conceive: then it could mean either a natural or miraculous conception. That would be one way in which the prophecy could have a dual fulfillment.
-
It was a sign for Ahaz. Even if it was a miraculous birth it is not a messianic prophecy.
This raises the question of whether Immanuel is the son born in Isaiah 9, who is the Messiah. The thought seems to flow from the son being about to be born in chapter 7, to actually born in 8 and 9, then reigning as king in chapter 11.
That Ahaz did not witness this sign may be due to his initial refusal to ask for it.
-
But all other examples refer to unmarried young women.
No they don't. In any case Isaiah used "Bethulah" when he specifically wanted to infer virginity.
The English word 'virgin' can refer either to the state of being a virgin (applicable to men also) or it can refer more generally to a young woman who has not yet married
I've never heard it used in the latter sense, except, of course, in olden days virginity was probably just assumed for an unmarried woman.
, as in the parable of the ten virgins.
Which was first written down in Greek and therefore not relevant to a discussion of Hebrew.
This type is more commonly known as a maiden, and is designated a virgin because she hasn't yet married.
I still don't accept your second alleged meaning.
A woman who was pregnant by a man would more likely be called an ishshah in Hebrew. An example is Genesis 36:20 where Tamar is referred to as a woman (ishshah), having slept with Judah. The reason for Tamar's pregnancy is also explained, as she is not married. That suggests that there would be some comment in Isaiah 7, had the almah conceived naturally.
Do you understand that Isaiah and Genesis were written by different people at different times? It's very dangerous to infer meaning of the one from the other, especially as Isaiah had the word "Bethulah" available if he wanted to explicitly say "virgin".
So Isaiah 7 does actually seem to be talking about a miraculous conception,
No. It really doesn't. And even if it did, it is not a Messianic prophecy and it is not about Jesus.
-
This raises the question of whether Immanuel is the son born in Isaiah 9, who is the Messiah. The thought seems to flow from the son being about to be born in chapter 7, to actually born in 8 and 9, then reigning as king in chapter 11.
That Ahaz did not witness this sign may be due to his initial refusal to ask for it.
Only if you are desperate for your religion not to be built on lies.
-
Only if you are desperate for your religion not to be built on lies.
You've said Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah. Do you think Isaiah 9:6-7 is? If so, why do you think the two passages are not referring to the same child?
-
You've said Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah.
Because it clearly isn't.
Do you think Isaiah 9:6-7 is? If so, why do you think the two passages are not referring to the same child?
There's no suggestion that they are the same child.
-
You've said Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah. Do you think Isaiah 9:6-7 is? If so, why do you think the two passages are not referring to the same child?
The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.
-
The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.
It can also be pointed out that the second prophecy wasn't fulfilled by Jesus.
-
The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.
The land of Judah was described as Immanuel's land in Isaiah 8, indicating that he is it's Lord and king.
The Jews recognized that Hezekiah was not the Messiah, pointing out that when God delivered him, he didn't sing songs of praise as David had done. He showed the Babylonians the treasures in the temple and consequently was told his sons would be taken to Babylon because of that.
He was a figure of the Messiah. He didn't measure up to the names given to the child in Isaiah 9:7.
Regarding the centuries of time that elapsed before the birth of Christ, the prophet Zechariah, after the return from Exile, was still waiting for the righteous branch promised in Isaiah 11.
-
Because it clearly isn't.There's no suggestion that they are the same child.
In Isaiah's mind they are. He is about to be born (7:14), then born (9:6).
-
The land of Judah was described as Immanuel's land in Isaiah 8, indicating that he is it's Lord and king.
The Jews recognized that Hezekiah was not the Messiah, pointing out that when God delivered him, he didn't sing songs of praise as David had done. He showed the Babylonians the treasures in the temple and consequently was told his sons would be taken to Babylon because of that.
He was a figure of the Messiah. He didn't measure up to the names given to the child in Isaiah 9:7.
..........................
Regarding the incidence of Messianic texts, this from Wiki: Messiah in Judaism -
Religious views on whether Hebrew Bible passages refer to a Messiah may vary among scholars of ancient Israel, looking at their meaning in their original contexts and among rabbinical scholars.[24] The reading of messianic attestations in passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel is anachronistic because messianism developed later than these texts.[24][13] According to James C. VanderKam, there are no Jewish texts before the 2nd century BCE that mention a messianic leader, though some terms point in this direction. Some terms, such as the servant songs in the Book of Isaiah, were later interpreted as such.
Isaiah certainly refers to Cyrus the Great as a messiah, but he does not fulfil the criteria which you stipulate. And of course, two messiahs appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls, one warlike, one priestly.
-
And of course, Messiah doesn't equal Son of God.
-
The word "messiah" means "anointed one". It's a reference to the Israelite practice of anointing their kings with oil. Anybody who became king and was anointed can be called a messiah. David was one. King Charles is one as was his mother.
The land of Judah was described as Immanuel's land in Isaiah 8, indicating that he is it's Lord and king.
Jesus was never king of Judah. In fact, it did not exist as a geopolitical entity when he was alive.
The Jews recognized that Hezekiah was not the Messiah, pointing out that when God delivered him, he didn't sing songs of praise as David had done. He showed the Babylonians the treasures in the temple and consequently was told his sons would be taken to Babylon because of that.
He was a figure of the Messiah. He didn't measure up to the names given to the child in Isaiah 9:7.
Neither did Jesus.
-
The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.
Some Jewish teachers said that Is. 9:6-7 can't be about Hezekiah.
If the first prophecy does refer to a virgin who is currently pregnant, then that would be a miraculous sign, which would link it with the 'extraordinary characteristics' of the child in 9:6-7.
(The usage in Song of Solomon 6:8, which I think talks about the women of the king's harem "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins, wa·‘ă·lā·mō·wṯ, without number" seems to point to a definition of almah as a woman who has not yet slept with a man).
I came across in an old study bible a note that I wrote (not sure where I got it from), to the effect that Immanuel in 7:15 lives on milk and honey, which represents the remnant learning not to sin. They live in poverty until they know to reject the evil and choose the good. This ties in with 7:21-22, "In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, 22and because of the abundance of milk that they give, he will eat curds, for everyone who is left in the land will eat curds and honey."
I also found the following in Meyer's commentary on Matthew 1:23 (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/1.htm)
"With greater weight and clearness Kahnis (Dogmatik, I. p. 345 f.) remarks: The Virgin and Immanuel are definite but ideal persons. The latter is the Israel of the future according to its ideal side; the Virgin, the Israel of the present and of the past according to its ideal side, in accordance with which its vocation is, by virtue of the Spirit of God, to give birth to the holy seed; this Israel will one day come to its true realization in a virgin, who will be the mother of the Messiah."
-
Regarding the incidence of Messianic texts, this from Wiki: Messiah in Judaism -
I've been watching the talks by Jews for Judaism on Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14. They are interesting, especially the one on chapter 9. He shows how Messianic passages were originally referring to events that took place at the time. They have been fulfilled in a more literal sense according to the NT.
The best example might be Isaiah 35:5-6. The blind and lame, deaf and mute are all healed by Jesus, and he did these miracles as signs that he is the anointed king. He is also the anointed high priest (same word, Messiah, in the Pentateuch) who fulfilled the sacrificial system.
-
I've been watching the talks by Jews for Judaism on Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14. They are interesting, especially the one on chapter 9. He shows how Messianic passages were originally referring to events that took place at the time. They have been fulfilled in a more literal sense according to the NT.
The best example might be Isaiah 35:5-6. The blind and lame, deaf and mute are all healed by Jesus, and he did these miracles as signs that he is the anointed king. He is also the anointed high priest (same word, Messiah, in the Pentateuch) who fulfilled the sacrificial system.
According to the NT .....
-
I've been watching the talks by Jews for Judaism on Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14. They are interesting, especially the one on chapter 9. He shows how Messianic passages were originally referring to events that took place at the time.
So no Messianic prophecies then.
They have been fulfilled in a more literal sense according to the NT.
Not really. Look at any of these "prophecies" and you often find evidence of mistranslation or strained interpretation. At the very least, you can't eliminate the possibility that Christians cherry picked them in retrospect.
The best example might be Isaiah 35:5-6.
Cherry picked.
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf unstopped;
6 then the lame shall leap like a deer,
and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.
For waters shall break forth in the wilderness,
and streams in the desert;
7 the burning sand shall become a pool,
and the thirsty ground springs of water;
the haunt of jackals shall become a swamp,[a]
the grass shall become reeds and rushes.
Can you explain from the gospels where the miracle of the watered desert occurred?
In any case, it's possible - probable even - that the gospel authors read that and decided to give Jesus some miracle working.
-
Can you explain from the gospels where the miracle of the watered desert occurred?
When Jesus said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven", demonstrating divine grace, which is the streams of water (cf. John 7:38). He then healed the man so that they would know that he had authority to forgive sins.
The streams of water in Isaiah 35:6 represent God's grace in rescuing the people from exile in Babylon, as a result of which (for waters break forth in the wilderness, etc) they are healed of their spiritual sickness and return to him (v 8 And a highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Way of Holiness).
Note that in both Isaiah 35 and the healing of the paralytic, forgiveness precedes healing.
Cf also Psalm 42:1 in which the soul that longs after Jehovah is represented by a deer that pants for water.
And Isaiah 44:3 where the thirsty land is the people, and the water poured on it is the Spirit.// John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'". 39Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive
-
When Jesus said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven", demonstrating divine grace, which is the streams of water (cf. John 7:38). He then healed the man so that they would know that he had authority to forgive sins.
The streams of water in Isaiah 35:6 represent God's grace in rescuing the people from exile in Babylon, as a result of which (for waters break forth in the wilderness, etc) they are healed of their spiritual sickness and return to him (v 8 And a highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Way of Holiness).
Note that in both Isaiah 35 and the healing of the paralytic, forgiveness precedes healing.
Cf also Psalm 42:1 in which the soul that longs after Jehovah is represented by a deer that pants for water.
And Isaiah 44:3 where the thirsty land is the people, and the water poured on it is the Spirit.// John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'". 39Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive
Yeah, that's utter bollocks. Sorry, but you really are reaching.
-
When Jesus said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven", demonstrating divine grace, which is the streams of water (cf. John 7:38). He then healed the man so that they would know that he had authority to forgive sins.
The streams of water in Isaiah 35:6 represent God's grace in rescuing the people from exile in Babylon, as a result of which (for waters break forth in the wilderness, etc) they are healed of their spiritual sickness and return to him (v 8 And a highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Way of Holiness).
Note that in both Isaiah 35 and the healing of the paralytic, forgiveness precedes healing.
Cf also Psalm 42:1 in which the soul that longs after Jehovah is represented by a deer that pants for water.
And Isaiah 44:3 where the thirsty land is the people, and the water poured on it is the Spirit.// John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'". 39Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive
What are your criteria for deciding whether an OT prophecy gets a literal or a metaphorical fulfilment? We know that Jesus is recorded as healing a paralytic and a blind man, which if true would certainly be a literal fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy. However, it does just seem that you've realised that there is no direct literal fulfilment of the second part of the text, so you decide there must be a metaphorical interpretation. It doesn't sound very convincing. That way you can make the Bible say anything you like, and fit any situation you like. I'm sure the JWs (for instance) are at this very minute interpretating Putin as "The King of the North" mentioned in Revelation. Mainstream trinitarian evangelicals are just as bad.
-
What are your criteria for deciding whether an OT prophecy gets a literal or a metaphorical fulfilment? We know that Jesus is recorded as healing a paralytic and a blind man, which if true would certainly be a literal fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy. However, it does just seem that you've realised that there is no direct literal fulfilment of the second part of the text, so you decide there must be a metaphorical interpretation. It doesn't sound very convincing. That way you can make the Bible say anything you like, and fit any situation you like. I'm sure the JWs (for instance) are at this very minute interpretating Putin as "The King of the North" mentioned in Revelation. Mainstream trinitarian evangelicals are just as bad.
In Isaiah, God reveals himself by foretelling what is going to happen - that Israel will be sent into exile, and then he will come to save them and restore them to fellowship with him in the promised land. When this comes to pass, Israel and the nations will know that Jehovah is God, and there is no other. This prophecy was literally fulfilled. But the problem was that they were still sinful.
In the gospels, Jesus heals a paralytic, in order to reveal that he has authority to forgive sins.
The healing and watering miracles in Isaiah 35 are metaphors for the spiritual miracle of conversion; but that conversion is enabled through the literal miracle of Isaiah's prophecy (exile and return from exile) being fulfilled. Likewise, Jesus' literal miracles opened peoples' eyes to what he came to do spiritually, to restore them to fellowship with God by dealing with sin.
So I think that claiming the gospel writers cherry-picked prophecies to be fulfilled doesn't work. The big picture is that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah by doing what God did for Israel: he announced in advance what he was going to do, in order that people would believe in him.
-
In Isaiah, God reveals himself by foretelling what is going to happen - that Israel will be sent into exile, and then he will come to save them and restore them to fellowship with him in the promised land. When this comes to pass, Israel and the nations will know that Jehovah is God, and there is no other. This prophecy was literally fulfilled. But the problem was that they were still sinful.
In the gospels, Jesus heals a paralytic, in order to reveal that he has authority to forgive sins.
The healing and watering miracles in Isaiah 35 are metaphors for the spiritual miracle of conversion; but that conversion is enabled through the literal miracle of Isaiah's prophecy (exile and return from exile) being fulfilled. Likewise, Jesus' literal miracles opened peoples' eyes to what he came to do spiritually, to restore them to fellowship with God by dealing with sin.
So I think that claiming the gospel writers cherry-picked prophecies to be fulfilled doesn't work. The big picture is that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah by doing what God did for Israel: he announced in advance what he was going to do, in order that people would believe in him.
You just made up a load of guff about Jesus fulfilling prophecies that are not about him: you can't claim you are not cherry picking.
Jesus didn't do what God did - even if by "God" you mean Cyrus the Great of Persia who was the one who restored the Jews to the promised land.
Your whole argument is completely contrived and nobody who isn't already a Christian buys it.
-
You just made up a load of guff about Jesus fulfilling prophecies that are not about him: you can't claim you are not cherry picking.
Jesus didn't do what God did - even if by "God" you mean Cyrus the Great of Persia who was the one who restored the Jews to the promised land.
Your whole argument is completely contrived and nobody who isn't already a Christian buys it.
Well the fact is that you are asking good questions. You wanted to know where in the NT is the miracle of streams in the desert, and John 4:10 talks about the living water which Jesus gives. This quenches your thirst permanently and becomes a spring that wells up to eternal life. John 7:39 interprets this as the Spirit, which he had not yet given because he had not yet been glorified.
Thus we find the miracle of the streams in the desert in Acts 2 where a violent wind comes from heaven, fills the whole house, and tongues of fire separate and rest on the disciples. Then they start to speak in other languages, and this is witnessed by a crowd of God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. So this seems to be a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 35, in the sense that although the water is a metaphor for something else, that something is physically demonstrable.
Does that answer your question?
-
In the year of our Lord all women would be virgin till married.
What is interesting is the nativity story deals with this, in that Joseph was
told that Mary still a virgin.
For Jesus to be a second Adam he had to be born by the will and power of God as Adam was.
To be born without sin, he had to be born of a virgin by the power of God.
Luke 1:35
Like Adam...God was the Father of Jesus. They were both created by the same Father.
-
Well the fact is that you are asking good questions. You wanted to know where in the NT is the miracle of streams in the desert,
No. I want to know where the fulfilment of the prophecy of water in the desert is.
and John 4:10 talks about the living water which Jesus gives. This quenches your thirst permanently and becomes a spring that wells up to eternal life.
That's just a metaphor. The writer of John could easily have made that up to provide some smidgen of legitimacy to the prophecy claim.
-
In the year of our Lord all women would be virgin till married.
What is interesting is the nativity story deals with this, in that Joseph was
told that Mary still a virgin.
For Jesus to be a second Adam he had to be born by the will and power of God as Adam was.
To be born without sin, he had to be born of a virgin by the power of God.
Luke 1:35
Like Adam...God was the Father of Jesus. They were both created by the same Father.
That isn't the point of this thread. Nor is it incontrovertible Christian theology. Mark knew nothing about all this. He portrays the holy spirit as having come upon Jesus when he was baptised.
-
That isn't the point of this thread. Nor is it incontrovertible Christian theology. Mark knew nothing about all this. He portrays the holy spirit as having come upon Jesus when he was baptised.
Hello JP.
As an intelligent person can you really separate the works of the Holy Spirit and account it to each individual he touches rather than to him and the works and powers by which he does things?
Jesus, warns that blasphemy against God and himself can be forgiven but not against the Holy Spirit. Given that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
We as believers or as people who question to learn cannot isolate the power of the Holy Spirit to the individual he teaches he is the power of God and he has been the Sword the power by which Gods word comes to man. We see that the Spirit can reveal things to individuals even before his power has come upon them. Look at Peter before the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus asks Peter, who he is. He tells him who he is and Jesus says who revealed this to him, We cannot limit Gods Power or the Holy Spirit to mans understanding. We have to learn about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit ,both individually and as God in three persons.
So Jesus is anointed at baptism but has been a Holy thing since his conception. Holy means set aside for God but also coming from God as Jesus was.
So really there is many ways the bible teaches about the gifts of the Spirit and there is different ways he can guide and lead people through his powers and abilities.
Hope it clarifies what I took everyone to know.
Sassy :D
-
No. I want to know where the fulfilment of the prophecy of water in the desert is.
As I said: it's the Holy Spirit, who works through the teaching and miracles of Jesus and his disciples. This leads to "Then the (spiritual) eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. 6Then the lame will leap like a deer and the mute tongue will shout for joy."
-
As I said: it's the Holy Spirit, who works through the teaching and miracles of Jesus and his disciples. This leads to "Then the (spiritual) eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. 6Then the lame will leap like a deer and the mute tongue will shout for joy."
But it's nothing to do with water and deserts. You're making things up.
-
In the year of our Lord all women would be virgin till married.
What is interesting is the nativity story deals with this, in that Joseph was
told that Mary still a virgin.
For Jesus to be a second Adam he had to be born by the will and power of God as Adam was.
To be born without sin, he had to be born of a virgin by the power of God.
Luke 1:35
Like Adam...God was the Father of Jesus. They were both created by the same Father.
Thank you Sassy for confirming what I said in the OP. 'Almah' is correctly translated 'virgin'. Isaiah 54 shows that it means a young woman who has not yet married or had children, and therefore in Isaiah's mind the almah is a virgin. The question is, does Isaiah 7:14 imply that she will still be a virgin at the time she becomes pregnant? Could he have meant a virgin who would shortly become pregnant?
-
Thank you Sassy for confirming what I said in the OP. 'Almah' is correctly translated 'virgin'. Isaiah 54 shows that it means a young woman who has not yet married or had children, and therefore in Isaiah's mind the almah is a virgin. The question is, does Isaiah 7:14 imply that she will still be a virgin at the time she becomes pregnant? Could he have meant a virgin who would shortly become pregnant?
Sassy agreed, not confirmed as they aren't an authority.
-
Sassy agreed, not confirmed as they aren't an authority.
In your opinion, does the Hebrew say that the woman is pregnant or that she will become pregnant?
-
In your opinion, does the Hebrew say that the woman is pregnant or that she will become pregnant?
My opinion matters not. I'm not a scholar on the subject. What I have done on this thread is to point out alternative interpretations from scholars and to question your certainty about it and the conclusions out and others reach based on this certainty.
-
Thank you Sassy for confirming what I said in the OP. 'Almah' is correctly translated 'virgin'.
No. That is flat out wrong. Stop lying.
-
No. That is flat out wrong. Stop lying.
I explained how I reached that conclusion, so you need to refute rather than accuse of lying.
-
Sassy agreed, not confirmed as they aren't an authority.
Who do you mean by 'they' please?
-
Who do you mean by 'they' please?
He means Sassy isn't any authority
-
I explained how I reached that conclusion, so you need to refute rather than accuse of lying.
And it has been explained to you that your reasoning is wrong. You are just trying to mould the facts to fit the outcome you want.
These are the fact:
Isaiah used the word Almah which means "young woman". When he specifically wants to refer to a virgin he uses the word Bethulah.
It's not a prophecy about a the young woman and her child. They are only used to give a time frame.
It's not a prophecy about the Messiah, it is a prophecy about Ahaz.
Even if all the above were not true, Matthew had access to the book of Isaiah and could easily have manufactured the virgin birth story based on it.
-
Who do you mean by 'they' please?
Sassy.
-
Isaiah used the word Almah which means "young woman". When he specifically wants to refer to a virgin he uses the word Bethulah.
... and I believe Olme (Almah) is often translated as 'damsel' meaning 'unmarried woman'.
-
... and I believe Olme (Almah) is often translated as 'damsel' meaning 'unmarried woman'.
All the instances in the Old Testament imply unmarried and youth. Since, as Sassy pointed out, all unmarried women would be virgins at that time, the word is correctly translated as virgin.
-
All the instances in the Old Testament imply unmarried and youth. Since, as Sassy pointed out, all unmarried women would be virgins at that time, the word is correctly translated as virgin.
No, if it means unmarried and youth then it means unmarried and youth. That the unmarried youth was a virgin is an assumption.
-
All the instances in the Old Testament imply unmarried and youth. Since, as Sassy pointed out, all unmarried women would be virgins at that time, the word is correctly translated as virgin.
Sassy doesn't know what she is talking about. Biblical scholars do - at least those who are not tainted by their faith.
-
All the instances in the Old Testament imply unmarried and youth. Since, as Sassy pointed out, all unmarried women would be virgins at that time, the word is correctly translated as virgin.
All? Would you perhaps like to comment on the episode of Tamar and Amnon then?
-
All? Would you perhaps like to comment on the episode of Tamar and Amnon then?
2 Samuel 13:12-13 proves that Sassy is correct. Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first.
-
2 Samuel 13:12-13 proves that Sassy is correct. Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first.
Doesn't prove anything as the bible doesn't provide factual evidence - it provides a series of stories. So at best all we can say is that it is claimed that Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first. Whether or not that claim is true or not cannot be determined from the bible.
-
No, if it means unmarried and youth then it means unmarried and youth. That the unmarried youth was a virgin is an assumption.
It's a reasonable assumption, as we would expect more information if she was pregnant the natural way, since it was normal for Israelites to wait until marriage.
-
It's a reasonable assumption, as we would expect more information if she was pregnant the natural way, since it was normal for Israelites to wait until marriage.
Except when Biggus Dickus, or Nortius Maximus was in town
-
Sassy doesn't know what she is talking about. Biblical scholars do - at least those who are not tainted by their faith.
Oh yes, and what world view is qualified for the title untainted in an historian?
-
Oh yes, and what world view is qualified for the title untainted in an historian?
Methodological naturalistic.
-
Methodological naturalistic.
Not a world view I'm afraid
Philosophical naturalism of course would "taint" a historian since they might view history from that perspective.
-
My opinion matters not. I'm not a scholar on the subject. What I have done on this thread is to point out alternative interpretations from scholars and to question your certainty about it and the conclusions out and others reach based on this certainty.
Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.
-
Not a world view I'm afraid
Philosophical naturalism of course would "taint" a historian since they might view history from that perspective.
in terms of doing history, methodological naturalism is the world view. And if philosophical naturalism would taint their view of history according to you then the same is true of a philosophical nonnaturalist perspective, so you have just effectively agreed with jeremyp.
-
in terms of doing history, methodological naturalism is the world view. And if philosophical naturalism would taint their view of history according to you then the same is true of a philosophical nonnaturalist perspective, so you have just effectively agreed with jeremyp.
It's not a world view. Historians use it. So what?
It seems to me that science use the methodology, but there's a difference between science and history. Feel free to outline how they can both use methodologically naturalistic and end up as different.
Philosophical naturalism of course affects the way historians view supernaturalistic claims and IMO these boil down to the "Oi nutter" school of viewing claims as mental aberration.
-
It's not a world view. Historians use it. So what?
It seems to me that science use the methodology, but there's a difference between science and history. Feel free to outline how they can both use methodologically naturalistic and end up as different.
Philosophical naturalism of course affects the way historians view supernaturalistic claims and IMO these boil down to the "Oi nutter" school of viewing claims as mental aberration.
In the context of studying history, I would suggest that it is. science and history are different subjects why would have to use a different methodology in terms of how methodologal naturalism works?
.
Your ejaculations on philosophical naturalism just indicate that as far as faith based positions go, you agree with jeremyp.
-
In the context of studying history, I would suggest that it is. science and history are different subjects why would have to use a different methodology in terms of how methodologal naturalism works?
.
Your ejaculations on philosophical naturalism just indicate that as far as faith based positions go, you agree with jeremyp.
I don't see why a historian cannot say. " It was believed that" and of course, some have said that and not compromised or touted any worldview.
-
I don't see why a historian cannot say. " It was believed that" and of course, some have said that and not compromised or touted any worldview.
I don't see anyone has suggested they can't
-
Are Jeremy and I in agreement. He has said nothing about philosophical naturalism or whether it taints historical interpretation.
-
I don't see anyone has suggested they can't
But Jeremy seems to say that those with a faith cannot suggest that without taint?
On reflection don't you think he should justify his assertions?
-
But Jeremy seems to say that those with a faith cannot suggest that without taint?
On reflection don't you think he should justify his assertions?
That doesn't mean he's said anything like a historian cannot say "It was believed that"
And since you've made a mirror assertion, you agree with him.
-
That doesn't mean he's said anything like a historian cannot say "It was believed that"
And since you've made a mirror assertion, you agree with him.
Sorry, but Jeremy seems to be suggesting that any scholarship is tainted if carried out by those with a faith.
-
Sorry, but Jeremy seems to be suggesting that any scholarship is tainted if carried out by those with a faith.
Which doesn't mean that a historian can't describe beliefs of others by saying 'It was believed that'.
-
2 Samuel 13:12-13 proves that Sassy is correct. Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first.
2 Samuel wasn't written by Isaiah.The books may be more than 100 years apart. Language changes in that length of time.
-
Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.
It's talking about a young woman who is pregnant. By definition she wasn't a virgin.
Note that there is no acknowledgement in the story that this was a miraculous event. It's just a sign telling Ahaxz the timescales on which his enemies will be vanquished.
-
But Jeremy seems to say that those with a faith cannot suggest that without taint?
No I don't. I suggest that Spud's faith taints his opinion. However pretty much all of what we are talking about was discovered by scholars who had faith. Almost all of the debunking of traditional Christian views on the Bible was done by Christians. Clearly they were able to do their work whilst avoiding having it being tainted by their faith.
-
Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.
Biblical Hebrew had only two tenses, perfect and imperfect. The imperfect is usually translated as the English present tense OR the future. You get no further arguing from tenses.
-
Biblical Hebrew had only two tenses, perfect and imperfect. The imperfect is usually translated as the English present tense OR the future. You get no further arguing from tenses.
Thanks, but the word 'pregnant' is an adjective describing a woman who has already conceived,. If we were referring to a future event, then rather than say "the woman will become pregnant" (which would require an extra verb, 'become') we would say "the woman will conceive" which is the natural way of saying it. Here the adjective is used, so the woman has already conceived.
-
Thanks, but the word 'pregnant' is an adjective describing a woman who has already conceived,. If we were referring to a future event, then rather than say "the woman will become pregnant" (which would require an extra verb, 'become') we would say "the woman will conceive" which is the natural way of saying it. Here the adjective is used, so the woman has already conceived.
Gordon Bennett! We would say either in English. But we are talking about ancient Hebrew.
Preaching from undiluted Strong’s Dictionary or Concordance is typically a dead end. It is a tool, but does not provide a message from God.
What Strong does do is to show how a word was translated into one English version (KJV, NASB, ESV),
https://openoureyeslord.com/2016/08/16/strongs-concordance-a-good-tool-gone-bad/
-
It's talking about a young woman who is pregnant. By definition she wasn't a virgin.
Looks as though you agree that she is, rather than will become, pregnant. And as Isaiah 54:4 shows, she has not yet been married.
Note that there is no acknowledgement in the story that this was a miraculous event.
There is a pun on almah involving the word 'above' in 7:11 (lə·mā·‘ə·lāh - as high as heaven above) which suggests a miraculous sign.
It's just a sign telling Ahaxz the timescales on which his enemies will be vanquished.
That's now the only bit left that needs explaining
-
Gordon Bennett! We would say either in English. But we are talking about ancient Hebrew.
Ok, got that, but there are 15 other OT instances of 'pregnant' and they are all women who are currently pregnant, never future pregnancy. The only case where there is a future pregnancy it uses the verb 'to conceive'. (Three times in judges 13 and once possibly in Isaiah 33.)
-
Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.
Or a young woman who is pregnant. This is what we have been talking about and is just going back over old ground.
-
It's a reasonable assumption, as we would expect more information if she was pregnant the natural way, since it was normal for Israelites to wait until marriage.
It is still an assumption. You shouldn't conclude that the person referred to has to be a virgin.
-
Gordon Bennett! We would say either in English. But we are talking about ancient Hebrew.
Most modern Bible translations use the present tense.
This is the NRSV
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted
Some of the foremost experts on ancient Hebrew came up with that. Frankly I would trust them just as I trust their use the phrase "young woman" rather than "virgin".
-
Thank you Sassy for confirming what I said in the OP. 'Almah' is correctly translated 'virgin'. Isaiah 54 shows that it means a young woman who has not yet married or had children, and therefore in Isaiah's mind the almah is a virgin. The question is, does Isaiah 7:14 imply that she will still be a virgin at the time she becomes pregnant? Could he have meant a virgin who would shortly become pregnant?
I believe the use of the word 'maiden' shows at the conception she was a virgin. Did Joseph and Mary have sexual relations after the conception and before the birth I do not know.
i cannot see that affecting Jesus.
-
I believe the use of the word 'maiden' shows at the conception she was a virgin. Did Joseph and Mary have sexual relations after the conception and before the birth I do not know.
i cannot see that affecting Jesus.
You may believe that but that doesn't mean it is correct.
-
Most modern Bible translations use the present tense.
This is the NRSV
Some of the foremost experts on ancient Hebrew came up with that. Frankly I would trust them just as I trust their use the phrase "young woman" rather than "virgin".
'Young woman' is certainly a correct phrase. But if we are allowed to use more than one word, why not 'unmarried young woman', which agrees with the usage of 'almah' as a girl who is physically mature enough to marry but has not yet done so?
-
'Young woman' is certainly a correct phrase. But if we are allowed to use more than one word, why not 'unmarried young woman', which agrees with the usage of 'almah' as a girl who is physically mature enough to marry but has not yet done so?
From Wikipedia
'A sign, in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet's words.[9] Ahaz's sign is to be the birth of a son to an almah, who will name him Immanuel, "God is with us", but the significance of the sign is not the identity of the child or his mother (scholars agree that "almah" refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity) but the meaning of his name ("God is with us") and the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).'
-
From Wikipedia
'A sign, in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet's words.[9] Ahaz's sign is to be the birth of a son to an almah, who will name him Immanuel, "God is with us", but the significance of the sign is not the identity of the child or his mother (scholars agree that "almah" refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity) but the meaning of his name ("God is with us") and the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).'
I would agree with that, except the bit in bold, because the usage is consistent with unmarried status.
-
I would agree with that, except the bit in bold, because the usage is consistent with unmarried status.
So you agree that the significant part of 'the sign' is the time period being referred to?
And you disagree with scholars?
-
From Wikipedia
(scholars agree that "almah" refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity)
I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).
-
I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).
I'm sure the scholars are aware of this.
You said you agreed that the significant part was the time period. No reason i can see to see it as some prophecy about a future virgin birth referring to Jesus.
-
I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).
What a prick your god is.
-
I'm sure the scholars are aware of this.
You said you agreed that the significant part was the time period. No reason i can see to see it as some prophecy about a future virgin birth referring to Jesus.
'Young woman' could include a married young woman. 'Maiden' or 'damsel' convey the not-yet-married characteristic, so I think they would be better.
Yes I agree about the time period of the sign, but I haven't fully thought about that aspect, so haven't ruled out that it could apply to birth that was in the distant future.
-
'Young woman' is certainly a correct phrase.
The correct phase in this case.
But if we are allowed to use more than one word, why not 'unmarried young woman'
Because there is no reason to infer that in the context of Isaiah 7. The prophecy is not about the woman who is pregnant, it's about the enemies of Ahaz and Judah.
-
I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).
And there's no indication in the passage that the woman was stoned. There's nothing in the passage to indicate anything unusual about the pregnancy, nor would we expect there to be because it is not about the woman or the child.
-
The correct phase in this case.
Not specific enough as it doesn't take into account that where the context is unambiguous, the word almah always refers to an unmarried young woman or adolescent girl.
Because there is no reason to infer that in the context of Isaiah 7. The prophecy is not about the woman who is pregnant, it's about the enemies of Ahaz and Judah.
We infer it from the other usages, since here it is ambiguous. The woman and the name Immanuel are significant. She is prompted to call her son that because while he is still an infant, living in poverty because of the invasion, a deliverance happens.
Matthew interprets this as a foreshadowing of the birth of the one who would save his people from their sins. If only God can do this, then in the person of Jesus, God is with us in the fullest possible sense.
-
Not specific enough as it doesn't take into account that where the context is unambiguous, the word almah always refers to an unmarried young woman or adolescent girl.We infer it from the other usages, since here it is ambiguous. The woman and the name Immanuel are significant. She is prompted to call her son that because while he is still an infant, living in poverty because of the invasion, a deliverance happens.
Matthew interprets this as a foreshadowing of the birth of the one who would save his people from their sins. If only God can do this, then in the person of Jesus, God is with us in the fullest possible sense.
The woman's virginity or otherwise is irrelevant if she is just being used to indicate a time period. The writer of Matthew may have interpreted it that way but he isn't necessarily correct and I see no reason to think he was beyond trying to look for things to support his view of Jesus.
-
Not specific enough as it doesn't take into account that where the context is unambiguous, the word almah always refers to an unmarried young woman or adolescent girl.
No it doesn't.
We infer it from the other usages, since here it is ambiguous. The woman and the name Immanuel are significant.
Only to Ahaz and Judah
She is prompted to call her son that because while he is still an infant, living in poverty because of the invasion, a deliverance happens.
Where did you get the idea that she was living in poverty?
Matthew interprets this as a foreshadowing of the birth of the one who would save his people from their sins. If only God can do this, then in the person of Jesus, God is with us in the fullest possible sense.
OK. But it is not a prophecy, it is Matthew retconning the passage. And he also used the Septuagint, hence his mistake in writing "virgin".
-
I see no reason to think he was beyond trying to look for things to support his view of Jesus.
The gospel writers practically admit it on several occasions. Sometimes they even report Jesus deliberately taking actions to fulfil prophecy.
-
No it doesn't.Only to Ahaz and Judah
Wasn't it to do with perpetuating the line of Davidic kings?
Where did you get the idea that she was living in poverty?
Verses 21-22. OK. But it is not a prophecy, it is Matthew retconning the passage. And he also used the Septuagint, hence his mistake in writing "virgin".
The Septuagint writers must have used 'parthenos' for a reason - they do not always use it when translating almah, iirc.
-
Spud
Do you think many people care about this anecdotal stuff, that seemingly lacks any provenance whatsoever, or that it even matters?
-
Wasn't it to do with perpetuating the line of Davidic kings?
Only in the sense that Judah was under threat from external forces.
Verses 21-22.
There's nothing about the woman living in poverty in those verses.
The Septuagint writers must have used 'parthenos' for a reason - they do not always use it when translating almah, iirc.
They were probably as confused as you are about the Hebrew.
-
Little-known fact: Isaiah got his name because he had a squint. Hence often people would say of him, “one eye’s ‘igher than the other”…
… I’ll get me jacket.
-
You may believe that but that doesn't mean it is correct.
Is God a liar? A virgin will become pregnant. A second Adam ... has to be born like the first Adam by the power of God and not man.
What is correct? Understanding by knowing God or by mans ability to think? Us being here is not answered yet. Been no new creations from nothing all comes from life already here.
Mankind, is different from the rest of creation....God breathed life into him and he became a living soul.
Not trying to be difficult Maeght, but we have to think of the person revealed as God in the bible and his actions.
-
Is God a liar? A virgin will become pregnant. A second Adam ... has to be born like the first Adam by the power of God and not man.
What is correct? Understanding by knowing God or by mans ability to think? Us being here is not answered yet. Been no new creations from nothing all comes from life already here.
Mankind, is different from the rest of creation....God breathed life into him and he became a living soul.
Not trying to be difficult Maeght, but we have to think of the person revealed as God in the bible and his actions.
More beliefs, not facts, in your first line.
We don't know by what process our Universe formed, but we do know a fair amount about abiogenesis and evolution is well understood. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean 'therefore God'.
The authors of the Bible may have tried to present Jesus as God but we don't know that any of the actions presented by them actually happened.
-
More beliefs, not facts, in your first line.
We don't know by what process our Universe formed, but we do know a fair amount about abiogenesis
and evolution is well understood. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean 'therefore God'.
The authors of the Bible may have tried to present Jesus as God but we don't know that any of the actions presented by them actually happened.
There is a right mixture there in your post, Maeght,
abiogenesis The LORD, created the world in 6 days and rested the 7th.
Since he did all that how do you think the earth changed?
King James Bible
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
[/u]
When we read the bible to gain knowledge we know God changed the earth he formed man out of, and cursed it. There is nothing you can learn from the earth itself about creation.
It is like the joke where the scientist tells God they don't need him anymore and all the things they can now do without him. So God replies lets have a competition to create a man from scratch.
So the scientist agrees. God picks up some earth/soil fo form the man and the scientist bends to do the same. God says to the scientist, " Oh No, we are creating from scratch. I made this soil, you get your own soil.
The truth is that man will never create life as we know it bwcause did two things.
1. He cursed the soil from, which he formed man.
2. Mans life was breathed into him by God, making him a living Soul.
The reason man will never find the life in the soil/earth to recreate it or prove how we came into existence. Mans life as a living soul did not come from the earth. It was breathed into him by God/
Alot of answers are in the bible, it tells us why they fail but is given for the knowledge of those who believe God.
-
They aren't answers, they are claims. You have to start with demonstrating that your God exists.
No idea what you mean by
'abiogenesis The LORD, created the world in 6 days and rested the 7th.
Since he did all that how do you think the earth changed?'
Clearly I don't think he created the world so why as that question?
'When we read the bible to gain knowledge'
Knowledge of what people of those times believed but nothing else.
-
Is God a liar?
The one portrayed in the Bible certainly is.
A virgin will become pregnant. A second Adam ... has to be born like the first Adam by the power of God and not man.
What is correct? Understanding by knowing God or by mans ability to think? Us being here is not answered yet. Been no new creations from nothing all comes from life already here.
Mankind, is different from the rest of creation....God breathed life into him and he became a living soul.
Not trying to be difficult Maeght, but we have to think of the person revealed as God in the bible and his actions.
Not in this thread we don't. This thread focuses on a particular passage in the Jewish Scriptures and whether it is a prophecy of Jesus. The answer is that it is not.
-
There is a right mixture there in your post, Maeght,
abiogenesis The LORD, created the world in 6 days and rested the 7th.
Since he did all that how do you think the earth changed?
King James Bible
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
[/u]
When we read the bible to gain knowledge we know God changed the earth he formed man out of, and cursed it. There is nothing you can learn from the earth itself about creation.
It is like the joke where the scientist tells God they don't need him anymore and all the things they can now do without him. So God replies lets have a competition to create a man from scratch.
So the scientist agrees. God picks up some earth/soil fo form the man and the scientist bends to do the same. God says to the scientist, " Oh No, we are creating from scratch. I made this soil, you get your own soil.
The truth is that man will never create life as we know it bwcause did two things.
1. He cursed the soil from, which he formed man.
2. Mans life was breathed into him by God, making him a living Soul.
The reason man will never find the life in the soil/earth to recreate it or prove how we came into existence. Mans life as a living soul did not come from the earth. It was breathed into him by God/
Alot of answers are in the bible, it tells us why they fail but is given for the knowledge of those who believe God.
What relevance does this have to the subject of the thread?
-
There's nothing about the woman living in poverty in those verses.
I was talking about the boy (#118).
Some translations say the boy will live on curds and honey 'that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good'. Others say 'when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good'.
The word meaning 'know' is in the infinitive, according to the interlinear.
So 'that he may know' seems to be the correct interpretation.
This implies what I said earlier about v21-22: that the remnant in the land will live in poverty which will teach them obedience. Since Immanuel is to be in his infancy during this invasion, he is implied to be among the remnant.
"21In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, 22and because of the abundance of milk that they give, he will eat curds, for everyone who is left in the land will eat curds and honey."
-
I was talking about the boy (#118).
Some translations say the boy will live on curds and honey 'that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good'. Others say 'when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good'.
The word meaning 'know' is in the infinitive, according to the interlinear.
So 'that he may know' seems to be the correct interpretation.
This implies what I said earlier about v21-22: that the remnant in the land will live in poverty which will teach them obedience. Since Immanuel is to be in his infancy during this invasion, he is implied to be among the remnant.
"21In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, 22and because of the abundance of milk that they give, he will eat curds, for everyone who is left in the land will eat curds and honey."
Still nothing there about poverty.
On that day one will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, and will eat curds because of the abundance of milk that they give; for everyone that is left in the land shall eat curds and honey.
Nope, no poverty mentioned.
-
Still nothing there about poverty.
Nope, no poverty mentioned.
If they could only keep alive one cow and two sheep, they wouldn't have a lot of meat to eat. The reference to bows and arrows suggests they would have to hunt in order to eat meat.
The description of briars and thorns in the next paragraph implies that agriculture stops. So very little bread and no grapes worth a thousand sheckles to trade.
The similarity with verse 15 shows that Immanuel would be one of the children alive and left in the land during this time. That's the primary meaning, then there is the prophetic reference to the Messiah in the detail that his mother would be an unmarried young woman (by implication a virgin), and in his name 'God is with us'. Apparently the Septuagint writers were aware of this.
As I understand it, this is to say that the Old Testament gives us signs or hints by which we (more specifically, the Jews), could identify the Messiah.
-
No it doesn't.
There are three instances in the plural (alamowt) and four in the singular:
Psalm 68:25 "maidens playing timbrels"
Song 1:3 "therefore the maidens love you"
Song 6:8 "60 queens, 80 concubines and maidens without number"
Genesis 24:43 "and may it be that the maiden who comes to draw water"
Exodus 2:8 "so the maiden went and called the mother of the child"
Proverbs 30:19 "and the way of a man with a maid"
Which of these doesn't refer to an unmarried young woman?
Our word 'maiden' has that meaning. Would it not be the best word to use in these seven instances?
Further, it derives from the root alam meaning to hide or conceal.
-
If they could only keep alive one cow and two sheep, they wouldn't have a lot of meat to eat. The reference to bows and arrows suggests they would have to hunt in order to eat meat.
The description of briars and thorns in the next paragraph implies that agriculture stops. So very little bread and no grapes worth a thousand sheckles to trade.
The similarity with verse 15 shows that Immanuel would be one of the children alive and left in the land during this time. That's the primary meaning, then there is the prophetic reference to the Messiah in the detail that his mother would be an unmarried young woman (by implication a virgin), and in his name 'God is with us'. Apparently the Septuagint writers were aware of this.
As I understand it, this is to say that the Old Testament gives us signs or hints by which we (more specifically, the Jews), could identify the Messiah.
It's clearly saying that the lands of Ahaz's enemies will become wasteland. Why don't you read the text honestly instead of trying to mould it to your beliefs?
-
It's clearly saying that the lands of Ahaz's enemies will become wasteland. Why don't you read the text honestly instead of trying to mould it to your beliefs?
From verse 17 onwards it is talking about Judah becoming wasteland as well.
The sign is given to the house of David so that they would know that Rezin and Pekah would not succeed in overthrowing the house of David. In your opinion what is the sign?
-
From verse 17 onwards it is talking about Judah becoming wasteland as well.
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
According to the commentaries, verse 17 onwards is about Judah.
-
According to the commentaries, verse 17 onwards is about Judah.
Verse 17 tells us that Judah will have great days ahead. After that, it talks about what's going to happen to their enemies. It's pretty obvious, you just have to read it.
-
Verse 17 tells us that Judah will have great days ahead. After that, it talks about what's going to happen to their enemies. It's pretty obvious, you just have to read it.
It does not mean that. Assyria was going to attack Judah's enemies, but then would attack Judah too.
-
The one portrayed in the Bible certainly is.
Not in this thread we don't. This thread focuses on a particular passage in the Jewish Scriptures and whether it is a prophecy of Jesus. The answer is that it is not.
Your understanding is most likely to be wrong, than God being a liar. As for Jesus, just what is the meaning of the verse in the Hebrew rendition, given it was jews who translated the Old Testament?
Do you claim to understand the Hebrew?
-
Your understanding is most likely to be wrong,
No. My understanding is based on what the passage says, not what your wishful thinking says.
than God being a liar.
Nobody is claiming God is a liar. We are talking about a passage in a book written by Isaiah
As for Jesus, just what is the meaning of the verse in the Hebrew rendition, given it was jews who translated the Old Testament?
Do you claim to understand the Hebrew?
I trust that the experts who translated it for the NRSV are better at doing those things than people like you.