Isaiah 7:14

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Sassy]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

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."

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

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?

[jeremyp]

From verse 17 onwards it is talking about Judah becoming wasteland as well.

Wrong.

[Spud]

Wrong.

According to the commentaries, verse 17 onwards is about Judah.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Sassy]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.