Did Jesus say he was God???

[LioneDea]

Continually: #2

No. And I've said this a few times already.

Lione D' ea: You say, even one I didn't answered yours, because truth there you not accept the fact my answer that exact which I oppose your statement.

It appears to mean (before his god created the Heavens and the Earth). The key understanding is whomever this is, they're saying they were created. If one wants to hold to the notion that this is about Yeshua then they need to accept that this character is saying "God" created them which means this person is not "God" that is doing the creating.

It appears to mean (before his god created the Heavens and the Earth). The key understanding is whomever this is, they're saying they were created. If one wants to hold to the notion that this is about Yeshua then they need to accept that this character is saying "God" created them which means this person is not "God" that is doing the creating.

[/QUOTE]



Lione D' a: My questions is correct, because we are discussing here is God created Him, because says at 8:22 of the Proverbs version you holding it says: "The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.", How he acquired, to created according in verse 24, if God really created him, why did state in verse 8:22, BEFORE, why not state the first, if you are intelligent in grammar as you said, are your version got wrong to translate?



(end.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: So I asked here is in my previous question back then, the second child, why there's 7:14 mentioned young woman, why not Mother, because the point there that I ask is, why it state young-woman if she had a first-born there according to your sense, so there is a conflict in your analysis regarding in our issue of Isaiah 7:14,

Once again, there is no conflict. The main focus of the prophecy was not to shed light on her already being a mother rather it was to show that her son would be a sign that "God" was with all of Judah against their adversaries. And again (almah) does not strictly mean "virgin" (See: Exodus 2:8). The word is used there but the context does not mean virginity.

plus another conflict of not sure in your answered about of Isaiah 7:14 the prophecy is for Ahaz: read your reply:

Dirty Penguin; Yes it does. It's important enough to theologians to the point of trying to determine whether the prophecy is talking about Mahershalalhashbaz or Hezikiah. (new)

The prophecy is meant for King Ahaz(previous answer) and the people of Judah.(new) I've elaborated plenty to this fact with scripture and independent commentary. The child born, in my opinion, was Mahershalalhashbaz. This was the sign that (God was with the people of Judah). ( @ 03-28-2012)

There was no conflict. All I did was include "additional" information about the prophecy given. Notice that I've said in previous post that the prophecy was given to Ahaz and it would be a prophecy he would see come to fruition in his day and day...? So where in all of that did I say it was exclusively to him?

Lione D' ea: Many to mention you almost blended the passage which there was occurred and there is prophecy for future. These mentioned you took it in passage of Isaiah 7:14 have not yet occurred at their time which you attached to Chapter 8. The Mahershalalhashbaz is the name of man that existed, why you appended to passage of 7:14 of Isaiah which this prophecy is not yet occurred in that time, another conflict which your bases to attach in 7:14, is the passage of 8 and 9; Isaiah 7:13:

Your charge is false. You have yet to explain why the second son of Isaiah was even mentioned IF the supposed prophecy was to not be witnessed by the house of Judah at that time but reserved for 750 years later. The fact of the matter is ALL of the chapters in Isaiah are related. We call that (Context). You can't pluck out a verse (i.e. Isaiah 7:14) because the writer of Matthew eludes to it and think that it relates to Yeshua when the context of Isaiah on a whole shows that it doesn't. Christians are famous for this. You believe Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 are speaking of Yeshua but you ignore the context of Isaiah 7, 8 and 9 not realizing they are all connected. Additionally the whole chapter is connected and none of the connection has to do with Yeshua.

Isaiah 9:5-6 Read: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.

"To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this."


Isaiah 7:13 "And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?" (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D' ea: Here in this passages mention, you contradict yourself in 7:14 of Isaiah, because the mention of Isaiah 9:5 is singular form which referring to the child in David house(kingdom). proving the Isaiah 7:14 the term with child is in the bosom of the young-woman, not meant to us she had 2 sons there. Isaiah 8 and 9 are the basis you use for attach in 7:14 not me who listed that, I follow where did you jump other verses. Who mention child in Isiah 7:14 really, is it for Ahaz or Immanuel, if you are clueless you can admit you don't know who is the child as sign there?

Why did you skip chapter 8? Chapter 8 goes hand in hand with 7 and and 9. Again, we call this context. Look, in order to truly understand 7:14 try reading Isaiah 7:1 all the way up to 7:17. It tells you up front that the situation Judah was facing would be over soon and the prophecy given at 7:13-17 tells you the how. Matthew 1:23 is simply a false prophecy..

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 9:5 Read:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Your interpretation is lacking in this verse because this is what is meant by the above.

the wondrous adviser, the might God, the everlasting Father (YHWH) called his name (the son that was to be born) the prince of peace.

 

[F0uad]

To reply on the title No he didn't say that, to reply on the verses that were picked from a article you can interpret those verses as you like.

 

[LioneDea]

Once again, there is no conflict. The main focus of the prophecy was not to shed light on her already being a mother rather it was to show that her son would be a sign that "God" was with all of Judah against their adversaries. And again (almah) does not strictly mean "virgin" (See: Exodus 2:8). The word is used there but the context does not mean virginity.

Lione D' ea: Exodus 2:8 Let us read:

And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the
child's mother. (King James Version)

Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl went and called the child's mother. (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D' ea: You find in the passage which mentioned the girl is not virgin there, I have not mentioned anything to become (Alma) must be a virgin, you said that and not me, I just said Isaiah 7:14, if the young woman there had first-born, why not it term as Mother, the new passage you jump in exodus 2:8 the girl is childless here, while in Isaiah 7:14 the young woman there have a child, you got wrong interpretation about the girl in Exodus to Isaiah, because the passage of Exodus have not told her she have a son, in Isaiah mentioned the young woman shall bear, your interpretation you attaching brother are to away of, again in my question with lighten: (@03-29-2012, 04:20 AM

(1) I did not any state a young-woman CANNOT be a wife and she CANNOT have a child, if you remember also, I said:Just clear, you said that this is second child, does indicate Immanuel is not the first-born, why not said in verse 14 the term Mother if she turned this second child which is Immanuel was her second-born?, (2) To be called (almah) doesn't mean you had to be a virgin., I did not state to be called almah is to had to be a virgin, because the verse tell us the young woman is Virgin, what is the proof, 9:5 of Isaiah Read your scripture, "For a child has been born to us, a son", Plural or singular, therefore my question again in Isaiah 7:14, before the young-woman conceive, is she a Virgin?

There was no conflict. All I did was include "additional" information about the prophecy given. Notice that I've said in previous post that the prophecy was given to Ahaz and it would be a prophecy he would see come to fruition in his day and day...? So where in all of that did I say it was exclusively to him?

Lione D' ea: So do you accept the Prophecy given to Ahaz as you said is not for him exactly are you agree with me?

Your charge is false. You have yet to explain why the second son of Isaiah was even mentioned IF the supposed prophecy was to not be witnessed by the house of Judah at that time but reserved for 750 years later. The fact of the matter is ALL of the chapters in Isaiah are related. We call that (Context). You can't pluck out a verse (i.e. Isaiah 7:14) because the writer of Matthew eludes to it and think that it relates to Yeshua when the context of Isaiah on a whole shows that it doesn't. Christians are famous for this. You believe Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 are speaking of Yeshua but you ignore the context of Isaiah 7, 8 and 9 not realizing they are all connected. Additionally the whole chapter is connected and none of the connection has to do with Yeshua.



Why did you skip chapter 8? Chapter 8 goes hand in hand with 7 and and 9. Again, we call this context. Look, in order to truly understand 7:14 try reading Isaiah 7:1 all the way up to 7:17. It tells you up front that the situation Judah was facing would be over soon and the prophecy given at 7:13-17 tells you the how. Matthew 1:23 is simply a false prophecy..




Your interpretation is lacking in this verse because this is what is meant by the above.

the wondrous adviser, the might God, the everlasting Father (YHWH) called his name (the son that was to be born) the prince of peace.

Lione D' ea: Related where on what context to apply...in Isaiah 7:14 and 9:5-6, if that in case, as you mention back there about in 7:14 of Isaiah, the bear of young woman which is the wife of Isaiah the child she bear is second meaning the first-born of Isaiah was with him as bases post it (@ 03-29-2012, 09:26 AM) in Isaiah 7:3, Remember, in 7:3 he was instructed to take his first son with him to King Ahaz and his second son would be the one born that would be the sign that (God was with Ahaz and the people of Judah). This is why in 9:5(6) it says ("a child HAS BEEN BORN TO US"). And after that you can see how Samaria etc. begins to fall.

Lione D' ea: another conflict to see, again let us read Isaiah 7:14 It say's:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.


Lione D' ea: The second born mention here is Immanuel as you mentioned not me, therefore why in Isaiah 9:5 it say's:

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us," (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D' ea: First to see your false move the word "CHILD" referring, you said: "This is why in 9:5(6) it says ("a child HAS BEEN BORN TO US")", according in passage of 5, it states below there a Son meaning singular form not Sons as plural form, because if it will happened, Isaiah 7:14 and 9:5 will contrary in statement, the reason why it contrary, in Isaiah 7:3 the first-born there as you state: he was instructed to take his first son with him to King Ahaz, therefore why in Isaiah 9:5 it states:

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us,"

Lione D' ea: How many are they why it mentioning US, who is that US: Ahaz, people of Judah and so on you'd mention, what is my point...if really they had several children holding them(Isaiah 8:18), why of Isaiah 9:5 still states Son not Sons?

(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

Your interpretation is lacking in this verse because this is what is meant by the above.

the wondrous adviser, the might God, the everlasting Father (YHWH) called his name (the son that was to be born) the prince of peace.

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 9:5 Read:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Lione D' ea: Why the everlasting Father again my basis Proverbs 8:32 says He the creator also:

"Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways." (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Why He is called also Father in 22?

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.


Lione D' ea: So He was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was...so in that time they are in one being because He possessed(past tense) by the Father the Almighty God in eternal, before His works of old, the grammar is correct, in Isaiah 9:5 did not state Almighty, The Almighty God is not mighty only but Almighty, He is not prince of peace, He is king of peace agree?



(end.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: Exodus 2:8 Let us read:

And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the
child's mother. (King James Version)

Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl went and called the child's mother. (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D' ea: You find in the passage which mentioned the girl is not virgin there, I have not mentioned anything to become (Alma) must be a virgin, you said that and not me,

This is to show that the mere mention of the word (almah) and why they render it that way in the KJV needs investigation. What I'm saying is that the Septuagint, which your KJV is based on, needs to be examined to find out why there is some inconsistency as to why they rendered Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" but failed to do so with other areas considering the actual word describing virginity is (bethula).

This is a common issue with the KJV which is one of the reasons that those scholars and theologians rendered the RSV. "Almah" appears only a hand full of times in the CJB and so far I've found no place that renders the word as "virgin" (See: Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Prov. 30:19, Songs 1:3, 6:8) or even in Isaiah 7:14. There is no justification for rendering that word as "virgin" seeing as though the context of the whole book of Isaiah isn't even dealing with a supposed future virgin birth.

I just said Isaiah 7:14, if the young woman there had first-born, why not it term as Mother

Because her being a mother was not the point. Her giving birth to her second son was the point as he would be a sign that ("God was still with Judah"). This is evident had you read Isaiah 7:1-17.

Furthermore Isaiah 1:1 tells you who the vision (prophecy) is concerning. It's not a future (750 years later) prophecy.

the new passage you jump in exodus 2:8 the girl is childless here, while in Isaiah 7:14 the young woman there have a child, you got wrong interpretation about the girl in Exodus to Isaiah, because the passage of Exodus have not told her she have a son, in Isaiah mentioned the young woman shall bear, your interpretation you attaching brother are to away of, again in my question with lighten: (@03-29-2012, 04:20 AM

My referencing Exodus 2:8, once again, is to show that the word does not always mean virgin as we see with the word (bethula) and how the CJB you're quoting from expresses it. Nowhere do they render the word from their scripture to mean (virgin). So I don't have any wrong translations or interpretations if we're both quoting from the Jewish Tanakh translated into English. If you persist to use the KJV to try and tie this "immediate" prophecy to a supposed future birth then that's where we disagree.

(1) I did not any state a young-woman CANNOT be a wife and she CANNOT have a child, if you remember also, I said:Just clear, you said that this is second child, does indicate Immanuel is not the first-born, why not said in verse 14 the term Mother if she turned this second child which is Immanuel was her second-born?, (2) To be called (almah) doesn't mean you had to be a virgin., I did not state to be called almah is to had to be a virgin, because the verse tell us the young woman is Virgin, what is the proof, 9:5 of Isaiah Read your scripture, "For a child has been born to us, a son", Plural or singular, therefore my question again in Isaiah 7:14, before the young-woman conceive, is she a Virgin?

If you keep insisting that Matthew 1:23 has anything to do with Isaiah 7:14 then you are in essence saying that the way the KJV rendered the word is correct and that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about Yeshua. I'm saying the CJB and various Christian bibles do not render the word as ("virgin") so we have to address the context of all of Isaiah. The context of Isaiah is talking about non-believing king who was seeking help from the king of Assyria against two other kings that were at war with him and his kingdom (Judah). The son that was to be born from this young woman would be the sign that ("God was with Ahaz and Judah").

Now, to your question...NO!...The wife of Isaiah had a son so she was not a virgin.

There were only two children during that time that could possibly be the sign. One was Hezekiah and the other was Mahershalalhashbaz. There is commentary out there that says Hezekiah was about 9 years old at the time but what is interesting and begs the question is 'Why was is so important to mention the second son of Isaiah if that son wasn't pivotal to the prophecy?" We know the answer is throughout chapter 8 but more importantly 8:18.

Lione D' ea: So do you accept the Prophecy given to Ahaz as you said is not for him exactly are you agree with me?

The sign was for him and Judah.

Lione D' ea: Related where on what context to apply...in Isaiah 7:14 and 9:5-6, if that in case, as you mention back there about in 7:14 of Isaiah, the bear of young woman which is the wife of Isaiah the child she bear is second meaning the first-born of Isaiah was with him as bases post it (@ 03-29-2012, 09:26 AM) in Isaiah 7:3, Remember, in 7:3 he was instructed to take his first son with him to King Ahaz and his second son would be the one born that would be the sign that (God was with Ahaz and the people of Judah). This is why in 9:5(6) it says ("a child HAS BEEN BORN TO US"). And after that you can see how Samaria etc. begins to fall.

I maintain that ALL of Isaiah, in context, is related. Chapter 2 makes no sense without chapter 1 and so forth. So 9 makes no sense without 8 and 8 makes no sense without 7.

Lione D' ea: another conflict to see, again let us read Isaiah 7:14 It say's:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.


Lione D' ea: The second born mention here is Immanuel as you mentioned not me, therefore why in Isaiah 9:5 it say's:

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us," (The complete Jewish Bible)

You're making the assumption, primarily because you're not familiar with Hebrew expressions, that "Immanuel" is a name. If you truly believe this, which I suspect is the case, then kindly give me the context of 8:1-8 and tell me "who" is Immanuel there. Remember, the beginning of chapter 8 is explicitly talking about the second son of Isaiah..so why at 8:8 is there a mention of Immanuel? The CJB says....

Complete Jewish Bible
Isaiah 8:10 "devise a plan, but it will come to nothing; say anything you..." CJB - Online Bible Study

devise a plan, but it will come to nothing; say anything you like, but it won't happen; because God is with us [Hebrew: 'immanu El].

We find "similar" expressions to this at (1Kings 8:57, Psalms 46:7, 11)

Lione D' ea: First to see your false move the word "CHILD" referring, you said: "This is why in 9:5(6) it says ("a child HAS BEEN BORN TO US")", according in passage of 5, it states below there a Son meaning singular form not Sons as plural form, because if it will happened, Isaiah 7:14 and 9:5 will contrary in statement, the reason why it contrary, in Isaiah 7:3 the first-born there as you state: he was instructed to take his first son with him to King Ahaz, therefore why in Isaiah 9:5 it states:

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us,"

There was no false move. This part of the prophecy isn't about the first son as much as it is about the second. It shouldn't be plural because that was not the intended focus behind the prophecy. You still have yet to answer why it was so important to mention the second son being born. To what purpose was it recorded at chapter 8 and why is it at 8:18 does Isaiah say ("Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts.......") if the prophecy is not about the second son? We know that his wife gives birth to a son which is why 9:5 says ("a child has been born to us").

why of Isaiah 9:5 still states Son not Sons?

Because the most important son is the second one concerning the prophecy to Ahaz and Judah. The focus was on him because it meant that (God was with them) and it meant Assyria would defeat the enemies of Judah.

 

[Shermana]

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Just for the record (for the 20th time or so on this thread)

"The mighty God" clearly contains a fudged article, which shows the desparation Trintiarians will employ in their translations. It can also be read as "A mighty god" even.

"The everlasting Father", besides also having a fudged article, completely ignores that the word is "Avi" which means "Father of", and is posessive. It should read something like how the Douay Rheims translates this part, "Father of the world to come", though their "God the mighty" is clearly without merit.

God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

So yeah Isaiah 9:6 should not be used by Trinitarians, and it represents the total disregard for grammar (and the fact that it's a long compound name) that Trinitarians have when it comes to their "proof texts".

 

[jasonwill2]

Strip away all the hype and fantastical claims written in the NT and you quickly learn that Yeshua was just a regular man. A rebel rouser of sorts but a regular man none the less. I don't think he was silly rather the people writing after his death who never met him wrote some silly things.

Actually, this might be more likely now that I think of it. Blame his followers and not Jesus himself... might actually be more likely.

 

[LioneDea]

This is to show that the mere mention of the word (almah) and why they render it that way in the KJV needs investigation. What I'm saying is that the Septuagint, which your KJV is based on, needs to be examined to find out why there is some inconsistency as to why they rendered Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" but failed to do so with other areas considering the actual word describing virginity is (bethula).

This is a common issue with the KJV which is one of the reasons that those scholars and theologians rendered the RSV. "Almah" appears only a hand full of times in the CJB and so far I've found no place that renders the word as "virgin" (See: Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Prov. 30:19, Songs 1:3, 6:8) or even in Isaiah 7:14. There is no justification for rendering that word as "virgin" seeing as though the context of the whole book of Isaiah isn't even dealing with a supposed future virgin birth.




Because her being a mother was not the point. Her giving birth to her second son was the point as he would be a sign that ("God was still with Judah"). This is evident had you read Isaiah 7:1-17.

Furthermore Isaiah 1:1 tells you who the vision (prophecy) is concerning. It's not a future (750 years later) prophecy.




My referencing Exodus 2:8, once again, is to show that the word does not always mean virgin as we see with the word (bethula) and how the CJB you're quoting from expresses it. Nowhere do they render the word from their scripture to mean (virgin). So I don't have any wrong translations or interpretations if we're both quoting from the Jewish Tanakh translated into English. If you persist to use the KJV to try and tie this "immediate" prophecy to a supposed future birth then that's where we disagree.

Lione D' ea: First of all, not only King James Version is my basis, almost all of my translation is used, about in Exodus 2:8 of your interpretation of the meaning of the girl, I never said when girl, young woman or maiden is absolutely virgin that, my point out there was in Isaiah 7:14 why it states there a young woman if she had a first born son as your bases reference in Isaiah 7:3, why not Mother, or young mother. My only question that I want you to admit, if the young woman is Virgin BEFORE he conceived because according in that passage:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (King James Version)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give youc a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version 1984)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." (Revised Standard Version)

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D' ea: The young woman there is in the state of conceiving, not your implying that she had a first-born(Isaiah 7:3) because you will contrary in 9:5 of Isaiah, I see no problem with the translation I showed even your own version, what am I pointing out, my point there according in that context the young woman there is Virgin BEFORE she conceived. Concerning of Prophecy you cited Isaiah 1:1 you said "It's not a future" , if the book of Isaiah is not prophecy and it was happened already, is in Isaiah 14:12-15 it say's:

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.c

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”

15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

Lione D' ea: Does this mean at this event, Satan was discarded on the ground already, yet he climbs up to now in heaven then you tell me the book of Isaiah is not prophecy for future.

If you keep insisting that Matthew 1:23 has anything to do with Isaiah 7:14 then you are in essence saying that the way the KJV rendered the word is correct and that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about Yeshua. I'm saying the CJB and various Christian bibles do not render the word as ("virgin") so we have to address the context of all of Isaiah. The context of Isaiah is talking about non-believing king who was seeking help from the king of Assyria against two other kings that were at war with him and his kingdom (Judah). The son that was to be born from this young woman would be the sign that ("God was with Ahaz and Judah").

Now, to your question...NO!...The wife of Isaiah had a son so she was not a virgin.

There were only two children during that time that could possibly be the sign. One was Hezekiah and the other was Mahershalalhashbaz. There is commentary out there that says Hezekiah was about 9 years old at the time but what is interesting and begs the question is 'Why was is so important to mention the second son of Isaiah if that son wasn't pivotal to the prophecy?" We know the answer is throughout chapter 8 but more importantly 8:18.

Lione D' ea: The second is referred to Immanuel, because in your opinion on Isaiah 7:14 as your bases that she had 2 sons is says:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.


Lione D' ea: How many child you are referring, two(2)...because with child your implying was the first-born of the young woman, the second coming was the Immanuel that is you input to the context, therefore if she had a two sons, two child or children, therefore why did not state Mother or young mother to brought out her second child she bear, there is conflict in your statement brother and have wrong opinion. And 100% Mahershalalhashbaz is not the Immanuel.

The sign was for him and Judah.

Lione D' ea: Where we can read the sign was for Ahaz?

I maintain that ALL of Isaiah, in context, is related. Chapter 2 makes no sense without chapter 1 and so forth. So 9 makes no sense without 8 and 8 makes no sense without 7.

Lione D' ea: Wrong brother, I not argue with you about the happened as you said 750 laters, my concern is about in Isaiah 7:14 the prophecy is not for Ahaz, there are verses in 8 was happened later and not(prophecy for future come) the passage of 7:14 is my concern about which it was not happened in that time.

You're making the assumption, primarily because you're not familiar with Hebrew expressions, that "Immanuel" is a name. If you truly believe this, which I suspect is the case, then kindly give me the context of 8:1-8 and tell me "who" is Immanuel there. Remember, the beginning of chapter 8 is explicitly talking about the second son of Isaiah..so why at 8:8 is there a mention of Immanuel? The CJB says....

Complete Jewish Bible
Isaiah 8:10 "devise a plan, but it will come to nothing; say anything you..." CJB - Online Bible Study

devise a plan, but it will come to nothing; say anything you like, but it won't happen; because God is with us [Hebrew: 'immanu El].

We find "similar" expressions to this at (1Kings 8:57, Psalms 46:7, 11)




There was no false move. This part of the prophecy isn't about the first son as much as it is about the second. It shouldn't be plural because that was not the intended focus behind the prophecy. You still have yet to answer why it was so important to mention the second son being born. To what purpose was it recorded at chapter 8 and why is it at 8:18 does Isaiah say ("Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts.......") if the prophecy is not about the second son? We know that his wife gives birth to a son which is why 9:5 says ("a child has been born to us").




Because the most important son is the second one concerning the prophecy to Ahaz and Judah. The focus was on him because it meant that (God was with them) and it meant Assyria would defeat the enemies of Judah.

Lione D' ea: first of all, admit the child mention in 7:14 is not for Ahaz nor etc. it is the Son of God, secondary the young woman is prophecy for Mary, and you must to understand the Old testament is not OLD, the same with New, because there are prophecy not yet fulfilled in OLD and New in our modern era.



(end.)

 

[lily-victoria]

I recently had to write a paper on this for my Christian Doctrine module at university. I suggest you look at the works of A McGrath he has some very interesting arguments for the divinity of Jesus and why he needed to be both fully human and fully divine. Christian Theology: an introduction, is the book I used and apparently his Theology: the basics, book is also very helpful.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: First of all, not only King James Version is my basis, almost all of my translation is used

And it makes no difference if they base their Old Testament on the Septuagint because they would all be wrong if they all render Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin". I don't. I look for Jewish translations of the Tanakh to English. I also have other Christian translated bibles that don't translate Isaiah the way the KJV and other trinitarian based bibles do. Unfortunately we're kind of stuck with the New Testament in Greek from the Septuagint. The only other option is to find a decent Coptic translation of the NT or to carefully investigate the Pe****ta versions. Unfortunately the Pe****ta versions seem to be translation from Greek (Septuagint) to Aramaic.

about in Exodus 2:8 of your interpretation of the meaning of the girl, I never said when girl, young woman or maiden is absolutely virgin that, my point out there was in Isaiah 7:14 why it states there a young woman if she had a first born son as your bases reference in Isaiah 7:3, why not Mother, or young mother.

This isn't anything new when it comes to Isaiah. Jews are not under the same obligation to follow what is written in the NT. Now with that said you must ask yourself...why is it that they don't render Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" as we find in Christian bibles. So if you're using the Tanakh (Hebrew to English) and not the Old Testament (Septuagint Greek to English) you get a better understanding as to how Jews view their scriptures around the world. Chapter 8 of Isaiah solidifies chapter 7. The child to be born is from the wife of Isaiah otherwise this event in the beginning of 8 is meaningless to the prophecy. Since it's there we must conclude that it has relevancy to the prophecy. Furthermore 7:16, 8:4, is fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's son and not Yeshua.

My only question that I want you to admit, if the young woman is Virgin BEFORE he conceived because according in that passage:

And I can't because it makes no sense contextually. The prophecy is about Isaiah's second son. I see that as the case since she already had a son and the prophecy was focusing on the birth of the second son then that means she may have been a young woman but certainly not a virgin.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (King James Version)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give youc a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version 1984)

I agree that these two versions are based on the Septuagint.

"Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. (The complete Jewish Bible)"


Lione D' ea: The young woman there is in the state of conceiving, not your implying that she had a first-born(Isaiah 7:3)

Then you'd be wrong. Even if she was "in a state of conceiving" then that still lends credence to what I've been saying all along in reference to Isaiah's second son in chapter 8. Let's look at the CJB and see what it's proposing....

7:14
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

7:15-16
Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.

This is the prophecy concerning the son that would be born as a sign to Ahaz and all of Judah and it had been fulfilled in the time of Ahaz. The rest of 7 is talking about the dark times ahead for Judah.

8:3
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Now, why is this so important? Because the prophecy is about the second son who was the sign to Judah. This was to to let them know that ("God was with them) in the dark times (war).

8:4
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.

Samaria and Assyria weren't even an issue during the time of Yeshua. Chapter 8 goes on talking about the trials and tribulations of Judah and this war. Chapter 9 reveals that since the child has been born the enemies of Judah begin to fall. Nothing after this in 9, 10, 11 etc...etc...etc... has anything to do with Yeshua. Christians pluck out a few verses from Isaiah that were rendered in Greek and erroneously translated into English to try and tie in a false prophecy given by the writer of Matthew.

what am I pointing out, my point there according in that context the young woman there is Virgin BEFORE she conceived.

And your wrong. I keep pointing out that no Tanakh renders that verse to say or mean "virgin". All you're basing your interpretation on is the KJV and other bibles like it that were translated using the Septuagint. Chapter 7, chapter 8 and chapter 9 are all connected. You can't use a verse from 7 and 9 to try and prove your point unless you can demonstrate why chapter 8 is unimportant to your interpretation. Since chapter 8 is connected to the prophecy in chapter 7 and the events of chapter 9 then the prophecy itself is in reference to Isaiah's second son. Even if I were to say that chapter 7 says ("she shall conceive and bare a son") it is still in my favor because the structure would look like this.

7:14
"she shall conceive and shall bare a son"

8:3
"I was intimate with the prophetess (my wife) and she bore a son"

9:5
"a child has been born to us, a son given to us"

Future-to happen (shall conceive, shall bare)
Past-happened already (was intimate, bore)
Past-happened already (has been, given)

Meaning this prophecy was fulfilled hundreds of year before Yeshua.

Concerning of Prophecy you cited Isaiah 1:1 you said "It's not a future" , if the book of Isaiah is not prophecy and it was happened already

Then allow me to clarify it. It's not a future prophecy concerning Yeshua which I have consistently been saying. Isaiah's prophecy is of an "immediate" future. I think I said that in one of my previous post. It was a prophecy that would come to pass in the days of Ahaz and the people of Judah.

Lione D' ea: The second is referred to Immanuel, because in your opinion on Isaiah 7:14 as your bases that she had 2 sons is says:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

No, because chapter 8 verse 3 clears it up as to whom it's talking about.

Lione D' ea: How many child you are referring, two(2)...because with child your implying was the first-born of the young woman, the second coming was the Immanuel that is you input to the context.....

The first son isn't important other than at verse 7:3 and 8:18. The second son was important because he was the sign to the people of Judah and King Ahaz that (God was with them). You keep focusing on (mother) and why the scriptures don't state it but that is not even the point nor is it important to the context. Her already being a mother wasn't the point.

And 100% Mahershalalhashbaz is not the Immanuel.

He is the sign that (God was with them) but what scriptural basis do you have for this seeing as though you keep ignoring the fact that Isaiah's wife is mentioned there and the one giving birth to a son. And 8:8 and 8:10 doesn't seem to be talking about a person named Immanuel. 8:7 is in reference to the King of Assyria and it leads in to verse 8 and at the end is not a name rather an expression (O, God is with us). This is in reference to the King of Assyria trampling over the enemies of Judah. Verse 8:9 and 8:10 is telling the people to band together because (God was with them). This is all in reference to their struggles with the neighboring enemies.

Lione D' ea: Where we can read the sign was for Ahaz?

I've already shown this. Ahaz was the king of Judah who worried about war. The prophecy given was to him and the people of Judah and it was one they would see in their day and time.

my concern is about in Isaiah 7:14 the prophecy is not for Ahaz, there are verses in 8 was happened later and not(prophecy for future come)

Are you serious????

I mean the whole book of Isaiah, 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings is about King Ahaz, his children and the war. Verse 7:14 is most definitely for Ahaz and all of Judah which is why I asked had you read from the beginning of chapter 7. You don't seem to understand the context and that the situation Judah was in is rerecorded in three books. So YES...it is a prophecy for Ahaz and the people of Judah.

Lione D' ea: first of all, admit the child mention in 7:14 is not for Ahaz nor etc. it is the Son of God, secondary the young woman is prophecy for Mary

I disagree. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and the people of Judah. You don't know the whole story because you're cherry picking verses trying to tie them in with what is interpreted in the NT. It's not about the supposed "son of God" nor does it have anything to do with Mary. Matthew is false.

 

[Muffled]

I recently had to write a paper on this for my Christian Doctrine module at university. I suggest you look at the works of A McGrath he has some very interesting arguments for the divinity of Jesus and why he needed to be both fully human and fully divine. Christian Theology: an introduction, is the book I used and apparently his Theology: the basics, book is also very helpful.

I would be interested in reading it. I read a book given to me by a church that claimed I was following the Sabellian heresy. It made a good apology for the divinity of Jesus but failed miserably trying to justify three persons.

 

[LioneDea]

Originally Posted by LioneDea
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (King James Version)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give youc a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version 1984)

Dirty Penguin< I agree that these two versions are based on the Septuagint.

Lione D’ ea: Speaking of rendered as Virgin in other translations, you almost conflict yourself brother why you said “And it makes no difference if they base their Old Testament on the Septuagint because they would all be wrong if they all render Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin". I don't. I look for Jewish translations of the Tanakh to English.I also have other Christian translated bibles that don't translate Isaiah the way the KJV[/U] and other trinitarian based bibles do. Unfortunately we're kind of stuck with the New Testament in Greek from the Septuagint. The only other option is to find a decent Coptic translation of the NT or to carefully investigate the Pe****ta versions. Unfortunately the Pe****ta versions seem to be translation from Greek (Septuagint) to Aramaic.”and now you are agree both two versions KJV and NIV is ased on the Septuagint terming there as Virgin, are you fooling before me brother. The passage of the Isaiah 7:14 was not telling us that she had a first-born there, the reason why the young woman rendered as Virgin in King James Virgin is because the young woman there don’t have man who link on her according in that context. That young woman mention in passage was not wife of Isaiah as you attaching in chapter 8:3, because the chapter 7:14 is the prophecy of the young woman where in she is a Virgin in her youth before she conceived, when after she brought out the child of that young woman, the virginity of the young woman there is lost, now if you are refuting the fact chapter 7:14 she is a virgin, I will also refute your claming she is not a virgin because you don’t have a solid evidence to show the 7:14 is the wife of Isaiah nor any man link on her, can you prove it the young woman there is wife of Isaiah?

Dirty Penguin< This isn't anything new when it comes to Isaiah. Jews are not under the same obligation to follow what is written in the NT. Now with that said you must ask yourself...why is it that they don't render Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" as we find in Christian bibles. So if you're using the Tanakh (Hebrew to English) and not the Old Testament (Septuagint Greek to English) you get a better understanding as to how Jews view their scriptures around the world. Chapter 8 of Isaiah solidifies chapter 7. The child to be born is from the wife of Isaiah otherwise this event in the beginning of 8 is meaningless to the prophecy. Since it's there we must conclude that it has relevancy to the prophecy. Furthermore 7:16, 8:4, is fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's son and not Yeshua.

Lione D’ ea: Let us read you given cited attaching to Isaiah 7:14

“For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

17 The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria.”

Isaiah 8:4 “For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria." (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D’ ea: The Isaiah 8:4 and chapter 7:16-17 is specify to Ephraim which turned away from Judah namely the king of Assyria, that is the verse telling us, the verses did not saying the Immanuel is the Maher-shalal-hash-baz, because the Immanuel is coming from Judah the house of David. The chapter 7:13-16 Ahaz is the speaker here that there was a sign which the Lord given to the House of David. But as in your implying to the verses you given is contrary in specifying, you are inputting something the Immanuel as Maher-shalal-hash-baz in your insight he is in the side of Ephraim remember chapter 8:4 is specifying to Ephraim the King of Assyria and it appeared it was contrary on what the verse tells us in Isaiah 7:5-6 it say’s:

Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: (King James Version)

Lione D’ ea: Therefore the Immanuel is not the Maher-shalal-hash-baz because you attach 7:16-17 and 8:4 to chapter 7:14, how is that happened Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Dirty Penguin< And I can't because it makes no sense contextually. The prophecy is about Isaiah's second son. I see that as the case since she already had a son and the prophecy was focusing on the birth of the second son then that means she may have been a young woman but certainly not a virgin.

Lione D’ ea: Wrong. For God you cannot state the word young woman if she had a first-born child. Isaiah 7:14 is not the wife of Isaiah it is prophecy, you are contrary in your statement again and again because if we speaking the second child you implying you are contradict in chapter 9:5 of Isaiah saying:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: It is singular not plural, therefore chapter 7:14 is totally a young woman as virgin. Another conflict in your implying the Isaiah 7:3 is the first-born child of the young woman mention in 7:14, so if she had a first-born child there why still state young woman and not as Mother again “for God you cannot state the word young woman if she had a first-born child”, there is no reason the young woman there is not virgin because if it was she may drop in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Read:

“But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” (King James Version)

Lione D’ ea: God gave this law on good manners for people of Israel, therefore God not chooses a woman is not virgin, he who gave the command, then discharged to the Isaiah 7:14 the young woman He chose there was no virgin, that is no sense contextually if God violated his own words. First the young woman there is not wife of Isaiah nor man who link in her, second the verse telling us she is in the state of conceiving and did not tell us that she had a firstborn there, none will favor in your opinion which a young woman had a first-born still the calls young woman and not Mother that is erroneous.

Dirty Penguin< Then you'd be wrong. Even if she was "in a state of conceiving" then that still lends credence to what I've been saying all along in reference to Isaiah's second son in chapter 8. Let's look at the CJB and see what it's proposing....

7:14
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

7:15-16
Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.

This is the prophecy concerning the son that would be born as a sign to Ahaz and all of Judah and it had been fulfilled in the time of Ahaz. The rest of 7 is talking about the dark times ahead for Judah.

8:3
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Now, why is this so important? Because the prophecy is about the second son who was the sign to Judah. This was to to let them know that ("God was with them) in the dark times (war).

8:4
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.

Samaria and Assyria weren't even an issue during the time of Yeshua. Chapter 8 goes on talking about the trials and tribulations of Judah and this war. Chapter 9 reveals that since the child has been born the enemies of Judah begin to fall. Nothing after this in 9, 10, 11 etc...etc...etc... has anything to do with Yeshua. Christians pluck out a few verses from Isaiah that were rendered in Greek and erroneously translated into English to try and tie in a false prophecy given by the writer of Matthew.

Lione D’ ea: Did you notice what chapter 8:3-4 specifying to, the verse 4 is specify to Ephraim the King of Assyria. The child in 7:14 is not the prophecy given to Ephraim, and that named Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the Immanuel to apply the Isaiah 7:16-17 to 8:4 so the child mention in 7:14 is Maher-shalal-hash-baz , did you notice the little period there to stop, to prove it is conflict in chapter 7:5-6 read:

Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:


Lione D’ ea: Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah will against in Judah the house of David, you will conflict in chapter 8:3-4 in referring.

 

[LioneDea]

Dirty Penguin< And your wrong. I keep pointing out that no Tanakh renders that verse to say or mean "virgin". All you're basing your interpretation on is the KJV and other bibles like it that were translated using the Septuagint. Chapter 7, chapter 8 and chapter 9 are all connected. You can't use a verse from 7 and 9 to try and prove your point unless you can demonstrate why chapter 8 is unimportant to your interpretation. Since chapter 8 is connected to the prophecy in chapter 7 and the events of chapter 9 then the prophecy itself is in reference to Isaiah's second son. Even if I were to say that chapter 7 says ("she shall conceive and bare a son") it is still in my favor because the structure would look like this.

7:14
"she shall conceive and shall bare a son"

8:3
"I was intimate with the prophetess (my wife) and she bore a son"

9:5
"a child has been born to us, a son given to us"

Future-to happen (shall conceive, shall bare)
Past-happened already (was intimate, bore)
Past-happened already (has been, given)

Meaning this prophecy was fulfilled hundreds of year before Yeshua.

Lione D&#8217; ea: See your conflict if it absolute connected. Why in chapter 9:5 state Son(singular) IF she had a first born child as you claiming?


Then allow me to clarify it. It's not a future prophecy concerning Yeshua which I have consistently been saying. Isaiah's prophecy is of an "immediate" future. I think I said that in one of my previous post. It was a prophecy that would come to pass in the days of Ahaz and the people of Judah.


Lione D&#8217; ea: If we say immediate future, still it is prophecy for future. Now prove that you say that in previous when it you post it what time?


No, because chapter 8 verse 3 clears it up as to whom it's talking about.


Lione D&#8217; ea: Brother I will show you the prove you implying in Isaiah 7:14 she had two sons there.


The first son isn't important other than at verse 7:3 and 8:18. The second son was important because he was the sign to the people of Judah and King Ahaz that (God was with them). You keep focusing on (mother) and why the scriptures don't state it but that is not even the point nor is it important to the context. Her already being a mother wasn't the point.


Lione D&#8217; ea: Then show the verse Immanuel is the second child where we can read in that verse?


He is the sign that (God was with them) but what scriptural basis do you have for this seeing as though you keep ignoring the fact that Isaiah's wife is mentioned there and the one giving birth to a son. And 8:8 and 8:10 doesn't seem to be talking about a person named Immanuel. 8:7 is in reference to the King of Assyria and it leads in to verse 8 and at the end is not a name rather an expression (O, God is with us). This is in reference to the King of Assyria trampling over the enemies of Judah. Verse 8:9 and 8:10 is telling the people to band together because (God was with them). This is all in reference to their struggles with the neighboring enemies.


Lione D&#8217; ea: So do you mean to say Isaiah had two wives there?


I've already shown this. Ahaz was the king of Judah who worried about war. The prophecy given was to him and the people of Judah and it was one they would see in their day and time.


Lione D&#8217; ea: Therefore the Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophecy for Immanuel to shoulder it, why in verse 10-13 it says?

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?


Lione D&#8217; ea: Why Ahaz ignored the sign given by God to him?



Are you serious????

I mean the whole book of Isaiah, 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings is about King Ahaz, his children and the war. Verse 7:14 is most definitely for Ahaz and all of Judah which is why I asked had you read from the beginning of chapter 7. You don't seem to understand the context and that the situation Judah was in is rerecorded in three books. So YES...it is a prophecy for Ahaz and the people of Judah.


Lione D&#8217; ea: There are verses in chapter 8 did not happened there brother as you know.



I disagree. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and the people of Judah. You don't know the whole story because you're cherry picking verses trying to tie them in with what is interpreted in the NT. It's not about the supposed "son of God" nor does it have anything to do with Mary. Matthew is false.


Lione D&#8217; ea: Then you will contradict again in Isaiah 7:14 Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the Immanuel.

(end.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

and now you are agree both two versions KJV and NIV is ased on the Septuagint terming there as Virgin, are you fooling before me brother.

This is fact. I agree that the KJV and the NIV are based on the Septuagint whereas the CJB is not.

The passage of the Isaiah 7:14 was not telling us that she had a first-born there, the reason why the young woman rendered as Virgin in King James Virgin is because the young woman there don&#8217;t have man who link on her according in that context. That young woman mention in passage was not wife of Isaiah as you attaching in chapter 8:3, because the chapter 7:14 is the prophecy of the young woman where in she is a Virgin in her youth before she conceived, when after she brought out the child of that young woman, the virginity of the young woman there is lost, now if you are refuting the fact chapter 7:14 she is a virgin, I will also refute your claming she is not a virgin because you don&#8217;t have a solid evidence to show the 7:14 is the wife of Isaiah nor any man link on her, can you prove it the young woman there is wife of Isaiah?

I've already shown you the context of chapter 7, 8 and 9. Even if I agreed that 7:14 was saying the young woman would become pregnant then it shows the progression. 7:14 saying she will conceive and have a son, 8:3 saying Isaiah's wife became pregnant and had a son and 9:6 saying a child was born unto them. You can't just simply take Isaiah out of context because the writer of Matthew did. When you read it in context it has nothing to do with Yeshua.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Let us read you given cited attaching to Isaiah 7:14

&#8220;For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

I see why you don't understand. You make such an attempt to explain an easy to understand scripture you wind of confusing the whole context. Look at verse 16 above and try to reconcile who this is talking about. This is talking about the child that is to be born. This is in reference what was going on at the time.

While the child is still young and does not know right from wrong the land of the two kings you fear (Rezin and Pekah) would be abandoned. This is a future/immediate prophecy for Ahaz and his kingdom (Judah). This is something they would witness in their lifetime. This is not about Yeshua because about time Yeshua is born these two kingdoms are not even an issue because the Romans had control of Syria.

17 The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria.&#8221;

Isaiah 8:4 &#8220;For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria." (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D&#8217; ea: The Isaiah 8:4 and chapter 7:16-17 is specify to Ephraim which turned away from Judah namely the king of Assyria, that is the verse telling us

No it's not. 8:4 is in reference to 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

8:3-8:4
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.

8:4 has nothing to do with Ephraim. What it's saying in 7:17 is that the kingdom of Judah would undergo trials and tribulation in their immediate future not seen since the days of Ephraim turned away from (Judah which I believe was part of the Assyrian Empire at the time).

the verses did not saying the Immanuel is the Maher-shalal-hash-baz, because the Immanuel is coming from Judah the house of David.

It did say it was him as I've shown.

The chapter 7:13-16 Ahaz is the speaker here that there was a sign which the Lord given to the House of David.

No it isn't. Isaiah is giving the prophecy to the king and the people of Judah.

But as in your implying to the verses you given is contrary in specifying, you are inputting something the Immanuel as Maher-shalal-hash-baz in your insight he is in the side of Ephraim remember chapter 8:4 is specifying to Ephraim the King of Assyria and it appeared it was contrary on what the verse tells us in Isaiah 7:5-6 it say&#8217;s:

Do you know "what Epharaim" is being reference here in Isaiah? Are you under the impression it's speaking of a person? If so then you seriously don't know what you're talking about. "Ephraim" was not king of Assyria during the time of Ahaz so you're incorrect.

Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: (King James Version)

Lione D&#8217; ea: Therefore the Immanuel is not the Maher-shalal-hash-baz because you attach 7:16-17 and 8:4 to chapter 7:14, how is that happened Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

It's attached because 8:3 is part of the prophecy and it fits the whole context.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Wrong. For God you cannot state the word young woman if she had a first-born child. Isaiah 7:14 is not the wife of Isaiah it is prophecy, you are contrary in your statement again and again because if we speaking the second child you implying you are contradict in chapter 9:5 of Isaiah saying:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, (The complete Jewish Bible)

Plurality has nothing to do with it. Why do you keep insisting it should? Chapters 7, 8 and 9 are dependent on each other which is why it's called "context". You have no justification for snatching 7:14 unless you can explain why 8:3 is there. And please stop referring to "Ephraim". Do you even realize that when in Isaiah it speaks of "Ephraim" it's not speaking of a living person. "Ephraim" had long since died but his offspring lived on. If you look at a map of the day "Ephraim" was a city north of Judah.

Lione D&#8217; ea: It is singular not plural, therefore chapter 7:14 is totally a young woman as virgin.

Sorry but the Jews and the CJB you're quoting from disagree with you. And once again...plurality has nothing to do with anything.

Another conflict in your implying the Isaiah 7:3 is the first-born child of the young woman mention in 7:14, so if she had a first-born child there why still state young woman and not as Mother again &#8220;for God you cannot state the word young woman if she had a first-born child&#8221;, there is no reason the young woman there is not virgin

There is no conflict. I was direct in what I stated. The son at 7:3 is the son of Isaiah. The son prophesied at 7:14 is in reference to the son at 8:3 which is why Isaiah said;

8:18
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel......

because if it was she may drop in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Read:

&#8220;But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.&#8221; (King James Version)

Stop it. You're killing me here. Why now do you revert back to the KJV. Using that in reference to Isaiah 7:14 is not the same. Deuteronomy is talking about "virginity" and "virgin" in the explicit sense which is why the word (b&#277;thuwliym) is used and not (almah)

Lione D&#8217; ea: God gave this law on good manners for people of Israel, therefore God not chooses a woman is not virgin, he who gave the command, then discharged to the Isaiah 7:14 the young woman He chose there was no virgin, that is no sense contextually if God violated his own words. First the young woman there is not wife of Isaiah nor man who link in her, second the verse telling us she is in the state of conceiving and did not tell us that she had a firstborn there, none will favor in your opinion which a young woman had a first-born still the calls young woman and not Mother that is erroneous.

See above. Check the word being used before you continue your wild tangent.

Lione D&#8217; ea: So do you mean to say Isaiah had two wives there?

No.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Therefore the Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophecy for Immanuel to shoulder it

No, not the way you're thinking.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Why Ahaz ignored the sign given by God to him?

I never said he did.

Lione D&#8217; ea: There are verses in chapter 8 did not happened there brother as you know.

What verses in chapter 8 never happened?

Lione D&#8217; ea: Then you will contradict again in Isaiah 7:14 Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the Immanuel.

He was the "sign" that ("God was with the people of Judah during the time of war")

 

[LioneDea]

Dirty Penguin< This is fact. I agree that the KJV and the NIV are based on the Septuagint whereas the CJB is not.

Lione D’ ea: What based the CJB version is?

Dirty Penguin< I've already shown you the context of chapter 7, 8 and 9. Even if I agreed that 7:14 was saying the young woman would become pregnant then it shows the progression. 7:14 saying she will conceive and have a son, 8:3 saying Isaiah's wife became pregnant and had a son and 9:6 saying a child was born unto them. You can't just simply take Isaiah out of context because the writer of Matthew did. When you read it in context it has nothing to do with Yeshua.

Lione D’ ea: Let us read it show progression which I refute your statement and this conflict in any perspective why Isaiah 7:14 is not wife of Isaiah and the child of the young woman she conceived is not the second child it is first-born Isaiah 7:14; 8:3; 9:5 it Reads:

“Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."” (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: If the passage of chapter 8:3 is referred to chapter 9:5 given the son in them, why the passage of 7:14 still in term of young woman if she had a first born there, because the son given in chapter 9:5 is the second child that is your implying in verses. So if the child there in chapter 9:5 is second child, why the word son there is singular not plural because the first-born in chapter 7:3 as you said was theirs, and chapter 8:3 didn’t say there Maher-shalal-hash-baz interpret which refer in chapter 8:8,10. (1) The question again was why chapter 7:14 still in term as young woman, (2) and why chapter 9:5 given to them is son why not sons because they have the first-born, (3) what verse we can read in whole TCJB Isaiah’s wife is prophetess, (4) did 8:3 said Maher-shalal-hash-baz called Immanuel which interpret for God is with us?

Dirty Penguin< I see why you don't understand. You make such an attempt to explain an easy to understand scripture you wind of confusing the whole context. Look at verse 16 above and try to reconcile who this is talking about. This is talking about the child that is to be born. This is in reference what was going on at the time.

While the child is still young and does not know right from wrong the land of the two kings you fear (Rezin and Pekah) would be abandoned. This is a future/immediate prophecy for Ahaz and his kingdom (Judah). This is something they would witness in their lifetime. This is not about Yeshua because about time Yeshua is born these two kingdoms are not even an issue because the Romans had control of Syria.

Lione D’ ea: This is you must understand why chapter 7:17 not refers in chapter 8:3-4 it said

"For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

17. The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria.

And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Lione D’ ea: This is why you trying to attach chapter 7:14 to 8:3 this is the conflict in your opinion. Chapter 7:16-17 is reffering the happenings, the verse specify the happenings of Ephraim away to Juda while in chapter 8:4 is specify about the Ephraim namely the King of Assyria. The chapter 8 mention Maher-shalal-hash-baz was ended at chapter 3, you cannot apply the verse 4 to Maher-shalal-hash-baz because you will contrary in your statement if that is happened, because the child was not given to Ephraim namely the Assyria as you inputting to connect in 7:14 the because Ephraim will against in Judah in chapter 7:5-6 Read:

Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying:

6. 'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us,'

Lione D’ ea: This is your conflict in your statement attaching chapter 8:3-4 in to chapter 7:14 because it specify in child which the child is coming from Judah the House of David not in Ephraim you trying to attach it in verse 10:14 it says:

And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

11. "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

12. And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."

13. And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. (King James Version)

Lione D’ ea: The Child is coming from Judah not in Ephraim as you implying you mistaken in tract, plus Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the name Man while in chapter 7:14 and chapter 9:5-6 is the name of Son of God, read meticulously the verses brother you are conflict in any angles.

Dirty Penguin< No it's not. 8:4 is in reference to 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

8:3-8:4
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.

8:4 has nothing to do with Ephraim. What it's saying in 7:17 is that the kingdom of Judah would undergo trials and tribulation in their immediate future not seen since the days of Ephraim turned away from (Judah which I believe was part of the Assyrian Empire at the time).

Lione D’ ea: So if you trying to insist to refer in 8:3 to whom it rests “the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,'” in Chapter 7:16-17 Read:

"For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

17. The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria.

Lione D’ ea: Remember the Immanuel is coming from the House of David the Judah, Ephraim will against in Judah in verse 5-6:

Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying:

6. 'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us,'

Lione D’ ea: Ephraim will against in Judah the House of David this is indicate in chapter 8:4 saying:

For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Lione D’ ea: As your implying in chapter 8:4 below to connect in chapter 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, are you saying Maher-shalal-hash-baz will against to Judah, chapter 7:16-17 is very clear Ephraim will turn away to Judah the House of David because they will against in Judah according in verse 5-6, chapter 8:4 is specifying to the King of Assyria not with Maher-shalal-hash-baz because it is ended in verse 3.

Dirty Penguin< It did say it was him as I've shown.

Lione D’ ea: You said early: “Furthermore 7:16, 8:4, is fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's son”. Who is the Son of Isaiah this is what your answer very clear: “8:4 is in reference to 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.”

Dirty Penguin< No it isn't. Isaiah is giving the prophecy to the king and the people of Judah.

Lione D’ ea: Then let us read who speak in this verse Isaiah 7:10-14 it say’s

And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

11. "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

12. And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."

13. And he?

Lione D’ ea: Who speaks here, Isaiah or Ahaz?

Dirty Penguin< Do you know "what Epharaim" is being reference here in Isaiah? Are you under the impression it's speaking of a person? If so then you seriously don't know what you're talking about. "Ephraim" was not king of Assyria during the time of Ahaz so you're incorrect.

Lione D’ ea: Then who, can you show your aces you hold?

Dirty Penguin< It's attached because 8:3 is part of the prophecy and it fits the whole context.

Lione D’ ea: Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and you also reject your stated because you said: 8:4 is in reference to 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.” And you said It did say it was him as I've shown, are you playing words before me brother?

Continue..

 

[LioneDea]

Continue..

Dirty Penguin< Plurality has nothing to do with it. Why do you keep insisting it should? Chapters 7, 8 and 9 are dependent on each other which is why it's called "context". You have no justification for snatching 7:14 unless you can explain why 8:3 is there. And please stop referring to "Ephraim". Do you even realize that when in Isaiah it speaks of "Ephraim" it's not speaking of a living person. "Ephraim" had long since died but his offspring lived on. If you look at a map of the day "Ephraim" was a city north of Judah.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Easy brother, I&#8217;m just gained only wisdom not points, be logical and be Biblical if we say Ephraim it is not person, it describes according in context as Assyria, I never mention he was person I mentioned it specifying in King of Assyria like what it said in chapter 8:4. Chapter 7, 8 and 9 some in verses was occurred in their time, but some are not meant to say it is prophecy for future for them, and for added information for you which I didn&#8217;t mention on previous discussing, verses was occurred in their time will occurred AGAIN relating to this description of the aforementioned.

Dirty Penguin< Sorry but the Jews and the CJB you're quoting from disagree with you. And once again...plurality has nothing to do with anything.

Lione D&#8217; ea: There is brother because chapter 9:5 is not second child to be born and given to them, it is first-born as you mention Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not this child, this child mention here is the child mention in chapter 7:14, as you mention you reject your alleged said: It did say it was him as I've shown. See that brother.

Dirty Penguin< There is no conflict. I was direct in what I stated. The son at 7:3 is the son of Isaiah. The son prophesied at 7:14 is in reference to the son at 8:3 which is why Isaiah said;

8:18
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel......

Lione D&#8217; ea: Then why in Chapter 9:5 the word Son there is singular and not plural as sons if the first-born is with them already, and you reject your alleged of chapter 7:14 to chapter 8:3 as you state it.

Dirty Penguin< Stop it. You're killing me here. Why now do you revert back to the KJV. Using that in reference to Isaiah 7:14 is not the same. Deuteronomy is talking about "virginity" and "virgin" in the explicit sense which is why the word (b&#277;thuwliym) is used and not (almah)

Lione D&#8217; ea: So then the Isaiah 7:14 God choose a young woman had a experience, and God violate His own words as mention in Deuteronomy 22:20-21. What is the point, in all your answer you standing, it is conflict in any angles, you reject your own fact like in chapter 7, 8, 9, and if we proven the young woman there is not Isaiah&#8217;s wife and no man link on her, then the facts is the young woman drop in Deuteronomy 20:21-20-21 plus God violate His own words. This is not the spirit of God.

Dirty Penguin< See above. Check the word being used before you continue your wild tangent.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Brother you said you are good when it comes in grammar of the Bible, the facts is you not understand what the context tells you, even your own statement like in below.

Lione D&#8217; ea: So do you mean to say Isaiah had two wives there?

Dirty Penguin< No.

Lione D&#8217; ea: This is what you said: &#8220;He is the sign that (God was with them) but what scriptural basis do you have for this seeing as though you keep ignoring the fact that Isaiah's wife is mentioned there (and the one giving birth to a son.)&#8221;

Lione D&#8217; ea: Oh brother.

Dirty Penguin< No, not the way you're thinking.

Lione D&#8217; ea: So to whom will shoulder this prophecy?

Dirty Penguin< I never said he did.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Our discussion here was if Isaiah 7:14 this prophecy is for him.

Dirty Penguin< What verses in chapter 8 never happened?

Lione D&#8217; ea: Let us read Isaiah 8:16 Read:

Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.. (King James Version)

Lione D&#8217; ea: The testimony that seal to open, because the book was closed.

Dirty Penguin< He was the "sign" that ("God was with the people of Judah during the time of war")

Dirty Penguin< (It did say it was him as I've shown.) 1 day ago

Lione D&#8217; ea: You said early: &#8220;Furthermore 7:16, 8:4, is fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's son&#8221;. Who is the Son of Isaiah this is what your answer very clear: &#8220;8:4 is in reference to 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.&#8221;



(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

Just for the record (for the 20th time or so on this thread)

"The mighty God" clearly contains a fudged article, which shows the desparation Trintiarians will employ in their translations. It can also be read as "A mighty god" even.

"The everlasting Father", besides also having a fudged article, completely ignores that the word is "Avi" which means "Father of", and is posessive. It should read something like how the Douay Rheims translates this part, "Father of the world to come", though their "God the mighty" is clearly without merit.


So yeah Isaiah 9:6 should not be used by Trinitarians, and it represents the total disregard for grammar (and the fact that it's a long compound name) that Trinitarians have when it comes to their "proof texts".

Lione D' ea: Let us read in TCJB if that is written.

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.""

Lione D' ea: TCJB itself written as mighty God, the ever lasting Father, called his name, the prince of peace, this is not the God Father, this is the Son of God because God the Father is not prince of peace He is King of peace, what is our proof the Son called in Bible Father also in Proverbs 8:32 Read?

"And now, my children, hearken to me, and fortunate are those who observe my ways."

Lione D' ea: The verse tell us the Son is Father also, and the word trinity is not Biblical there is no term trinity in Bible as 3 person in one being that is erroneous doctrine.

(end.)

 

[Aabraham ben Azar]

He is son of Man

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D&#8217; ea: What based the CJB version is?

What do you mean? It was translated by Jews into English. Not..Jews to Greek then Latin then English like many bibles were.

But for the record this isn't the only translation of the Tanakh I use.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Let us read it show progression which I refute your statement and this conflict in any perspective why Isaiah 7:14 is not wife of Isaiah and the child of the young woman she conceived is not the second child it is first-born Isaiah 7:14; 8:3; 9:5 it Reads:....(The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D&#8217; ea: If the passage of chapter 8:3 is referred to chapter 9:5 given the son in them, why the passage of 7:14 still in term of young woman if she had a first born there, because the son given in chapter 9:5 is the second child that is your implying in verses.

You're still caught up trying to wrap your mind around something so mundane. 7:14 calls her a young woman. Remember, you agreed that a young woman (almah) wasn't explicit that it meant "virgin". As I've said before, if you look at every verse where it occurs in the CJB and other Jewish to English Tanakhs it won't say virgin. She's called young woman because she was a young woman. Anything beyond that would be speculation. Now, I must ask, Why do you keep insisting to pair 7:14 and 9:5 and continue to ignore 8:3? Is 8:3 not important to the prophecy Isaiah gave to Ahaz?

Lione D&#8217; ea: This is you must understand why chapter 7:17 not refers in chapter 8:3-4 it said

"For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

How does this describe Yeshua? In what way? As I've already said...When Yeshua was born this war was long over as the Romans were in control of the regions.

Lione D&#8217; ea: This is why you trying to attach chapter 7:14 to 8:3 this is the conflict in your opinion. Chapter 7:16-17 is reffering the happenings, the verse specify the happenings of Ephraim away to Juda

No it doesn't. It's saying that a terrible time will be upon Judah not seen since the days of Ephraim when it was separated from Judah. Check out the way the NIV renders it.

Isaiah 7 NIV - The Sign of Immanuel - When Ahaz son of - Bible Gateway
"The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah&#8212;he will bring the king of Assyria.&#8221;

"He will bring the king of Assyria" is in reference to "The Lord". This is why I said to stop referring to Ephraim. It's not important. Verse 17 only serves as a comparison of hardship Judah will soon see. Remember, this is talking about a war.

while in chapter 8:4 is specify about the Ephraim namely the King of Assyria.

See above. Ephraim has nothing to do with it. It's only talking about the hard times Judah will experience not seen since the day when Ephraim separated from Judah. I think that story is recorded in 2 Chronicles.

The chapter 8 mention Maher-shalal-hash-baz was ended at chapter 3, you cannot apply the verse 4 to Maher-shalal-hash-baz because you will contrary in your statement if that is happened, because the child was not given to Ephraim namely the Assyria as you inputting to connect in 7:14 the because Ephraim will against in Judah in chapter 7:5-6 Read:

You have no idea what you're talking about. Once again, Ephraim, at this point in Isaiah, is talking about a city and not a person. Furthermore 8:3 and 8:4 is the same subject. It doesn't stop at 8:3 and that's it. That would make no since to introduce the son of Isaiah that was just born with no back drop or reason as to why that is there with a full stop. 8:4 is talking about the future actions of this child.

"And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

This was the wife of Isaiah. We know this because he refers to her as prophetess. We know it's talking about this son because it says when the "lad" (child, boy, youth) is too young to call father or mother, Damascus and Samaria will be dismantled by the King of Assyria. And NO, the King of Assyria is not Ephraim.

Lione D&#8217; ea: This is your conflict in your statement attaching chapter 8:3-4 in to chapter 7:14 because it specify in child which the child is coming from Judah the House of David not in Ephraim you trying to attach it in verse 10:14 it says:

I never said the child was coming from Ephraim. I explicitly said the child was the son of Isaiah. You were the first to bring up any references to "Ephraim"..not me.

Lione D&#8217; ea: As your implying in chapter 8:4 below to connect in chapter 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, are you saying Maher-shalal-hash-baz will against to Judah, chapter 7:16-17 is very clear Ephraim will turn away to Judah the House of David because they will against in Judah according in verse 5-6, chapter 8:4 is specifying to the King of Assyria not with Maher-shalal-hash-baz because it is ended in verse 3.

All Maher-shalal-hash-baz is, is the sign to Judah that ("God was with them"). His birth is the sign. Maher-shalal-hash-baz would still be a child when the king of Assyria wipes out the enemies of Judah. That's all that the prophecy is saying.

Lione D&#8217; ea: You said early: &#8220;Furthermore 7:16, 8:4, is fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's son&#8221;. Who is the Son of Isaiah this is what your answer very clear: &#8220;8:4 is in reference to 8:3 Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.&#8221;

Because it is. 8:3 continues into 8:4 explicitly talking about Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This is still "The Lord" speaking to Isaiah. This starts at the middle of verse 8:3 and stops at the end of 8:4.

Your KJV
".....Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria."

This is a continuous thought from "The Lord" to Isaiah until verse 5. I'm surprised you don't get this.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Then let us read who speak in this verse Isaiah 7:10-14 it say&#8217;s

Lione D&#8217; ea: Who speaks here, Isaiah or Ahaz?

It's Isaiah speaking not Ahaz. Look at what the NIV bible says

Isaiah 7 NIV - The Sign of Immanuel - When Ahaz son of - Bible Gateway
"Then Isaiah said, &#8220;Hear now, you house of David!......."

This isn't the only bible that understands that this is Isaiah speaking on behalf of "The Lord". At the link I just provided just use the drop down arrow and change bibles and you'll see.

if we say Ephraim it is not person, it describes according in context as Assyria, I never mention he was person I mentioned it specifying in King of Assyria like what it said in chapter 8:4.

But that's what I'm trying to get across to you. Ephraim is a city. The man "Ephraim" died long ago. Ephraim was not the king of Assyria during the time of Ahaz. Tiglath-Pileser III was the king. Again, I'm amazed you didn't know this.

Lione D&#8217; ea: There is brother because chapter 9:5 is not second child to be born and given to them, it is first-born as you mention Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not this child, this child mention here is the child mention in chapter 7:14, as you mention you reject your alleged said: It did say it was him as I've shown. See that brother.

9:5 is all past tense not future. There are key words there that are consistent with the context I mentioned.

7:14
"she shall conceive and shall bare a son"

8:3
"I was intimate with the prophetess (my wife) and she bore a son"

9:5
"a child has been born to us, a son given to us"

Now what did Isaiah say at 8:18?

"Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs.."

If you insist 7:14 and 9:5 are connected than why not 8:3?

Lione D&#8217; ea: So then the Isaiah 7:14 God choose a young woman had a experience, and God violate His own words as mention in Deuteronomy 22:20-21.

You're the one bringing up Deuteronomy and you're wrong but that's what you get when you don't realize the words and meanings are completely different in lieu of the context.