Did Jesus say he was God???

[LioneDea]

Dirty Penguin< 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’ ea: Because you said KJV and the NIV are based on the Septuagint meaning it is based under of Hebrew language known as Dead Sea scroll, what TCJB based it?


Dirty Penguin< 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’ ea: I never agreed young woman as Almah in Hebrew meant she is not virgin, find and prove if I state that perspective. Because it translate in chapter 7:14 as young woman doesn’t mean she is not virgin but possible she is virgin, the reason why I agree in KJV she is virgin there because God choose a young woman hadn’t experience in fact that young woman there is coming from the house of David concern in chapter 7:13-14 under the law of Moses which God give a law about the manner. For that as well to knowledge for you, the verse didn’t not tells you she is not virgin the reason why she is virgin in possible aspect, the child with her is in her bosom, as your implying the word “WITH CHILD” you conclude she has first born there, the bases which you apply is chapter 7:3, and the child she “BARE” is the second child, how is that happened chapter 7:14 using term as young woman and not mother if she had a first born given, no preferment was happened in her even can we call her as young- mother but did not happened. And chapter 7:14 and chapter 7:3 as your implying is contrary in chapter 9:5 because it term there as son not sons because according to your playing the first-born is with them already, in Bible opinion chapter 9:5 tells us singular meaning one son not two son, inputting your logic in young woman there had a first born given into them already, why chapter 9:5 states son not sons. Chapter 7:14; 8:3 and 9:5 are verses you showed me as your bases you hold, your implying chapter 8:3 is the child mention in chapter 7:14 and so to 9:5 is contrary itself because chapter 8:3 is the name of man a person while in chapter 7:14 and 9:5 is referring to God not god, but a mighty God. And I refute the prophecy of chapter 7:14 is not for Ahaz it is for the child remember in chapter 7:10-13 God gave him as for him a sign but ahaz ignore God give him a sign, meaning the chapter 7:14 it is not prophecy for Ahaz. Concern in chapter 7:14 the young woman mention there can you atleast prove to me when did I agree with you the young woman is not virgin because TCJB did not derive as almah?


Dirty Penguin< 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’ ea: First of all Yeshua in Hebrew correct me if I’m wrong in translating is not a Man because He is existed before the earth was, he wasn’t first exist in earth according to scriptures of the Apostle and Prophets. In chapter 7:17 tells us the Ephraim is turned away from Judah there concern of chapter 8:4 is specific to King of Assyria. Why it specific to the king of Assyria, because it says there:

(For, when) the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' (The Complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: Therefore it tells us it will occur first the happened which “the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria”, why it carried what it does meant in chapter 7:17, 2, 5-6 Read:
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.

2. And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.

5. 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,' (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: Remember in chapter 7:17 Ephraim turned away from Judah and bring together the nations in this paragraph against Judah so chapter 8:4 is certainly the king of Assyria, while the chapter 7:17 the event separation of Assyria in Judah where the house of David. 8:4 Why are not attached to chapter 8:3 to say he is Immanuel, because the verse does not say that (HE) it says (LAD), and not only was Maher-shalal-hash-baz the child mentioned in the passages, he is not the Immanuel because Immanuel is God, the Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the name of man to testify he is not the Immanuel let us read two passages in chapter 8:3 and 9:5 it say’s:

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.

5 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: In chapter 8:3 Maher-shalal-hash-baz was born there already he was (CALL) him in his name, while in chapter 9:5 the son given in them “(CALLED) his name” meaning coming, the verses are clear as crystal it is not blard.


Dirty Penguin< 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—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

"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.


Lione D’ ea: What is the happening, the verse tell us the HAPPENED of Ephraim will turned away from Judah because they will against in the House of David 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: The verse is very clear it will happened what is the problem their brother?


Dirty Penguin< 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.


Lione D’ ea: Isaiah 7:17 Read:

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. (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: How do you understand the phrase NAMELY. The verse describe Ephraim as Assyria.

 

[LioneDea]

Dirty Penguin< 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.

 

[LioneDea]

Lione D’ ea: Let us read what is Ephraim in Isaiah 7:17 it read:

“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.” (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: Ephraim in this passage was namely a king of Assyria it describe as nation, a nation which turned away from Judah to against so that in chapter 7:4-6 it reads:

And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.

5 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,' (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D’ ea: The nations which mention of passages will against in Judah, BEFORE the dismantled will happened according in the scripture. And also you cannot testify if the prophetess is the wife of Isaiah nor the young woman mention in chapter 7:14. The child you mention in chapter 8:3 tells us it is son of the prophetess not to Isaiah. Chapter 8:4 is not the future action of the child because it specific to Ephraim namely as king of Syria according in chapter 7:17, and also Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the Immanuel because Immanuel is God not man.

Dirty Penguin< 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’ ea: Ephraim is namely to the king of Assyria meaning it describe to Assyria (see: 7:2, 4-9, 17). Trying to connect the passage of 8:3 to 7:14 through 8:4 a cross to chapter 7:15-17 is wrong bases. Because chapter 8:4 the word LAD is not denoting to Maher-shalal-hash-baz because He’s not only mentioned in the passages. Remember Immanuel in chapter 7:14 is prophecy in that time meaning did not occurred in their time.

Dirty Penguin< 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’ ea: That is not the scriptures tells to me because according in scripture Assyria will against to Judah we can read it in chapter 7:2, 4-6 say’s:

And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.
4 And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
5 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,' (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D’ ea: The verse is very clear, Assyria with nation he gathered will against to Judah. King of Assyria will not wipe the nations he will gathered because if he wipe the nation he taken how he will against to Judah. And Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not God because he is a man, the God which mention in chapter 8:10 is Immanuel the mighty God which is in chapter 9:5.

Dirty Penguin< 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’ ea: Let us read in King James Version Isaiah 8:3 and forward:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Lione D’ ea: And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, CALL…? Mahershalalhashbaz is exist already, does that mean he is the child who mention in chapter 4 let us read?

4 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.


Lione D’ ea: The context is indicate in chapter 8 saying CHILD, it did not say HE denoting to Mahershalalhashbaz, why it said child, because Mahershalalhashbaz is not only child mentioned in the passages meaning it is not him…
5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, (King James Version)

 

[LioneDea]

Lione D’ ea: The problem there is Mahershalalhashbaz is a man not God, concern to Immanuel, the child mention in chapter 7:14 is God that’s why in chapter 9:6 it says:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (King James Version)
Lione D’ ea: The child mention in above is not Mahershalalhashbaz because he was exist there already in chapter 8:3, the verse state “and his name shall be CALLED…?, meaning coming, therefore He is God that’s why in chapter 8:10 state there:
“Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for GOD IS WITH US.” (King James Version)
Lione D’ ea: Mahershalalhashbaz is not the child mention in chapter 7:14 because he is a Man.

 

[LioneDea]

Dirty Penguin< 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, “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.

Lione D’ ea: Wrong, let us read Isaiah 7:10 it say’s:
Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, (NIV 1984)
Lione D’ ea: Isaiah is not who speak on behalf of the Lord to Ahaz but the Lord itself.



Continue..

 

[LioneDea]

sorry for delayed..

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D&#8217; ea: Because you said KJV and the NIV are based on the Septuagint meaning it is based under of Hebrew language known as Dead Sea scroll, what TCJB based it?

Actually the KJV and the NIV are not based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Remember the scrolls were discovered between 1947-1956. By then the KJV was already published. Most mainstream bibles are rendered from the Septuagint. Jews translated some of the OT scripture into Greek for the Greek reading/speaking audience. When you do that you lose a lot in translation. This is the reason why there's only one word for "virgin" being used.

Because it translate in chapter 7:14 as young woman doesn&#8217;t mean she is not virgin but possible she is virgin

The context of Isaiah 7, 8 and 9 trump your reasoning. Not to mention the CJB renders it to not mean virgin.

And I refute the prophecy of chapter 7:14 is not for Ahaz it is for the child remember
in chapter 7:10-13 God gave him as for him a sign but ahaz ignore God give him a sign, meaning the chapter 7:14 it is not prophecy for Ahaz.

And you're wrong. If you're wrong on something so basic and uncontested in theology as this then how could you even be right with any other of your interpretations. The prophecy being told is for Ahaz and his kingdom (Judah) That's what it's all about. You're totally ignoring the context.

Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The verse tells of how the prophet Isaiah, addressing king Ahaz of Judah (reigned c.732/731-716/715 BC), promises the king a sign that his oracle is a true one."

Scroll down in the link above and it gives you the context. You can disagree all you like but you're wrong.

In chapter 7:17 tells us the Ephraim is turned away from Judah there concern of chapter 8:4 is specific to King of Assyria. Why it specific to the king of Assyria

8:4 is not about the king of Assyria. It is about Isaiah's son at 8:3. It's a continuous thought from "The Lord" to Isaiah. Again, Ephraim is not the king of Assyria unless you're trying to say it's a "kingdom" and not "king".

Lione D&#8217; ea: Therefore it tells us it will occur first the happened which &#8220;the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria&#8221;, why it carried what it does meant in chapter 7:17, 2, 5-6 Read:
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.

2. And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.

5. 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,' (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D&#8217; ea: Remember in chapter 7:17 Ephraim turned away from Judah and bring together the nations in this paragraph against Judah so chapter 8:4 is certainly the king of Assyria, while the chapter 7:17 the event separation of Assyria in Judah where the house of David.

You have this so wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong because I just like to argue. No. You're wrong because you have no idea what Aram and Ephraim are. They are cities and not people. Your whole premise above is wrong because the context is this;


Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isaiah 7:14 is found in a long section of the Book of Isaiah concerning the Syro-Ephraimite War. In the 8th century BC, Assyria was a great regional power. The smaller nations of Syria (often called Aram), ruled by king Rezin, and the Kingdom of Israel (often called Ephraim because of the main tribe), under king Pekah, had been vassals of Assyria, but in 735 BC decided to break away. Ahaz, the king of Judah, was loyal to Assyria and refused to join them, so Rezin and Pekah prepare to depose him and install their own choice of king.


That's ALL Isaiah is about. It's about a war. It's not about Yeshua at all.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Let us read what is Ephraim in Isaiah 7:17 it read:

&#8220;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; (The complete Jewish Bible)

Lione D&#8217; ea: Ephraim in this passage was namely a king of Assyria it describe as nation, a nation which turned away from Judah to against so that in chapter 7:4-6 it reads:

Are you trying to say "Kingdom" of Assyria? You keep saying "King" and that would be incorrect.

And also you cannot testify if the prophetess is the wife of Isaiah

What? Yes she was. Isaiah was the prophet. In the beginning of chapter 8 "The Lord" is talking to Isaiah. The prophetess is his wife.

The child you mention in chapter 8:3 tells us it is son of the prophetess not to Isaiah.

Tell me you're not serious?

Maher-shalal-hash-baz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"was the second mentioned son of the prophet Isaiah. The name is a reference to the impending plunder of Samaria and Damascus by the king of Assyria. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 8:1-4"

Now do you see it. You are completely wrong and really don't know anything about the book of Isaiah.

Chapter 8:4 is not the future action of the child because it specific to Ephraim namely as king of Syria according in chapter 7:17, and also Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the Immanuel because Immanuel is God not man.

See the link above because you're wrong.

Lione D&#8217; ea: Let us read in King James Version Isaiah 8:3 and forward:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

This is the second son to Ahaz. See the link above.

Lione D&#8217; ea: And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, CALL&#8230;? Mahershalalhashbaz is exist already, does that mean he is the child who mention in chapter 4 let us read?

4 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.

1. This child didn't already exist. He was born and Isaiah was told to name him "Mahershalalhashbaz". This child is the sign that ("God was with Judah).

2. What does that child's name mean?

Maher-shalal-hash-baz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Hurry to spoil!" or "He has made haste to the plunder!"..."The name is a reference to the impending plunder of Samaria and Damascus by the king of Assyria.

As you can see 8:4 is talking about this child. We know this because of the word ("shalal") in that verse. He was the sign that "Immanuel" ("God was with the people of Judah).

Strong's #7998
prey, plunder, spoil, booty
plunder (of war)

Lione D&#8217; ea: The context is indicate in chapter 8 saying CHILD, it did not say HE denoting to Mahershalalhashbaz,

Wrong as I keep proving over and over again. See above.

 

[Muffled]

He is son of Man

However that is concurrent with His being Son of God. The flesh comes from man, the Spirit of God.

 

[LioneDea]

[FONT=&quot]

Actually the KJV and the NIV are not based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Remember the scrolls were discovered between 1947-1956. By then the KJV was already published. Most mainstream bibles are rendered from the Septuagint. Jews translated some of the OT scripture into Greek for the Greek reading/speaking audience. When you do that you lose a lot in translation. This is the reason why there's only one word for "virgin" being used.




The context of Isaiah 7, 8 and 9 trump your reasoning. Not to mention the CJB renders it to not mean virgin.

Lione D' ea: True, it mention in TCJB there as young woman. But the young woman you considered her as not virgin is wrong because the first reason why you are wrong the verse did not tell to reader she is not virgin, the fact is if I dare you to testify where in whole of Isaiah verses state she is wife of Isaiah?

And you're wrong. If you're wrong on something so basic and uncontested in theology as this then how could you even be right with any other of your interpretations. The prophecy being told is for Ahaz and his kingdom (Judah) That's what it's all about. You're totally ignoring the context.

Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The verse tells of how the prophet Isaiah, addressing king Ahaz of Judah (reigned c.732/731-716/715 BC), promises the king a sign that his oracle is a true one."

Lione D' ea: I'll quote you firtt in this paragraph concerning the prophecy meant for Ahaz and Judah base in chapter 8:18 you give I not refute the fact. But think if the prophecy meant for Ahaz and to Judah, if the child mention in chapter 7:14 was not [/FONT][FONT=&quot]given to them, you still have to be called this prophecy to Ahaz and Judah the sign you mentioning, I think not because the child is the sign for them[/FONT][FONT=&quot], so if you are really say it was occured in tha time and that child mention of chapter 7:14 is the child name Mahershalalhashbaz, why did not state in the passage the interpretation of Mahershalalhashbaz is "God with us" do you have any evidence to show up that can link closer of tha interpretation to Mahershalalhashbaz?

Scroll down in the link above and it gives you the context. You can disagree all you like but you're wrong.


8:4 is not about the king of Assyria. It is about Isaiah's son at 8:3. It's a continuous thought from "The Lord" to Isaiah. Again, Ephraim is not the king of Assyria unless you're trying to say it's a "kingdom" and not "king".

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 8:4 brother talk about the happening to King of Assyria because the verse said in King JAme Version:

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.


Lione D' ea: If you notice the word before brother it telss us there something must done first which said: the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria this is what it meant, therefore it will happened this first before the child knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother. About to Ephraim, Ephraim is not the name of King, Ephraim is discribe into King of Assyria because according in the context of 7:17 in TCJB it says:

"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: The word namely tells us discribe, I did not mention the name of the King of Assyria is Ephraim, I said back then Ephraim is discribing to Assyria that is what I mention in previous.

You have this so wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong because I just like to argue. No. You're wrong because you have no idea what Aram and Ephraim are. They are cities and not people. Your whole premise above is wrong because the context is this;


Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isaiah 7:14 is found in a long section of the Book of Isaiah concerning the Syro-Ephraimite War. In the 8th century BC, Assyria was a great regional power. The smaller nations of Syria (often called Aram), ruled by king Rezin, and the Kingdom of Israel (often called Ephraim because of the main tribe), under king Pekah, had been vassals of Assyria, but in 735 BC decided to break away. Ahaz, the king of Judah, was loyal to Assyria and refused to join them, so Rezin and Pekah prepare to depose him and install their own choice of king.


That's ALL Isaiah is about. It's about a war. It's not about Yeshua at all.

Lione D' ea: Brother as I've said Ephraim is not literal name of the King of Assyria because the verse said:

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. Meaning it is discribe to King of Assyria or Assyria. And the fact chapter 7:14 the child mention there was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not yet appeared[/FONT][FONT=&quot] already because in chapter 9:5 it says there:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The verse tells us it is future meaning[/FONT][FONT=&quot] coming yet[/FONT][FONT=&quot], while the chapter 8 the child there was brought out and exist already in Isaiah 8:3 it says

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.


Lione D' ea: That is the difference between the two passages because in chapter 9:6 which is the son refer to chapter 7:14 is coming yet to called His name, while in chapter 8:3 He exist there already. And what is the concern in this pasages to Christ in chapter 8:16 Read:

"Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." (New American Standard Bible)

Lione D' ea: It is testimony which is the law, and what this concern to Christ in Matthew 5:17 Read:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: What is the law which Christ to fulfil in Lucas 24:44 Read?

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: So the prove which Isaiah written is conern to Christ.

[/FONT]

 

[LioneDea]

[FONT=&quot]

Are you trying to say "Kingdom" of Assyria? You keep saying "King" and that would be incorrect.

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 7:2 this is what verse tell us not mine:


And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: That is in the verse.

What? Yes she was. Isaiah was the prophet. In the beginning of chapter 8 "The Lord" is talking to Isaiah. The prophetess is his wife.

Lione D' ea: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not mean if Isaiah was a prophet then his wife was a prophet also if you may brother, can you show 1 verse to testify Isaiah's wife is a prophetess?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Tell me you're not serious?

Lione D' ea: Very simple and loguc brother the passage said:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The verse said it is the son of prophetess, didn't state there the son of prophet nor the son of Isaiah.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"was the second mentioned son of the prophet Isaiah. The name is a reference to the impending plunder of Samaria and Damascus by the king of Assyria. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 8:1-4"

Now do you see it. You are completely wrong and really don't know anything about the book of Isaiah.

Lione D' ea: I will base only what the scripture tells me. Isaiah 8:1-5 it said brother:


Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

4 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,(King James Version)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Lione D' ea: It is not Isaiah, but who that might be the Lord conversing with, in Isaiah 7:10?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Lione D' ea: It is Ahaz.

See the link above because you're wrong.

Lione D' ea: I look it and the Author behind there [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not know well also.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

This is the second son to Ahaz. See the link above.

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 8:3 Read:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. (King JAmes Version)


Lione D' ea: Did the verse state she bare a second son?

1. This child didn't already exist. He was born and Isaiah was told to name him "Mahershalalhashbaz". This child is the sign that ("God was with Judah).

2. What does that child's name mean?

Maher-shalal-hash-baz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Hurry to spoil!" or "He has made haste to the plunder!"..."The name is a reference to the impending plunder of Samaria and Damascus by the king of Assyria.

As you can see 8:4 is talking about this child. We know this because of the word ("shalal") in that verse. He was the sign that "Immanuel" ("God was with the people of Judah).

Strong's #7998
prey, plunder, spoil, booty
plunder (of war)

Lione D' ea: I thought you said it is immediate future meaning it was occured. the verse said: And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call....., the child was there. Speaking of ("shalal") did it says God is with us?

Wrong as I keep proving over and over again. See above.

Lione D' ea: This is what I prove why I state did not denote to him. In Chapter 7:14-16; Isaiah 8:3-6 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.

15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

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


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."

5. And the Lord continued to speak to me further, saying:

6. "Since this people has rejected the waters of the Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah, (TCJB)

Lione D' ea: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wherefore he is not the Immanuel because the child mentioning in passages( Chapter7, 8, 9) is not only [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Maher-shalal-hash-baz, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]if you forced [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Immanuel, why in Isaiah 7:16 says there [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he dread this the two kings[/FONT][FONT=&quot], whereas in Isaiah 8:6 states he rejoiced this two head? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]



...[/FONT]

 

[LioneDea]

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' ea: Person was name Ephraim is not what I mean. the Ephraim which I referring is the passages of Isaiah 7:17 the verse describe Assyria or the King of Assyria in Ephraim that was I state back then.

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' ea: Because Maher-shalal-hash-baz is a man not God, in chapter 7:14 the child mention there is God, that's why Immanuel God is with us, not Man is with us.Concern in chapter 8:18 including Ahaz as sign also because the speaker here was Ahaz not Isaiah and to attain that sign Ahaz and the children the prophecy in chapter 7:14 must occurred because that child which sign given by Lord will seat in the throne of David that is my answer.

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.

Lione D' ea: God never violate his own word.



(end.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[FONT=&quot]


Lione D' ea: True, it mention in TCJB there as young woman. But the young woman you considered her as not virgin is wrong because the first reason why you are wrong the verse did not tell to reader she is not virgin[/FONT]

The verse did not say she (WAS) a virgin or it would have use a different word. In the CJB it's rendered as "young woman" not virgin where as other areas of the Tanakh use the actual word for virgin (bethula). The KJV, as I have shown plenty of times, is bias in their translation because the only time it uses virgin to denote a chaste woman is at Isaiah 7:14. Other areas in the KJV use the word to mean something else. In that I would say the CJB, because it it not rendered from the Septuagint Greek, is a better translation.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] the fact is if I dare you to testify where in whole of Isaiah verses state she is wife of Isaiah?[/FONT]

As I have shown the prophecy was one that Ahaz and his kingdom (Judah) would see in their day and time. Chapter 8 and 9 corroborate that. No other child throughout Isaiah is said to have been born. There is no reason why it should mention at 8:3 Isaiah's wife conceiving a son and giving birth to a son if that son was not part of or important to the prophecy at 7:14. This one is because the prophecy is about him.

[FONT=&quot]why did not state in the passage the interpretation of Mahershalalhashbaz is "God with us" do you have any evidence to show up that can link closer of tha interpretation to Mahershalalhashbaz?[/FONT]

No more than you can show that Yeshua was to be called "Immanuel". Yeshua wasn't. The angel told his mother to call him Yeshua and not Immanuel. The difference is the context of Isaiah 7, 8, and 9 is consistent that a child would be born in that day and time and had been born and it was the second son of Isaiah. He was the sign Immanuel (God was with them).


Yeshayahu - Chapter 8 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
And it will penetrate into Judah, overflowing as it passes through, up to the neck it will reach; and the tips of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.

This is speaking of the King of Assyria and his army that's all. The "Immanuel" at the end isn't a name. It's an expression. Who is Immanuel here?
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The verse tells us it is future meaning[/FONT][FONT=&quot] coming yet[/FONT][FONT=&quot], while the chapter 8 the child there was brought out and exist already in Isaiah 8:3 it says[/FONT]

No it doesn't. In Isaiah he is speaking about a child that has already been born not that he (will be born). Scholars and theologians argue whether this child was Maher-shalal-hash-baz, second son to Isaiah or Hezekiah, Ahaz's legitimate son. I can understand why some believe it could be Hezekiah because his name literally means ("power of God"). I reject that it is speaking of Hezekiah. Even though Hezekiah means ("power of God") it does not mean (El Gibbor - Mighty God). To me the verse, taken from the CJB is talking about "God" calling this child (prince of peace) because the birth of the child brings peace to Judah.

[FONT=&quot] And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.


Lione D' ea: That is the difference between the two passages because in chapter 9:6 which is the son refer to chapter 7:14 is coming yet to called His name, while in chapter 8:3 He exist there already. And what is the concern in this pasages to Christ in chapter 8:16 Read:

"Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." (New American Standard Bible)[/FONT]

Contextually you can't do this. You can't say 7:14 and 9:6 are linked without giving an exegetical reason why 8:3 is not. Contextually 9:6 is talking about 8:3 and 8:3 is talking about 7:14.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lione D' ea: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not mean if Isaiah was a prophet then his wife was a prophet also if you may brother, can you show 1 verse to testify Isaiah's wife is a prophetess?[/FONT]

It does mean she was the prophetess. I gave you the link to the commentary. See Isaiah 8:1-3. "The Lord" is speaking to Isaiah and told him to write the name (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) on a tablet. After Isaiah was intimate with his wife he was instructed to name the child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz). So YES, this is the second son to Isaiah and the "prophetess" spoken of was his wife. This is why they are important to the prophecy given at 7:14 and why he says what he says at 8:18 and why 9:6 is past tense talking about this child.

[FONT=&quot]The verse said it is the son of prophetess, didn't state there the son of prophet nor the son of Isaiah.[/FONT]

Then tell us who you think is the prophetess??

[FONT=&quot]Lione D' ea: It is not Isaiah, but who that might be the Lord conversing with, in Isaiah 7:10?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Lione D' ea: It is Ahaz[/FONT]

And you're wrong. Ahaz was not a prophet. He didn't even believe in the Jewish god. He was a non-believer. So he couldn't have been a prophet. "God" was speaking to Isaiah only and Isaiah was the one delivering the prophecy (e.g. he was the prophet) not Ahaz. You simply don't know anything about the book of Isaiah.

[FONT=&quot]Lione D' ea: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wherefore he is not the Immanuel because the child mentioning in passages( Chapter7, 8, 9) is not only [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Maher-shalal-hash-baz, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]if you forced [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Immanuel, why in Isaiah 7:16 says there [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he dread this the two kings[/FONT][FONT=&quot], whereas in Isaiah 8:6 states he rejoiced this two head? [/FONT]

There is no ("he") being referenced there. it says

"land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

This is in reference to King Ahaz and the people of Judah.


"Since this people has rejected the waters of the Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah."

This is in reference to the people of the two neighboring cities at war with Judah. The son of Remaliah was Pekah (King of Israel) and Rezin was king of Aram (Syria).

Your understanding of Isaiah is very poor. All of the war and context is displayed throughout the books of Chronicles, Kings and Isaiah and nothing to do with Yeshua.

 

[Shermana]

DP, I'm gonna just add: I don't think there'd be any point in saying "Behold I send you a sign, a young woman will be with child". A young woman being with child is not a sign. A virgin with child would be a sign. I do believe that the Masoretic text altered the original word as a reaction to the Christian movement. I'll just leave it at that for now.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

DP, I'm gonna just add: I don't think there'd be any point in saying "Behold I send you a sign, a young woman will be with child". A young woman being with child is not a sign. A virgin with child would be a sign. I do believe that the Masoretic text altered the original word as a reaction to the Christian movement. I'll just leave it at that for now.

I kinda see your point. Looking at the text and the context of Isaiah in lieu of the books of Chronicles and Kings I can't see that any of it has to do with a virgin birth. This seems to be the issue when rendered into Greek then into English. The nuance of the Hebrew language seems to get lost. I'm having trouble understanding why christians jump to the conclusion based on the writer of Matthew that Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 point to Yeshua but ignore 8:1-4. It's my position that 8:1-4 is just as much important to the prophecy and in context connects 7:14 and 9:6.

The other issue I'm having is the total lack of knowledge LioneDea has displayed concerning the history written. 8:1-3 is most definitely talking about Isaiah and his wife yet he disagrees. Isaiah's wife is considered to be the prophetess mentioned yet he disagrees.

 

[LioneDea]

The verse did not say she (WAS) a virgin or it would have use a different word. In the CJB it's rendered as "young woman" not virgin where as other areas of the Tanakh use the actual word for virgin (bethula). The KJV, as I have shown plenty of times, is bias in their translation because the only time it uses virgin to denote a chaste woman is at Isaiah 7:14. Other areas in the KJV use the word to mean something else. In that I would say the CJB, because it it not rendered from the Septuagint Greek, is a better translation.
[FONT=&quot]

Lione D' ea: Proverbs 30:6 let us read:

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Yes indeed the verse of the TCJB did not tells she is a virgin, but you cannot say that young woman mention in 7:14 is not a virgin, that is why I need your evidence what is your proof why she is not a virgin?

[/FONT]

As I have shown the prophecy was one that Ahaz and his kingdom (Judah) would see in their day and time. Chapter 8 and 9 corroborate that. No other child throughout Isaiah is said to have been born. There is no reason why it should mention at 8:3 Isaiah's wife conceiving a son and giving birth to a son if that son was not part of or important to the prophecy at 7:14. This one is because the prophecy is about him.

Lione D' ea: In your previous you answer to me brother chapter 7:14 you cited is exclusive only for Ahaz and Judah, the correct which we speak concern that passage is through the child which God give as a sign to them Ahaz and Judah will include there in that sign, whether Ahaz and Judah shall be called the children for signs in chapter 8:18 it say's:

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The verse tells us including Ahaz not Isaiah brother because the speaker here was Ahaz which the Lord spoke to him. So you are wrong in that statement brother which you said the chapter 7:14 is for Ahaz and the Judah only, If the child which is the sign given by god will not give to them, they will not the children for signs. Remember according in chapter 9:5 that child will reign and seat upon the throne of David, this is a prophecy for future about the passage of chapter 8:3 the child there was exist, while in chapter 9:5 the son given into them is coming yet meaning it is future let us read the context:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called...? (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Did you see the word shall meaning it is future. the child mention in chapter 8:3 was exist there, the child was given name already it says:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name...?


Lione D' ea: So he does not Immanuel because he was given a name there already. Concern to Isaiah the child is his son is not, because in chapter 8:1 Isaiah is not who speak here it says:

"Moreover the LORD said unto me,"

Lione D' ea: Who speaks it in in chapter 7:10 read:

The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not Isaiah who speak here also in chapter 8:18, it is Ahaz that is my answer.

No more than you can show that Yeshua was to be called "Immanuel". Yeshua wasn't. The angel told his mother to call him Yeshua and not Immanuel. The difference is the context of Isaiah 7, 8, and 9 is consistent that a child would be born in that day and time and had been born and it was the second son of Isaiah. He was the sign Immanuel (God was with them).


Yeshayahu - Chapter 8 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
And it will penetrate into Judah, overflowing as it passes through, up to the neck it will reach; and the tips of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.

Lione D' ea: Let us read if we can read second child of Isaiah in Isaiah 8:1-3 it say's:

And the Lord said to me, "Take for yourself a large scroll, and write on it in common script, to hasten loot, speed the spoils.

2. And I will call to testify for Myself trustworthy witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah."

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. (TCJB)


Lione D' ea: The verse did not state you a second son, how you people conclude it was a second son which it is not written in there in the context...the verse state a son. Why I believe the prophecy written in chapter 7:14, 8:5..., 9:6-7 is concern to Christ, what is the difference between the passages, Matthew 1:20-23 Read:

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


Lione D' ea: It is not Maria who order by the angel of the Lord to call the child as Jesus it was Joseph according in the scripture, and the angel testify through written of the prophet He is the Emmanuel because the angel in that event has pointing on child, none other child there he was pointing at in that place only the child of Maria, on the other hand the differences between Isaiah 8:1-3 to Matthew 1:20-23 the child in this passage was the name of Jesus was interpreted there than in Isaiah 8:1-3 the name of Maher-salalhash-baz was not interpret there as God with us.

This is speaking of the King of Assyria and his army that's all. The "Immanuel" at the end isn't a name. It's an expression. Who is Immanuel here?
[FONT=&quot]

Lione D' ea: Who is He let us read in Isaiah 9:6-7 it say's:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upond his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (English Standard Version)


Lione D' ea: He is God, He was not exist here already because it is future meaning coming yet that is my answer.

[/FONT]


No it doesn't. In Isaiah he is speaking about a child that has already been born not that he (will be born). Scholars and theologians argue whether this child was Maher-shalal-hash-baz, second son to Isaiah or Hezekiah, Ahaz's legitimate son. I can understand why some believe it could be Hezekiah because his name literally means ("power of God"). I reject that it is speaking of Hezekiah. Even though Hezekiah means ("power of God") it does not mean (El Gibbor - Mighty God). To me the verse, taken from the CJB is talking about "God" calling this child (prince of peace) because the birth of the child brings peace to Judah.

Lione D' ea: Wrong, because how you to say he was born there already that the scripture says, his name shall be called how is that happened he exist there already, do you have any in formation we can read in Bible about Him, which He exist and was reign there already as your implying, and is He a God which was made a flesh?

Contextually you can't do this. You can't say 7:14 and 9:6 are linked without giving an exegetical reason why 8:3 is not. Contextually 9:6 is talking about 8:3 and 8:3 is talking about 7:14.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

It does mean she was the prophetess. I gave you the link to the commentary. See Isaiah 8:1-3. "The Lord" is speaking to Isaiah and told him to write the name (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) on a tablet. After Isaiah was intimate with his wife he was instructed to name the child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz). So YES, this is the second son to Isaiah and the "prophetess" spoken of was his wife. This is why they are important to the prophecy given at 7:14 and why he says what he says at 8:18 and why 9:6 is past tense talking about this child.

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 7:14 is he Isaiah who speak in this verse, let us read:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: Who speaker in this passage in verse 10 Read:

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: To prove it was Ahaz who speak in Isaiah 8:1 it say's:


Then the LORD said to me,

Lione D' ea: Who is ME, in verse 5 Read?

The LORD spoke to me again:

Lione D' ea: It is Ahaz not Isaiah and how come the son become second where did you read there the term second?

Continue..

 

[LioneDea]

Then tell us who you think is the prophetess??

Lione D' ea: Let us ask in the Bible who is this prophetess?

And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; (Isaiah 8:3 of English Standard Version)


Lione D' ea: It say's there Prophetess, the verse didn't tell her name, and she is not the only prophetess mention in whole Bible. Proverb 30:6 Read:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Be discipline in reading the Bible brother.

And you're wrong. Ahaz was not a prophet. He didn't even believe in the Jewish god. He was a non-believer. So he couldn't have been a prophet. "God" was speaking to Isaiah only and Isaiah was the one delivering the prophecy (e.g. he was the prophet) not Ahaz. You simply don't know anything about the book of Isaiah.

Lione D' ea: Do you think it was Isaiah which God spoke him in chapter 7:10?


There is no ("he") being referenced there. it says

"land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."


Lione D' ea: Then it is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz denote it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

By Isaiah calling his wife 'the prophetess' would indicate that she was more than just the wife of a prophet.
Possibly more like Deborah or Hudah, Isaiah's wife had her own prophetic assignment from God.

Isaiah 8 vs 1-4, 18

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: Yes indeed the verse of the TCJB did not tells she is a virgin, but you cannot say that young woman mention in 7:14 is not a virgin

And you can't say that she is a virgin. The fact of the matter is the CJB and various Christian bibles render the verse showing the young woman is already pregnant. I, unlike you, do not base my understanding of the Tanakh solely on the scriptures rendered from the Septuagint (i.e. KJV, NIV etc.)

CJB
the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Common English Bible
The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel

RSV
the young woman is with child and shall bear a son

ERV
The young woman is pregnant and will give birth to a son.

GNT
a young woman who is pregnant will have a son

All of these Christian versions of the bible, and I suspect there are more out there, are in line with the CJB.

"WHAT'S IN A NAME?" (John H. Walton) Page 290.
The hebrew word being used there is (hara) and it's an adjective functioning as a predicate adjective in a verbless clause. Verbless clauses in Hebrew are typically rendered in the ("present") or ("past tense"). The choice to be determined by its tense is due to the surrounding finite verbs. Now the Hebrew participle (and bear a son) rendered conveys action in progress or about to begin. This give the verbless clause a ("present") context.

whether Ahaz and Judah shall be called the children for signs in chapter 8:18 it say's:

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The verse tells us including Ahaz not Isaiah brother because the speaker here was Ahaz which the Lord spoke to him.

Wrong. This is not "The Lord" speaking to Ahaz. It is incredible how much of Isaiah you don't know. The fact of the matter is this is all elementary and uncontested by any scholar I've read. Find me a scholar or theologian that says from 7:14 through chapter 8 it's the Lord speaking to Ahaz and not Isaiah delivering the message to Ahaz from "God".

So you are wrong in that statement brother which you said the chapter 7:14 is for Ahaz and the Judah only

This has become frustrating because it is without a doubt a prophecy told by Isaiah to Ahaz and the people of Judah. I have given you commentary and links to historical events to substantiate what I've been saying. This is about a war that you can go and read in the books of 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings.

If the child which is the sign given by god will not give to them, they will not the children for signs. Remember according in chapter 9:5 that child will reign and seat upon the throne of David, this is a prophecy for future about the passage of chapter 8:3 the child there was exist, while in chapter 9:5 the son given into them is coming yet meaning it is future let us read the context:

And this is why many scholars designate this to Hezekiah. Chapter 9 is STILL talking about the the war. It's not a prophecy about Yeshua unless you are prepared to throw out Isaiah 9:1-4 and 7-20 for the sake of holding on to your belief that 9:5-6 is talking about Yeshua. If you think that then how do you reconcile ALL of chapter 9 for Yeshua? I suspect you can't because nothing in chapter 9 fits Yeshua.

"Moreover the LORD said unto me,"

Lione D' ea: Who speaks it in in chapter 7:10 read:

The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, (King James Version)

It is "The Lord" speaking through Isaiah and Isaiah is delivering the prophecy to Ahaz. This is shared by Jews and Christians alike. I have never heard anyone say that this is solely "The Lord" speaking to Ahaz. I have presented plenty of evidence to substantiate this.

Lione D' ea: Let us read if we can read second child of Isaiah in Isaiah 8:1-3 it say's:


And the Lord said to me, "Take for yourself a large scroll, and write on it in common script, to hasten loot, speed the spoils.

Yep, and this has nothing to do with Yeshua but everything to do with the son that is born to Isaiah and his wife (the prophetess).

2. And I will call to testify for Myself trustworthy witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah."

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. (TCJB)


Lione D' ea: The verse did not state you a second son, how you people conclude it was a second son which it is not written in there in the context...the verse state a son. Why I believe the prophecy written in chapter 7:14, 8:5..., 9:6-7 is concern to Christ, what is the difference between the passages, Matthew 1:20-23 Read:

So who was the "prophetess" in your opinion because when you do that you ignore 8:1-3 which has nothing to do with Yeshua but you conveniently pick and choose the verses that fit your preconceived notion. The fact of the matter is this is the son born to Isaiah and his wife. YOU'RE the only one that contests this and unfortunately for you you're wrong.

Lione D' ea: Who is He let us read in Isaiah 9:6-7 it say's:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upond his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (English Standard Version)

Whereas the CJB says.....

"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."

This child was already born.

Lione D' ea: Wrong, because how you to say he was born there already that the scripture says, his name shall be called how is that happened he exist there already, do you have any in formation we can read in Bible about Him, which He exist and was reign there already as your implying, and is He a God which was made a flesh?

Because I'm not reading bias translations like you are. The CJB disagrees with your renderings.

Lione D' ea: To prove it was Ahaz who speak in Isaiah 8:1 it say's:


Then the LORD said to me,

Lione D' ea: Who is ME, in verse 5 Read?

The LORD spoke to me again:

Lione D' ea: It is Ahaz not Isaiah and how come the son become second where did you read there the term second?

Incredible..simply incredible how much you don't know. Look, Here is a bible commentary that breaks down chapter 8 and it identifies who's talking and it's not the "Lord" talking to Ahaz. It is the "Lord" using Isaiah to deliver the message to Ahaz.

Isaiah 8 Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"In Isaiah 7 the prophet had told Ahaz that God would give him a sign that the lad of Judah should be safe from the threatened invasion of the united armies of Syria and Israel. In this chapter Isaiah 8, there is a record of the primary fulfillment of that promise, Isaiah 8:1-4. From Isaiah 8:5 to Isaiah 8:8, the prophet resumes and repeats what he had said before in Isaiah 7:17-25, that although the land should be safe from this invasion, yet one more formidable would occur by the armies of Assyria. The cause of this is stated to be, that Judah had despised the Lord, and had sought alliances with Syria and Israel. The prophet then proceeds to exhort the people to put confidence in Yahweh - assuring them that if they refused to confide in him, they must expect to be destroyed, Isaiah 8:9-18; and the chapter concludes with denouncing punishment on those that looked to necromancers and diviners, rather than to the true God. The prophecy is intimately connected with that in the previous chapter; and was delivered, evidently, not far from the same time. "


I've already addressed the second part of your post.

 

[look3467]

Citing: Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That is a virgin birth, for the vessel (Adam) could not conceive by its self but by the breath of God. (Adam was virgin birth)

That is a spiritual rendering of the creation of mankind.

Two things needed 1. Vessel (earthly) and 2. breath of life.(Spiritually)

"After its own kind"...is all earthly. "Multiply and replenish the earth".

Why would Jesus than have to be "Virgin birth"?

Simple. If in Adam, born of God, was lost in the creation process means that in order for God to save mankind (His creation) God would have to again create a "new Adam" from the old Adam (Vessel) with the breath of God, (Gods spirit).

This new Adam would not be lost, as did the first because Jesus would be the source for , not a physical creation, but of a spiritual creation.

By rebirth of the old into a new spiritual "Man".

That is how it all works with no other way for us to gain life after this one.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Trying to argue the virgin birth strictly from a human point of view would make it hard to believe, being that Christians regard Jesus as born of a virgin.

That is why one has to have a spiritual understanding of the words written in scripture.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Trying to argue the virgin birth strictly from a human point of view would make it hard to believe, being that Christians regard Jesus as born of a virgin.

That is why one has to have a spiritual understanding of the words written in scripture.

Blessings, AJ

Fortunately "spiritual understanding" has no bearing on whether one can understand the language being used, the context in which it's being used or the belief of the people at that time.