Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Shermana]

Confirmation bias applies to everyone. I don't think anyone is truly free from it.

The difference is, is who's confirmation bias is the most accurate and takes the most facts into account, and who's confirmation bias is based on a willingness to distort, overlook, ignore, deny, and read into what's not there of those facts.

 

[sincerly]

And it doesn't help the Christian cause, in day and age, when they continually mistranslated almah with "virgin". Matthew wrongly used virgin because he was using the Septuagint. The word almah should be translated to "girl" or "young woman". The word betulah or "virgin" is never used in any part of chapter 7.

And that, my friend, is the confirmation bias, as you call it, coming from Matthew and from the Christian interpretation.

Note, that not all Christians interpret the prophecy of 7:14 the same way. Green Kepi in post 6 - for example - had correctly interpret the chapter 7, as well as almah doesn't mean "virgin".

Gnostic, Matt.1:23 uses the Greek="parthenos" which has this meaning----"
1) a virgin
a) a marriageable maiden
b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
c) one's marriageable daughter

That is consistant with Mary's statement (Luke 1:34) to Gabriel, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
And to Matt.1:24-25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. "

"Almah"=Hebrew is found 7 times in the KJV. has these meanings---
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married

Therefore, let's see those seven times. Translated=virgin 4, maid 2, damsels 1
Gen.24:43; Ex.2:8; Ps.2:8; 68:25; Prov.30:19; SgS. 1:3; 6:8; Isa.7:14
There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

That cannot be said of "the prophetess". Therefore, 7:14 and 8:3 are NOT referring to the same same events/persons.

 

[Shermana]

Should I get into how most scholars view the account in Luke to be totally interpolated as well?

It may be related to how the Ebionite version of Matthew started at Chapter 3.

 

[sincerly]

Confirmation bias applies to everyone. I don't think anyone is truly free from it.

The difference is, is who's confirmation bias is the most accurate and takes the most facts into account, and who's confirmation bias is based on a willingness to distort, overlook, ignore, deny, and read into what's not there of those facts.

The Scriptures have acknowledged that A Redeemer would come and be "slain from before the Foundation of the world" and that was scripturally fulfilled. It is those who continue the deny the Facts who use that "confirmational bias".

 

[sincerly]

Should I get into how most scholars view the account in Luke to be totally interpolated as well?

It may be related to how the Ebionite version of Matthew started at Chapter 3.

Most of the world's population today "don't Believe in a creator GOD."
"Scholars" may be your "informational source", But I'll still take the scriptures as truth. There is a lot of "interpolated"/inserted opinions in the "theories of those "most scholars"".

 

[Desert Snake]

The Scriptures have acknowledged that A Redeemer would come and be "slain from before the Foundation of the world" and that was scripturally fulfilled. It is those who continue the deny the Facts who use that "confirmational bias".

That's probably the main difference in interpretation, right there, it's also why I don't willy nillly accept all Xian interpretation of Messianic scripture

 

[Shermana]

Most of the world's population today "don't Believe in a creator GOD."
"Scholars" may be your "informational source", But I'll still take the scriptures as truth. There is a lot of "interpolated"/inserted opinions in the "theories of those "most scholars"".

A willful disregard for the evidence and professional opinion is not substituted by a claim that scholars don't believe in God.

I don't agree with everything every scholar says, or even every majority opinion by scholars, but I at least try to argue with something substantial.

 

[Shermana]

The Scriptures have acknowledged that A Redeemer would come and be "slain from before the Foundation of the world" and that was scripturally fulfilled. It is those who continue the deny the Facts who use that "confirmational bias".

Please present where in the recognized OT it says this. If you're talking about Isaiah 53:10 and Zechariah 12:10, that's quite a bit different.

 

[sincerly]

I think that's why Christians fight so hard for their way as being the truth. They don't trust us to be moral, caring and loving people without them. But we and they haven't been that good with him.

Hi CG D, There are True Christians and then there are "professing christians" who talk some of the talk(milk of the word), but do not walk the walk(The meat of the word).
As Paul wrote to 2Tim.3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."
Since only eight persons were spared at the time of Noah and three at the destruction of Sodom, when will GOD declare "Time shall be no more?"
When will that last person declare for or against HIS plan of salvation.?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by disciple
it really doesn't matter what religion someone follows as long as they aren't using confirmation bias to reach their conclusions....

I think that's the point gnosis is trying to make.

Christians are more than willing to overlook an entire chapter of Isaiah except for the single verse that seems to validate their beliefs, even going so far as to mistranslate that particular verse in order to do so.

Jews are more likely to read the words of their prophets in their own context, rather than work off the starting assumption that it has anything to do with Jesus. They're also more likely to know the language Isaiah wrote in (Hebrew).

Hi PS, This post of yours is a great example of the "confirmational bias" Disciple was stressing.



Case "confirmed".

When I said "in their own context", I meant the words' own context, not in the Jews' own context.

Reading what's written and relating it to the context of the passage is not confirmation bias.

Rejecting that context because it doesn't conform to your beliefs... that's confirmation bias.

 

[sincerly]

A willful disregard for the evidence and professional opinion is not substituted by a claim that scholars don't believe in God.

I don't agree with everything every scholar says, or even every majority opinion by scholars, but I at least try to argue with something substantial.

I see! Man's opinions takes precedence over GOD'S Word.?
And Man's word is more "substantial" than GOD'S?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Gnostic, Matt.1:23 uses the Greek="parthenos" which has this meaning----"
1) a virgin
a) a marriageable maiden
b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
c) one's marriageable daughter

That is consistant with Mary's statement (Luke 1:34) to Gabriel, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
And to Matt.1:24-25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. "

"Almah"=Hebrew is found 7 times in the KJV. has these meanings---
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married

Therefore, let's see those seven times. Translated=virgin 4, maid 2, damsels 1
Gen.24:43; Ex.2:8; Ps.2:8; 68:25; Prov.30:19; SgS. 1:3; 6:8; Isa.7:14
There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

That cannot be said of "the prophetess". Therefore, 7:14 and 8:3 are NOT referring to the same same events/persons.

The fact that the woman in Isaiah 7 was already pregnant makes your entire post completely irrelevant.

 

[Shermana]

I see! Man's opinions takes precedence over GOD'S Word.?
And Man's word is more "substantial" than GOD'S?

There you go again, you just automatically assume that the current version of the Bible is GOD's word, discarding any opinion of man, as if the opinion of men who compiled the current version is somehow God's guiding hand.

With such a mentality, how is rational debate even possible?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
The Scriptures have acknowledged that A Redeemer would come and be "slain from before the Foundation of the world" and that was scripturally fulfilled. It is those who continue the deny the Facts who use that "confirmational bias".

Please present where in the recognized OT it says this. If you're talking about Isaiah 53:10 and Zechariah 12:10, that's quite a bit different.

Hi Shermana, God said a Redeemer would come in that speaking to Adam, Eve, and the Serpent after they had disobeyed. Gen.3:15. That Redeemer was symbolically shown in the immediate sacrifice of the animal in "clothing Adam and Eve" (3:21) Both 1Peter 1:17-21 and Rev.13:8 acknowledge that Redeemer was planned "before the foundation of the world".
JOB(19:25), also, acknowledged that he was looking for that promised Redeemer.
The "seed of the woman" isn't an animal, but human. All those Animal sacrifices slaughtered from that first one in the Garden of Eden were only symbolically given to represent Jesus as "Joseph was told"---"HE shall save HIS people from their sins and be GOD WITH US".
Abraham and Isaac, also, with the "fiery serpent represented that fact as well.
And, YES, Isa.53:1-12 and Zech.12:10 does prophesy that treatment Jesus would endure while here on earth.----and Fulfilled.
For starters.

 

[sincerly]

The fact that the woman in Isaiah 7 was already pregnant makes your entire post completely irrelevant.

PS, "shall conceive and bear a son" is future. And the Holy Spirit said it applied to Mary.

 

[sincerly]

There you go again, you just automatically assume that the current version of the Bible is GOD's word, discarding any opinion of man, as if the opinion of men who compiled the current version is somehow God's guiding hand.

With such a mentality, how is rational debate even possible?

Hi Shermana, I believe that the OT was inspired by the HOLY SPIRIT and that the compilation of the Scriptures into one "Book" was guided and guarded by HIM.
Those same scriptures clearly state that (Jer.17:9), "The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? "
And you want me to trust in what man states rather than GOD?

This promise is worth believing.(John 16:13), "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, God said a Redeemer would come in that speaking to Adam, Eve, and the Serpent after they had disobeyed. Gen.3:15.

By all means, show how "And he will bruise his head" is specifically talking about a redeemer. Thanks. Because of course, Christians never read anything into the text that's not explicitly there or anything, right? It can't just be talking about how man will symbolically or literally fight with the serpent or anything of course.

I really can't stand when Genesis 3:15 is used as a proof text of the Messiah. Not even the Gospels dare go there.

That Redeemer was symbolically shown in the immediate sacrifice of the animal in "clothing Adam and Eve" (3:21) Both 1Peter 1:17-21 and Rev.13:8 acknowledge that Redeemer was planned "before the foundation of the world".
JOB(19:25), also, acknowledged that he was looking for that promised Redeemer.
The "seed of the woman" isn't an animal, but human. All those Animal sacrifices slaughtered from that first one in the Garden of Eden were only symbolically given to represent Jesus as "Joseph was told"---"HE shall save HIS people from their sins and be GOD WITH US".
Abraham and Isaac, also, with the "fiery serpent represented that fact as well.
And, YES, Isa.53:1-12 and Zech.12:10 does prophesy that treatment Jesus would endure while here on earth.----and Fulfilled.
For starters.

For a second there I thought you were going to actually present a Tanakh scripture that said something about a redeemer who was "Slain before the Foundation of the world".

And the name Immanuel is "God is with us", not "God with us" as certain Trintiarian Translations' wishful thinking would imply.

 

[Shermana]

PS, "shall conceive and bear a son" is future. And the Holy Spirit said it applied to Mary.

It actually says "Is conceiving" and "is bringing forth", present tense. I can see why Traditionalist translations would want to distort the tense to future though. How convenient.

Young's Literal Translation
Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

 

[Poisonshady313]

PS, "shall conceive and bear a son" is future.

BBE
For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.

CEB
Therefore, the Lord will give you a sign. The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel.

Good News Translation
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him "Immanuel.'

New Revised Standard
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

These actually represent what the Hebrew says.

 

[gnostic]

Here is translation from Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1985:

14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

I think that modern English translation should convey the most accurate context of every passages as possible.

Although, KJV was a very milestone in translation and somewhat beautiful in style, it is also outdated.

It is still important as literary achievement for that time, and for comparison to other translations, I would prefer to read more modern translations, like JPS-1985 edition, which is not only widely recognised by modern Jewish readers and scholars, but also by Christians and non-religious academics.

Both KJV and JPS-1985 used the Masoretic Text (MT) as the main source, while the KJV often supplemented with the Greek Septuagint, especially when the gospels quoted from the OT, instead of using the same quotes (found in the NT) from Hebrew MT.

I don't know why the KJV would use Septuagint when translating Isaiah 7:14, and not when the Masoretic Text was available, since KJV was using the MT as the main source for its translation. If I was the one doing the translating, I would only use different source (Septuagint) if the passages weren't available in my main source (Masoretic), eg missing line due fragment.