Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Desert Snake]

Or, there's the possibility that the "new testament" was written either by someone who was only vaguely familiar with the "old testament", or it was written for an audience that wasn't expected to know any better.

This in and of itself would not convince me that Jesus was not the Messiah

 

[Desert Snake]

By what standard are they well trusted? If it's merely because they agree with you, then that's not a very good reason. If it's because they're familiar with the source language, then it's a very good reason.

That's not always the case either. People translating "straight" out of scripture have interpreted many questionable things using their knowledge of language, but lacking in other sound methodology for finding the actual meaning of terms. Look at the difference in interpretation between many churches, they're all reading the same text.

 

[Shermana]

Or, there's the possibility that the "new testament" was written either by someone who was only vaguely familiar with the "old testament", or it was written for an audience that wasn't expected to know any better.

Or it was redacted and edited later by those who had only a vague familiarity and a different agenda to push.

 

[gnostic]

Because very few people here can read Hebrew,

and if the translation is correct it usually doesn't matter.

Both are true.

However, how do you determine which English translation/s is/are true?

Sometimes, the only way to discover which meaning of translated passage is true, is to read the surrounding text, and how they relate to the whole chapter or whole section (of a chapter). What I mean, for example, "to get the whole picture", so to speak.

CG Didymus gave us the scope in this chapter, of how Matthew had taken chapter 7 out of context; this mean how Matthew 1:23 was used by the author, quoting from the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, had resulted in misinterpretation by Matthew himself (or whoever wrote this gospel) and by the Christians themselves.

Matthew had twisted the meaning of Isaiah 7:14, to mean something else entirely: eg the virgin being identified with "Mary", and her son Immanuel identified with "Jesus", the supposed messiah. Matthew's interpretation is wrong, especially when you considered the entire 7:14-17 passage together, and Matthew either clearly didn't understand the whole sign or he had deliberately ignore the whole message to promote Jesus being the messiah (hence, propaganda).

(The later scenario is most likely true.) Either way, Matthew had changed the meaning of chapter 7.

Speaking of which, merely reading the scripture in it's original language is no guarantee to a correct interpretation, in fact it can be quite the opposite, as words can have different meanings but not be readily different when appearing in texts.

That could be true as well...but in the case with Matthew's claim of identiies of Isaiah's 7:14 sign, Matthew is wrong, and Christians who blindly accept Matthew's interpretation to be wrong. I agreed with CG Didymus' premise that Matthew had taken Isaiah's verse out of context.

IMO it's best to find a well trusted expert and go by their guidelines on interpretation,.

Sure, there are experts on both sides - Christians and Jews - and even from non-religious scholars, who are experts in ancient literature, historians and anthropologists.

The thing is, that the Jews (Rabbinic Jews) have explored every (or almost every) passage in their scriptures (Tanakh - Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim), as well as supplementary Rabbinic literature, codified of the Oral Torah and commentaries/interpretations (Talmud, Mishnah, Gemara), exegesis (Midrash).

With these literature, it helped to explain various possible interpretations found in the Hebrew scriptures. It helped us get the Jewish perspective on the Hebrew scriptures or OT.

 

[Desert Snake]

The thing is, that the Jews (Rabbinic Jews) have explored every (or almost every) passage in their scriptures (Tanakh - Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim), as well as supplementary Rabbinic literature, codified of the Oral Torah and commentaries/interpretations (Talmud, Mishnah, Gemara), exegesis (Midrash).

Of course, which is why I pretty much exclusively use those as reference when checking for meanings/definitions in scripture. That being said there are excellent Christian scholars on these subjects also, no reason to have an intellectual bias there.

 

[gnostic]

Of course, which is why I pretty much exclusively use those as reference when checking for meanings/definitions in scripture. That being said there are excellent Christian scholars on these subjects also, no reason to have an intellectual bias there.

I used to believe in the Christian interpretation, because they were the only ones I know of. But I now know that many of my preconceptions that were based on Christian to question them.

I am finding my own interpretation of the bible to be more and more in agreement with Jewish interpretation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Both are true.

However, how do you determine which English translation/s is/are true?

Sometimes, the only way to discover which meaning of translated passage is true, is to read the surrounding text, and how they relate to the whole chapter or whole section (of a chapter). What I mean, for example, "to get the whole picture", so to speak.

Sure, but that includes analytical surmising also, not just written text

Matthew had twisted the meaning of Isaiah 7:14, to mean something else entirely: eg the virgin being identified with "Mary", and her son Immanuel identified with "Jesus", the supposed messiah. Matthew's interpretation is wrong, especially when you considered the entire 7:14-17 passage together, and Matthew either clearly didn't understand the whole sign or he had deliberately ignore the whole message to promote Jesus being the messiah (hence, propaganda).

(The later scenario is most likely true.) Either way, Matthew had changed the meaning of chapter 7.

Perhaps. I'm not completely convinced of that.

 

[sincerly]

Both are true.

However, how do you determine which English translation/s is/are true?

Sometimes, the only way to discover which meaning of translated passage is true, is to read the surrounding text, and how they relate to the whole chapter or whole section (of a chapter). What I mean, for example, "to get the whole picture", so to speak.

Hi Gnostic, Yes, but the "whole picture" isn't just from one prophet or from just the context of one verse. The plan of Salvation is from the Fall of Mankind to the restoration of all things in Revelation.
I had answered this post (mostly) and then lost it. I'll try to redo my answer tomorrow.

 

[Poisonshady313]

That's not always the case either. People translating "straight" out of scripture have interpreted many questionable things using their knowledge of language, but lacking in other sound methodology for finding the actual meaning of terms.

What you describe here sounds like people using a strong's concordance to translate Hebrew, not realizing that it deals only in root words, and doesn't account for grammar, context, idioms, etc.

People who actually know Hebrew, however, possess that sound methodology for finding the actual meaning of terms. They know the structure of the language... they know the metaphors and the expressions... they can read the context and understand the story, rather than getting hung up on a single word.

 

[Desert Snake]

What you describe here sounds like people using a strong's concordance to translate Hebrew, not realizing that it deals only in root words, and doesn't account for grammar, context, idioms, etc.

People who actually know Hebrew, however, possess that sound methodology for finding the actual meaning of terms. They know the structure of the language... they know the metaphors and the expressions... they can read the context and understand the story, rather than getting hung up on a single word.

Sure, theoretically.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

People who actually know Hebrew, however, possess that sound methodology for finding the actual meaning of terms. They know the structure of the language... they know the metaphors and the expressions... they can read the context and understand the story, rather than getting hung up on a single word.

True, but with important caveats. So, for example, I own not one but two books on "The meaning of biblical chesed".

People who 'know' Hebrew know, for the most part, a recovered language. Sanra's JPS is littered with the cautionary note: Heb. meaning uncertain. And we can only pretend to know the word meaning and the idiom and the metaphor in play two and a half millennia ago.

 

[sincerly]

True, but with important caveats. So, for example, I own not one but two books on "The meaning of biblical chesed".

People who 'know' Hebrew know, for the most part, a recovered language. Sanra's JPS is littered with the cautionary note: Heb. meaning uncertain. And we can only pretend to know the word meaning and the idiom and the metaphor in play two and a half millennia ago.

Thank you, jayhawker, for acknowledging that fact.
True, While GOD is the epitome of LOVE, HIS Righteousness will not allow any unrighteousness to prevail. Therefore, wickedness/evil will end in total destruction as the Scriptures have proclaimed.

 

[sincerly]

(Continuing with the "big picture.)

CG Didymus gave us the scope in this chapter, of how Matthew had taken chapter 7 out of context; this mean how Matthew 1:23 was used by the author, quoting from the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, had resulted in misinterpretation by Matthew himself (or whoever wrote this gospel) and by the Christians themselves.

Matthew had twisted the meaning of Isaiah 7:14, to mean something else entirely: eg the virgin being identified with "Mary", and her son Immanuel identified with "Jesus", the supposed messiah. Matthew's interpretation is wrong, especially when you considered the entire 7:14-17 passage together, and Matthew either clearly didn't understand the whole sign or he had deliberately ignore the whole message to promote Jesus being the messiah (hence, propaganda).

(The later scenario is most likely true.) Either way, Matthew had changed the meaning of chapter 7.

Yes, CG D, did give opinions concerning that which has "seemed to fit with his understanding" , however, that isn't what the "Big picture of the salvation of mankind is showing from Genesis to Revelation."
The arguments of "bits and pieces" only leads to more confusion and interpretations which only play into the hands of the adversary. Even the tribes of Israel/Jacob, eventually, were split from each other.
The good news is that out of all the confusion---The Scriptures declare: a Remnant will be saved. And 2Pet.1:10 has this admonition for all true seekers, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: "

That could be true as well...but in the case with Matthew's claim of identiies of Isaiah's 7:14 sign, Matthew is wrong, and Christians who blindly accept Matthew's interpretation to be wrong. I agreed with CG Didymus' premise that Matthew had taken Isaiah's verse out of context.

Scripturally speaking, I choose to believe the Messanger from the LORD GOD rather than any "premise" assumed by man. Matthew only wrote what he personally had witnessed and that which was from others who had the experience or witnesses of the events.

Sure, there are experts on both sides - Christians and Jews - and even from non-religious scholars, who are experts in ancient literature, historians and anthropologists.

The thing is, that the Jews (Rabbinic Jews) have explored every (or almost every) passage in their scriptures (Tanakh - Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim), as well as supplementary Rabbinic literature, codified of the Oral Torah and commentaries/interpretations (Talmud, Mishnah, Gemara), exegesis (Midrash).

Gnostic, "Experts"?, No one can be persuaded against that which one wants to believe. Also, "experts" are fallible just as well---"Bias" shows up in all peoples. Those Leaders of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus Christ were shown to be corrupt in practices of life and Temple.
And preferences by the people were no different than is seen in all societies of today.

With these literature, it helped to explain various possible interpretations found in the Hebrew scriptures. It helped us get the Jewish perspective on the Hebrew scriptures or OT.

The Scriptures--writings of the NT reflect the attitude/thoughts of the people and the leaders at that period of time. There was a rejection of the Messiah and therefore, the prophecies of the Prophets and the word of Moses who wrote of those laws which Jesus was to/and did come to fulfill.

 

[sincerly]

By what standard are they well trusted? If it's merely because they agree with you, then that's not a very good reason. If it's because they're familiar with the source language, then it's a very good reason.

Hi PS, ALL those people who made their home the "Tower of Babel" knew the "source language"-----they all came off the Ark or were descendants of the eight who did. However, from the beginning GOD had told Adam and Eve to multiple and replinish the earth. NOT build a city and tower. Again, their imaginations was seen as being an influence for evil. (another topic).
However, the Trust is in that which GOD has said and not with persons.

 

[sincerly]

That's not always the case either. People translating "straight" out of scripture have interpreted many questionable things using their knowledge of language, but lacking in other sound methodology for finding the actual meaning of terms. Look at the difference in interpretation between many churches, they're all reading the same text.

Hi Disciple, Yes, deception has been a major form of causing GOD's people to turn away from HIM.
As Paul was teaching in 2Thess. 2:5-12, "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. "

 

[CG Didymus]

(Continuing with the "big picture.)
...the "Big picture of the salvation of mankind is showing from Genesis to Revelation."
The arguments of "bits and pieces" only leads to more confusion and interpretations which only play into the hands of the adversary.
Scripturally speaking, I choose to believe the Messanger from the LORD GOD rather than any "premise" assumed by man. Matthew only wrote what he personally had witnessed and that which was from others who had the experience or witnesses of the events.
"experts" are fallible just as well---"Bias" shows up in all peoples. Those Leaders of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus Christ were shown to be corrupt in practices of life and Temple.

You as a Christian believe you have the "big picture." I'm questioning those "bits and pieces" that make up that picture. Do I listen to the Jewish interpretation or to Christians? You mentioned "the adversary." I have Jewish books that say they don't have a concept like the Christian devil or of a dying and rising Messiah. The Christian picture is completely different than the Jewish big picture, but all religions have a "big pictures." All religions have "Messengers" and eye-witnesses. So how do I know if Matthew is telling the truth? I check it out. Was he an "expert" or was he a "fallible" man? Was the New Testament written by fallible men? Was it the canon compiled by fallible men? Were some early Christian leaders corrupt. Did the early Church become corrupt? So what is the Christian big picture? Should I be a Catholic, a Pentecostal, an Amish, none of the above? I would suspect that you are none of the above, but instead, a reasoned, well-thought out form of Christianity that evolved out of the mistakes and errors of earlier versions. How does it work? Why does it work? Why do you believe it is the best form of Christianity? The problem will still be, how do I know that isn't a fallible interpretation of men? I have to question it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you, jayhawker, for acknowledging that fact.
True, While GOD is the epitome of LOVE, HIS Righteousness will not allow any unrighteousness to prevail. Therefore, wickedness/evil will end in total destruction as the Scriptures have proclaimed.

Blah ... blah ... blah ...

 

[gnostic]

You as a Christian believe you have the "big picture." I'm questioning those "bits and pieces" that make up that picture. Do I listen to the Jewish interpretation or to Christians? You mentioned "the adversary." I have Jewish books that say they don't have a concept like the Christian devil or of a dying and rising Messiah. The Christian picture is completely different than the Jewish big picture, but all religions have a "big pictures." All religions have "Messengers" and eye-witnesses. So how do I know if Matthew is telling the truth? I check it out. Was he an "expert" or was he a "fallible" man? Was the New Testament written by fallible men? Was it the canon compiled by fallible men? Were some early Christian leaders corrupt. Did the early Church become corrupt? So what is the Christian big picture? Should I be a Catholic, a Pentecostal, an Amish, none of the above? I would suspect that you are none of the above, but instead, a reasoned, well-thought out form of Christianity that evolved out of the mistakes and errors of earlier versions. How does it work? Why does it work? Why do you believe it is the best form of Christianity? The problem will still be, how do I know that isn't a fallible interpretation of men? I have to question it.

Is sincerly saying that the person who wrote the gospel (whether he be Matthew or someone else) is not human, not fallible and can't make mistake?

Is he saying that the person who quoted from Isaiah 7:14 is not a man?

(I refused to reply directly to him in this thread, because I fed up with his ego, his lack of evidences, his bucket-load of logic fallacies and circular reasoning, and his taste for exaggeration. I had wasted enough time with him.)

 

[sincerly]

You as a Christian believe you have the "big picture." I'm questioning those "bits and pieces" that make up that picture. Do I listen to the Jewish interpretation or to Christians? You mentioned "the adversary." I have Jewish books that say they don't have a concept like the Christian devil or of a dying and rising Messiah. The Christian picture is completely different than the Jewish big picture, but all religions have a "big pictures." All religions have "Messengers" and eye-witnesses. So how do I know if Matthew is telling the truth? I check it out.

And rightly so! I have lived long enough to see revisions and new versions being incorporated into the "Thus saith the LORD" and the "It is written" in order to appear at least somewhat valid----and the recently posted JPS(verses) is no exception--but a confirmation. Just as was prophesied by Dan.7:23-25, "And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

And Paul acknowledges that as still future,but he is seeing it beginning to happen is Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. " (Paul was speaking to the leaders of the Ephesus church.)

2Thess.2:3-4, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

CG D, Paul was NOT teaching differently than the Hebrew scriptures had said and prophesied. Notice his confession (Acts 24:14-15), "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Jesus Christ only came to Fulfill those sacrificial/ceremonial feasts which NOT animal could accomplish. One can not pay the "wages of sin"--death---and live. The animal sacrifices were temporary imposed until the "fullness of time" when the Messiah / God's Son would pay the price for mankind upon the cross(Heb.9:9+)

Was he an "expert" or was he a "fallible" man? Was the New Testament written by fallible men? Was it the canon compiled by fallible men? Were some early Christian leaders corrupt. Did the early Church become corrupt? So what is the Christian big picture? Should I be a Catholic, a Pentecostal, an Amish, none of the above? I would suspect that you are none of the above, but instead, a reasoned, well-thought out form of Christianity that evolved out of the mistakes and errors of earlier versions. How does it work? Why does it work? Why do you believe it is the best form of Christianity? The problem will still be, how do I know that isn't a fallible interpretation of men? I have to question it.

CG D, All of the various versions of the Bibles which "Christians" use have the same messages---in intent, but worded a little differently(in some, but NOT all verses. Mostly to make it easier to read--supposedly--in the language of today.)
The KJV didn't change the intent of the messages of the Scriptures, instead, it was translated into the language spoken by the people---therefore, the masses of the people were able to read and understand the words of the Scriptures for themselves. The people were able to see what was Scriptural and what came out of the "Councils of men" or were the "traditions made by men".

For About 20 Years, I had a working relationship with A Roman Catholic person and an Orthodox Jew.( who assured me that the OT of the KJV and what they believed was the same.)
The mistakes was not with the Scriptures, but with the interpretation one places on/in them. The Holy Spirit spoke to the Prophets who gave the people the message intended---in the language they understood.
Cain couldn't have misunderstood the Animal sacrifice for his parents to mean "the best of the fruit from his field(vegetables). And GOD confronted him concerning his disobedience.
Again, from Isaiah(30:21)and is instructing the path to take is the one GOD Directs. "And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This [is] the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

GOD gave the right instructions for a right relationship to HIM and all else from Sinai. Not to seek the assistance of men or their contrary understanding.

"""How does it work? Why does it work?""" It works because it is from GOD. Doubts? Yes, you will continue to have such until in FAITH (Deut.6:5), "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

GOD gave the Scriptures to bring one to HIS salvational Plan---Of which, that "Virgin Birth" is part of the "bits and pieces".

 

[sincerly]

Is sincerly saying that the person who wrote the gospel (whether he be Matthew or someone else) is not human, not fallible and can't make mistake?

Is he saying that the person who quoted from Isaiah 7:14 is not a man?

(I refused to reply directly to him in this thread, because I fed up with his ego, his lack of evidences, his bucket-load of logic fallacies and circular reasoning, and his taste for exaggeration. I had wasted enough time with him.)

Hi Gnostic, I'll give you my answer direct. The writer of the Gospel was Matthew and Human. That Fact makes him fallible and able to make mistakes. However, the Being which quoted from Isaiah was the Angel Gabriel to Joseph. Matthew in writing the Gospel(the life and teachings of Jesus Christ) included the "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"

I'll still take Gabriel's information and message over what is speculated for Isaiah7:14 and 8:1+