Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

Again, you've just proven I waste my time in replying to you.
For this thread, I completely done with answering you and done with your ignorance. May you wallow in your ignorance.

Are we gluttons for punishment? I don't think so. But, we keep coming back for more. It's kind of like a drug. We need our daily fix. But really, if it weren't for you and Sincerly, this thread would have been a total bore. What's funny is that most people these days don't let their beliefs get in the way of "real" life. Unless I know someone is a Christian, I couldn't point one out on the street. I blame the religions and those people that have taken themselves and their religion too seriously for that. They've given religion a bad name and made it a dirty word. When it comes to Sincerly, I feel your pain, and you know I'm siding with you in this argument. but I really do appreciate both of you.

 

[Desert Snake]

What else besides the name is a wrong interpretation...

 

[Poisonshady313]

What else besides the name is a wrong interpretation...

Matthew misses the mark by 750 years.
The woman is not a virgin.
According to Isaiah, the mother names the child Immanuel... it's not a title bestowed upon him by a mysterious "they".

 

[gnostic]

What else besides the name is a wrong interpretation

Isaiah 7:14 only make sense if you read with all of chapter 7, and the first part of chapter 8 (8:1-18), where it is revealed that the sign has to do with Isaiah's own son.

And the sign may have began at verse 14, but it continued on to the end of verse 17. If you only read one verse then would only have a quarter of a sign. And quarter of a sign is incomplete and utterly meaningless.

And that by the time before the boy know right from wrong, Judah would be saved from his enemies (Israel and Aram) by Assyria. These events take back in 2 Kings 16:5-9 and 2 Kings 15:29.

It is only when you read all those chapters together, then anyone would realise that 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah, let alone Jesus.

Biut some Christians are fooled by Matthew's quote and interpretation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Isaiah 7:14 only make sense if you read with all of chapter 7, and the first part of chapter 8 (8:1-18), where it is revealed that the sign has to do with Isaiah's own son.

And the sign may have began at verse 14, but it continued on to the end of verse 17. If you only read one verse then would only have a quarter of a sign. And quarter of a sign is incomplete and utterly meaningless.

And that by the time before the boy know right from wrong, Judah would be saved from his enemies (Israel and Aram) by Assyria. These events take back in 2 Kings 16:5-9 and 2 Kings 15:29.

It is only when you read all those chapters together, then anyone would realise that 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah, let alone Jesus.

Biut some Christians are fooled by Matthew's quote and interpretation.

O.k., this aside, what, if any of the NT do you think is correct concerning the Messiah?

 

[gnostic]

O.k., this aside, what, if any of the NT do you think is correct concerning the Messiah?

Do you mean concerning Jesus being the messiah?

And do you mean the quotes of OT, supposedly fulfilled in the NT?

 

[sincerly]

The woman in Isaiah 7:14 was already pregnant, therefore there was no reason to believe that she was a virgin.

Additionally, the usage of almah in Proverbs 30 refers to a woman who is not a virgin.

Hi PS, Wasn't it you who posted from JPS (a version) Isa.7:14 an interpretation which is contrary to all other translations/interpretations???

There is nothing in Prov.30:19 which would indicate that the "Almah"/"maid" was NOT a virgin.
(18-19), "There be three [things which] are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you mean concerning Jesus being the messiah?

And do you mean the quotes of OT, supposedly fulfilled in the NT?

Ah yes of course they would all have to be spurious. I think if one doesn't believe in the NT anyway how could anything be interpreted as correct? It might lend a bit to confirmation bias, basically.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There is nothing in Prov.30:19 which would indicate that the "Almah"/"maid" was NOT a virgin.
(18-19), "There be three [things which] are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."

That passage precisely indicates that the Almah was NOT a virgin.

I'm going to let Rabbi Tovia Singer explain why:

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.

What do these four things all have in common?


They leave no trace.

After the eagle has flown across the sky, it is impossible to determine whether an eagle had ever flown through that airspace. Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail). After a ship passes through the sea, the wake behind it comes together and settles behind it, leaving no way to discern that a ship had ever moved through this body of water.

Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an almah, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken.

Therefore, in the following verse (Proverbs 30:20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman "eats” (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual infidelity, “wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong.'” The word alma clearly does not mean a virgin.

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” does not indicate sexual purity, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words almah and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. The word alma only conveys age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin, he would have used the word betulahhttp://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/alma-virgin.html#footnote1 (בְּתוּלָ&#1492 not almah. The word betulah appears frequently in the Jewish Scriptures, and is the only word – in both biblical and modern Hebrew – that conveys sexual purity.


Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the masculine form of the noun עַלְמָה (alma) is עֶלֶם (elem), which means a “young man,” not a male virgin. This word appears twice in the Jewish Scriptures (I Samuel 17:56, 20:22). As expected, without exception, all Christian Bibles correctly translate עֶלֶם as a “young man,” “lad,” or “stripling,” never “virgin.” Why does the King James Version of the Bible translate the masculine Hebrew noun לָעֶלֶם (la’elem) as “to the young man” in I Samuel 20:22, and yet the feminine form of the same Hebrew noun הָעַלְמָה as “a virgin” in Isaiah 7:14? The answer is Christian Bibles had no need to mistranslate I Samuel 20:22 because this verse was not misquoted in the New Testament.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/alma-virgin.html

 

[sincerly]

I'm speaking from a belief that men had dreams and visions and created religions around those dreams and visions. Some religions look silly to us now, but in their day, they held a people and culture together. So going back to our blind men and the elephant, I'm still following behind picking up the poops left behind. It's kind of like doing forensic science. I'm examining the people and the junk left behind. Most Christians throughout time have been very poor examples of God's love. I don't blame anyone for turning away. When it comes down to words on a page? Who can say what it really means. If you're right, keep going. I'll catch up to you someday.

Hi CG D, From the two Humans created by GOD, the earth was populated.(scripturally---I do not believe in evolution). The Scriptures tell us that from the
"Tower of Babel" mankind was scattered into all the world. It was at that time that the people's language was made different. Prior--ALL had a common knowledge of the Creator GOD.
Chronologically, from Adam's Creation, as is written in the scriptures, until Abraham(death), was some 2121 years.
That Flood was 1656 years after the Creation. The Tower of Babel approx.100 years later. and Noah lived at the time of Abraham for 60 Years and Shem out-lived Abraham by 95 years.
I'm giving this to show the Common knowledge of GOD.
Adam was alive with Noah's Grandfather, Lemech for 56 years and Noah's father, Methuselah for 243 years.
Methuselah lived with Noah 600 years.(until the year of the flood).
Lemech lived with Noah 590 years.(died 10 years before the flood).
The common way of giving knowledge was "word of mouth". and the Scriptures/GOD said that truth was established by two or more witnesses. John 8:17, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."(see Matt.18:16; Deut.19:15; Num.35:30)
Therefore, where ever those who were "scattered" went, they had a knowledge of the True GOD. Now notice Romans1:16--2:15, It was mankind whose imaginations did the corrupting/changing/straying.
Yes, some portions of truth can be found in all Beliefs, but any that deal with Denying GOD or that which GOD has said is SIN can not be accepted as acceptable.

Could it be that your focus is looking back on history rather than following the Why? from the beginning???
The Loving GOD who made all things GOOD to begin with is the SAME GOD who will restore ALL things to that acceptable state---minus all things which are offense/evil.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
There is nothing in Prov.30:19 which would indicate that the "Almah"/"maid" was NOT a virgin.
(18-19), "There be three [things which] are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."

That passage precisely indicates that the Almah was NOT a virgin.

I'm going to let Rabbi Tovia Singer explain why:
Does Alma Mean Virgin?

Hi PS, I know of no reason to believe that article than you.
And vs20 really does not fit with the above. What's "too wonderful for me" or "that I know not" about and "adulterous" affair ?? That sin was to be dealt with by stoning.
The leaving no "track" was a "straw-man" attempt to disquise the truth about Isa.7:14----"Virgin" being the proper translation for "Almah".

Let's look at the usage in the other verses where it is found.
Gen.24:43, "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;"
Are you denying that Rebecca was a Virgin??

Ex,2:8, "And Pharaoh's 6547 daughter 1323 said 559 to her, Go 3212 . And the maid5959 went 3212 and called 7121 the child's 3206 mother 517."
Are you implying that young girl was not a virgin.----(Moses sister)??

Ps.68:25, "The singers 7891 went before 6923 , the players on instruments 5059 [followed] after 310; among 8432 [them were] the damsels5959 playing with timbrels 8608 .
and implying that these young girls were all "non-virgins."

Sgs.1:3 Because of the savour 7381 of thy good 2896 ointments 8081 thy name 8034 [is as] ointment 8081 poured forth 7324 , therefore do the virgins5959 love 157 thee.

And implying these aren't virgins???


Sgs.6:8, "There are threescore 8346 queens 4436, and fourscore 8084 concubines 6370, and virgins5959 without number 4557.

Yes, Solomon had many wives and concubines for sex and there were virgins as well. And none of these are virgins??

 

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by sincerly
There is nothing in Prov.30:19 which would indicate that the "Almah"/"maid" was NOT a virgin.
(18-19), "There be three [things which] are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."




Hi PS, I know of no reason to believe that article than you.
And vs20 really does not fit with the above. What's "too wonderful for me" or "that I know not" about and "adulterous" affair ?? That sin was to be dealt with by stoning.
The leaving no "track" was a "straw-man" attempt to disquise the truth about Isa.7:14----"Virgin" being the proper translation for "Almah".

Let's look at the usage in the other verses where it is found.
Gen.24:43, "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;"
Are you denying that Rebecca was a Virgin??

Ex,2:8, "And Pharaoh's 6547 daughter 1323 said 559 to her, Go 3212 . And the maid5959 went 3212 and called 7121 the child's 3206 mother 517."
Are you implying that young girl was not a virgin.----(Moses sister)??

Ps.68:25, "The singers 7891 went before 6923 , the players on instruments 5059 [followed] after 310; among 8432 [them were] the damsels5959 playing with timbrels 8608 .
and implying that these young girls were all "non-virgins."

Sgs.1:3 Because of the savour 7381 of thy good 2896 ointments 8081 thy name 8034 [is as] ointment 8081 poured forth 7324 , therefore do the virgins5959 love 157 thee.

And implying these aren't virgins???


Sgs.6:8, "There are threescore 8346 queens 4436, and fourscore 8084 concubines 6370, and virgins5959 without number 4557.

Yes, Solomon had many wives and concubines for sex and there were virgins as well. And none of these are virgins??

Wow. Talk about a straw-man.

The claim is that the word "almah" has nothing to do with virginity. It might be applied to people who happen to be virgins... but so could having blonde hair or wearing a purple shirt. The word "almah" describes age and gender. Young woman. Nothing more, nothing less. If even just one use of the word Almah refers to a non-virgin, then it cannot be said that the word "Almah" means or must be assumed to mean virgin.

The "leaving no track" bit is no strawman nor an attempt to disguise anything. It's a simple understanding of what the passage is talking about.

You don't have to be happy about it... but it is what it is. And the almah in proverbs is no virgin. The almah in Isaiah is no virgin either.

 

[Rise]

Almah is not exclusively used of virgins, but then neither is betulah a word exclusively used of virgins (you can find many cases where it is used in a context that is clearly not referring to virgins). There is actually no hebrew word used exclusively for virgin females.

The idea that it was a prophecy of a virgin birth would come from the context of the birth being a sign. A context that would have probably been passed down by oral tradition and known to the Jews at the time.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Almah is not exclusively used of virgins, but then neither is betulah a word exclusively used of virgins (you can find many cases where it is used in a context that is clearly not referring to virgins). There is actually no hebrew word used exclusively for virgin females.

The idea that it was a prophecy of a virgin birth would come from the context of the birth being a sign. A context that would have probably been passed down by oral tradition and known to the Jews at the time.

But the birth wasn't a sign. The end of the threat of Rezin and Pekah before the boy could distinguish between right and wrong.... that's the sign.

And while you mentioned it... when is the word betulah used to refer to a non-virgin?

 

[sincerly]

You don't have to be happy about it... but it is what it is. And the almah in proverbs is no virgin. The almah in Isaiah is no virgin either.

You failed to comment on Rebekah and the "almah" usage and translation as virgin.

I didn't do any of the interpreting nor the selecting of the words in the Scriptures.
But you want me to believe your Rabbi who "suggests"/implies that "trackless" is the same as the actions of Flight; traveling on the seas; and first time sex aren't Wondrous and not to be condemned, but are to be connected to another proverb in which an adulterous woman thinks her sexual activity is no more wicked than eating and wiping her mouth.---and her activity was condemned by GOD. And I haven't read in the Scriptures any thing that comes close to claiming stoning as "wondrous".

 

[Poisonshady313]

You failed to comment on Rebekah and the "almah" usage and translation as virgin.

You failed to tell me why it's relevant and why I should.

I didn't do any of the interpreting nor the selecting of the words in the Scriptures.
But you want me to believe your Rabbi who "suggests"/implies that "trackless" is the same as the actions of Flight; traveling on the seas; and first time sex aren't Wondrous and not to be condemned, but are to be connected to another proverb in which an adulterous woman thinks her sexual activity is no more wicked than eating and wiping her mouth.---and her activity was condemned by GOD. And I haven't read in the Scriptures any thing that comes close to claiming stoning as "wondrous".

Another proverb? IT'S THE SAME PROVERB.

There are three things that are concealed from me, and four that I do not know;
The way of the eagle in the heavens, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman.
So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and she says, "I have committed no sin."


All of these things are actions that are undetectable after the fact. This would obviously not be true in the case of sex with a virgin.

 

[sincerly]

But the birth wasn't a sign. The end of the threat of Rezin and Pekah before the boy could distinguish between right and wrong.... that's the sign.

And Isaiah said(8:3,18), "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz......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."

There are two different signs prophesied as Isaiah acknowledged. The one Isaiah was a figure in and the one Matthew acknowledged the Angel's speech to Joseph and the Fulfillment by Jesus of Isa.7:14.

 

[Poisonshady313]

And Isaiah said(8:3,18), "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz......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."

There are two different signs prophesied as Isaiah acknowledged. The one Isaiah was a figure in and the one Matthew acknowledged the Angel's speech to Joseph and the Fulfillment by Jesus of Isa.7:14.

What makes you say two? How do you know it's not hundreds of signs? Hundreds of children? Entire generations perhaps? What makes you think Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with any events more than 700 years later?

 

[sincerly]

You failed to tell me why it's relevant and why I should.

PS, you are more intelligent than to claim not to know the relevant significance of the same word in different verses. And Rebekah was described in that verse as "Virgin" and the Hebrew word used was "ulmah".

Another proverb? IT'S THE SAME PROVERB.

"There are three things that are concealed from me, and four that I do not know;
The way of the eagle in the heavens, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman.

(Such)So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and she says, "I have committed no sin."

All of these things are actions that are undetectable after the fact. This would obviously not be true in the case of sex with a virgin.

There was nothing "concealed"="kachad". The Hebrew word in that verses was "Wonderful to me" from "pala"= "to search out"(difficulty to).
Just as the difficulty was with the eagle, snake, and ship so it with the maid/young woman/virgin/Almah.
And the writer is acknowledging that fact. A young girl--yes, But her status isn't known---only assumed by you and me by the word "Almah", and in this case of Proverbs the usage of "maid".

 

[sincerly]

What makes you say two? How do you know it's not hundreds of signs? Hundreds of children? Entire generations perhaps? What makes you think Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with any events more than 700 years later?

PS, In chapters 7 and 8, two is all that is seen. Do you see more? Isaiah said, "I and the children". However, Isaiah isn't finished in his prophecies concerning Jesus.
This era in history was about 742 years before the Birth of Jesus Christ.