Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[sincerly]

JPS, NIV, NASB.

If they were directly translating the entire book of Isaiah from the Greek Septuagint Bible, I would understand that they would translate the Greek parthenos into English as "virgin" for this verse (7:14). But the main source was the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT).

But when they (the KJV translators, for instance) were translating Isaiah 7, all of it came from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, except for verse 14.

Why did they do this? Why only one verse, did they use the Greek verse instead of the Hebrew verse?

I believed it is mainly so they (again, the KJV translators/editors) can exactly match Matthew 1:23 with Isaiah 14.

NIV translators followed the same pattern as the KJV. They used the Greek parthenos instead of Hebrew almah, even though they have MT available, for Isaiah 7:14 verse.

NIV publication should have used "young woman" in their verse and "virgin" in the footnote, to denote the comparison with the Septuagint. But they (NIV) didn't; they did it the other way around.

Hi Gnostic, Your claims of translators is all from man's opinion.
Your own, "I would", "I believe"-----those are unacceptable for factual evidence.
And the KJV is from the "original"
as seen in the preface. Also, the BLB Lexicon states that Isaiah 7:14 is from the Masoretic text..

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi Gnostic, Your claims of translators is all from man's opinion.
Your own, "I would", "I believe"-----those are unacceptable for factual evidence.
And the KJV is from the "original"
as seen in the preface. Also, the BLB Lexicon states that Isaiah 7:14 is from the Masoretic text..

It's just more of the same biases playing out to different interpretations. Whatever. Did anyone address the Star of Bethlehem, which I brought up earlier in the thread?

 

[Shermana]

Hi Gnostic, Your claims of translators is all from man's opinion.
Your own, "I would", "I believe"-----those are unacceptable for factual evidence.
And the KJV is from the "original"
as seen in the preface. Also, the BLB Lexicon states that Isaiah 7:14 is from the Masoretic text..

Where does the preface indicate that it's from the originals?

 

[gnostic]

It's just more of the same biases playing out to different interpretations. Whatever. Did anyone address the Star of Bethlehem, which I brought up earlier in the thread?

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Star of Bethlehem up. Interpreting Isaiah 7:14 as with the Star of Bethlehem would be taking the verse even more OUT-OF-CONTEXT.

There is no mention of star(s) anywhere in the chapter 7, either as a allusion or literal.

And there are no mention of Bethlehem in Isaiah 7. The only kingdoms, territories, cities or towns or villages mentioned are: Judah, Israel, Ephraim, Jerusalem, Samaria, Aram, Damascus and Assyria. No Bethlehem.

Now, I have a few questions for you:

Do you think this virgin or young woman is the Star of Bethlehem? Or her son?

Since Assyria was the kingdom that conquered Aram and Israel, thereby delivering Judah from their enemies, do think the star is the King of Assyria?

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Star of Bethlehem up. Interpreting Isaiah 7:14 as with the Star of Bethlehem would be taking the verse even more OUT-OF-CONTEXT.

There is no mention of star(s) anywhere in the chapter 7, either as a allusion or literal.

No, but it could be a "sign", unless it's a complete fabrication or something

Now, I have a few questions for you:

Do you think this virgin or young woman is the Star of Bethlehem? Or her son?

Since Assyria was the kingdom that conquered Aram and Israel, thereby delivering Judah from their enemies, do think the star is the King of Assyria?

No, but then I'm not really reading Scripture that way. AFAIK the Christian tradition is to take the NT pretty literally.
[edit] Excluding Revelations and obvious symbolism

 

[gnostic]

I've created a new topic Star of Bethlehem, which has nothing to do with Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14. Perhaps, you'll find it interesting, disciple.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've created a new topic Star of Bethlehem, which has nothing to do with Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14. Perhaps, you'll find it interesting, disciple.

Thanks, found it. I'll read up on the subject more, but I gave a tertiary reply already.

I'll post more once I get some more information

cheers

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And the KJV is from the "original"
as seen in the preface. Also, the BLB Lexicon states that Isaiah 7:14 is from the Masoretic text..

What does this mean?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
And the KJV is from the "original"
as seen in the preface. Also, the BLB Lexicon states that Isaiah 7:14 is from the Masoretic text..

What does this mean?

The translators of the KJV were interested in translating the Scriptures into the language of the people----not in changing the meaning. The Catholic priests(Councils) were changing the meaning when "speaking to the people"---NOT altering the written text. That is one reason why the translation came about. Approx.100 years earlier, Martin Luther had Shown some of the erroneous teachings which attributed to the tightening of access to the Word to the people.

Here is that specific excerpt from the "preface". """For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue;

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sincerely what you have said about Jews is unfair, and Martin Luther was a murderer. He killed people that disagreed with him and was worse than those priests that he supposedly corrected. For the sake of Martin Luther King Jr. people don't talk about it, but those are the facts.

Sincerely the scriptures you mentioned about the cornerstone are already understood by Jews, and it is you who have been taken in by wolves posing as teachers or their disciples. I'm sorry, but apparently I'm the only person here who's willing to say it to you. They are afraid of damaging you, because you are sincere. I know the rot that this view of the Bible will bring to your life, so I'm telling it to you straight. I'm not telling you to lose your faith, but what I'm telling you is true. The 'Cornerstone laid down in Zion' is no mystery, is definitely not just 'Jesus'. He is not the 'Stone'. If it helps look at his conversation with Simon-Peter. Jesus names Simon, 'Stone'. Is Simon-Peter the stone or is Jesus the stone? Both? You seem not to know, but Isaiah and any Jewish person or Catholic scholar who studies Isaiah, for Isaiah's content and not to prop up Marin Luther's sermons, would know what Stone Jesus referred to. Martin Luther's preaching was full of wrath and bile and is corrupting you. I'm not saying that Lutherans are bad, because I've been to a Lutheran church. Lutherans are nice people who believe very strongly. I'm saying that Martin Luther was only a man, and you can't trust him. You must begin again from scratch, from zero without his influence; and there are repercussions from what he did. You should not blame yourself, but you have been robbed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And the KJV is from the "original"
as seen in the preface. Also, the BLB Lexicon states that Isaiah 7:14 is from the Masoretic text..

What does this mean?

The translators of the KJV were interested in translating the Scriptures into the language of the people----not in changing the meaning. The Catholic priests(Councils) were changing the meaning when "speaking to the people"---NOT altering the written text. That is one reason why the translation came about ...

I was just curious what you meant by the 'original'.

 

[sincerly]

Sincerely what you have said about Jews is unfair, and Martin Luther was a murderer. He killed people that disagreed with him and was worse than those priests that he supposedly corrected. For the sake of Martin Luther King Jr. people don't talk about it, but those are the facts.

Hi Brickjectivity, Were the prophets who delivered the Messages---unfair? Is the Creator---"unfair"? Of course, You may think so, but that doesn't make it so.

Sincerely the scriptures you mentioned about the cornerstone are already understood by Jews, and it is you who have been taken in by wolves posing as teachers or their disciples. I'm sorry, but apparently I'm the only person here who's willing to say it to you. They are afraid of damaging you, because you are sincere. I know the rot that this view of the Bible will bring to your life, so I'm telling it to you straight. I'm not telling you to lose your faith, but what I'm telling you is true. The 'Cornerstone laid down in Zion' is no mystery, is definitely not just 'Jesus'. He is not the 'Stone'. If it helps look at his conversation with Simon-Peter. Jesus names Simon, 'Stone'. Is Simon-Peter the stone or is Jesus the stone? Both? You seem not to know, but Isaiah and any Jewish person or Catholic scholar who studies Isaiah, for Isaiah's content and not to prop up Marin Luther's sermons, would know what Stone Jesus referred to. Martin Luther's preaching was full of wrath and bile and is corrupting you. I'm not saying that Lutherans are bad, because I've been to a Lutheran church. Lutherans are nice people who believe very strongly. I'm saying that Martin Luther was only a man, and you can't trust him. You must begin again from scratch, from zero without his influence; and there are repercussions from what he did. You should not blame yourself, but you have been robbed.

BJ, I'm NOT Lutheran. You are just as "human" as the rest of us. Why should I take your word---when the messages which were delivered from GOD to the Prophets is available. As far as "unfair", the Prophet Daniel declared the prophetic seventy weeks was determined upon "thy people" to "finish the transgression" and Jesus said when that period of time had expired, "Your house is left unto you desolate".
I have no reason to be ashamed of reporting the confirmed facts.
This thread attests to the fact that Jesus, the Messiah who came on time was rejected by those who called GOD their GOD---Because they rejected HIS Son who was born to the prophesied Virgin---Mary. And continue to do so as a group. Many do accept and Believe.

Martin Luther only began the correcting of hundreds of years of adding false teaching to false teaching. I fail to see your linkage to Martin Luther King Jr.

You claim the Jews understood Jesus prophetic showing them Matt.21:42, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" However, It was rejected---and without a "foundation Corner-stone" it is just as Jesus stated----"Left unto you desolate".

Jesus---NOT Peter, is the "Stone" upon which The Church(Kingdom of GOD) is Built".(another subject.)

The "robbery" is of those who refuse to see where the "Truth " of the Scriptures has been replaced by a lie or lies.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi Brickjectivity, Were the prophets who delivered the Messages---unfair? Is the Creator---"unfair"? Of course, You may think so, but that doesn't make it so.

Hi, sincerely. No, you are being unfair and turning something good into something bad. You aren't listening to 'The prophets' but to Martin. A prophet isn't the last word on anything, because the people they preach to can always repent. Paul recognized this by saying of Jews "do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you." (Romans 11:18) He mirrors Jesus who said "I am the vine, you are the branches..." (John 15:5) You have made yourself out to be the vine by preaching against the root. Just as God could start over without Israel and Moses only, he could start over without Christians, without you. It is easy to argue that perhaps he has already decided to do that, but I'm not making that argument. I'm pointing out the thin ice you are prancing upon, and if it breaks that break doesn't only affect you but everyone around you. Revelations 2:5 says if Christians don't repent their lampstand can be removed, another affirmation. Jesus said that God is able to make children for Abraham out of the stone upon the ground, (Mat 3:9) but you think you are untouchable and can slander your brother. Not just your brother but those who have gone ahead of you like Joseph did. Do you really think that Christians can stand upon their own? Without Jews there can be no Christians as affirmed by Paul, by Jesus and also by grace, by Abraham and even by Sarah who laughed when she was told that she would have a son, the first Jew, someone offered upon an altar. You are acting like Shimei of 2 Kings 16, who threw rocks at David. Jews are like the spring from the rock that followed the Israelites through the wild all the way to the land. Have you noticed that they are participating with you in these forums, looking after you? It is out of concern, because you quote prophets but don't bother to read them carefully. You take the word of a murderer over the advice of people who care about you.

BJ, I'm NOT Lutheran. You are just as "human" as the rest of us. Why should I take your word--

I never thought that you were. Lutherans have come a long way, and I never asked you to take my word.

Jesus---NOT Peter, is the "Stone" upon which The Church(Kingdom of GOD) is Built".(another subject.)

Says Martin Luther. Jesus said to Simon Peter, "I say to you thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." That you don't understand what this means is the greatest condemnation against Martin Luther, who has left you like a spiritual orphan. Other people feel like they have to look after you and clean up after you. You go about railing against Jews and anyone who has the slightest disagreement with you, and you are proud of it!

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey there Sincerly, You are like a rock. Some of us think you have rocks in your head, but we know that you are merely standing up for your Christian beliefs. You said,

We are all Sinner's and the penalty is death. When one dies, there is NO LIFE. Each sinner caused the death of the SON of GOD. There is nothing else which was sufficient to pay that death penalty other than the ONE who Created us in the first place. The Sin was ours and the Death was ours. But ,GOD the SON was willing before the "foundation of the earth" to exchange places with each disobedient person as the propitiation. A normal Birth(human) couldn't qualify, because all humans are condemned to Death. Therefore, the "virgin birth" as promised via the Holy Spirit.

Is this doctrine of "All" of us being sinners and under the penalty of death a Christian concept or a Jewish concept? Unless, it was clearly a Jewish idea, then God misled the Jewish people for the thousands of years prior to Jesus. It seems that a Jew at any time could repent from a sin and God would forgive them. Anything like an "original" sin or guilt seems more like a Christian concept also. So where in any doctrines in Judaism is there anything like "all humans" being condemned to death and needing a virgin born savior/messiah to take that death penalty away? What did Gen 3:15 mean in Judaism? The verse sounds very vague to me. All of it makes more sense that early Christians "created" the concepts that became Christian doctrines.

 

[sincerly]

Hi, sincerely. No, you are being unfair and turning something good into something bad. You aren't listening to 'The prophets' but to Martin. A prophet isn't the last word on anything, because the people they preach to can always repent. Paul recognized this by saying of Jews "do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you." (Romans 11:18) He mirrors Jesus who said "I am the vine, you are the branches..." (John 15:5) You have made yourself out to be the vine by preaching against the root. Just as God could start over without Israel and Moses only, he could start over without Christians, without you. It is easy to argue that perhaps he has already decided to do that, but I'm not making that argument. I'm pointing out the thin ice you are prancing upon, and if it breaks that break doesn't only affect you but everyone around you. Revelations 2:5 says if Christians don't repent their lampstand can be removed, another affirmation. Jesus said that God is able to make children for Abraham out of the stone upon the ground, (Mat 3:9) but you think you are untouchable and can slander your brother. Not just your brother but those who have gone ahead of you like Joseph did. Do you really think that Christians can stand upon their own? Without Jews there can be no Christians as affirmed by Paul, by Jesus and also by grace, by Abraham and even by Sarah who laughed when she was told that she would have a son, the first Jew, someone offered upon an altar. You are acting like Shimei of 2 Kings 16, who threw rocks at David. Jews are like the spring from the rock that followed the Israelites through the wild all the way to the land. Have you noticed that they are participating with you in these forums, looking after you? It is out of concern, because you quote prophets but don't bother to read them carefully. You take the word of a murderer over the advice of people who care about you.

I never thought that you were. Lutherans have come a long way, and I never asked you to take my word.

Says Martin Luther. Jesus said to Simon Peter, "I say to you thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." That you don't understand what this means is the greatest condemnation against Martin Luther, who has left you like a spiritual orphan. Other people feel like they have to look after you and clean up after you. You go about railing against Jews and anyone who has the slightest disagreement with you, and you are proud of it!

Hi BJ, not only are you off-topic, but Are attacking my person rather than by scripture prove that I have presented wrong material/comments.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why do the Christian theoreticists always seem to jump to the conclusion that verses in the OT are ALWAYS referring to NT Scripture? You have the story of the Garden of Eden , for example, now, in Genesis it is only referring to a snake, not Satan, but people trying to 'find references to Satan in the entire Bible just jumped to this conclusion, let's put aside the fact that some Rabbinical commentary also assumes the snake to be Satan, but why would Christians just go along with that assumption? Judaism doesn't even take iinto account the NT, why Christian scholars would be so focused on using Judaic sources as references is beyond me. Add to that the OT verses that are not necessary for Christian NT influence/interpretation, does it really change narrative? That's the question I think Christian scholars should be asking themselves...Then you have the Reformation... did that change the way Christian Biblical scholars viewed Scripture? Perhaps, because in a way it was going away from the NT centric notions of Church pretty much above Scripture, which after printing technology had improved, Bibles were available for anyone to get, and interpret Scripture for themselves.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sincerely, so you are finally starting to take what someone else says to you seriously even though you are calling it 'Personally'. You accept that I have a brain! That is a great thing. I hope you take lots more posts personally from now on.

The difference is with the multiple "back-slidings" they(Jews) finally rejected the promised Messiah as a nation. Individuals are still seeing the error of those of 2000 years ago and are believing the Fulfilled Prophecies and Scriptures.
Correct, to accept, an erroneous "interpretation" would be to reject the Creator GOD who LOVED me and the rest of Mankind enough to die so that I can have the eternal life which was intended for all Human Beings at Creation.

So you think the above statement is not personal and isn't going to hurt anyone's feelings. Its just plain Bible scriptures is it? I believe you contrasted them (Jews) with you (by saying 'Me').

A "hopeless sinner" is one who is defiant/arrogant---But GOD is "long-suffering for those who show the least amount of seeking for truth---and salvation comes to those who yield to the pleadings/wooing of the Holy Spirit.

But its ok for Martin Luther to be defiant and arrogant, so why can't I be?

We are all Sinner's and the penalty is death.

Another very personal statement inviting personal responses.

It is still your(i.e., Jewish man's) wishful thinking which more that one witness attest to facts different from your claims. Remember, It is written that more than two or three witnesses establish a thing." You and I were not alive, but those witnesses were.

Hey, here's another personal one from you to 'Jews' everywhere! It affects all Christians, too. Not only are your sweeping statements personal, but they drag me into it so now I have to distinguish myself from you. Every Jewish person may well just start thinking that all Christians completely discount their good deeds, that we're all just completely arrogant and don't listen to anybody. That's not personal, though. "Hey I'm a Christian and Christians don't think Joos are shaved." Really? Christians think that Joos aren't Shaved? Well first thing you know Joos stop going into Christian stores, because they know we won't have any Jewish razors for sale. I guess what I'm trying to say is that shaving is personal.

 

[Shermana]

Why do the Christian theoreticists always seem to jump to the conclusion that verses in the OT are ALWAYS referring to NT Scripture? You have the story of the Garden of Eden , for example, now, in Genesis it is only referring to a snake, not Satan, but people trying to 'find references to Satan in the entire Bible just jumped to this conclusion, let's put aside the fact that some Rabbinical commentary also assumes the snake to be Satan, but why would Christians just go along with that assumption? Judaism doesn't even take iinto account the NT, why Christian scholars would be so focused on using Judaic sources as references is beyond me. Add to that the OT verses that are not necessary for Christian NT influence/interpretation, does it really change narrative? That's the question I think Christian scholars should be asking themselves...Then you have the Reformation... did that change the way Christian Biblical scholars viewed Scripture? Perhaps, because in a way it was going away from the NT centric notions of Church pretty much above Scripture, which after printing technology had improved, Bibles were available for anyone to get, and interpret Scripture for themselves.

I honestly cringe whenever I see Genesis 3:15 used as a "messianic prophecy".

 

[gnostic]

I find it absolutely outrageous and illogical that some Christians know the Hebrew texts better than the Jews themselves, which the Christians called the Old Testament, simply by applying different meaning to some single verses of some chapters. And then they expect everyone to agree with their interpretations to be the only ones to be correct and true.

If Isaiah 7:14 was truly about Jesus then SHOULDN'T ALL OF ISAIAH 7 be also about Jesus too?

It doesn't make sense that only a quarter of the sign be about Jesus and not the rest of the sign. It is poor and sloppy scholarship, and not to mention dishonest practice (and arrogant) to insist their interpretations are right and everyone else are wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

I honestly cringe whenever I see Genesis 3:15 used as a "messianic prophecy".

Yes it does seem a bit reaching, if not unnecessary.