Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, "behold" was used by you to point out that the almah was present.

That's true. I do believe that almah was present, when Isaiah presented the sign to Ahaz - the almah who was already pregnant.

However, almah doesn't translate to "behold, a virgin" or "behold, the young woman". You didn't see the mistake of blueletterbible, a source that you have quoted.

אדני 'Adonay =Therefore the Lord
נתן nathan =himself shall give
אות 'owth =you a sign;
עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin
הרה hareh=shall conceive,
ילד yalad=and bear
בן ben=a son,
קרא qara' = and shall call
שם shem = his name
עמנואל `Immanuw'el = Immanuel

Any sham is from you. Your "ha-almah harah" isn't "almah hareh".

You had only revealed your source to be blueletterbible.org, at post 373 of ha'almah harah "a young woman is pregnant" thread.

Post #334 was from the "blueletterbible.com" and was stated to be from the masoretic text. that is what I posted.( with the English translation.

The transliterated Hebrew word for "behold" or "look" is hinneh. You have translated 'almah not only including "a virgin", but also "behold". This clearly revealed that you don't know how 'almah is translated, because you didn't bother to check what the Hebrew word for "behold".

The transliteration should have been hinneh ha'almah, which KJV would have translated "behold, a virgin".

Do you understand the mistake you made with your blueletterbible's quote and that of hinneh ha'almah?

'almah doesn't equal to "behold, a virgin". There is no behold in almah.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi FM, Again, Your conclusions are based on your opinions and scripturally unfounded as to truth and certainly in conection to your evaluation of me.

You know very little of scripture besides what you have been taught. Hence hearsay. It's why you are behind on biblical scholarship.

 

[Muffled]

[/b]
Hi Muffled,

I do not recall Tamar nor Dinah ever being stoned, but they lived before Isaiah I guess, where did you find this information you are giving to this forum? I hope it is not from thin air.


Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die : 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried , and there was none to save her.
A girl had a child that was a sign in Isaiah 8 and in Hosea 1. How can that be if you are right?


You could go up to a huge number of virgin females and say you shall conceive and bear a child, indeed it does happen all the time.


Something as common as a rainbow was a sign for Noah and an iron pan was for the house of Israel. Is an iron pan that unusual????

A sign is something that is seen. Ahaz, unless a time traveling gynecologist, would not have seen any sign. Joseph, Mary's husband, closer than any one else, did not see any sign.

There indeed is evidence, one is the word "behold" and the other evidence is the Hebrew text has the second person feminine "you" will name him Immanuel(something Mary never did,"they" did in the NT storybook). Both Isaiah and Ahaz are not female.

Do you have evidence that any girl had a child named Mahershalalhashbaz other than here in 8?



While the KJV has "a virgin", the Hebrew text does not use an indefinite article, but instead has the definite article, meaning it was the female they were both beholding.

See thls footnote from the Christian Netbible:

2 tn Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.

All for now,
Fletch

PS


Jesus never ate butter and honey, five years later everyone was in Isaiah 7:22, right when Immanuel would have started to refuse evil and choose good.

"God with us", means God is on the side of. Never that God dwells with man on earth. NEVER, not found in Scripture. "WIth us" means on the side of. See here:

2 Chron 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built !

Immanuel was also for another prophecy and I agree it was to the house of David, namely Hezekiah, Ahaz's son. It was when Assyria came to the neck of Judah.

Isaiah 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over , he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel . ...10 Take counsel together , and it shall come to nought ; speak the word, and it shall not stand : for God is with us.

Here was the fulfillment when Assyria was at Judah's neck:

2 Chron 32:8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Also note that God's arm is not flesh( Jesus' is).

I believe you are in error. Those are symbols not signs. A Biblical sign is a miracle with special meaning. It isn't a few words on a highway saying theres food and lodging ahead.

I like that when I believe you have mangaed to present half a passage and conveniently ignore the other half: Deu 22:23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;

I believe both lived before the law was given to Moses.

I have never in my lifetime heard of a virgin in our time conceiving. I have heard of it happening without penetration but the fact is that the girl had to be involved with the man sexually in some way. Test tube babies don't count because they couldn't have been done in Biblical times.

I believe God did not tell Ahaz that he would see the sign. Are you saying Joseph couldn't tell Mary was having a child. What He didn't know was that Mary hadn't been with another man. He had to be told that by God. Mt 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an 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 Spirit.

I believe it is true no virgin has ever given birth and named her child Immanuel. Howeveer Jesus is Immanuel even though he does not have the name. "Behold" does not necessarily mean see it may simply mean pay attention.

I believe neither of these words is found in the NASB. "A" and "She" are used.

You know this because you were there, it is written or god told you?

That is nice but I believe it is a question not an answer. It wasn't even God's question but Solomon's who evidently did not undeerstand about such things. God did dwell there: II Chr 7:1 ¶ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Jehovah filled the house.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe you are in error. Those are symbols not signs. A Biblical sign is a miracle with special meaning. It isn't a few words on a highway saying theres food and lodging ahead.

I like that when I believe you have mangaed to present half a passage and conveniently ignore the other half: Deu 22:23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;

I believe both lived before the law was given to Moses.

I have never in my lifetime heard of a virgin in our time conceiving. I have heard of it happening without penetration but the fact is that the girl had to be involved with the man sexually in some way. Test tube babies don't count because they couldn't have been done in Biblical times.

I believe God did not tell Ahaz that he would see the sign. Are you saying Joseph couldn't tell Mary was having a child. What He didn't know was that Mary hadn't been with another man. He had to be told that by God. Mt 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an 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 Spirit.

I believe it is true no virgin has ever given birth and named her child Immanuel. Howeveer Jesus is Immanuel even though he does not have the name. "Behold" does not necessarily mean see it may simply mean pay attention.

I believe neither of these words is found in the NASB. "A" and "She" are used.

You know this because you were there, it is written or god told you?

That is nice but I believe it is a question not an answer. It wasn't even God's question but Solomon's who evidently did not undeerstand about such things. God did dwell there: II Chr 7:1 ¶ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Jehovah filled the house.

Happens in the animal kingdom...snakes, birds, insects can give bough via parthenogenesis lol. Then there are creatures that change from male to female in their lifetime.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I asked this question before in religious debates, but only one Christian responded. So let me try again here in Biblical debates. I would like to know if it bothers Christians that Mathew takes Isaiah chapter 7 grossly out of context. The main point of the "sign" is the age of the boy, not that his mother was a virgin or not.

In context this has nothing to do with the messiah and everything to do with the boy reaching a certain age, and then, the promise fulfilled, the two enemies of Judah would be gone, dead, done away with.

It's a beautiful story that Mathew tells, and it grew into a wonderful Christian made-up holiday. But it is out of context! If you justify this, how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views?

You are alleging that a problem exist, but fail to identify the problem. Novices of your ilk do this often on religious forums. *** staff edit***

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Gnostic, "behold" was used by you to point out that the almah was present.

That's true. I do believe that almah was present, when Isaiah presented the sign to Ahaz - the almah who was already pregnant.

However, almah doesn't translate to "behold, a virgin" or "behold, the young woman". You didn't see the mistake of blueletterbible, a source that you have quoted.

Hi Gnostic, I quoted that which was given in the KJV(and many other versions), but you knowingly, presented that which wasn't a part of the verbage as if it was present to make your claimed point; and to try to cast me in a bad light.

 

[sincerly]

You know very little of scripture besides what you have been taught. Hence hearsay. It's why you are behind on biblical scholarship.

I see quoting from other sources in your posts, which would be hearsay---since they are contrary to the Biblical Scriptures.
Believe that which you choose, But the opinions of other than GOD is what the Scriptures declare is why there is a redeeming and restoration of "all things" and Mankind who are willing to accept and abide.

 

[sincerly]

Happens in the animal kingdom...snakes, birds, insects can give bough via parthenogenesis lol. Then there are creatures that change from male to female in their lifetime.

Hi FM, Mankind was not patterned after the created animals, but was on a higher plane----in the image of GOD.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi FM, Mankind was not patterned after the created animals, but was on a higher plane----in the image of GOD.

Oh so God has DNA?

 

[sincerly]

You are alleging that a problem exist, but fail to identify the problem. Novices of your ilk do this often on religious forums. Poppycock can be promoted, but it never fails that the poppycockist gets bitten on his rump for promoting poppycock. Clear?

Hi TAJ, Welcome to the forums!

Scriptural "poppycock"/nonsense will end in failure "in the long run"/the big picture.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi FM, Mankind was not patterned after the created animals, but was on a higher plane----in the image of GOD.

Oh so God has DNA?

Where did i say anything concerning DNA???
However, DNA isn't limited to Mankind.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi FM, Mankind was not patterned after the created animals, but was on a higher plane----in the image of GOD.



Where did i say anything concerning DNA???
However, DNA isn't limited to Mankind.

Well Mankind was made in Gods image...and man has DNA. SO God must have DNA if man comes from God, and animals don't have DNA cause they were just created.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well Mankind was made in Gods image...and man has DNA. SO God must have DNA if man comes from God, and animals don't have DNA cause they were just created.

If Jesus is God, and I think most Christians believe he is, then God, the Son, has DNA. But now it is glorified DNA.

But Jesus dripped a lot of blood, probably lost a lot of skin cells and hair, among other things, that left his DNA behind. Did it turn to dust? Did it return to him when he was resurrected? After he was resurrect, did he shed skin and hair, or was his whole body made of some kind of everlasting flesh? He ate with the apostles, so did his food turn into incorruptible proteins and carbohydrates and became part of his body?

The literal story is too fantastic to believe for me to believe. But, if it's just myth, why have so many given their lives for it? Christians always point that out. But the funny thing is, they don't believe other religions are true and all religions have had their martyrs. So made up, fantastic religious stories do have the power to change people and get them to give up their lives in serving those beliefs.

 

[Fletch]

I believe you are in error. Those are symbols not signs.

Not me, you think Scripture is in error:

Gen 12 And God said , This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.


Ezek 4:3 Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.

A Biblical sign is a miracle with special meaning. It isn't a few words on a highway saying theres food and lodging ahead.

A sign is something that is seen. Ahaz, unless a time traveling gynecologist, would not have seen any sign. Joseph, Mary's husband, closer than any one else, did not see any sign.

Few signs are miracles in Scripture, I think maybe Hezekiah had a miracle sign, can't think of any others right off hand now.

Gen 1:14 And God said , Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


Isaiah said his sons were for signs right in Isaiah 7:14's context:

Isaiah 8:18 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.

I like that when I believe you have mangaed to present half a passage and conveniently ignore the other half:

Deu 22:23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;

I gave an example of a girl who could be a virgin who would not be stoned. Why on Earth would I give an example of a girl who would be stoned to make my point? Had Dinah been pregnant from the rape, she would not be stoned.

Why in the NT storyline was not Mary stoned seeing she was husband to Joseph ?????

I believe both lived before the law was given to Moses

Tamar was king David's daughter and Dinah was Jacob's. God's perfect law was around for both. God's law existed long before Moses and Israel made a covenant to follow it.

1 Chron 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

God's law(which David called a delight) existed and was followed by Abraham:

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

I have never in my lifetime heard of a virgin in our time conceiving.

Shall conceive is how the KJV reads(not Hebrew text). Virgins shall conceive all the time, in fact it could have been said at one time in every mother's life who has ever existed.

I have heard of it happening without penetration but the fact is that the girl had to be involved with the man sexually in some way. Test tube babies don't count because they couldn't have been done in Biblical times.

Me thinks you missed my point there.

I believe God did not tell Ahaz that he would see the sign. Are you saying Joseph couldn't tell Mary was having a child. What He didn't know was that Mary hadn't been with another man. He had to be told that by God...

He had to be told because he did not see the sign. Nobody saw it:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

I believe it is true no virgin has ever given birth and named her child Immanuel.

I agree with this statement because no mention of anything of the sort is in Scripture. Almah for starters does not mean nor ever will mean virign, bethulah is the Hebrew word for virgin. Mary named her son in the NT story Jesus, not Immanuel.

Howeveer Jesus is Immanuel even though he does not have the name.

Some prophecy fulfillment.

"Behold" does not necessarily mean see it may simply mean pay attention.

I am open for a Scripture example that is not chapter "thin", verse "air" thank you.

I believe neither of these words is found in the NASB. "A" and "She" are used.

What is the word of God or what did Isaiah write in? The Hebrew text or "the NASB"?

You know this because you were there, it is written or god told you?

For me it is written in the Hebrew Scriptures, that is what I have to go by.

See thls footnote from the Christian Netbible:

2 tn Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this&#8221 in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name&#8221 later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.

That is nice but I believe it is a question not an answer. It wasn't even Go
d's question but Solomon's who evidently did not undeerstand about such things. God did dwell there II Char 7:1 ¶ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Jehovah filled the house.

It was a rhetorical question with an immediate answer given. Your example does not show God dwelled with man on Earth. I have to go with the Scriptures, God can not be contained.
Fletch

 

[sincerly]

Not me, you think Scripture is in error:

It was a rhetorical question with an immediate answer given. Your example does not show God dwelled with man on Earth. I have to go with the Scriptures, God can not be contained.
Fletch

No, the Scripture messages are not in error. There are scribal errors/etc, but the messages remain true.

Man can not "contain GOD", However, GOD can choose to live among HIS Created Believing People---as is evidenced in:
Ex.29:42-46, "This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God."

And 1Kings 6:12-14, "Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. So Solomon built the house, and finished it."

 

[Fletch]

No, the Scripture messages are not in error. There are scribal errors/etc, but the messages remain true.

Sincerely,

I absolutely know the Scripture is not in error, almost as much as I know you indeed are in error.

Man can not "contain GOD", However, GOD can choose to live among HIS Created

Heaven or even the heaven of heavens can not contain God, He is infinite. God can not dwell(Yashab) with man on Earth. God can not be housed in a man's body, God is not a man, nor even the son of man.(see Numb 23:19 and Ez 28:2)

Believing People---as is evidenced in:
Ex.29:42-46, "This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God."

And 1Kings 6:12-14, "Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. So Solomon built the house, and finished it."

God can Tabernacle(shakan) with man, God can not dwell (yashab) with man on Earth because not even heaven of heavens can contain God.

You can get into trouble with Scripture when you use translations without first checking the original Hebrew. The two words are not the same, check them out.

Fletch

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
No, the Scripture messages are not in error. There are scribal errors/etc, but the messages remain true.

Sincerely,

I absolutely know the Scripture is not in error,...

Hi Fletch, We agree on that point. now let's look at that last part of your response.

...almost as much as I know you indeed are in error.

I gave you this scripture Ex.29:42-46, "And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God."
And,
1Kings 6:12-14, "Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. So Solomon built the house, and finished it."

Didn't GOD dwell with mankind in that first "earthly tabernacle" which GOD said was "patterned after the one in heaven? YES. And wasn't GOD'S presence in that "tabernacle" seen by the Israelites(and all else) in the cloudy pillar by day and the pillar of fire by night for more than forty years (until they possessed the "promised land")? Yes.

Heaven or even the heaven of heavens can not contain God, He is infinite. God can not dwell(Yashab) with man on Earth. God can not be housed in a man's body, God is not a man, nor even the son of man.
(see Numb 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? "

and Ez 28:2), "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:"

Fletch, GOD is infinite in many ways and man can not begin to understand the totality of the Almighty GOD.
With GOD, all things are possible which GOD considers---man puts up the "vainity" barriers.

GOD created this earth and the inhabitants with the purpose of it being for HIS Pleasure(Rev.4:12) and "that pleasure" will be culminated in the "heavens and earth made new".(Isa.66:22-23; Rev. 21:1)

God can Tabernacle(shakan) with man, God can not dwell (yashab) with man on Earth because not even heaven of heavens can contain God.

You can get into trouble with Scripture when you use translations without first checking the original Hebrew. The two words are not the same, check them out.

Fletch

"yashab" has these translations: Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1088
AV — dwell 437, inhabitant 221, sit 172, abide 70, inhabit 39, down 26, remain 23, in 22, tarry 19, set 14, continue 5, place 7, still 5, taken 5, misc 23


And for "shakan":
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 129
AV — dwell 92, abide 8, place 7, remain 5, inhabit 4, rest 3, set 2, continue 1, dwellers 1, dwelling 1, misc 5


The Scriptures are clear that GOD intends to "Dwell' with HIS created human Beings.

 

[Fletch]

So Sincerly the question is, "Can God "YASHAB" with men on Earth?

The validity of the Hebrew Scriptures and therefore even your own Greek book hang in the balance.

Fletch

 

[sincerly]

So Sincerly the question is, "Can God "YASHAB" with men on Earth?

The validity of the Hebrew Scriptures and therefore even your own Greek book hang in the balance.

Fletch

Hi Fletch,
I didn't post any Scripture from Greek words, but those I posted are clear. GOD has in the past and will in the future "yashab"/Dwell with mankind just as those Scriptures stated which I posted.

I don't see where you have proven otherwise.

 

[Fletch]

Hi Fletch,
I didn't post any Scripture from Greek words, but those I posted are clear. GOD has in the past and will in the future "yashab"/Dwell with mankind just as those Scriptures stated which I posted.

I don't see where you have proven otherwise.

Hi Sincerly,
You have a created a paradox. Your Scriptures, at keast the part you call the Old Testament, is now corrupt and you must discard them.

You never posted any Scriptures that had God yashab with men on Earth that I am aware of. Please show again if that indeed is true.

The New Testament is a Greek book because that is its original language. Isaiah in chapters 24 and 28 tells of a huge known for singing world wide false new wine, snare religion that comes in another language, and has a covenant with death that they think will hide them from the overwhelming scourge to come.

Fletch