Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

A very good point is that if such a fantastic miracle like being born of a virgin really happened then why didn't Mark, John, Peter, Paul and whoever wrote Hebrews talk it up. "Hey, dudes, Jesus is God. No doubt about it. The Holy Spirit is also God and he/she did something like sex with a human virgin to make himself. But, don't get confused with all the pagan myths about god/men, that was a bunch of baloney. This is the real deal and as soon it comes out in written form that will seal the deal. I can feel the Holy Spirit hovering over me as I write this. But, guess what? In the already perfect and infallible Hebrew Bible, we have proof of the validity of the virgin birth. We have the exact meaning of the words that Isaiah almost says. Plus, God, the other God the Father, confirmed Jesus is God by speaking from heaven 'That's my boy.' So there you go, infallible proof Jesus is God because he was born of a virgin, therefore untainted by Adam's mess up."
Did they talk it up? No. Did Luke and Matthew "find" ways to get "prophecies" fulfilled? It seems like it. Does that make the things attributed to Jesus as doing and saying unimportant? No. If it weren't profound we wouldn't be here talking about it. But, is he God or was the "legend" of Jesus embellished?

 

[sincerly]

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

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

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

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

These actually represent what the Hebrew says.

Hi PS, "BBE"= Bible in Basic English. As translated by S. H. Hooke. Didn't he use some of the "Targum" in his translation?
"CEB"=Common English Bible. Wasn't the goal there to make the Bible pleasing to the General population? Sort of a fore-runner to the goal of the Ecumenical Council?

Speaking of "interpolation"---those verses are classic.
The Son of 7:14 cannot be the son of 8:3 because Isiah had not impregnated her yet. And those translations already has the "Virgin" with child.

Futhermore, 9:6-7 is speaking of the 7:14 child who was yet in the future. Not Isaiah's son who has no linage to the "throne". And the Angel Gabriel knew to whom he was sent and the message he was to proclaim and the source from where the Prophecy was obtained.

You continue to have the right to believe what you will, but that which you are claiming isn't according to Scriptures.

What is sad at that time and action was The king of Israel had joined with the king of Syria against the King of judah. Both of the houses of Jacob were in battle against each other and in rebellion against GOD.
Vs.7:17 It is the LORD GOD who brings the king of Assyria into the fray.
Soon(after this) They will be punished by 70 years of Babylonian Captivity. GOD does set up and tear down/abase kingdoms.
GOD'S Words/admonitions/ for correct living are still true.

No matter how much "targum" is applied it will not change the Will of the Father--GOD.

 

[sincerly]

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

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

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

Hi Shermana, I see "cherry-picking" of translations as a means of distortion as well as Scriptures.
The Hebrew word used in Isa.7:14 is "hereb" and means "with child" or "conceive".
The same word was used prior to Samson's Birth and the same translation was used as with Isaiah 7:14---it was future.(Judges 13:3-7) Even 2Sam.11:5, used "herab" to convey to David that Bathsheba had "conceived---was "with child"(hareb).

 

[sincerly]

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

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

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

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

Hi Shermana, The Gospel message is the everlasting Gospel and includes from the fall of mankind into sin/Disobedience to the LORD GOD to the final restoration of all things as seen in Revelation.
The Redemption process begins with the promise of crushing the Adversaries head(the death of)----But also, in those animal sacrifices which are substitutionary of Jesus upon the Cross.
A Redeemer isn't unknown to Judaism---GOD explained the concept and how it was to be obtained-----and that prophesied "virgin birth"("seed of the woman") was the anti-type for all those symbolic signs that were given from Eden and on-going down through man's history.

Believe or Disbelieve----Your Choice.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, I see "cherry-picking" of translations as a means of distortion as well as Scriptures.

You mean cherry picking translations that actually translate the Hebrew correctly. Unless you plan on going over the grammar of the language exactly, reconsider who is cherry picking. Young's Literal is far more literal in this case than your choice of translation.

So why am I cherry picking but you're not?

The Hebrew word used in Isa.7:14 is "hereb" and means "with child" or "conceive".

Okay, and "With child" is not in the future tense but the present unless you can prove otherwise of course. It says "Harah" by the way.

הָרָה֙

Where did you get Hereb?

The same word was used prior to Samson's Birth and the same translation was used as with Isaiah 7:14---it was future.(Judges 13:3-7)

The word in 13:3 is Harit, which is not Harah, two different tenses.

וְהָרִ֖ית

You're welcome.

Even 2Sam.11:5, used "herab" to convey to David that Bathsheba had "conceived---was "with child"(hareb).

The word is "harah" which means "Am pregnant" in present tense again.

http://biblos.com/2_samuel/11-5.htm

Thank you for defeating your own rebuttal.

 

[sincerly]

You mean cherry picking translations that actually translate the Hebrew correctly. Unless you plan on going over the grammar of the language exactly, reconsider who is cherry picking. Young's Literal is far more literal in this case than your choice of translation.

The word in Judges 13:3 is Harit, which is not Harah, two different tenses.
וְהָרִ֖ית

YLT= and a messenger of Jehovah appeareth unto the woman, and saith unto her, `Lo, I pray thee, thou [art] barren, and hast not borne; when thou hast conceived, then thou hast borne a son. "
That is still future.
And this is the word used:" but you shall conceive h2029הרה harah

 

[Desert Snake]

You mean cherry picking translations that actually translate the Hebrew correctly. http://

I'm a little confused, do Nazarenes believe in the divinity of Jesus,... and do they believe the coming of Jesus was prophesized in the Bible?

 

[Shermana]

I'm a little confused, do Nazarenes believe in the divinity of Jesus,... and do they believe the coming of Jesus was prophesized in the Bible?

The word "Divinity" is not so clear cut. Did they believe Jesus was a god as in an angel incarnated, as in the firstborn created Spirit, the personification of Wisdom whom was the vehicle of which God made all things through? Very possibly. Keep in mind that angels are often called "Divine beings" and are in fact called "gods" throughout the Tanakh. "Divinity" does not apply exclusively to THE god who is "the god of the gods".

Did they believe in the Trinity? Probably not. Early Jewish Christians like Cerinthus and the Ebionites most certainly did not buy it either.

Did they believe he was prophecied in the scriptures they used at the time? Most probably. Did they go by the same set of canon that is called the "Bible" today? Probably not.

 

[Shermana]

YLT= and a messenger of Jehovah appeareth unto the woman, and saith unto her, `Lo, I pray thee, thou [art] barren, and hast not borne; when thou hast conceived, then thou hast borne a son. "
That is still future.
And this is the word used:" but you shall conceive h2029הרה harah

No, it's Harit.

וַיֵּרָ֥א מַלְאַךְ־יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־הָאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלֶ֗יהָ הִנֵּה־נָ֤א אַתְּ־עֲקָרָה֙ וְלֹ֣א יָלַ֔דְתְּ וְהָרִ֖ית וְיָלַ֥דְתְּ בֵּֽן׃

Judges 13:3 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

You simply aren't using Strong's correctly.

Harah is the BASE word.

The FORM of it there is Harit.

וְהָרִ֖ית

The form in Isaiah 7:14 is Harah.

הָרָה֙

Harah is present, Harit is future/present-perfect-future.

You're welcome.

 

[sincerly]

You simply aren't using Strong's correctly.

The form in Isaiah 7:14 is Harah.

הָרָה֙

Harah is present, Harit is future/present-perfect-future.

You're welcome.

Isaiah 7:14
BIB: הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן
NAS: a virgin will be with child and bear
KJV: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear
INT: Behold A virgin child and bear A son

 

[Poisonshady313]

Isaiah 7:14
BIB: הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן
NAS: a virgin will be with child and bear
KJV: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear
INT: Behold A virgin child and bear A son

Presenting a bunch of poorly translated versions of the same segment of the verse only proves to us that you're good at presenting a bunch of poorly translated versions of the same segment of the verse.

 

[sincerly]

Presenting a bunch of poorly translated versions of the same segment of the verse only proves to us that you're good at presenting a bunch of poorly translated versions of the same segment of the verse.

Thanks for admitting that something was proved.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Thanks for admitting that something was proved.

lol. If you're proud of providing useless information, let nobody take that pride away from you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Whether she was pregnant already or the next day or in 700 years doesn't help that Matthew ignored the context of the Chapter. Was there a boy who ate his yogurt and honey, or whatever it was, and by the time he got old enough to know the difference between good and evil, were the two kings dead? If so, the sign was completed.
Or, if Isaiah told King Ahaz, "This sign is for you, but it won't be fulfilled for a while. You and your enemies will be long dead, but, behold, a virgin that knows no man, that hasn't had intercourse with any human, will conceive by the 3rd person of the Tri-une God. (to be explained later, so Jews don't worry about it now. God is still one. He'll become three later. And, getting pregnant by God doesn't count as having sex.) Her name will be called Mary. Her boy won't worry about knowing to choose good over evil; he's God made flesh. He can't do evil. He will be called a good Latin name like Jesus, Yeshua is too Jewish sounding. He will save all people that believe in him from the screw up of Adam that caused all of us to be born with the guilt of sin on our souls. Are you following all of this so far Ahaz? So to continue, the serpent in Eden was really Satan. In later chapters I'll talk about Satan a little more, but I'll veil it by calling him the King and Prince of Tyre. Just know, the devil is real, and he has the rights to your soul. And all the rituals and laws we've been doing don't fix the problem. The only thing they do is point to the true sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Since you and most of the Jewish people don't know enough about this Messiah to be saved then I guess you will all go to hell.Tough break King. So I guess my message to you is, your enemies are the least of your problems.
So other than the dual-prophecy problem, if the sign was in the future, then King Ahaz should have said, "I take that back. I will ask for my own sign. And, while I'm asking, could God not harden my heart and make me such an idiot as to not trust him?"

 

[Shermana]

Thanks for admitting that something was proved.

Yes, it's been proven that those translations deliberately change the tense.

 

[sincerly]

Yes, it's been proven that those translations deliberately change the tense.

Yes, As I showed you, yours.
The Holy Spirit made no mistake in speaking to Joseph----nor to Mary.

 

[sincerly]

lol. If you're proud of providing useless information, let nobody take that pride away from you.

Assuming and labeling is really beneath you, PS.

 

[sincerly]

Whether she was pregnant already or the next day or in 700 years doesn't help that Matthew ignored the context of the Chapter. Was there a boy who ate his yogurt and honey, or whatever it was, and by the time he got old enough to know the difference between good and evil, were the two kings dead? If so, the sign was completed.
Or, if Isaiah told King Ahaz, "This sign is for you, but it won't be fulfilled for a while. You and your enemies will be long dead, but, behold, a virgin that knows no man, that hasn't had intercourse with any human, will conceive by the 3rd person of the Tri-une God. (to be explained later, so Jews don't worry about it now. God is still one. He'll become three later. And, getting pregnant by God doesn't count as having sex.) Her name will be called Mary. Her boy won't worry about knowing to choose good over evil; he's God made flesh. He can't do evil. He will be called a good Latin name like Jesus, Yeshua is too Jewish sounding. He will save all people that believe in him from the screw up of Adam that caused all of us to be born with the guilt of sin on our souls. Are you following all of this so far Ahaz? So to continue, the serpent in Eden was really Satan. In later chapters I'll talk about Satan a little more, but I'll veil it by calling him the King and Prince of Tyre. Just know, the devil is real, and he has the rights to your soul. And all the rituals and laws we've been doing don't fix the problem. The only thing they do is point to the true sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Since you and most of the Jewish people don't know enough about this Messiah to be saved then I guess you will all go to hell.Tough break King. So I guess my message to you is, your enemies are the least of your problems.
So other than the dual-prophecy problem, if the sign was in the future, then King Ahaz should have said, "I take that back. I will ask for my own sign. And, while I'm asking, could God not harden my heart and make me such an idiot as to not trust him?"

Hi CG D, Just possibly the truth you claim to be seeking will be forth coming instead of the above parody.

 

[gnostic]

Even if we were to believe that verse was the sign of the Messiah - which I believes not - the other part of the sign has to be taken into consideration.

And quite clearly the sign is not about the messiah, and it is certainly not that of Jesus, when you read verse 14 with the following verses (15, 16 & 17).

The sign in this chapter comprised of 4 verses, from 14 to 17.

A) Verse 14, clearly state a son will be born to a woman. It doesn't say anything about messiah. The only thing is the name - Immanuel, and Jesus was never called Immanuel. Immanuel is mentioned again, in relation to Judah, Israel and Assyria in verses 8:6-8.

B) Verse 15, also say that the child (the same son in verse 14) will know right from wrong, by the time he start eating curds and honey.

C) Verse 16 stated that before the child knows right and wrong, the lands of the 2 kings, who were first named in this chapter in verse 1 (Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram) will be destroyed.

D) And lastly, verse 17 say that it will be the King of Assyria that will destroyed these 2 kingdoms.
​

That's the whole sign comes in those 4 verses, not one verse. It's really that simple. I don't see how some of these Christians can blindly ignore the whole sign.

Accepting just one sign, is only accepting a quarter of the sign, what happened to other 3/4 of the sign?

And Israel was attacked in time of Ahaz and Isaiah, by Assyria (c 732 BCE), not in the time of Jesus. In Jesus' time, more specifically during the birth of Jesus, Damascus was under Rome's control, and Syria was a Roman province. There was no war between Roman Syria and Judaea in Jesus' time.

So by the time Jesus could eat curds and honey, how do Jesus fit in with this sign of Israel and Aram falling to Assyria?

Isaiah 8:6-10 speak of war and battle, so how do Jesus fit in this foretold war?

 

[Conståntine]

A) Verse 14, clearly state a son will be born to a woman. It doesn't say anything about messiah. The only thing is the name - Immanuel, and Jesus was never called Immanuel. Immanuel is mentioned again, in relation to Judah, Israel and Assyria in verses 8:6-8.​

You are incorrect.

Matthew 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his nameJESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"Emmanuel/Immanuel" was a general title given to Jesus, simply to denote the presence of God amongst his chosen people.​