Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 202 (58111)
09-26-2003 10:51 PM


So as not to get in topical hot water over in the no Bible thread, I thought it best to open a thread on this, beginning with my response to PaulK here:
quote:
Isaiah 7:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian's statement:
This may need a seperate thread but just to deal with Buzsaw's points (Buzsaw have you READ all of Isiah 7, with Isaiah 8 ?)
As a matter of fact, I have read it a number of times, carefully and prayerfully.
quote:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz statement:
1. It was a prophecy of a future birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian's response:
Aside from the fact that the verse can be read as indicating that the young woman *is* with child, it is clear that the birth is in the *near* future.
The child is a sign that Syria nad Isreal - who had been raiding Judah - would shortly be conquered and cease to be a threat.
You better reread, carefully and prayerfully, PaulK. God assured the prophet Isaiah that Syria and Ephriam would be defeated. This promise was to be relayed to Ahaz by the prophet. Ahas needed no sign about that. So God offered Ahas the opportunity to ask any sign....about anything he wished from above or from beneith. Ahaz declined the offer so then God, being a bit ticked with Ahaz said something like, 'ok bud, since you decline I gonna give the whole house of David a sign. Then he said a righteous person who was to be called Immanuel (meaning, 'God with us'} would be born of a woman. Then God went on to say this would be in a future day after thus and thus would happen in the land, etc. So very clearly, this prophecy was not about the there and then, but given to the house of David, i.e. Israel for a future birth of a messianic person. The Jews of the NT understood that, and any objective carefull reader of this in conjunction with the Micah 5 prophecy which I've already commented on in the 'no Bible' thread cannot logically come to any other conclusion.
quote:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buz:
2. OT scriptural practice was to name the father of one having been born or to be born, not themother. Geneologies nearly always list the fathers and sons. It would be very unusual to say a young woman was to bear a son. This would implicate adultery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PaulK response:
This point cofnuses NAMING the father with indicating that a woman is pregnant. It is not unusual to say that a woman would bear a child - unless you think that men normally give birth !. It would be unusual to name the mother and not thre father - but the mother is not named.
Not named, but that's beside the point. Regardless, the father/son male role would be prophesied with such terms as is used in other prophecies concerning Christ where he is referred to as the 'son of David.' This prophecy is clearly given in this rare language to indicate a miraculous birth. Thus the NT reference to it as such.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-26-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 12:01 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 09-27-2003 3:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 202 (58162)
09-27-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
09-26-2003 10:51 PM


OK so you say that have read Isaiah 7 very carefully and prayerfully - and as I will show you then ignored what it said.
quote:
God assured the prophet Isaiah that Syria and Ephriam would be defeated. This promise was to be relayed to Ahaz by the prophet. Ahas needed no sign about that. So God offered Ahas the opportunity to ask any sign....about anything he wished from above or from beneith. Ahaz declined the offer so then God, being a bit ticked with Ahaz said something like, 'ok bud, since you decline I gonna give the whole house of David a sign. Then he said a righteous person who was to be called Immanuel (meaning, 'God with us'} would be born of a woman. Then God went on to say this would be in a future day after thus and thus would happen in the land, etc. So very clearly, this prophecy was not about the there and then, but given to the house of David, i.e. Israel for a future birth of a messianic person. The Jews of the NT understood that, and any objective carefull reader of this in conjunction with the Micah 5 prophecy which I've already commented on in the 'no Bible' thread cannot logically come to any other conclusion.
However, the prophecy in Isaiah DOES give an indication of when the birth would have to happen - and you don't quote those verses - either because your "careful reading" missed their significance or because they contradict what you say.
7:15-16 explain more of the nature of the sign (NASB)
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 " For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
7:16 clearly states that the child is a sign of the defeat of Israel and Syria - and that that defeat will occur within a few years of the birth (i.e. a number of years equivalent to the age at which a child would be held to be bable to understand "good" and "evil"). Therefore the only RATIONAL reading is that the child will be born BEFORE that event.
7:15 is also relevant if you read the rest of the chapter - it is a reference to 7:22
"... and because of the abundance of the milk produced he will eat curds, for everyone that is left within the land will eat curds and honey."
But that is part of a prediction that the Assyrians will come and that the people of Judah will return to a nomadic life.
What does any of this have to do with Jesus ? Israel and Assyria were logn gone by the time Jesus was born. Syria was a Roman Province. None of these events happened durng Jesus childhood.
The only conclusion a RATIONAL reader of Isaiah can come to is that the child of Isaiah 7:14 (abe: is) Jesus. A RATIONAL reader would know that Israel, Syria and the Assyrians were all threats during the reign of Ahaz and conclude that Isaiah 7 referred to events of that time and not the distant future.
You do not even explain why your "logic" requires you to assume that Isaiah and Micah were talking about the same person. Nor do you explain why yur "logic' requires you to red Isaiah 7 as referring to the distant future.
And you reject your own point about genealogies - you say that the father should be named rather than the mother. Well we have no name, and no genealogy - just an observation that a young woman is or will be pregnant. Now in my view the young woman was known to Ahaz and Isaiah (but you can't accept that) and that the father's name was implicit. I would suggest that Isaiah was talking about one of Ahaz' wives or concubines - probably a wife. Others suggest that Isaiah's wife is meant, believing that the child of Isaiah 8 is the same as the child of Isaiah 7.
In the light of Isaiah 7:15-16 either alternative is clearly better than your assumption that it must mean some unknown woman in the distant future. So until you can explain why it is "logical" to ignore the two verses directly following Isaiah 7:14 it is clear that a careful reader CANNOT logically come to your conclusion. Indeed it would be better to ask how your "careful" reading somehow managed to miss the significance of these two verses leading you to a clearly false conclusion.
This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 03-20-2006 11:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2003 10:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2003 1:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 3 of 202 (58168)
09-27-2003 1:02 PM


This was also discussed in: "Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible."

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 4 of 202 (58169)
09-27-2003 1:05 PM


This is what I posted on that forum.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. The passage refers to one that would establish a government:
Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Jesus didn't do this. There is no government of Jesus.
"It also describes the conquests of the Messiah:
Isaiah 9:1: Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
Jesus didn't do this, either.
Yes, Isaiah foretells a Messiah.
But Jesus does not fulfill the prophecy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible Talks about JESUS AS KING.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLICAL PROPHECY FORETOLD THAT JESUS WOULD BE KING.
ISAIAH 9:7 "Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no
end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and
establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."
LUKE 1:32 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and
the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David."
ACTS 2:30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with
an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He
would raise up the Christ to sit on his (David's) throne,..."
(There will be an earthly kingdom, a government, and Jesus will sit on
David's throne.
JESUS ANNOUNCED HIS KINGSHIP WHEN HE ENTERED JERUSALEM AS KING ACCORDING TO
ZECHARIAH'S PROPHECY.
Zechariah 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having
salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey."
MATTHEW 21:5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your King is coming to
you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
THE PEOPLE RECOGNIZED THAT JESUS WAS OF THE LINE OF DAVID AND QUALIFIED TO
BE KING. ALL ISRAEL KEPT GENEALOGICAL (FAMILY) RECORDS.
1 CHRONICLES 9:1 "So all Israel was recorded by genealogies,...."
MATTHEW 9:27 "When Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed
Him,crying out and saying, "Son of David, have mercy on us!"
MATTHEW 12:23 "And all the multitudes were amazed and said, "Could this be
the Son of David?"
BUT FOR JESUS TO BE KING, A HUGE PROBLEM IN THE FAMILY LINE HAD TO BE
RESOLVED.
THE PROBLEM:
1. Christ must be born of a virgin.
2. Christ must have the legal right to David's throne.
3. Christ must be of the fruit of David's body.
But there was a complication:
Jeconiah, an evil man and in David's line, was told that none of his
descendants were to rule in Judah. Then how was Christ, following in
David's line, to be a ruling king since the right to
the throne was only through the male line?
WITH GOD NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE:
1. Christ was born of the virgin Mary.
2. The legal right to David's throne came through Joseph, husband of Mary,
step-father to Jesus.
3. Jesus was of the fruit of David's body through Mary. Mary was of the
line of David through Nathan. So Mary was in David's line.
So Jesus had the legal right to the throne through Joseph and was of the
fruit of David through Mary. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was
essentialand necessary for all requirements to be met for Jesus to be king.
THIS SOLUTION ALSO SATISFIED GOD'S PROMISE TO DAVID:
PSALM 132:11 The LORD has sworn in truth to David; He will not turn from
it: "I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body."
ALTHOUGH JESUS IS KING, HE IS NOT YET A RULING KING.
MARK 16:19 "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up
into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God."
(Jesus is at God's right hand, not on the throne. So Jesus is not yet a
reigning King).
AT THE PRESENT TIME JESUS IS IN HEAVEN AS OUR PRIEST AND MEDIATOR.
(See BT# 55, "Our Mediator.")
JESUS WAS A PROPHET ON EARTH, NOW A PRIEST IN HEAVEN, AND WILL SOON BE A
KING ON EARTH. (See BT# 36, "The Millenium."
ISAIAH 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the
government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful,
Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
ISAIAH 11:4 "....but with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide
with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with the
rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked."
MICAH 4:3 "He shall judge between many peoples, and rebuke strong nations
afar off; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Above quote from eztech.com)
I think that thoroughly explains it, Jesus is to reign as a government king on earth. That part of the prophecy is soon to come during end times. Many think the prophecy foretells of Hezziekah the king. First of all he wouldn't be referred to with such titles of everlasting father or mighty God, secondly his reign was limited to Judah. Verse 7 shows that It can't be Hezziekah just by the description of the reign.
Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to try to refute this?
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-27-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 1:17 PM Trump won has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 202 (58175)
09-27-2003 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Trump won
09-27-2003 1:05 PM


But you aren't discussing Isaiah 7 which is the topic of this thread. Do you have anything to say about the points have been raised ?
The simplest objection to your points is that since no such govenremnt has been set up it the prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and so it cannot be used as evidence that Jesus is the Messiah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Trump won, posted 09-27-2003 1:05 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Trump won, posted 09-27-2003 4:15 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 202 (58178)
09-27-2003 1:25 PM


BTW: When was the book of Isaiah written? I understand that usually it is assumed to be written during Babylonian exile, but I have read some theories that it comes from period of Persian rule under direct influence of Zoroastrism. What is the evidence for either of those claims?
------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.
[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-27-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 1:46 PM Raha has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 202 (58181)
09-27-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Raha
09-27-2003 1:25 PM


THe Brittanica entry on Isaiah states
quote:
First Isaiah contains the words and prophecies of Isaiah, a most important 8th-century BCE prophet of Judah, written either by himself or his contemporary followers in Jerusalem (from c. 740 to 700 BCE), along with some later additions, such as chapters 24-27 and 33-39. The first of these two additions was probably written by a later disciple or disciples of Isaiah about 500 BCE; the second addition is divided into two sections--chapters 33-35, written during or after the exile to Babylon in 586 BCE, and chapters 36-39, which drew from the source used by the Deuteronomic historian in II Kings, chapters 18-19. The second major section of Isaiah, which may be designated Second Isaiah even though it has been divided because of chronology into Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah, was written by members of the "school" of Isaiah in Babylon: chapters 40-55 were written prior to and after the conquest of Babylon in 539 by the Persian king Cyrus II the Great, and chapters 56-66 were composed after the return from the Babylonian Exile in 538.
The main criteria appear to be content - the two portions of Second Isaiah deal with concenrs appropriate to those periods. However I would expect style to be an issue, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Raha, posted 09-27-2003 1:25 PM Raha has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 8 of 202 (58200)
09-27-2003 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
09-26-2003 10:51 PM


Isaiah 7:14 - 8:10 Contextual Considerations
I have moved this response from the thread No such thing as the Bible.
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ... before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, ... The LORD shall bring upon thee, ... the King of Assyria." Isaiah 7:14-17 KJV
"By the time this child is weaned ... the mighty king of Assyria will come with his great army!" vss. 16,17 Living Bible
By the time he is weaned, (age 3 to 4 in that culture) the Assyrians "will come."
You gots to think in context Buzz!
The prophecy is repeated but this time the child's name is Mahershalalhashbaz.
"... before this child is even old enough to say 'Daddy' or 'Mommy,' the king of Assyria will invade ... and carry away their riches." 8:4 Living Bible
Isaiah is so sure about this that he has his prediction recorded by "faithful witnesses."
In his first prediction Isaiah had said, "the virgin shall conceive" (Modern language Bible). In the second go around he says,
"I went in unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son."
The holy spirit tells me that both of these kids were Isaiah's children. In one instance he calls their mother, the "young woman" (almah) and in the other he calls her the "prophetess" (nebiah). I cannot say whether they were married. I doubt it. But they did work the same profession. Isaiah already had one son (by her?); a son who went with him when he visited Ahaz to make the famous prediction concerning the Assyrian invasion. Imma', his second son, and Maher', his third, were merely incidental to the point of the prophecy; objective examples of how shortly the invasion would begin. ("before he is weaned" "before he can talk")
The names of all three sons are political statements!
Son #1 -Shearjashub- means a remnant returns i.e. "POW's Come Home"
Son #2 -Immanuel- means God with us i.e. "Our Side Wins"
Son #3 -Mahershalalhashaz- means Speedy-spoil-quick-booty i.e. "Easy Pickin's"
Further evidence of the contemporary nature of Isaiah's prediction is found in verses 7 through 10 of chapter eight. He compares the Assyrian army to the Euphrates saying,
"This flood will overflow all its channels and sweep into your land of Judah, O Immanuel, submerging it from end to end.
Do your worst, O Syria and Israel, our enemies, but you will not succeed--you will be shattered. Listen to me, all you enemies of ours: Prepare for war against us--and perish! Yes! Perish! Call your councils of war, develop your strategies, prepare your plans of attacking us, and perish! For God is with us." Living Bible
The last four words, 'God is with us' are a translation of the word Immanuel.
Isaiah is already talking to his son Immanuel.
To make a long story short, the Assyrians did come, and did kick butt; and Isaiah's prediction did come true. Considering the fact that the Assyrian empire was long dead by the time JC arrived, He could not have fulfilled the requirements of this prophecy, even if he had wanted to do so.
I stumbled upon this in my reading many years ago and it angered me that I had been so gullible. I was horrified at the ignorance of my Bible instructors. I could accuse them of lying but I think they were merely unwitting parrots of a Roman Catholic tradition.
Need I say more?
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2003 10:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2003 10:12 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 9 of 202 (58201)
09-27-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
09-27-2003 1:17 PM


It will be my friend.
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 1:17 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 202 (58304)
09-28-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
09-27-2003 12:01 PM


quote:
However, the prophecy in Isaiah DOES give an indication of when the birth would have to happen - and you don't quote those verses - either because your "careful reading" missed their significance or because they contradict what you say.
7:15-16 explain more of the nature of the sign (NASB)
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
This, to me, indicates that when messiah comes he will not eat like a king who eats kings food with all the fineries and wine. He will eat simple food. Jesus had no earthly home and lived in the wilderness. He was a rugged manly individual who lived off the land in perfect health.
quote:
16 " For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
.........And guess what? Rome had defeated all, including Syria and Ephraim, hadn't it, by the time Jesus was born?
So far, so good, with prophecy on tract.
quote:
7:16 clearly states that the child is a sign of the defeat of Israel and Syria - and that that defeat will occur within a few years of the birth (i.e. a number of years equivalent to the age at which a child would be held to be bable to understand "good" and "evil"). Therefore the only RATIONAL reading is that the child will be born BEFORE that event.
Not at all. Jesus was the first child to be able, according to the gospel accounts, to go into the Temple and dialogue with the chief priests, scribes and other elders of Israel concerning things pertaining to good and evil. That's what this is referring to. This child is to be a very unique individual. And that, Jesus was. This again is aother of the scores of marvelous fulfillments of OT Biblical prophecy which you are failing to recognize or acknowledge, for in doing so, your entire philosophy of life and origins disintegrates.
I'll rest my case here for now. Gotta run, but will get back when I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 12:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 09-28-2003 2:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2003 4:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 202 (58310)
09-28-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
09-28-2003 1:18 PM


This again is aother of the scores of marvelous fulfillments of OT Biblical prophecy which you are failing to recognize or acknowledge, for in doing so, your entire philosophy of life and origins disintegrates.
Buz, can you say "projection?" We know you can do it, but do you realize that you are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2003 1:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 202 (58326)
09-28-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
09-28-2003 1:18 PM


Quite frankly it should be clear to everyone that you are ignoring my points and twisting the text to suit a predetermined conclusion.
It is not clear from Isaiah 7 that the child is to be a unique individual because all the child does is live to be old enough to tell good from evil and eat curds and honey (along with everyone else left in Judah - but you ignore that part of the prophecy). Granted the last did not happen - but if it had then many children would have done as much.
The child has to be born BEFORE the events to be a meaningful sign - the whole point of a sign is to indicate that the prophecy WILL be imminently fulfilled. That is a clear fact that no rational reader could deny.
The fact that you have to resort to these measures proves that you do not truly respect the Bible - if you did you would care about what it said - rather than twisting it to agree with your beliefs about what it SHOULD say. It is your belief system that has disintegrated.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2003 1:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 202 (58387)
09-28-2003 9:41 PM


1. The prophecy was given by God to the whole house of David, meaning a significant prophecy concerning the nation of Israel. It was not given to or for Ahaz who declined a prophecy.
2. I'm not ignoring the knowing between good and evil bit. I'm saying it is not about a person maturing, but about a unique person described as one who fits the term, Immanual, meaning God with us who will be able to understand all things and teach these things and to actually resist the evil and do the good. He will be a perfect individual in God's eyes. Before he appears, both kingdoms will be forsaken of their kings. Clearly a future event. He goes on to tell of the days to come when many things will be changed. This birth is way out in the future from the day it was given. If you can't see that, I'm not going to sit here going over and over about it. I've stated my position and you'll have to go with whatever suits you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2003 3:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 202 (58389)
09-28-2003 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by doctrbill
09-27-2003 3:53 PM


Re: Isaiah 7:14 - 8:10 Contextual Considerations
quote:
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ... before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, ... The LORD shall bring upon thee, ... the King of Assyria." Isaiah 7:14-17 KJV
"By the time this child is weaned ... the mighty king of Assyria will come with his great army!" vss. 16,17 Living Bible
By the time he is weaned, (age 3 to 4 in that culture) the Assyrians "will come."
You gots to think in context Buzz!
Better get your context in order, Doc. The prophecy of the sons birth and data concerning his nature are addressed before Assyria is mentioned in verse 17. And note that according to verse 16 the two kingdoms will be gone BEFORE the son is born as also stated in verse 16. Nothing in verse 17 says the son will preceed the fall of Ephraim and Assyria. The living Bible has departed from the text and erroneously add words not there as it so often and liberally does. Verse 17 says that "days that have not come." It does not say atol that the Assyrians will come before the child is weaned. This is totally spun out of whole cloth. What the Hebrew text, according to my interlinear is saying is that days, not kings, will come. Ephraim and Assyria will be dealt with before those "days," is the implication of the text. Nothing about the weaning of the child is in the text. This's why these translators who think their job is interpretation irritate me greatly. They also irritate God who always instructed that the text be left as written. The Jewish scribes understood this and meticulously adhered to it. Only in our days of the prophesied apostacy have they so blatantly undertook to shred the truth into oblivion and deceive with their own personal nonsense. Had the early writers and copiers been so careless, alas, we'd have no semblence of what was actually written by now. Thankfully they, for the most part, had more respect and fear of such tampering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 09-27-2003 3:53 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 09-28-2003 11:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 15 of 202 (58404)
09-28-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
09-28-2003 10:12 PM


Re: Isaiah 7:14 - 8:10 Contextual Considerations
buzsaw writes:
according to verse 16 the two kingdoms will be gone BEFORE the son is born as also stated in verse 16.
Are you reading what you write?
Nothing in verse 17 says the son will preceed the fall of Ephraim and Assyria.
So why mention verse 17?
And there is nothing anywhere in this narrative about the fall of Assyria.
Verse 17 says that "days that have not come."
I don't expect you to have read the whole, entire verse. But why don't you?
It does not say atol that the Assyrians will come before the child is weaned.
Do you not have access to this version? Here is the entire quote:
quote:
By the time this child is weaned and knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Syria--will both be dead
Sounds a lot like:
quote:
before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Yes?
What the Hebrew text, according to my interlinear is saying is that days, not kings, will come.
You are confusing verses 16 and 17.
Ephraim and Assyria will be dealt with before those "days," is the implication of the text.
The "implication" is: that the coming conflict will be as bad or worse than anything which has happened to them since those days. The allusion to "days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah;" is a reminder of the terrible 'civil' war which Ephraim waged to achieve Israeli independence.
Assyria is not about to fall, by this prophecy.
Assyria is going to come in like a Euphrates flood and wipe out the kings of Israel and Syria.
BTW: In case you are not aware of this - Syria and Assyria are two different players in this story.
Nothing about the weaning of the child is in the text. This's why these translators who think their job is interpretation irritate me greatly. They also irritate God who always instructed that the text be left as written. The Jewish scribes understood this and meticulously adhered to it. Only in our days of the prophesied apostacy have they so blatantly undertook to shred the truth into oblivion and deceive with their own personal nonsense. Had the early writers and copiers been so careless, alas, we'd have no semblence of what was actually written by now. Thankfully they, for the most part, had more respect and fear of such tampering.
IMO Your tirade against translators in general may also implicate your own favorite versions. I study a variety of translations simultaneously and then form my own opinion of what the ancient authors had in mind.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2003 10:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-09-2006 11:59 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024