|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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: As a matter of fact, I have read it a number of times, carefully and prayerfully.
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
This was also discussed in: "Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
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 TOBE 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 followedHim,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 BERESOLVED. 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 AKING 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
THe Brittanica entry on Isaiah states
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
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" 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, 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" "This flood will overflow all its channels and sweep into your land of Judah, O Immanuel, submerging it from end to end. The last four words, 'God is with us' are a translation of the word Immanuel. 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 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
It will be my friend.
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: 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:.........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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
buzsaw writes:
Are you reading what you write?
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.
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:Sounds a lot like: quote: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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024