Key Advent Texts from Isaiah 7, Matthew 1, and the "Virgin" Birth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Started off looking at texts like Isaiah 7:14 relating to prophetic utterances concerning the Incarnation of the Son.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
#Christmas #prophecy #Trinity
I'm an atheist, but I came here specifically after searching for Dr James White's explanation of the Issaiah 7: 14 translation issue regarding ''virgin'' and ''young woman'' because I hold him up as the highest authority amongst Christians. Thanks, this was interesting. 👍
Continuation of difficulties with first modified approach:
5. Furthermore, another very important example of how the sign must entirely be relevant to Ahaz. In verse 7 it is stated, “So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.” This is referring to the plans of Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, with their ally Efraim. They won’t succeed in harming him. A concern for the “Davidic line supported by a virgin birth 700 years in the future” is impertinent to his being harmed, being that they are not mutually exclusive; because he may be harmed, yet, the Davidic would still survive. Again, the Davidic line and future virgin birth, completely disregard the context, leaving them utterly implausible.
Therefore, you are coerced to say, that when God sends him a sign, the sign will support the very thing God spoke about.
This is the only concern God himself mentioned. Consequently, the sign can only be that which addresses this matter, and this matter only.
Remember, the sign must corroborate him not getting harmed. The fact that he has a descendant born of a virgin 700 years later, in no way assures his immediate safety. He may perish, yet, have have descendants. The two have no pertinence. (Based on Isaiah 7:7 and 7:14)
6. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה, doesn’t in any way indicate virginity. The root word is “עלם”, a primitive root signifying strength and endurance, hence, youth. As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”, (Exodus 19:9), from the root עלם. We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, but rather strength and endurance, vigor, henceforth, a youth. (This is unlike the root for betulah/בתולה, from the root בתל, a primitive root signifying “separate and or secluded”, an etymological cognate of the root badal/בדל, which conveys a similar meaning, namely, “separate and divide”. Each expressing, however, a different type of separation. One exclusively used to express chastity.)
We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, but rather strength and endurance, vigor, henceforth, a youth. There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely.
7. Moreover, and this is a very important point, the word “THE ALMA העלמה”, translated as “virgin” by the church, is written with what’s referred to in hebrew as “ה הידיעה”, literally, “the knowledgeable hei”, or, in english, a definite article, which unquestionably implies something previously mentioned or known, thus, a “known virgin”, and not some unspecified virgin of the future, which would have been expressed simply as “ALMA עלמה”; now, being that the wicked Ahaz certainly had no conception and knowledge about this alleged future virgin, and no mention was made of her previously, the use of the definite article is most definitely unjustified. (According to the traditional translation, however, which translates, “the young woman”, no difficulty is encountered, and the definite article is even necessary! Obviously, by using the definite article, It implies a young woman known to Ahaz at the time, not some unknown woman that has to be randomly sought; albeit, that the text doesn’t specify who she is exactly, it’s safe to assume, being that she’s obviously known to him, and that the text relates his knowledge of her to us, that the most “known woman” without elucidating, would be either Ahaz’s own wife, or, Isaiah’s wife, or, possibly, another young woman with that very aspect and degree of “knowledge”. Undeniably, it’s someone Ahaz is very cognizant of and could expect to find pregnant at any time, even if at this point it wasn’t crystal clear, once the child will be born and named among the very narrow window of women, it would retroactively be recognized; and this knowledge would even be acquired once one these known women became pregnant, for he would then expect to experience the sign through her. Either way, the sign would be quite pertinent, anticipated, and experienced.)
8. The text also specifies that the child will “…eat butter and honey..”, very significantly, this characteristic has never been depicted by Jesus, never!
9. The text also recounts that the child will be named “Immanuel”, and that this itself was part of the “sign” being provided. Now, think about it, if he wasn’t named Immanuel, this automatically renders the sign utterly incomplete and useless ! Obviously, Jesus was not named Immanuel at birth, and was never even given this name as a sobriquet, at any time (not that this would have remedied the “sign” being given at birth, in any case) , this renders Jesus totally inapplicable! Why is this disregarded !?
Another great point that Rabbi Zeb Porat made regarding this sign is that God would not give a sign that is common to see in the natural order of things like a young woman having a child, but because this is the only place in the Bible where God voluntarily offers to give a sign, the sign had to be supernatural, and if you add to that, in the context of that culture at that time young women who were unwed were expected to be virgin, and with your point that the rabbis that translated the Septuagint also translated the word Almáh as Virgin, then there is no other possible interpretations of this chapter and it confirms its fulfillment in Yeshua, praise God!!!
Wow. That's a good perspective to think on
You guys should start linking to the whole videos that this comes from in the description.
So who was the first virgin who gave birth in the days of Ahaz?
It's in next chapter not virgin birth but Isaiah's son.
But problem wirh that is....what kind of Sign is that from God? Because anyone will be born of a woman, so what's special. And even if a child is born, what does it make? King Ahaz gain victory?
@@cptarchangel257
"It's in next chapter not virgin birth but Isaiah's son."
If Isiah 7:14 is prophesying the virgin birth of a child named Immanuel, and if the child born in chapter 8 had a different name and wasn't born of a virgin, then how can you say "it's in the next chapter"? If your claim is the virgin aspect only applies to the second birth but not the first, can you at least acknowledge that that isn't stated or implied in the text of Isiah 7?
Also, how would the birth of Isaiah's son in the days of Ahaz, or the birth of Jesus centuries later, be a sign to king Ahaz that God was going to bring the king of Assyria against the northern armies?
_______
"But problem wirh that is....what kind of Sign is that from God?"
Seems like a lousy sign *_regardless_* of whether it's talking about a virgin birth. How would anyone be expected to actually verify the claim that someone was born of a virgin? If the recipient of the signs simply has to take it on faith that it was a virgin birth, then they might as well just take god's claim on faith when he says that he'll bring the king of Assyria.
If you understand what a miracle is you will understand why Isaiah uses the word almah and why the same word was used for Rebekah and Moses sister at the TIME it was used, starting with the most simplest explanation which has to do with a miracle, a sign from God is a miracle, a miracle is NOT something that occurs in nature nor will occur, what that means is it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a almah to get pregnant, it wouldn't matter if she was married or not, it wouldn't matter if she had sex or not, I say this because of the belief of the word meaning a young woman and knowing in ancient times young women were married off as early as 5 years old however many were betrothed that were not taken to wife ( so to speak ) but still were permitted to have sexual contact with their betroth, also at the time she was betrothed she was called the man's wife, the point being, a true virgin could or could not have virginity, two different words meaning two different things only a woman of any age can have virginity but that doesn't make her an almah, I know from studying long enough that in ancient times they referred to nature to determine God's will, for most in that belief, when a young woman reached puberty she was at a age expected to get married, the battle over the meaning of almah and betulah will never end but I know for a fact they both refer to a young woman but neither is indicating how young she is, the words to the ancients ( except the scribes ) had a specific meaning, one was prepubic and the other was past puberty, I know this because for a almah to conceive a child would be impossible and any young woman claiming that had began their periods and get pregnant that she didn't know how it was possible because she never had sex with a man before is nothing more than a LIE, I say a lie because it happens every day somewhere when a young woman gets pregnant and is not married and fears what her parents will do to her, she tells them she don't know how it happened, the ages of Rebekah and Miriam at the time Rebekah was at the well ( not after ) and the age of Moses sister at the time she followed the basket, they were both under 12 years of age, there's enough scripture to determine this as long as you factor in the abilities of a child, in knowledge and strength before they reach puberty, anywhere around 10 years old is easily accomplished by her, it's the shame of how it would appear to others as to why God would use a child to bring in His son into this world, it wasn't so men could justify marrying children that young but it was the only way Jesus could have been born and His blood would have been pure, that's a different subject but nevertheless true, what the ancients believed is not what modern man believes but over time the ancients began to accept a common age for women which would have been to them a proper age, it's dealing with the two different minds that has everyone confused over the meaning of two different words, almah and betulah, nevertheless a betulah in modern terms would actually mean a teenager, a almah is a child but borderline puberty in Mary's case or close to it, there is one instance in scripture that IO know some scribe changed the word almah to betulah because in his mind an almah couldn't have been who the original author was talking about, that might have even set the course over why so many confuse the two words but it's in the scriptures where the parents could prove their daughter was a virgin, we can do that today and it would take less than 30 days to do so, I can tell you right now, ask any doctor or wise man if it's possible for a young woman=female to get pregnant and she has no egg, they will tell you the TRUTH, it shouldn't surprise anyone though that knows if God wanted to He could make rocks sing His praises, just get over it, Mary was under 12
Second modified approach:
Another possible manner in which Christians try to resolve the glaring difficulties inherent by inserting Jesus into the equation, is through the claim of a “dual prophecy”.
A prophecy that has two applications, two fulfillments.
1. Why should we assume that there are two fulfillments of this prophecy ? There appears to be absolutely no reason to assume such an interpretation, other than, a will to insert Christian theology.
2. If dual prophecy were to have application, one could arbitrarily insert whatever he desires, wherever he wants. Can we honestly consider this mode of interpretation ?
3. As we said in note 1, there is no reason to apply dual prophecy. In fact, being that the context clearly refers to an event occurring in the now, this would preclude any suggestion of “another prophecy”. (First point is, on what basis assume a dual prophecy ? Current point is that the context inhibits such an assertion)
By applying the context, dual prophecy becomes patently superfluous. There is no reason to believe in dual prophecy because there is no room in the text to insert it, the context would contend such an assertion and leave no room for it. How so?
If the intent is, as well, to a future prophecy, 700 years later, this is incongruent, for Ahaz requires only a sign relavent to him. It’s utterly superfluous to allude to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. The context isn’t leaving any room. (Based on general context)
4. Ahaz is currently surrounded by enemies he doesn’t need an allusion to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. Still no room for Jesus. (Based on Isaiah 7:2)I
5. God wants to mend Ahaz’s fear about impeding war, it’s utterly superfluous to mention a virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:4)
6. The sign is relevant to before when this child will distinguish between good and bad, at that time Ahaz’s enemies will fall, there is no reason to allude to a virgin birth 700 hundreds in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:15-16)
7. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה, is rooted in the word עלם/alam, a primitive root signifying “strength and endurance” (similar to the Aramaic עלים), hence, youth.
As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”(exodus 19:9), from the root עלם/alam, for endurance, strength, is rooted in עלם/alam.
We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, rather it’s an expression of vigor, and, henceforth, a youth.
There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely.
8. Furthermore, and very interestingly, if it’s a dual prophecy, what other virgin birth is being alluded to in Ahaz’s time? Isn’t there only one virgin birth? Only one Jesus ? All the more so, is this difficult, being that the main prophecy is undoubtedly for Ahaz, as clearly established contextually, this would imply that the principal “virgin birth” is relevant to Ahaz’s time. This last objection completely undermines the uniqueness of the Christian claim. It’s quite ironic, the answer they try to promote, actually creates the grounds to contradict Christianity at its core…..
if almah doesn't mean 'virgin' in Isaiah 7 then how is it a sign? why does the Jewish medievalist Rashi state that some interpret it as 'she was incapable of giving birth'? and why do the lxx jewish translators prior to Christ use 'parthenos'?
You could be right however about 'double fulfilment' being redundant. Perhaps the best explanation is, as with other cases, the fulfilment was delayed due to disobedience eg Numbers 14:20-35 and Acts 3:19-20
@@stephenglasse2743 almah cannot me virgin for the numerous aforementioned reasons.
Rashi mentions no such thing.
Use actual quotes, not fabrications.
@@stephenglasse2743 almah cannot me virgin for the numerous aforementioned reasons.
Rashi mentions no such thing.
Use actual quotes, not fabrications.
@@Jack-vy2vx er, YES he does! Rashi states, "and some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl [almah] and incapable of giving birth"!
You haven't really offered ANY reasons for almah not meaning 'virgin'. It only occurs 7x in the Tanakh and plausibly and in fact most probably means virgin in every single case. Furthermore as already stated the jewish translators used 'parthenos' which alway means sexual fidelity or purity prior to marriage. Finally it's not clear what the sign could be if it wasn't miraculous.
@@stephenglasse2743Rashi indeed does admit that. I agree that his sons are signs but they have *NOTHING* to do with verse 14. Verses 13& 14 stand alone and they are addressed in the plural as compared to singular before and after.
Let’s count Isaiah’s 2 children that GOD commanded for Isaiah to use as signs
*Child #1*
3And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.
*THEN*
*Child #2*
1And the Lord said to me, "Take for yourself a large scroll, and write on it in common script, *to hasten loot, speed the spoils. (Maher-shalal-hash-baz)
*THEN*
3And *I was intimate with the prophetess* , and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz…….. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for *SIGNS (Plural)* and for tokens in Israel
Not difficult to understand that GOD told Isaiah to take his first son with him when he went to see Ahaz for a reason then nothing about *ANYONE* giving birth *UNTIL* he got it on with his wife who *THEN* named the second child with the name GOD had commanded Isaiah to write on the scroll.
That virgin birth is to take place in us as well
So does this mean that at the time of Isaiah there was already a virgin birth? That is, is not the virgin birth of Jesus the first virgin birth in history?
The prophets spoke in parables
The main problem of all of this is the child mentioned in Isaiah 7 is the same child in chap 9, and chp 11. It's an overarching theme of hope and redemption surrounding a child which symbolizes David's Son who will rule forever. Isaiah Chap 11 is the final chapter in this long running theme which began in chap 7.
Chap 7 is the foundation, and chap 11 is the end. Chap 11 compromises the whole theme since no messianic era was ushered by the child mentioned in chap 7, and 9, which is King Hezekiah. This then should immediately become a symbolic poetic prophecy similar to how prophets spoke, in parables, using narratives in which either they or some contemporary became the actors of a narration which symbolized something greater, making the entire narration a prophetic symbol. If its a historical narration with no prophetic intent, why was it written then? For posterity's sake, making the narration both historical and prophetic.
Rabbis will never understand this. Jonas is an example of this, Jeremiah's Sheppard narration where Jeremiah himself acted as the shepherd is another example of this, Or when the prophet came with a yoke around his neck, acting out in his present tense what was to happen to Israel in future tense.
Hosea's narration in chap 11 is another example of this, where the exile during the Assyrian conquest symbolized Jesus going down to egypt and having an assyrian as their king which Herod was a vassal king of israel who was Assyrian because herod's father was Half Edomit half Assyrian. Israel always backslides having foreign kings ruling them and coming together for evil counsels just as they came to Herod with evil counsels.
Hosea 11 says " The Assyrian will be your king" but at the end of the chapter it says " But Judah shall be victorious, Jesus was victorious to survive his slaughter. These are all narrations which symbolized something for the future, types and shadows. Jews will never see this.
Jonas was in the whale for 3 days and 3 nights, and then he preached to gentiles and they were saved due to Jonas preaching, but at the end of Jonas he was under a fig which was eaten by a worn, and the heat of the sun bothered him. This is a narration of how the gentiles would find salvation after the symbolic resurrection of Jonas while Israel would be suffering and be in distress.
Once you understand how prophets spoke and how they became the actors of a symbolic narrative then the entire tannak opens up with new meaning. This is the same thing when a prophet spoke to Paul in Acts when the prophet came to Paul in chains. The prophet had chains on his wrists which the prophet became an actor with a narration to symbolize a future event which was to happen to Paul.
Jeremiah did this, Ezekiel did this when he laid on his sides or when he dirtied himself with SHIT, Zachariah did this, once you understand that although these narrations did happen during the prophets present time and often times they were the actors or others were part of the acting in a narration, these in turn were simply narrations that did happen but were meant to become prophetic symbols.
Isaiah 7, 9, 11 fall under this category but in a much more complex sense, were the child spoken of is indeed Hezekiah, but he was the actor in a narration that did happen, but its nature becomes future because the latter portion of chapter 11 never came to fruition allowing us to see that this is another narration that is symbolically prophetic.
Jews will never understand this, unfortunately. God did speak to prophets, their acts became historical narrations that indeed were parables that had/have prophetic intent. Alma is a young woman which one has to assume the woman next to Isaiah was not a virgin, however this is a prophetic narration which begins in chap 7, then 9 and it ends in chap 11 messianic era being ushered by the same. Hezekiah died and he's not a contender to the throne nor sitting on David's throne.
Yet, the claim is one from the tribe of Judah died and was resurrected to be immortal who was brought up to the ancient of days above heaven, just as David said, your holy one will not suffer corruption and as Isaiah 53 states the resurrection of the servant who will divide the spoils and be placed among the mighty. Daniel 7 illustrates this further. I have the right to believe Jah-Oshua Netzer Ben David fulfills this. For how then will the covenant of David be fulfilled if one to sit on David's throne forever was not immortal?
Or how will then the 2 different prophecies be fulfilled that David will always have a descendant sitting on the throne, and the other prophecy where it was said Israel will spend many days without a king? God cannot lie.
Jesus has been both exalted and made immortal for this task all the while it's been over 2,400 years Israel has no legitimate king. How can you be so blind? Davidic kings lineage stopped around 400 years prior to Jah-Oshua Netzer, and since there's no king! Yet the claim by Daniel is one was brought up to the ancient days to be given a kingdom that will never be destroyed.
Jesus died and resurrected to be immortal then taken up to heaven, this is the testimony of some 1st century Jews, not mine, from among your own people was this testimony first preached in Judea to the ends of the world. This was not a gentile invention but your own people from 2000 years ago.
2 men were taken to heaven, both Enoch and Elijah, but both aren't from the tribe of Judah, Enoc was prior to the tribes and Elijah was from the village of Tishbe in Gilead in ancient Palestine. So who else can fulfill Daniel 7? Only a Descendant of David! This is why psalms agree with Daniel, when it was written, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies your footstool".
Either Jesus' ascension is not true, or the apostles gave testimony to what they lived and experienced while being with Jesus making it the greatest testimony the world has ever heard!
Paul said we are to be presented as chastened virgins in which a spiritual marriage occurs in you. This spiritual marriage results in a union in spirit and that new creation man child is God with us because the new creation is born from above.
Daniel seal up the books. We are living epistles living writings. Christ was sealed in a tomb. When he resurrected.tombs burst open. The samaritan woman said when Messiah comes he will reveal all things. The annointing you have received you need no man teach you for the spirit will teach you. Jesus sleeping on the boat wake up wake up or we perish. Christ in us sealed burst forth from the tomb for he is only a sleep like the child. In us he lives and reveals all things. seals opened knowledge increased
Why isn’t the Septuagint and its influence on the New Testament and the early church more widely known and excepted?
Kyle Holland Because most knowledgeable Protestants are committed to the masoretic text, for whatever reason. Even though the Septuagint is a much better witness to the Christian faith.
I think it may be because the Septuagint might get people questioning historical Protestantism and looking towards Orthodoxy. That’s just my uninformed theory, though.
The LXX was not used or read by Jesus or the Apostles. The Greek Jews used it while the Hebrew Jews used the Hebrew Scriptures.
My question is why did the Holy Spirit Choose to use the Septuagint in the New Testament and allow it to be the bible of the early church for 400 years. And why is it virtually ignored today maybe it should be on our shelves next to our Hebrew bibles?
Kyle Holland The Holy Spirit? You think Hebrew Jews who spoke Hebrew including Jesus and the Apostles just all of sudden changed to Greek? Your assumptions are false.
Regarding Isaiah 7:14, the context is utterly irrelevant to some future prophecy about a virgin birth.
The chapter must be read in its proper context.
The chapter deals with various enemies’ threats against Judah, and the ensuing wars.
Verse 1 relates that Retzin king of Aram, and Pekah son Remalyahu, joined forces and sought to conquer Jerusalem.
Verse 2 tells us that Ahaz and his people were terrified like “the trembling of the trees of the forest from the wind”.
Verse 4 relates that Isaiah was to tell him “to stay calm and not to fear…”
Verses 5-6 speak of their plot.
Verse 7 recounts that their plot “..will not stand and it will not be..”
8-9 speaks of the conspirators being of no relevance to Jerusalem and their downfall.
Verse 11 conveys that Ahaz should, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God..”. To ask a sign for this prophecy.
Verse 12 tells us that Ahaz decided not to ask or test God.
Verse 13 has Isaiah insisting that he should ask.
Verse 14 finally relates that a sign will be given anyways, that a child will be born to “THE ALMA העלמה”(with a definite article), and she will call him Immanuel (God is with us).
(Alma literally means a young lady; the church of course translates this as virgin)
Verse 15 states that the child will eat butter and honey, from the moment he knows to distinguish good and bad, yet, before that moment arrives the two kings will have already disappeared.
Now, according to the gospels, the correct understanding is that, “There will be a virgin birth a few hundred years down the line”.
Let’s analyse this proposition:
What about Ahaz’s concerns?
Nah, God would rather tell him about some irrelevant virgin birth that will occur a few hundred years later.
Ahaz shouldn’t be afraid of impending war because in a few hundred years Jesus is coming!
This makes no coherent sense.
Also, to make this unambiguous, it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16)
This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell good from bad.
This suggests, according to the the gospels, that Ahaz’s enemies will only be gone in a few hundred years, some time before Jesus will distinguish between good and bad, not only will they have disappeared long before this time, he, himself, will have also perished.
This conveys nothing about his current predicament.
This cannot be overlooked.
In other words, the meaning of the verse would imply, “Ahaz don’t be afraid, actually, be very afraid !
This is pure butchery.
(There is still a generous amount of difficulties to raise according to the straightforward understanding of the church, most of these questions, however, will be brought to light in the two modified approches in which apologists attempt to answer these very transparent problems)
First modified approach:
Or, perhaps, in order to make the context more relevant to the Christian interpretation, some could claim that Ahaz was concerned with the “Davidic dynasty”, that it shouldn’t perish, and that he was reassured by the sign of there being a virgin birth 700 years later, insinuating that the “Davidic line” will survive.
1. First off, there is absolutely no allusion in the text of Ahaz being concerned with the preservation of the “Davidic line”.
Rather, the only matter that could be derived from the verses, according to their simple meaning, is fear of immanent danger, as expressed by the members of Ahaz’s brethren, Ahaz included, who trembled from fear!! Even, God tells him to calm down and not “FEAR”!
There is no altruistic concern.
The verses clearly speak of fear to the point of trembling, not some type of consideration for the future.
As it says, “And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.” (Isaiah 7:2)
Also, “And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint…”. (Isaiah 7:4)
The verses undoubtedly and clearly convey “fear”, fear of enemy attack.
This cannot be overlooked.
At this point we could actually stop, however, purely for argument’s sake, let us conjure that this consideration was present, aside for the fear.
Very importantly, we can’t obviate his “fear”, nevertheless, perhaps we could say that he was genuinely concerned with the crown being snatched from David, as well? Can a concern for the Davidic line have any pertinence contextually?
2. Now, even if this unfounded concern was true, the subject remains plagued with difficulties.
Whether we say that he is “ALSO concerned with the Davidic line”, and even if we say that he’s “ONLY concerned”(which is actually contextually impossible, but let’s just say), what type of a sign is it if he can’t witness it !?
Every sign, or OT/אות, given by God or the prophets in the Bible is something the individual witnesses, and whereby comes to trust.
(Genesis 9:12; Exodus 4:8-9; Kings 2 20:8-9; Isaiah 66:19).
A sign is suppose to create trust not be contingent upon trust, that defeats the purpose of a sign ! (Or, as in the case of circumcision or the Sabbath, and similar instances, where one is to provide a sign for God or others, it’s something that is done in a discernible way, or just present as a reminder. In any case, the sign is always in existence and experienced.)
There are no examples of intangible “signs” one never experiences.
In our case, Isaiah is providing a sign in God’s name regarding the veracity of his prophecy, it should be no different than any other sign provided by prophets which comes to certify the words of the prophecy, and is consequently something very much demonstrative that corroborates the prophecy.
Two points: Providing anything that deviates from this formula doesn’t make any sense logically (defeats the purpose of the sign), and, moreover, conflicts with every instance of a “sign, OT/אות” recorded in the Bible (inconsistent with the blueprint).
3. Back to the “fear” element. If it can be demonstrated that by inserting a concern for the Davidic line, the contextually true “fear element” will be precluded, evidently, this would prove the implausibility of such an attempt. Remember, according to this approach, a virgin birth 700 years in the future, and a concern for the Davidic line, are contingent upon one another. Ahaz has enemies breathing down his neck, an immediate concern, the fact that the Davidic line survives 700 years later, does not in any way address the immediate need for protection. For it still doesn’t mean he will survive his enemies’ attacks, it just means the line will somehow survive. Granted, that he was also concerned for the Davidic line, as we postulated, this dread is not in any way being attended to with a birth 700 years later. Therefore, being that the context is being butchered by the consideration for the Davidic line, for by using the future virgin birth to alleviate the concern with the Davidic line, the immediate fear and need for protection from his enemies is not being attended to at all, there is every reason not to insert it. (Based on the general context and response from God, Isaiah 7:1-14)
4. The verses also indicate that there is an immediate relevance with the sign and the impending threat, as it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”(Isaiah 7:16) This implies that that God will take care of Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to distinguish between good and bad. (Sign = dealing with threat) Now, if the matter is contingent upon Jesus’ birth, 700 years later, before he distinguishes between good and bad, this would render his enemies perishing utterly impertinent. For the verse would then be saying, “Don’t worry your enemies won’t be destroyed in another 700 years! By that time, everyone will be long gone, himself included. Therefore, the sign cannot be associated to Ahaz in a manner that deals with the future, being that the sign is bound to the enemies he now faces, and the requirement of dealing with his enemies is incongruent to 700 years later. (Based on Isaiah 7:14-17) In other words, the “sign” clearly deals with his enemies, and the enemies cannot be dealt with when everyone is already long gone, 700 years in the future! Hence, again, by introducing the consideration of the Davidic line’s survival with a virgin birth 700 years in future, it shatters the unambiguous connection between the sign and the enemies being dealt with, whereby the context is rendered unintelligible, therefore, we have every reason not to insert this assertion.
Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated by White within the first 20 seconds of the video: "An almah, ha-almah, an almah will be with child....". ha-almah means "THE almah" not "an almah". There's a definite article, which obviously presents a difficulty when trying to perform circus tricks like a "dual fulfillment". The other mistranslation is translating the adjective "harah" as "will be with child" instead of the correct meaning "is pregnant" in the present tense. There's no future conception here
Hey buddy who do you think the baby in that belly is?
@@pepepena1937 hey buddy, it was a child born during the syro-ephraimite war named immanuel
@@avibenavraham Hey buddy there was no child born named Immanuel in entire Tanakh. Not that complicated Isaiah had a kid then according to you this girl is pregnant present tense *THEN* he gets it on with his wife and has his second son
@@pepepena1937 it’s not “according to me” that the phrase “ha-almah hara” means the young woman is pregnant
@@avibenavraham that’s not the main point. The main point is that no other child is named Immanuel and the fact that the child in that belly cannot be Isaiah’s
So foolish!
In every old testament bible, whether translated by Jews or Christians, the hebrew word almah is translated as young woman or maiden, never virgin, with exception of Isaiah 7:14, which Christians alone and uncoincidentally, translate this passage as virgin, to correspond with Matthew 1:23.
However, as you should be aware, Isaiah uses the word Betulah, virgin, 5 times in his book (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1; and 62:5) each time, again, whether in an old testament translated by Jews or Christians, each of the above verses is translated as virgin.
See Deuteronomy 22:13-28, the word betulah is used repeatedly and as you suspect, is also translated as virgin, regardless of whther it is an old testament translated by christians or jews.
Again, those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” inconsistently translate the other six places as “maiden or young woman” revealing their intentional mistranslation. The word “Almah” should always be translated as “a young woman.” This word alone does not teach us anything about her sexual status. It simply informs us that she is young. This is also true of the masculine form of the word “Almah” which is the Hebrew word (Alem עָלֶם) which means "a young man", as in the following examples:
“Whose son is this young man (הָעָלֶם)” Samuel I (17: 56)
“If I say thus to the young man” Samuel I (20: 22)
In both cases the word “Alem” only teaches that this man is young, it gives no indication of his sexual status, which by men is indiscernible. The Hebrew bible has a completely different word for virgin. The specific Hebrew word is (Betulah - בְּתּוּלָה).
took the woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה)” Deut 22:14
“And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh 400 young virgins that had known no man.” Judges 21:12
There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines and young women (Almot) without number, my dove my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice of her that bore her,” Song of Songs 6:8-9
“There are three things which are to wonderful for me, yes, four which I know not. The way of the eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea and the way of a man with a young woman (Almah). Likewise, the way of an adulterous woman, she eats, and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’.” Proverbs 30:18-20
The common characteristic: “the way” is that they all leave no trace, just like an adulterous woman who claims she has done nothing wrong, and there is no trace of her act, so too the eagle leaves no trace in the air, a snake leaves no trace on a rock, a ship leaves no trace in the midst of the sea, so too the young woman (Almah) with a man leaves no sign which is not the case of a virgin who leaves a sign of blood called “the token of her virginity” Deuteronomy 22:15-19.
In fact, the RSV and NRSV translate Isaiah 7:14 correctly, and use the words "the young woman".
If you'll argue a dual prophesy, that presents its own challenges and is as follows: If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
Additionally, the kings mentioned in Isaiah 7:1, Rezin and Pekah both died in 732 BCE, within a short period of time of Isaiah's prophesy to Ahaz.
The kings that threatened Ahaz, both of whom died in a short period of time after Isaiah's prophesy!
There is zero connection to an alleged virgin birth 700 years after Isaiah.
Imagine you're king Ahaz, how pleased would you be with a virgin sign that doesn't occur for 700 plus years. King Ahaz would have been long dead and buried. The sign is meant for the recipient, how can the recipient observe said sign if hesdead before the sign occur, not for another 700 years.
Thank you my brother. The amount of mental gymnastics that has to be conducted to make this verse mean what it doesn’t mean is amazing. The amazing thing is that the word batulah is used by Isaiah and it’s translated correctly as virgin. But this specific verse he decided to use almah to mean virgin instead of batulah. Think people.
but the word almah in Isaiah 7 is in the context of it being a sign that she gives birth! so the implication is that she's a virgin which the word allows for *and the septuagint 'parthenos' confirms*. Note the Jewish medievalist Rashi stated " and some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl (almah) and incapable of giving birth."
Is not the simplest explanation for the sign *to Ahaz* that the Messiah could have and should have come in those days! His coming was delayed just as Israel's entrance into the promised land was delayed by 40 years due to disobedience (Numbers 14:20-35) and the end of the age and return of Christ, which could have happened in the first century (Acts 3:19-20), was delayed by 2000 years (Ephesians 3:2-10).
@@stephenglasse2743
This is your septuiagint!
The septuiagint was a translation of only the 5 books of Moses and not the prophets, such as Isaiah. Tisk tisk.
So Matthew didn't source the the prophets as the prophets were never translated by the rabbis into the Septuagint.
Further, the original Septuagint was called the proto Septuagint, which was destroyed in a fire. All septuagints of today are a product of the Church. In the 3rd century, the church father origen, noted that three different versions of the septuiagint in his day alone. Lol.
You should have known that🤣🤣🤣🤣
Here's your septuiagint.
In Genesis 24:16 it is said of Rebekah: “the na‘arah was very fair to look upon, a betulah, whom no man had known,” which is precise and accurate in the use of the two words. The Septuagint, however, has, “the parthenos was very fair in appearance, a parthenos, whom no man had known,” which is tautological and an inexact translation of the Hebrew. It cannot be maintained, on the basis of this inaccurate translation that the Hebrew word na‘arah means “virgin.” The Septuagint inaccurately rendered na‘arah as parthenos in verse 16 and in a similar fashion inaccurately rendered ‘almah as parthenos in verse 43. The Septuagint, as noted, has parthenos for all three terms: na‘arah (verses 14, 16a, 55); ‘almah (verse 43) and betulah (verse 16), and uses pais (maiden, child) twice for na‘arah (verses 28, 57).
The parthenos was fair in her appearance a parthenos lol🤣🤣
Do tell us if in Genesis 34:2-3, after Dinah was raped in verse 2, why was Dinah still referred to as a parthenos in verse 3?
You'll be busy with that for a while.
@@stephenglasse2743
I'll put forth this challenge to you to give it your honest to god best shot. Once you realize that you can't provide an answer, all I ask is that you take a long hard look in the mirror and reevaluate your beliefs.
The boy spoken of in isaiah 7:14 is the same boy spoken of in isaiah 7:16. Which two kingdoms referenced in isaiah 7:16 were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus!
Isaiah 7:14
14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the 👉young woman👈 is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:16
16For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” (Isaiah 7:16) the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey (Isaiah 7:15)? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
If you can't provide when these events occurred during the lifetime of jesus, you're better off figuring out why your theological narrative can't be proven.
P.s. if it is a dual prophesy, who was the first virgin from approximately 730 BCE??
Just two names
1. Kingdom 1 - xxxxxxx
2. Kingdom 2 - xxxxxxx
Ponder that for a bit!
@@stephenglasse2743
Isaiah 7:14
14👉Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign👈; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 8
18👉Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs👈 and for tokens in Israel, 👉from the Lord of Hosts👈, Who dwells on Mount Zion.
The children belong to Isaiah and they serve as signs as written in isaiah 8.
It originally means young woman who is a virgin. They changed it around 300CE. They even write Talmud to oppose Christ. And in Isaiah thee n thous are singular n ye n you are plural. It's to the line of David . There are 2 sons with 2 different names n characteristic. Even Betulah isn't a virgin always but maiden
Almah is used 7 times in the Hebrew Bible and every time it references an unmarried woman who is a virgin. Never does it refer to a already married woman who is an almah.
Please learn the Hebrew usage correctly. Thank you.
Matthew is not using the LXX but he is using the Hebrew Scriptures even as the church fathers told you. Please stop using outdated sources.
Matthew uses both the Hebrew and the Septuagint!
Kyle Holland
Sorry, but no he did not. The LXX was not used by any of the Hebrew Jews. The Greek Jews outside the Judaea Desert used the Greek Bible.
Dr. Al Garza
Matthews use of the Septuagint in these verses
Matthew 3:3
Matthew 4:4
Matthew 4:7
Matthew 5:21
Matthew 5:27
Matthew 5:38
Matthew 5:43
Matthew 9:13
Matthew 12:7
Matthew 13:14i'
Matthew 21:16
Matthew 21:42
Matthew 22:32
Matthew 22:39
Matthew 24:15
Kyle Holland Seriously? You are quoting a Greek translation of the NT with a Greek translation of the OT together and that is your proof?
That is like me getting a Spanish bible and saying “See, Jesus quotes the Spanish OT!”
It’s a fact that Jesus and the Apostles ONLY used the Hebrew Bible and spoke Hebrew. There is no dispute on this in Israel. Please update your education.
Dr. Al Garza ^Hebrew Roots Propaganda.