Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
try to get Robert Dick Wilson and Edward J Young on this and see exactly what is right on this. No one can really contradict their conclusions
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Revised Standard Version
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
try to get Robert Dick Wilson and Edward J Young on this and see exactly what is right on this. No one can really contradict their conclusions
Yeah. Right. Isaiah's wife was a virgin too. Yep. Of course she was. What do you think? Isaiah was gay or something? LOL! ROFLOL!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
shows you ignorance really, as you cannot deal with what I am saying here. First READ Wilson, Young and even Edward Hindson, and then show your arguments against what they say!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
you can, if you wish, check out my own personal study on Isaiah 7:14, and feel free to comment, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/isaiah7-14.pdf
You may want to learn some English grammar and spelling before calling people "ignorant." LOL! ROFLOL!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
so you are denying that the words of Isaiah 7:14 are a direct Prophecy of the Conception of the Lord Jesus Christ? You think that you know more than the Apostle Matthew, who clearly refers to Isaiah as writing VIRGIN, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? So Matthew words are error, and not Inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
Because I believe the Word of Almighty God, when Matthew says that Isaiah was referring ONLY to the Lord Jesus Christ, in his Prophecy in 7:14. Not some fables! I say it again, prove Wilson, Young, Hindson and my own article wrong.
So you didn't bother to read what I wrote that the text was used as a prophecy regarding Mary's virginity?
No, the Holy Spirit can interpret the word any way He pleases. If you actually read Isaiah you realize the subject was Isaiah and his wife.
Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
So you think the book of Isaiah is a fable? Wow! Now I see the problem!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
So, the Holy Spirit is RIGHT, that's all that really matters. Matthew says that it was the virgin Mary, and NOT the wife of Isaiah, so I don't waste time with speculations.
So you don't believe Isaiah is inspired?
Re Isaiah 7:14, in his commentary on The Prophecy of Isaiah (pp. 84-85) J. Alec Motyer, writes:
"The translation virgin ('alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is beṯûla. Of the nine occurrences of 'alma those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the alamot, contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, 'alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'."
"Genesis 24 is particularly important as providing a direct comparison of 'alma and beṯûla. Abraham's servant's prayer (24:14) is couched in terms of a 'girl' (naara) who is to marry Isaac. In verse 16 the approaching Rebekah is described as female (naara), of marriageable age (beṯûla) and single ('no man had ever lain with her'). The qualifying words indicate that by itself beṯûla is not specific. In the light of this accumulating knowledge of Rebekah, verse 43 finally describes her as 'alma, which is clearly a summary term for 'female, marriageable, unmarried'. There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used beṯûla. 'alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing 'virgin birth' and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning."
"The translation virgin ('alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is beṯûla. Of the nine occurrences of 'alma those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the alamot, contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, 'alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'."
"Genesis 24 is particularly important as providing a direct comparison of 'alma and beṯûla. Abraham's servant's prayer (24:14) is couched in terms of a 'girl' (naara) who is to marry Isaac. In verse 16 the approaching Rebekah is described as female (naara), of marriageable age (beṯûla) and single ('no man had ever lain with her'). The qualifying words indicate that by itself beṯûla is not specific. In the light of this accumulating knowledge of Rebekah, verse 43 finally describes her as 'alma, which is clearly a summary term for 'female, marriageable, unmarried'. There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used beṯûla. 'alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing 'virgin birth' and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning."
So why was Isaiah's wife still a virgin after years of marriage?
And how, exactly, did that words in view of the fact she gave Isaiah two sons.
Isaiah was married and had two sons: Shear-jashub, his name signifying “a remnant shall return” (Isaiah 7:3), and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, “hasting to the spoil, hurrying to the prey,” symbolic of Assyria's mad lust of conquest (Isaiah 8:3).
And how, exactly, did that words in view of the fact she gave Isaiah two sons.
Isaiah was married and had two sons: Shear-jashub, his name signifying “a remnant shall return” (Isaiah 7:3), and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, “hasting to the spoil, hurrying to the prey,” symbolic of Assyria's mad lust of conquest (Isaiah 8:3).
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
do you make it up as you go along? exactly where does it say that Isaiah's wife was a virgin years after marriage?
If Isaiah 7:14, as context indicates, is using Isaiah's wife as the object of the prophecy of the virgin birth, and, as is wrongly being asserted, that "almah" can only mean "virgin" then some how she managed to have two sons while still an "almah."
No, rather that it was a dual fulfillment, as the immediate one was the son born to a young woman, and the later and greater fulfillment was the Son born of a Virgin!
There were both brilliant, but neither was an Apostle, and they were wrong on this one issue!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
If Isaiah 7:14, as context indicates, is using Isaiah's wife as the object of the prophecy of the virgin birth, and, as is wrongly being asserted, that "almah" can only mean "virgin" then some how she managed to have two sons while still an "almah."
If Isaiah 7:14, as context indicates, is using Isaiah's wife as the object of the prophecy of the virgin birth, and, as is wrongly being asserted, that "almah" can only mean "virgin" then some how she managed to have two sons while still an "almah."
firstly, people like you are wrong to assume that Isaiah 7:14 refers to the birth of any child other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Can you show WHERE either of Isaiah's two sons was ever called עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל? I see the Apostle Matthew, in his Gospel, say of that Jesus is, "Ἐμμανουήλ", Who is "God with us". I will keep returning to Matthew's account, which very clearly quotes Isaiah 7:14, as a fulfillment of Prophecy in the Lord Jesus Christ. Unless you suppose that he was wrong, then what he says ONLY is right. You can't seem to admit when you know that your reasoning is in error, and keep trying to distort what the Bible clearly does say.