They shall call His name Emmanuel or Jesus?

Both are important.

That is incorrect. The word in Isa 7:14 means "young woman". Matthew chose to be more specific when applying it to Mary, a virginal young woman.

Exactly, but here is the issue you must face. You say that Matthew saw the meaning as "virgin" and applied it to Mary.
</font>[/QUOTE]Close, but wrong. You do not understand my view. I do NOT say that Matthew saw the meaning as "virgin" and applied it to Mary, I say Matthew restricted the meaning when applying it to Mary. Small but important difference.

Suppose there was a prophecy about a "fruit". Within a few short years, it was fulfilled by a banana. A few centuries later, another finds another "fulfillment" (the type of fulfillment Matt uses in 2:15) of the original prophecy in an apple, recognizing that the original prophecy did not specify what kind of fruit and also recognizing that it was already primarily fulfilled with a banana. That's what I see going on here. Both an apple and a banana are a "fruit". Both a virgin and a non-virgin can be an "almah" (young woman). No illegitimate hermeneutics. No denying the basics of communication.

See, you still do not understand. I don't know where you got the idea that there are two meanings, "virgin" and "non-virgin", when I have repeatedly stated that the "almah" ("young woman") in Ahaz's time may or may not have been a "virgin" at the time the prophecy was given (but not when she conceived).

No I didn't. I never thought you denied the virgin birth. Not sure where you got that from.
</font>[/QUOTE]I got it from where you said "Matthew says that Mary was that virgin, and she knew no man." I responded "I agree", and you responded "But you are going on several pages of disagreeing."

I never thought that either. I don't know where you came up with that.
</font>[/QUOTE]From where you said "But Matthew says you are incorrect. He said it referred to a virgin."

Larry, I know that. Your question is like me asking you about Mary "How is a virgin a sign? There are virgins all over the place." See, when you refer to only PART of the sign, of course it makes it less practical. The sign in Ahaz's day was that a young woman, whose identity (I believe) was obvious to Ahaz, would soon conceive and give birth and name the child Immanuel and that before he was old enough to choose right from wrong, the enemy kings would be overthrown. That's the sign.

Again, apparently not. I do NOT say "she is both".

 

That would be impossible since I am not on one. ... This is a discussion about ideas. Only one side is right.

I disagree.

Go back and read Keith. I am the one who said that almah has a broader definition than virgin. But not in this context. In a given context, a word can mean only one thing.

 

But not in the discussion that we were having about the meaning of a word in Isa 7:14. Only the literary context is in view there.

That is incorrect. The word in Isa 7:14 means "young woman". Matthew chose to be more specific when applying it to Mary, a virginal young woman.</font>[/QUOTE]I am not sure why you are not getting this. The word in Isa 7:14 may mean "young woman without respect to her virginal status" or it may mean "virgin." In taht context, it can only mean one or the other. It cannot mean both. This is basic hermeneutics. Words cannot have more than one meaning in a context. If they did, then communication would be all but impossible.

If Matthew did not mean what Isaiah meant, then Matthew misused it. He is the one who says that Isaiah meant virgin. We are not reading anything into that (and that is how we are sure what it means ... the Holy Spirit said so, to answer Keith's objection). When the HOly Spirit says that Isiaah meant "virgin," then that is where the discussion should end.

But you just changed definitions of "fulfilled" midstream, which you can do ... but you can't then make the analogy.

You just don't get it. If you say, "I have a car," and I say, "Yes, me too. Mine is brown with four legs and a mane, and eats oats," you would object saying that "car" doesn't mean something with four legs, a mane, that eats oats. Yet that is what you are forcing on Isaiah ... You are trying to use "car" to mean different things. That simply won't work.

That notion is still dispelled.

You said that this prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah's time by a non-virgin and in Matthew's time by a virgin That is where I got it. That means there are two meanings: 1) virgin; 2) non-virgin.

You agreed with me that Mary was "that" virgin, the one that Isaiah was referring to, and then you continue to defend an idea that says a non-virgin in Ahaz's time was "that" almah that Isaiah was referring to. Again, you can't have it both ways. If ha'almah harah means "young woman naturally pregnant" in Isaiah's time, it cannot also mean "virgin pregnant in Matthew's time." It can only mean one or the other.

I never thought that either. I don't know where you came up with that.
</font>[/QUOTE]From where you said "But Matthew says you are incorrect. He said it referred to a virgin."</font>[/QUOTE]This statement seems totally jumbled. Your premise (that I argued that you didn't understand Matthew used the Greek word for virgin) does not match up with your proof. First, I never argued as if you didn't understand that. The fact is that Matthew did use the Greek word for virgin and I assume you knew that. He further clarifies it by saying "did not know a man until ..." That means Matthew twice explains what Isaiah was referring to, and yet you still say Isaiah was referring to a young woman who was naturally pregnant during Ahaz's time. Matthew says you are incorrect. He says that Isaiah meant "virgin."

That's not what the text says. The text says that the sign is a "ha'almah harah." The part about growing up (2-3 or 12-13) is considered by some a second part of the sign (that was actually first). I don't consider it so, but there is certainly room for that to be legitimate. But "ha'almah harah" is either a pregnant virgin or not. It cannot be both.

Roll your eyes all you want, but you have confirmed it again in this post. You have said that she is a "a young woman, whose identity (I believe) was obvious to Ahaz, would soon conceive and give birth" and "Mary, a virginal young woman." How much more plain does it get that you have said she (ha'almah harah) is both a non-virgin and a virgin?

If someone treated your language the way that you are treating Isaiah's you would be furious. If you told your daughter she could spend $20 at the mall, and she came back and having spent $60, you wouldn't be happy. She says, "Well I only spent $20. I just did it three times," you would accuse her of disobedience. And you would be right, but you would also be inconsistent because you are abusing Isaiah's words in similar fashion.

A word can only mean one thing in a given context. That is axiomatic in language, and in order to disprove it you have to assume it. In this case, Isaiah either meant non-virgin (as your option A) or virgin (your option B). I believe he meant virgin. He didn't mean both.

I think it is clear that I do understand your view, perhaps better than you because I have wrestled through the implications of it. I don't think you have.

 

I was going to provide a full response, as several things you still do not understand, but I'll bite my tongue and focus on one statement that I think is the crux of the matter:

The whole premise of my view is that that assumption is not always true. Matthew, when quoting the OT, often meant something other than what was originally meant - yet did not "misuse" it.

 

No, YOU don't get it. If you said "I have a vehicle. I have a car." and I say "Yes, I have a vehicle too, a truck." Both a car and a truck are a vehicle. Both an apple and a banana are a fruit. Both a virgin and a non-virgin are an "almah", a young woman.

Please show me where I said this or agreed with this. I don't not believe I did.

For the fourth (fifth?) time, almah means "young woman". Some young women are virgins. Some are not. Some vehicles are cars, some are not. Some fruits are apples, some are not - that doesn't mean I'm saying a "fruit" can be both an apple and a banana.

 

AMEN, NATTERS!!!

Although I do not necessarily think that Isaiah had something beside virgin in mind when he wrote 14:7, there is a definite possibility that he meant young woman instead of virgin. From the context there is no way to absolutely determine what Isaiah had in mind, and we certainly cannot see into his head or ask him what he had in mind. To admit that your theory could be a possibility is not a concession that the theory is absolutely correct. But it is an acceptance that there could have been something else in Isaiah's mind when he wrote the passage in question. As of now I wash my hands of the entire matter. It isn't worth wasting our time to show that Isaiah could have had something in mind beside the narrow definition virgin when he used the word almah, even though that is a definite possibility.

[ December 12, 2005, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Keith M ]

 

What are they, though? You have said this several times, and the only thing I didn't understand was your reference "context," in which you used it in a way that is not typically used in hermeneutical conversations.

So far, everything else you have is standard fare for your position and I understand it perfectly. I don't think you understand the implications of it.

Your premise is faulty. If hte NT author meant something different than the OT author, then we have serious problems in these texts. You can't do that to language.

But not at the same time. You cannot use two different meanings for a word in one and the same contex.t

December 10, 2005 05:59 PM. I said "Matthew says that Mary was that virgin, and she knew no man." ANd you said "I agree." Apparently you don't. And finally we have arrived at something I don't actually understand. If you agreed that Mary was "that virgin" that Isaiah was talking about, how can you disagree with me?

Again, it looks like you have thought through the implications of this.

I defended that view long before this conversation started. I have stated it in this conversation. ON page 2, I said, Some very good cases have been made that "almah" means virgin. I happen to disagree. There is no unambiguous use of "almah" to refer to anything but a virgin. The only unambiguous use of the root term is Isa 54 where alumim (a derivative) is used for barren women.

But remember, the point is not what the word "can" mean, but what it "does" mean. In a context, a word can mean only one thing.

But in a given context, such as Isaiah's, it only means one or the other. Not both.

And here you identified your very problem. Isaiah said "the virgin" (with a definite article not usually translated). He was referring to "a fruit" to use your analogy. And ha'almah cannot be both.

In the end, we are still talking past one another. I believe it is because you have not through through the implications of your position. You claim it is because I don't understand. Having read thousands of pages on Isaiah 7, I can say with relative assurance that the problem isn't that I don't understand your position. As I said, I do understand it, and in fact could make a case for it and sound like I believed it.

What's at stake here is the nature of prophecy and the integrity of the text. You don't deny the virgin birth, and neither do I. I presume you don't deny the inspiration of Scripture, and neither do I. But the problem is that when we start using texts willy-nilly (a Hebrew term), then we end up with all kinds of things.

I don't see what is lost by not having a "ha'almah harah" in the time of Isaiah. I see much that is lost by saying that Matthew used the passage in a way that Isaiah did not intend.

I will close with this: When you or Keith say that I don't recognize that "almah" can mean young woman, you are both wrong. I have said that for a long time. I am in contradiction to much of conservative scholarship on that.

Here is Keith's objection: "The major problem with the single meaning hermeneutic is trying to recreate authorial intent. Since the interpreter has no access (beyond the words) to the author’s state of mind, he can at best only make logical deductions about what the author was thinking. Therefore, according to the critic of the single intent model, the interpreter is chasing after something largely unattainable. However, if one assumes (as he should) that the author chose the words that would best convey his intention in a way that would be understood by the reader, this problem is minimized (though perhaps not fully eradicated)."

Here is part of Natters' issues: "The major problem with sensus plenior is that it opens the door to interpretations that are not governed by any discernible textual indicators. Thus sensus plenior runs the risk of robbing the text of any significant meaning to the original reader since they did not have the later revelation that unlocked the “real” or deeper meaning. It also introduces a variable of subjectivity since meaning has been removed from the text and placed in the realm of the interpreter’s view of the text in light of his understanding of later revelation."

Continued: "Since the overriding presupposition in communication is the fact that a hearer can legitimately comprehend the intent of the speaker, authorial intent is not as elusive as the critics might suggest. The speaker believes it is within his power to choose words that can be understood to communicate what he wishes to communicate. If the speaker thought otherwise, he would likely not even attempt to communicate. If he thinks a word or phrase might be misunderstood, he will choose a different word or phrase, or add qualifiers to clarify his intent; in short, he will change it so that he will not be misunderstood. Such interaction demands commonality of usage between the author and the reader (and ultimately the interpreter) so that the recipient will be able to understand a given linguistic sign or combination of linguistic signs in the manner in which the author intends them. If the recipient fails at this basic level, rational discourse is rendered impossible. Therefore, the speaker uses signs or symbols that he believes the hearer will understand in the same manner in which the speaker intends them. Thus, a commonality of meaning for a sign or a set of signs is assumed."

The question is, Did Isaiah intend a young non-virgin birth in the time of Ahaz, or did he intended the virgin birth of Christ?

I say the latter. I am not sure if natters has wrestled with Isaiah's intent, what Isaiah wanted the hearer c. 730BC to understand. That is the key issue. What did Isaiah intend? If he had intended a young woman, non-virgin, in his time, he could have said it another way to make it clear.

If, on the other hand, Isaiah intended a virgo intacta, this is the way hw would say it. A virgo intacta would have been what was commonly understood, given the lexical data. Therefore, I believe part of this problem stems from failing to understand how langauge was used at that time, and the univocal nature of language.

In the end, is this a big deal? No, not really in many ways. But it does have some serious implications.

I have enjoyed the exchange, though.

 

You said "You say that Matthew saw the meaning as "virgin" and applied it to Mary." Again, that's not what I say. You said "YOu say she is both." I do not say that, I say there are two "she"s. You said "You have one word (almah) in one context (Isa 7:14) having two meanings (non-virgin and virgin)". Those are not my two meanings. I have one meaning, "young woman". Also I have repeatedly said that perhaps the woman in Ahaz's day was a "virgin" at the time the prophecy was givin - so if this was true, I again admit that it is possible that Isaiah did mean "virigin", and again there is only "one meaning" for the word. How can you say you understand perfectly when you make errors about what I say?

Your premise is faulty. If hte NT author meant something different than the OT author, then we have serious problems in these texts. You can't do that to language.
</font>[/QUOTE]We've already discussed two other examples from Matthew. You brushed them off as "analogical", even though they are prefaced with the same words about fulfillment of what the Lord said through a prophet.

One meaning!!!! "Young woman"! Applied to two women: one whose virginity is not specified (she may have been, when the prophecy was given), and another who definitly is a virgin.

Ah, I understand how you see that question now. To clarify: I believe Mary was a virgin, and she was one of the fulfillments of "that" almah. She was "that virgin" in the sense that she, as a virgin, was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy about an almah. I did NOT mean that Isaiah only had Mary in mind.

Exodus 2:8 (KJV) and Prov 30:19 translated the word as "maid". Psalm 68:25 translated the word (plural) as "damsels". Strong's dictionary says the definition is "lass". The lexicon at blueletterbible.com says "virgin, young woman", "of marriageable age" and "maid or newly married".

 

Let’s try again … just for fun.

I know you said that. But Isaiah said there was one (singular). Who should we go with?

Yet you say “she” is a non-virgin in Isaiah’s time, someone known to Ahaz, and a virgin in Matthew’s time. That is …count them out loud … two meanings: 1) non-virgin and 2) virgin. You are trying to cut it thin using “young woman,” but that clearly won’t work.

But again, read the text and see that it is a pregnant virgin (ha’almah harah) in Isaiah’s speech. There was no pregnant virgin in Ahaz’s time.

I haven’t made errors about what you have said. You are keep trying to explain yourself and I keep pointing out the problems. I am telling you, Natters, you hold the most common evangelical position on this. What you are saying is not new. You can read it, or variations of it, in any number of commentaries and articles.

And we have shown how those examples are completely dissimilar. Remember the “waterloo” example I gave? I didn’t brush them off. I address them head on.

But Isaiah doesn’t apply it to two women. Remember he only talks of one woman.;

That’s what I thought … But since you said it, I figured I would push a little bit.

Exodus 2:8 (KJV) and Prov 30:19 translated the word as "maid". Psalm 68:25 translated the word (plural) as "damsels". Strong's dictionary says the definition is "lass". The lexicon at blueletterbible.com says "virgin, young woman", "of marriageable age" and "maid or newly married".</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, those are the standard definitions. In Exod 2:8, the girl is Moses’ sister who was obviously a virgin due to her age. Prov 30:19 could go either way, but notice above that I said “unambiguous.” Prov 30:19 is ambiguous at best. Psal 68 (and several other passages you don’t list) use a derivative (alemuth I believe) to refer to some sort of temple singer most likely. Again, it is ambiguous as to what it means. Which is why I said that there is no unambiguous use of almah to refer to anything other than a virgin.

And here you identified your very problem. Isaiah said "the virgin" (with a definite article not usually translated). He was referring to "a fruit" to use your analogy. And ha'almah cannot be both.
</font>[/QUOTE]In my analogy, "fruit" = "almah". "apple" = "virgin". Now reread what you just said. Isaiah did not say "virgin" (the specific), he said "almah" (the unspecific).[/quote]I understand, but remember that “fruit” can be apple or banana or both. “A fruit” can be an apple or banana, but “a fruit” cannot be both. Isaiah’s language (definite article-noun-adjective: the virgin pregnant) indicates that Isaiah had “a fruit” (to use your analogy), not “fruit” in general. Again, that is a grammatical argument.

I don’t, at least not that I have seen, apart from that context thingie.

And yet I have not lost anything. </font>[/QUOTE]You have lost the consistent integrity of Scripture. Matthew and Isaiah were referring to two different things.

Which there is none in my view? OF course there is a child named Immanuel in my view. We know him as Christ. As I pointed out back on page 1 of this thread at the original question, it was not uncommon for children to have more than one name, which is never used. But here again, you say Isaiah intended “a young woman.” That means one. He did not intend “young women” (two: one then and one later). I agree that Isaiah intended “a young woman.” The question is, which young woman did he intend?

Nope, he said it in a very clear way. Several problems. You assume that Jesus was not named Immanuel. I don’t assume that. I think he was named Immanuel. Secondly, you say his birth had nothing to with the immediate threat. Yet it did. Here is an issue we have not really gotten to yet, but it is key.

What was the threat? Vv. 1-9 reveal that the threat was that the Davidic ruler (Ahaz) would be removed by the son of Tabeel. If he succeeded, then the Davidic covenant would be broken and God would be a liar since he promised no one but a son of David would sit on the throne of Israel.

The sign was the promise that the Davidic covenant would not be broken. And what was the promise? A virgin born descendant of David who would rule on the throne. This theme is carried on in chapter 9 and 11. So the promise is directly related. The Davidic covenant would not be broken. Christ would be born and ensure the perpetual continuance of the covenant.

 

Whee.

If you understood my view, you would know already. The young woman in Ahaz's time. I believe Matthew applied this verse to Mary and Jesus just like he applied Hos 11:1 to Mary and Jesus, even though there was only one "son" (singular).

Argh. One meaning. Young woman. And AGAIN, I do NOT say the young woman in Ahaz's time was necessarily an non-virgin.

I agree for the umpteenth time that there was no pregnant virgin in Ahaz's time. But the text does not say "pregnant virgin", it says a young woman will conceive, name the child Immanuel and before the child knows enough to choose right from wrong, the enemy kings will no longer be a threat.

Right. That's why we're in such agreement about what I am saying.

Saying they are dissimilar, and talking about "waterloo", is not addressing them head on. It is grasping at straws and hoping I don't call you on it.

But Isaiah doesn’t apply it to two women. Remember he only talks of one woman.;
</font>[/QUOTE]I know. If you understood my view, you would see that that is beside the point.

Ah, there wasn't already enough conflict for you?

Jesus was never NAMED Immanuel. That's the point of this whole thread from the very first post.

I KNOW. In my view, he intended a young woman in Ahaz's day, one that would bear a child and name him Immanuel, and before the child was old enough to choose right from wrong, the enemy kings would no longer be a threat. That's the young woman, who may have been a virgin when Isaiah gave the prophecy, that was meant. I believe Matthew applied this passage to Mary and Jesus, just as he applied[/i] Hos 11:1 to Mary and Jesus, even though that's not what Hosea meant, and even though Hosea did not have "two sons" in mind. I don't know how much clearer I can be. You have not proven this is not the case, you have only demonstrated that you can argue against what I am not saying.

Isa 7:16 "For 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."

What's the point of mentioning the part I bolded, a very specific time in the life of the child, in that verse if it would happen before ALL times in the child's life?

 

I do know. It was a rhetorical question, and you answered it wrongly anyway. You can't go with "The young woman in Ahaz's time" becuase of what Matthew said. To say "I believe Matthew applied this verse to Mary and Jesus just like he applied Hos 11:1 to Mary and Jesus, even though there was only one "son" (singular)" is to miss the point of the prophecy and the obvious use of Hos 11:1.

But we can all count ... well, all but you apparently

Then how was she pregnant?

No, actually that is exactly what it says. "ha'almah harah" is "pregnant virgin.

I haven't grasped at one straw. BUt I can't answer a non-question any differently. You are comparing apples and oranges and I can't pretend they are the same to satisfy you.

How do you know? And what child in Ahaz's time was named Immanuel? DO you really think that we know every name of everybody in Scripture? Of course not. That is ludicrous and I think you know that. This is simply a weak argument. You want to say that Jesus was never named Immanuel because we have no record of it, while saying that another child we have absolutely no record of was named Immanueal. See the problem?

You are being perfectly clear, as I have repeatedly said. Understanding your position is not the issue. Making it fit Scripturee is the issue. I have understood you with no problem. It simply doesn't work in the pasasge.

Because it is a time marker that sets a time frame for the current distress. Remember, in Isaiah's prophetic vision, the virgin is pregnant. You are trying to deny that, but the text presents it differently than you are accepting.

The connection of Immanuel, born 730 years later, to the short-term deliverance that will occur before the child can reject bad and choose good is to be seen in a hypothetical birth. In the mind of the prophet, the virgin he sees is currently pregnant, and therefore, he gives his prophecy concerning deliverance on the basis of the imminent birth. While v. 14 gives a clear prediction of a birth that takes place 730 years from the time of prediction, vv. 15–16 use the infancy period of that birth to assure the deliverance of the nation from a threatening coalition. This deliverance will occur within two or three (or possibly twelve or thirteen) years. Answering those to whom this long-term birth seems incongruous with a sign for Ahaz, Young says,

"Whether we like it or no [sic], Isaiah did utter in one verse a direct prediction and in the subsequent verse made the subject of that prediction a symbol of the situation existing in his own day. That he did so cannot really be brought forth as an objection against the prophecy as it stands. No doubt it is difficult, with our prosaic western minds, to grasp the rich symbolism of the Old Testament prophecies as we should. But we should be able to see that the procedure of the prophet, when studied in the light of all Scripture, was perfectly justifiable."

Isaiah, using a prophecy which is imminent in his mind, assures the house of David that the Syro-Ephraimite coalition will not prevail against them. To the contrary, before the child, born of the already pregnant virgin in his vision, is two or three years old, Judah will be free. Thus, Isaiah’s prophecy has a hypothetical near fulfillment, i.e., “A child will be born to a virgin, and if that child were born today, before he is two to three years old, Judah will be free from the Syro-Ephraimite coalition that is currently threatening the Davidic dynasty.”

Alexander points out the problem with such an understanding: “The conditional expression on which it all depends [if that child were born today]…is precisely that which is omitted, and of which the text contains no intimation.” However, it must be recognized that in the mind of Isaiah the virgin was currently pregnant. There is, to him, no conditionality to the prophecy. This is consistent with what the NT tells us concerning the prophetic vision of the OT prophets in 1 Peter 1:10–12: “As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (NASB). Clearly, though there was much the OT prophets did understand, they were limited as to the time frame in which their messianic prophecies would be fulfilled and possibly limited as to the identification of the person who would fulfill them. In Isaiah’s case here, it can be asserted that he knew exactly what he was prophesying: A miraculous virgin conception and birth would be accomplished as a sign of God’s intent to be with his people. In his mind, it was a present situation. The birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3–4) becomes a second, separate but parallel, sign to act as a time marker.

 

If it's how Matthew used Hos 11:1 (and other OT passages), it's possible that's how he used Isa 7:14. I believe it was. Nothing you have said has proven otherwise.

But we can all count ... well, all but you apparently
</font>[/QUOTE]Nice. Put a big grinnig smilie on an insult, and that makes it OK. Grow up, Mr. Pastor Moderator.

Then how was she pregnant?
</font>[/QUOTE]Are you not reading my posts carefully? I've lost count of how many times I've said it was possible she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was given. Why do you keep asking questions like this, if you really understand my position?

So every Bible translation has it wrong, and the non-existent "Larry's Version" corrects all other Bibles? Please.

You haven't explained the difference. You mentioned "waterloo", but you have not clearly demonstrated that: 1. "analogical" is really how Matt used Hos 11:1 (despite what Matthew himself said), and 2. Matthew didn't do the same thing with Isa 7:14 that he did with Hos 11:1.

I believe the child that was born to the almah in Ahaz's day, that was a sign that the enemy kings would no longer be a threat to Ahaz and to Judah before the child was old enough to choose right from wrong.

Because it is a time marker that sets a time frame for the current distress. Remember, in Isaiah's prophetic vision, the virgin is pregnant.</font>[/QUOTE]Let's assume you are correct. You're still not answering my question. Why did Isaiah say "For 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" and not "For before the child is born..." or "For before the child learns to speak..." or "For before the child becomes an adult..." or "For before the child dies..." or similar?

I'm done. Even though your reply will contain even more misrepresentations and misunderstandings of my view, with some minor insults likely thrown in for good measure, I'm getting off this merry-go-round. Think what you want about me, and I'll return the favor.

 

The text proves otherwise. Hos 11:1 and Isa 7:14 are two completely different types of passages. There is no other way to say that. I can't imagine how you are not yet understanding it. A historical statement and a prophetic statement are two different kinds of statements. Just because something in found in the writing of a prophet doesn't mean it is prophecy.

Lighten up, man. It was obviously a joke. You are taking this way too seriously.

Yes.

Becuase your position that "she was a virgin when the prophecy was given" is not what 7:14 says. 7:14 says that she was a virgin when she was pregnant, and as of now, you are still denying that. IT doesn't matter how many times you say she may have been a virgin when the prophecy was given. That is irrelevant. The prophecy says that she was a pregnant virgin.

How many times do I have to explain this???? ... See, I already addressed this. The "will conceive" came from teh LXX, most likely, who viewed the prophecy as future (c. 200BC). It indicates that they didn't agree with you apparentliy. It is true that in Isaiah's time, the virgin would later conceive. But in Isaiah's prophetic vision, the virgin was already pregnant.

REad Hos 11:1. It was an historical event, not a prophecy. How could a non prophecy be fulfilled??? It can't. The word "fulfill" (pleroo) has a wide semantic range. You acknowledge that for almah, but not for pleroo. That seems convenient for you, but won't stand up under scrutinty. Hos 11:1 is a historical statement; Matt 2:15 sees an analogy, a "Waterloo" sort of moment in it.

I believe the child that was born to the almah in Ahaz's day, that was a sign that the enemy kings would no longer be a threat to Ahaz and to Judah before the child was old enough to choose right from wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]But remember what the question you were supposed to be addressing was. You said that Jesus wasn't named Immanuel, presumably because we have no record of it. Yet you say a child born in Ahaz's time was named Immanuel, even though you have no record of it. You are using a double standard to try to prove your point.

I did answer this. It was a time marker, to give the court and the nation (not Ahaz) an indication that God was doing what he said he would do. The time of "knowing" or "choosing" is either 2-3 years or 12-13, depending on which view you take. The phrases you suggest (before birth, adult, or death) carry no particular time frame, and the time frame was a part of the sign.

This would be impossible. The next misrpresentation or misunderstanding will be the first. I can't do "more" until I do the first. You can believe whatever you want, and I am sure you will, but you will have to face the fact that your view is very popular and I am well familiar with it. My comments were designed to point out the inconsistencies. In a formal response, I would have done it differently, but this board is not the place for that. You have not said one thing that I wasn't expecting (except the context comment). The rest of it is a common position.

I haven't insulted you at all. t

I think you are a nice guy. Return that ...

Up until this post, you have been kind and cordial. Now, for some reason, you seem a little snippy. I don't understand that. I assumed, by virtue of the fact that you kept commenting, that you were wanting to have a discussion. If you didn't want to have a discussion, then you should have quit four pages ago. I am sorry you responded wrongly to my comments.

Perhaps someone here has been challenged in their thinking and that is good, even it is isn't you. We don't all have to see eye to eye on this to be friends and brothers. Don't read more into it than is there.

 

In Isaiah 9:6 it says "6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

When the Bible says this is it meaning that this is what heaven will call the Messiah. The reason I ask is because I don't think people the New Testament ever called Jesus The Prince of Peace, or am I mistaken on this?


Jer2913