@thephosphatemine That being said, It doesn't call her a betulah. There's absolutely no indication that she was another wife. It wouldn't matter if she was a 2nd wife who was a literal virgin. It would not change the fact that the prophecy was not about virginity at all, but deliverance. You're hung up on it due to your NT. The entire prophecy was already fulfilled by G-d perfectly in it's time. I know it's hard to swallow, but it's the truth. Like I said, you are free to believe what you want.
@thephosphatemine Neither does Yeshua. Dear, please simply read Yeshayahu well in context & take it for what it says. It's so simple. You're only missing it because you're trying to force something into it that's not there. About the NIV...they are indeed "assuming" that of course because it says no such thing. It's eisegesis. I would recommend that you steer clear of any enlgish nterpretations. Read it in the original Hebrew. If you can't read Hebrew, use an Biblos' interlinear feature.
@thephosphatemine Yesh8:3-4 & I was intimate w/ the prophetess, (the ha'almah from ch7)& she conceived, & she bore a son, & the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For, when the lad doesn't... know to call, 'Father' & 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus & the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria." 10. Take counsel & it will be foiled; speak a word & it will not succeed,FOR G-D IS WITH US.18. Behold, I & the children... the Lord gave me for signs ...
@thephosphatemine The child prophesied in ch7 was born in ch 8 to ha'almah. This very child was to grow to a certain prophesied age then their enemies would be gone because G-d was with them. This is why the child was referred to as "Immanu'el - G-d with us. It was for a very specific time & place in history and it was completely fulfilled otherwise it wouldn't have been a sign to Achaz & Yehudah that G-d was with them.
@thephosphatemine The title wasn't the name of the child, though it's referred to as such. See Yesh 8:4,8.&10. In 8:8 Yesh states that it is specifically HIS children that are the signs. To believe otherwise is to read into it what's not there. The prophecy was fulfilled entirely. Dual fulfillment of prophecy is used by xians for may reasons, but it is non existent in Hebrew scripture. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like : )
@thephosphatemine Dual fulfillment of prophecy is non existent in Hebrew scripture. Xianity needed to invent it. I encourage you to read Matt. carefully &check up on his claims. The fulfillment of supposed prophecies are sometimes non existent and in most cases ripped entirely out of context. Please understand that I've been where you are now.
@thephosphatemine "Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy"doesn't exist in Hebrew scripture, only in Xianity in an effort to make their story fit in. The fact is that the sign had nothing to do w/a messiah or a virgin conception/birth. This is readily seen by reading the chapters in context. The sign was for the kingdom of Yehudah & King Achaz & it was fulfilled perfectly just as it was spoken. The wives & children of Yeshayahu & Hoshea are perfect contrasts as well...a comparison of both kingdoms.
The trouble comes in when the writers of the "NT" state that a virgin conception/birth was fulfillment of prophecy. There is no such prophecy in Yeshayahu 7&8 or elsewhere. Yeshayahu speaks of his wife who becomes pregnant&bears a child but the sign to Achaz is actually that by the time the child can choose good & evil, the 2 kings would no longer be a threat to the southern kingdom because G-d was with them "immanu'el" . There was no virgin conception nor a prophecy for one.
Just because it was said to happen to non-historical figures doesn't suggest that these myths weren't or couldn't be the models and motivation to make it appear to have happened with a historical figure. Also, saying it's simple to just have a miraculous command to inseminate a mortal virgin in real life doesn't make it a likely thing. And the gospels were written after they were courting gentiles. And they wanted to force presaging of Isaiah 7:14 from the OT. So, what is this video saying?
Now I know how all of man's creative thinking had nothing to do with originality.Because I can compare any and all knowledge to past expierence or writtings.This is hogwash that a truth cannot be established because someone imagined before its reality.DaVinci played with the idea of fyling so it cannot be true that the Wright brothers were the first to fly.This is the weakest argument to original truth.
@thephosphatemine That being said, It doesn't call her a betulah. There's absolutely no indication that she was another wife. It wouldn't matter if she was a 2nd wife who was a literal virgin. It would not change the fact that the prophecy was not about virginity at all, but deliverance. You're hung up on it due to your NT. The entire prophecy was already fulfilled by G-d perfectly in it's time. I know it's hard to swallow, but it's the truth. Like I said, you are free to believe what you want.
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Neither does Yeshua. Dear, please simply read Yeshayahu well in context & take it for what it says. It's so simple. You're only missing it because you're trying to force something into it that's not there. About the NIV...they are indeed "assuming" that of course because it says no such thing. It's eisegesis. I would recommend that you steer clear of any enlgish nterpretations. Read it in the original Hebrew. If you can't read Hebrew, use an Biblos' interlinear feature.
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Yesh8:3-4 & I was intimate w/ the prophetess, (the ha'almah from ch7)& she conceived, & she bore a son, & the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For, when the lad doesn't... know to call, 'Father' & 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus & the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria." 10. Take counsel & it will be foiled; speak a word & it will not succeed,FOR G-D IS WITH US.18. Behold, I & the children... the Lord gave me for signs ...
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine The child prophesied in ch7 was born in ch 8 to ha'almah. This very child was to grow to a certain prophesied age then their enemies would be gone because G-d was with them. This is why the child was referred to as "Immanu'el - G-d with us. It was for a very specific time & place in history and it was completely fulfilled otherwise it wouldn't have been a sign to Achaz & Yehudah that G-d was with them.
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine The title wasn't the name of the child, though it's referred to as such. See Yesh 8:4,8.&10. In 8:8 Yesh states that it is specifically HIS children that are the signs. To believe otherwise is to read into it what's not there. The prophecy was fulfilled entirely. Dual fulfillment of prophecy is used by xians for may reasons, but it is non existent in Hebrew scripture. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like : )
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Dual fulfillment of prophecy is non existent in Hebrew scripture. Xianity needed to invent it. I encourage you to read Matt. carefully &check up on his claims. The fulfillment of supposed prophecies are sometimes non existent and in most cases ripped entirely out of context. Please understand that I've been where you are now.
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine "Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy"doesn't exist in Hebrew scripture, only in Xianity in an effort to make their story fit in. The fact is that the sign had nothing to do w/a messiah or a virgin conception/birth. This is readily seen by reading the chapters in context. The sign was for the kingdom of Yehudah & King Achaz & it was fulfilled perfectly just as it was spoken. The wives & children of Yeshayahu & Hoshea are perfect contrasts as well...a comparison of both kingdoms.
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
The trouble comes in when the writers of the "NT" state that a virgin conception/birth was fulfillment of prophecy. There is no such prophecy in Yeshayahu 7&8 or elsewhere. Yeshayahu speaks of his wife who becomes pregnant&bears a child but the sign to Achaz is actually that by the time the child can choose good & evil, the 2 kings would no longer be a threat to the southern kingdom because G-d was with them "immanu'el" . There was no virgin conception nor a prophecy for one.
BornInTzyon 7 months ago
Just because it was said to happen to non-historical figures doesn't suggest that these myths weren't or couldn't be the models and motivation to make it appear to have happened with a historical figure. Also, saying it's simple to just have a miraculous command to inseminate a mortal virgin in real life doesn't make it a likely thing. And the gospels were written after they were courting gentiles. And they wanted to force presaging of Isaiah 7:14 from the OT. So, what is this video saying?
shunyotube 8 months ago
it is mythology whether it's christian or roman or greek.
froggymicwop 10 months ago
Now I know how all of man's creative thinking had nothing to do with originality.Because I can compare any and all knowledge to past expierence or writtings.This is hogwash that a truth cannot be established because someone imagined before its reality.DaVinci played with the idea of fyling so it cannot be true that the Wright brothers were the first to fly.This is the weakest argument to original truth.
polopowers1 2 years ago