Is 7.14: Virgin or Young Woman?

Amen, Sibling TC - You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbsup:

 

What??? Are you really expecting complete honesty from those who have made it their passion to attack God's Word in a version other than the KJV. Aren't you glad that God is bigger than the propaganda?

Bro Tony

 

Who, other than you, said I slammed all modern versions?

I said the use of "young woman" and including "young girl" attacks the voracity of the Scripture and these references ARE found in some of the "super-imposed" idealologies of the MV ADVOCATESraying:

 

You're "amening" a concocted lie, but why am I surprised?:sleep:

 

Bigger than yours too.:sleep:

 

i haven't read the context, but i was just passing by n was surprised to find people actually having a new dogma/idealogy concerning the Scriptures, that they are "voracious"! :smilewinkgrin:

hmm, maybe i'll let it go n enjoy the sunshine out there! :wavey:

 

What? You worshipping the sun?

Mind telling me what's wrong with the quality and the state of being concerning God's Word???raying:

 

There is a difference in a virgin and a young woman.

Even tho' most of the girls getting pregnant these days aren't even out of high school yet, there is still a difference.

Where are the Preachers today? Where are the parents?

 

shh, not so loud! u!
:saint:

o, if the dictionary definition of voracity was too difficult, here's some pix:

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/voracity.html

:tongue3:

 

gd stuff! u may have Lloyd R Bailey on ur side:

http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/6-3_Words/6-3_Bailey.pdf

ur consideration of the chapter was apprec'd! why do so many "experts" ignore the context of Isaiah 7?

 

I wonder the same thing about teh context of Isaiah 7. A lot of people do ignore it, and try to shoe horn in a pregnant virgin in teh 8th century BC. It seems to me that the language and the context clearly rule out any fulfillment in Ahaz's time.

 

robycop3:
//i have been told by a rabbi that an 'almah' is a "high-quality"
young woman, & that her virginity is a gimme if she's single.
The implication that the almah of Is. 7:14
is a virgin is clear, since no man is mentioned,
and since many newlywed almahs conceive, a married almah
conceiving would be no special sign. He said while
any virgin could be a 'bethuwlah", only young women
of high character could be an almah....a bethuwlah could
be an idol-worshipper or other evildoer.//


Hope of Glory: //This is bearing in mind that this rabbi
doesn't believe the Messiah has yet been born.//

All the Old Testament (OT) non-messanic folk probably
understood as do this Rabbi. His religion has no relation
to his ability to understand the meaning of words.


Hope of Glory: //This is the way the difference
has always been explained to me,
and it was explained to me by a Jewish professor from Israel.
See Genesis 24:16 and I think it helps clarify the difference.
In Genesis 24:16, it's a bethule, and it has to be
clarified that neither had any man known her.//

If what you say it true, it says then ill of 'virgin' as used
in the New Testament (NT)
In Luke 1:27 Mary is noted as being a virgin twice.
In Luke 1:34 Mary is noted as never having had sex with a man.
Doesn't 'virgin' means 'never had sex'? Why does it
have to be clarified later?


Marcia: //Can't the prophecy mean that a virgin/high quality young
woman would conceive and bear a son, meaning the son of Ahaz,
and also be used as the prophecy for Jesus in Matthew?//

Of course, that is what it means.

Marcia: //Don't you all believe in double-fulfillment prophecies?
I was taught this in my church and at seminary, and
I see other examples of this in the Bible.//

Of course it is a double-fulfillment prophecies.
In fact, if one didn't have the N.T. one would think it
only mean aobut the son of Ahaz. (as do those who don't bother
to read the N.T. do)

Salamander: //I know that is a theology subject, but Doctrine
is established and profitable, while argueing semantics
accomplishes very little.//

TeeHee, your statment is self-defeating. Semantics is
the meaning words have; doctrine is the meaning words
have. You can't have doctrine without semantics.
So what you said boils down to:
//but the semantics of Doctrine is established and profitable, while
the Doctrine of semantics accomplishes very little.// TeeHee

Ed Edwards: //Amen, Sibling TC - You are so RIGHT ON!//

Salamander: //You're "amening" a concocted lie, but why am I surprised?//

So semantics doesn't matter when TC's ox is goaded;
semantics does matter when Salamander's ox is goaded.
Sorry, Bubba, that is A DOUBLE STANDARD

 

um, which part of the following was shoehorned in or clearly ruled out by the context? wld u say the parts in bold?

u're saying which part doesn't belong?

1. the part abt God's destruction of Judah's northern adversaries Israel n Syria before the 'Almah-born child is able to tell right fr wrong?

2. that God will bring on Assyria to punish Ahaz's house after that?

3. both?

4. neither?
​

Ans: _____

 

The context and language clearly rule out a virginal conception and birth in the eighth century BC. The language clearly prophesies a pregnant woman who is a virgin. The context (historical and literary) has no such creature. The only pregnant people are not virgins.

Not following the question here.

It all belongs. What would make you think I don't believe a part of it belongs?

But again, think about the what Isaiah said.

1. Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign as a confirmation that the Davidic king would not be replaced, thus breaking the Davidic covenant. Ahaz refused. Isaiah then no longer addresses Ahaz, but rather the house of David. Therefore, whatever sign comes is not for Ahaz, but for the house of David and the nation of Israel, to ensure them that the Davidic covenant will not be broken. Christ, the virgin born son, is the fulfillment of that promise.

2. Isaiah prophesied about a virginal conception and birth. There is no record of any such conception and birth in the 8th century BC. The only virginal conception and birth is Christ.

3. In Isaiah’s prophetic vision, the virgin is currently pregnant and ready to give birth. Vv. 15-16 reference that time frame. He is in essence saying, If that child were born today … The time frame indicates the near deliverance. The birth was a promise of the continuation of the Davidic kingdom and covenant. You are forgetting what the promise was actually about, it seems to me.

4. Matthew, under the inspiration of the Spirit, said that Isaiah meant a virgin, and the virgin was Mary. Who are we to disagree? The almah cannot be both a virgin and a non-virgin at the same time. The prophecy cannot be fulfilled by a non-virgin in Ahaz’s time and a virgin in Matthew’s time. That makes no sense.

Payne rightly comments, “This verse constitutes primary evidence on the futility of resorting to hermeneutical theories of ‘double meaning’ or ‘multiple fulfillment’;…The [almah] of Isa 7:14 either was a virgin or was not and cannot simultaneously predict these two opposing meanings.”[1]

[1]J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 292, n. 61.




Don’t try to make the context at war with itself. I think some here are overlooking the context and the meaning of the words, and the basic nature of language. There is no need to find a fulfillment in Ahaz's time. He didn't want one, and God did not promise him one. To find one violates the nature of the promise and the nature of language.

 

u're free to disagree, but i think ur "in essence" ignores the clear language of the text.

nobody's disputing the fact of the Virgin Birth or of Matthew's statement. yet the fulfilment of one (Virgin Birth) does not negate the fulfilment of the other ('Almah Birth). that's the nature of much of OT prophecy. e.g. just becos Psalm 41 applies to Christ n Judas (John 13:8), does it mean that it cannot be true also of David n his adversaries?

due respect to Payne, 'Almah has been defined to include virgins, but not exclusively. n recognising this in no way detracts fr the meaning of parthenos in the NT. (did u see my earlier post of Lloyd Bailey's analysis of Isaiah 7:14--page 3, post #30 on this thread?)

 

1) Young woman is the more literal or formal equivalent translation that follows the immediate context of the verse which isn't about a virgin.

2) This does not change the fact that it is also a prophetic reference to Christ.

3) Every translation that chooses young woman for Isaiah, chooses virgin in Luke when the context of the passage is specific to Christ.

4) I believe that modern translations that choose young woman over virgin for Isaiah are doing so because of avoidance of a percieved theological position (liberal) that their potential purchasing audience has been told is associated with the translation choice of young woman rather than actual translational scholarship.

 

What clear language have I ignored? I think I have dealt with it all, and explained it all.

If both births are virgin births, then I will grant a possible point (but only possible due to the nature of language). But primarily due to the nature of language, "almah" cannot mean both virgin and non-virgin at the same time. What did Isaiah mean? I think he meant virgin. Therefore, a non-virgin birth is not in any way a fulfillment of that prophecy.

Remember, language can only mean one thing in a context. It cannot have multiple meanings. If it does, all hope of communication is lost. So when Isaiah said "almah," he could have meant young woman impregnated through natural means; or he could have meant virgin. But he only meant one of them. Which one do you think he meant?

The fact that a passage may be used analogically or typologically does not mean that it has more than one meaning. But until one really thinks through the philosophy of communication and language, this point becomes clouded in the spiritualization of the text.

[]quote]due respect to Payne, 'Almah has been defined to include virgins, but not exclusively. n recognising this in no way detracts fr the meaning of parthenos in the NT. (did u see my earlier post of Lloyd Bailey's analysis of Isaiah 7:14--page 3, post #30 on this thread?)[/quote]I am sure I read Bailey since I read a tremendous amount on this ... probably in excuess of 5,000 pages. Almah does not necessarily mean virgo intacta, though some would disagree. But whatever it means, it means only that. And that is Payne's point. A girl cannot be a virgin and a non-virgin at the same time. She is either one or the other. Not both.

Which did Isaiah mean? I think he meant virgin because 1) that is what Matthew said, and 2) that would be a legitimate sign of the magnitude involved in Isa 7.

 

This would need to be proven on your part. I think it is about a virgin. That would be a sign, and that would be consistent with what Matthew says. I think the burden of proof is on you to show how it isn't about a virgin birth, and then why Matthew said it was.

You guys are way too willing to assume things without studying the context and the theological issues involved here.

 

I never thot i'd be thanking PLarry, but thanks for the last statements.

Now, to those who are still wresting the Scriptures, do you believe in coincidence or Divine Providences of the likenesses in OT prophecies and the latter "supposed" fulfilments?raying:

 

First: we're not related. Second: Semantics opens the door for arguement when doctrine is not first established, which the Virgin Birth is established Doctrine and argueing over it is argueing semantics which is NOT profitable for anything but entertaining the delusive mind. Third:My "ox" remains in green pastures where Jesus has him. Fourth: your lie is still concocted from your "whimsical" mind.

I doubt very seriously I have any "double standards", But I have observed you to have a multiplicity of standards, all confusing each other with nothing certain.