1. 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!

Featured Revised Standard Version

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salty, Mar 2, 2018.

  1. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  3. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  4. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't need what you wrote. I need what God wrote, and He said Isaiah's wife was a "young woman" not a "virgin."
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You may want to learn some English grammar and spelling before calling people "ignorant." LOL! ROFLOL!
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, and my argument against those you cite is "Isaiah's wife was NOT a virgin." Duh!
     
  8. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  9. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you think the book of Isaiah is a fable? Wow! Now I see the problem!
     
  12. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you don't believe Isaiah is inspired?
     
  14. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,300
    Likes Received:
    452
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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."
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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).
     
  16. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    do you make it up as you go along? exactly where does it say that Isaiah's wife was a virgin years after marriage?
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,666
    Likes Received:
    3,331
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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." :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    31,932
    Likes Received:
    738
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    31,932
    Likes Received:
    738
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There were both brilliant, but neither was an Apostle, and they were wrong on this one issue!
     
  20. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
Loading...