Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A study of Isaiah 7

Eliyahu7
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 6:29:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Bs"d

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

1: In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzzi'ah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali'ah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it. 2: When the house of David was told, "Syria is in league with E'phraim," his heart and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. 3: And the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and She'ar-jash'ub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's Field, 4: and say to him, `Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remali'ah. 5: Because Syria, with E'phraim and the son of Remali'ah, has devised evil against you, saying, 6: "Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Ta'be-el as king in the midst of it," 7: thus says the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
8: For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years E'phraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.) 9: And the head of E'phraim is Sama'ria, and the head of Sama'ria is the son of Remali'ah. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.'" 10: Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." 13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

We see here in Isaiah 7, that king Achaz, the king of Judah, is afraid of two neighboring kings.
It is important to know that after the death of king Solomo the kingdom of Israel split up into two parts; into the kingdom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom om Judah was made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a part of the Levites. The kingdom of Israel was made up of the other ten tribes.
Achaz was king over Judah, and in this prophecy the king of Israel is Pekah, the son of Remaliah.
And Pekah had made a covenant with the king of Syria, called Resin, to attack together the kingdom of Judah.
This news caused king Achaz considerable stress, because he had a dark suspicion that things could very well turn out not so very rosy for him.
Therefore God sent Isaiah to Achaz, in order to tell him that things would work out just fine for him. God tells Achaz that he will give him a sign. Here is the sign: "14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and she called his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

God says that before the child of the young woman who is pregnant will grow up, the land of the two kings, Resin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel, will be deserted, that is devoid of people. Those two nations will be led into exile.
So this is a sign for king Achaz, who lived about 700 years before JC.

And the Bible tells us that this prophecy came true: "27: In the fifty-second year of Azari'ah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remali'ah began to reign over Israel in Sama'ria, and reigned twenty years. 28: And he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jerobo'am the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin. 29: In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria came and captured I'jon, A'bel-beth-ma'acah, Jan-o'ah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naph'tali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria. 30: Then Hoshe'a the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remali'ah, and struck him down, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzzi'ah."
II Kings 15.

We see here that the population of Israel indeed went into exile, and that the land of king Pekah was deserted.

And here is what happened to Resin, the king of Syria:
"6: At that time the king of Edom recovered Elath for Edom, and drove the men of Judah from Elath; and the E'domites came to Elath, where they dwell to this day. 7: So Ahaz sent messengers to Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria, saying, "I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." 8: Ahaz also took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria. 9: And the king of Assyria hearkened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin."
II Kings 16.

So here we see that also the inhabitants of the land of King Resin went into exile, and also his land was deserted, in the days of Achaz.

So God gave a sign to Achaz.

In the days of Achaz.

About 700 years before JC.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

These are only misconceptions of the NT.

However, the NT brings this prophecy to Achaz as a messianic prophecy, see Matthew 1 "21: she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel".

So what the NT does here, is taking a text which does not speak about the messiah, ripping it out of context, mistranslating it, (it says "young woman", and not "virgin") and then presenting it to us as a messianic prophecy.

So one of the foundations of the Christian religion, the virgin birth, is based upon a mistranslated text which is ripped out of context and does NOT speak about the messiah.

Look here for more reasons why nobody should believe in the New Testament: http://mountzion.notlong.com...
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 11:45:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, She was a parthenos, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Eliyahu7
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 11:55:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 11:45:57 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Bs"d

The Christian translators. also those of the KJV, know very wel what "almah" means.

It is just that in Isaiah 7:14, they corrupt their translations, in order to facilitate Christianity.

This table of all the places that "almah" appears in the Tanach, with an overview how the Christians translate it, is an eye opener:

https://sites.google.com...

Watch out for the corrupt Christian Bible translations!
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 6:20:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Bs"d

So also Isaiah 7 is a clear example of how Christianity rips Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah out of context, mistranslates them, and then presents them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC".

It should be clear by now for everybody who has eyes in his head that Christianity is based on lies and deceit.
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:00:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 6:20:29 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
Bs"d

So also Isaiah 7 is a clear example of how Christianity rips Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah out of context, mistranslates them, and then presents them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC".

It should be clear by now for everybody who has eyes in his head that Christianity is based on lies and deceit.
Aah religion!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 12:24:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:00:58 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/28/2016 6:20:29 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
Bs"d

So also Isaiah 7 is a clear example of how Christianity rips Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah out of context, mistranslates them, and then presents them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC".

It should be clear by now for everybody who has eyes in his head that Christianity is based on lies and deceit.
Aah religion!

Bs"d

Every religion is preferable above atheism. That's really the worst there is.

200+ million of their own citizens murdered in the 20th century alone.

You got to have a hole in your head to run after atheism.

What does it have to offer you? 70 years of misery, and then a hole in the ground, or the oven, and the eternal nothing.

Great prospect. That makes for happy, moral, and healthy people.

When religion is really opium for the masses, then you got to have a hole in your head to go through the painful operation called "life" without the numbing opium.

Here we see again that atheists are not exactly the brightest of people.
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 6:29:41 AM, Eliyahu7 wrote:
Bs"d

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

1: In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzzi'ah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali'ah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it. 2: When the house of David was told, "Syria is in league with E'phraim," his heart and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. 3: And the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and She'ar-jash'ub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's Field, 4: and say to him, `Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remali'ah. 5: Because Syria, with E'phraim and the son of Remali'ah, has devised evil against you, saying, 6: "Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Ta'be-el as king in the midst of it," 7: thus says the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
8: For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years E'phraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.) 9: And the head of E'phraim is Sama'ria, and the head of Sama'ria is the son of Remali'ah. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.'" 10: Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." 13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

We see here in Isaiah 7, that king Achaz, the king of Judah, is afraid of two neighboring kings.
It is important to know that after the death of king Solomo the kingdom of Israel split up into two parts; into the kingdom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom om Judah was made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a part of the Levites. The kingdom of Israel was made up of the other ten tribes.
Achaz was king over Judah, and in this prophecy the king of Israel is Pekah, the son of Remaliah.
And Pekah had made a covenant with the king of Syria, called Resin, to attack together the kingdom of Judah.
This news caused king Achaz considerable stress, because he had a dark suspicion that things could very well turn out not so very rosy for him.
Therefore God sent Isaiah to Achaz, in order to tell him that things would work out just fine for him. God tells Achaz that he will give him a sign. Here is the sign: "14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and she called his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

God says that before the child of the young woman who is pregnant will grow up, the land of the two kings, Resin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel, will be deserted, that is devoid of people. Those two nations will be led into exile.
So this is a sign for king Achaz, who lived about 700 years before JC.

And the Bible tells us that this prophecy came true: "27: In the fifty-second year of Azari'ah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remali'ah began to reign over Israel in Sama'ria, and reigned twenty years. 28: And he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jerobo'am the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin. 29: In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria came and captured I'jon, A'bel-beth-ma'acah, Jan-o'ah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naph'tali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria. 30: Then Hoshe'a the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remali'ah, and struck him down, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzzi'ah."
II Kings 15.

We see here that the population of Israel indeed went into exile, and that the land of king Pekah was deserted.

And here is what happened to Resin, the king of Syria:
"6: At that time the king of Edom recovered Elath for Edom, and drove the men of Judah from Elath; and the E'domites came to Elath, where they dwell to this day. 7: So Ahaz sent messengers to Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria, saying, "I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." 8: Ahaz also took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria. 9: And the king of Assyria hearkened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin."
II Kings 16.

So here we see that also the inhabitants of the land of King Resin went into exile, and also his land was deserted, in the days of Achaz.

So God gave a sign to Achaz.

In the days of Achaz.

About 700 years before JC.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

These are only misconceptions of the NT.

However, the NT brings this prophecy to Achaz as a messianic prophecy, see Matthew 1 "21: she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel".

So what the NT does here, is taking a text which does not speak about the messiah, ripping it out of context, mistranslating it, (it says "young woman", and not "virgin") and then presenting it to us as a messianic prophecy.

So one of the foundations of the Christian religion, the virgin birth, is based upon a mistranslated text which is ripped out of context and does NOT speak about the messiah.

Look here for more reasons why nobody should believe in the New Testament: http://mountzion.notlong.com...

Off topic question.

So where is your slavery in the Bible?
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 4:42:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Ok you"ve exercised your right to deliberately misinterpret anything said or done. It"s amazing how amateurs are the experts that find flaw in a document that has stood public scrutiny and ridicule for over 400 years.

Now much of what is said is true in respect to what "almah" could mean, depending how it"s used in the context could mean maiden, young woman and also virgin. Note the posters here omit that sort of information in their claim. They think the readers here are to stupid to realize that words have meaning according to the context they are in. Even the uneducated who use slang understand this concept.

According to Strong"s lexicon of which I am sure Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon would concur, context could mean maiden, young woman and also virgin.

Now to show just what these so called jews are doing here. The text and the verses and word in question are not to Ahaz they are to the House of David and everyone who should know knows that the Messiah promise by the Lord God of Israel was to come by way of the House of David. Anyone with comprehension can see that even Ahaz didn"t want to ask of anything that was prophetic of God. So how could the Lord make a point of mentioning a birth that is a sign that isn"t something men could do? It would have to be something only the Lord God could do. And out of those three options for translation would have to be considered with in the context of what only God could do and not man within the House of David. Therefore the only choice if you believe God does signs that are miraculous then it would have to be a "virgin" and not maiden nor young woman, though she could be all three. A young woman within the house of David having a child isn"t a sign from The Lord God of anything. But a child born of a virgin, has to be of God.

So these so called jews think that the Jewish Prophet Isaiah is stupid or at least his God is stupid because the Creator and Judge of all things notified the House of David with a sign as a young woman has a child, that would have no distinction what so ever. And the name could be used by anyone who was aware of this text. So the only verifiable fulfillment would be a child of a virgin.
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 5:44:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 4:42:46 PM, DPMartin wrote:

Now much of what is said is true in respect to what "almah" could mean, depending how it"s used in the context could mean maiden, young woman and also virgin.

Bs"d

"Almah" means "young woman" or "girl". It does NOT mean "virgin".

And the context doesn't change the meaning.

And in this case, the context of the almah is that she IS pregnant, and IS GIVING BIRTH to a son.
Sound like a virgin to you??

According to Strong"s lexicon of which I am sure Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon would concur, context could mean maiden, young woman and also virgin.

Strong is a Christian lexicon, and it is not a dictionary.

Show me one normal dictionary that translates "almah" with "virgin".

Now to show just what these so called jews are doing here. The text and the verses and word in question are not to Ahaz they are to the House of David

Yes, and Achaz is that house of David, as Achaz was in male line a descendant of David, something that JC was not.

and everyone who should know knows that the Messiah promise by the Lord God of Israel was to come by way of the House of David.

But yours didn't

Anyone with comprehension can see that even Ahaz didn"t want to ask of anything that was prophetic of God. So how could the Lord make a point of mentioning a birth that is a sign that isn"t something men could do? It would have to be something only the Lord God could do. And out of those three options for translation would have to be considered with in the context of what only God could do and not man within the House of David. Therefore the only choice if you believe God does signs that are miraculous then it would have to be a "virgin" and not maiden nor young woman, though she could be all three. A young woman within the house of David having a child isn"t a sign from The Lord God of anything. But a child born of a virgin, has to be of God.

And how was that "miracle" supposed to be checked?

Did the whole town come to look between her legs when she was about to give birth, in order to see that the hymen was still intact?

Or did they have to take her word for the fact that she was still a virgin??

It is obvious that a virgin birth cannot be a sign.

So these so called jews think that the Jewish Prophet Isaiah is stupid or at least his God is stupid because the Creator and Judge of all things notified the House of David with a sign as a young woman has a child, that would have no distinction what so ever. And the name could be used by anyone who was aware of this text. So the only verifiable fulfillment would be a child of a virgin.

I don't think that Isaiah or God is stupid, I only think the Christians are stupid, and that they are not capable of reading a text.

Here it is again: "Therefore Y-H-W-H Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.[b] 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

So what is the sign? The sign is that: " before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

That is the sign. That before the child grows up, the two kings for which Achaz was very afraid, would be exiled, together with the population of their lands.

THAT is the sign.

And not a non-existing "virgin birth".
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 6:40:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 5:44:15 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 2/1/2016 4:42:46 PM, DPMartin wrote:

Now much of what is said is true in respect to what "almah" could mean, depending how it"s used in the context could mean maiden, young woman and also virgin.

Bs"d

"Almah" means "young woman" or "girl". It does NOT mean "virgin".

And the context doesn't change the meaning.

And in this case, the context of the almah is that she IS pregnant, and IS GIVING BIRTH to a son.
Sound like a virgin to you??

According to Strong"s lexicon of which I am sure Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon would concur, context could mean maiden, young woman and also virgin.

Strong is a Christian lexicon, and it is not a dictionary.

Show me one normal dictionary that translates "almah" with "virgin".

Now to show just what these so called jews are doing here. The text and the verses and word in question are not to Ahaz they are to the House of David

Yes, and Achaz is that house of David, as Achaz was in male line a descendant of David, something that JC was not.

and everyone who should know knows that the Messiah promise by the Lord God of Israel was to come by way of the House of David.

But yours didn't

Anyone with comprehension can see that even Ahaz didn"t want to ask of anything that was prophetic of God. So how could the Lord make a point of mentioning a birth that is a sign that isn"t something men could do? It would have to be something only the Lord God could do. And out of those three options for translation would have to be considered with in the context of what only God could do and not man within the House of David. Therefore the only choice if you believe God does signs that are miraculous then it would have to be a "virgin" and not maiden nor young woman, though she could be all three. A young woman within the house of David having a child isn"t a sign from The Lord God of anything. But a child born of a virgin, has to be of God.

And how was that "miracle" supposed to be checked?

Did the whole town come to look between her legs when she was about to give birth, in order to see that the hymen was still intact?

Or did they have to take her word for the fact that she was still a virgin??

It is obvious that a virgin birth cannot be a sign.

So these so called jews think that the Jewish Prophet Isaiah is stupid or at least his God is stupid because the Creator and Judge of all things notified the House of David with a sign as a young woman has a child, that would have no distinction what so ever. And the name could be used by anyone who was aware of this text. So the only verifiable fulfillment would be a child of a virgin.

I don't think that Isaiah or God is stupid, I only think the Christians are stupid, and that they are not capable of reading a text.

Here it is again: "Therefore Y-H-W-H Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.[b] 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

So what is the sign? The sign is that: " before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

That is the sign. That before the child grows up, the two kings for which Achaz was very afraid, would be exiled, together with the population of their lands.

THAT is the sign.

And not a non-existing "virgin birth".

I"m sorry but didn"t you just say that the text says "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son"? Therefore seeing that it could only be an act of God, the sign would have to be the virgin conceiving a child, anybody can restrict their diet to anything.

And the house of David includes all of the house of David from David to the last known of his linage. Which involves a lot more then Ahaz. And the text says to the house of David not to the house of Ahaz.

And yes this is a lexicon for the public examination:

http://biblehub.com...

Also the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon is available to the public, other than your google it source. It should also be noted that the Stone edition of the Torah has two different Hebrew text to say the same thing. So even the source of the Hebrew text and what alphabet and or spelling is used in itself has to be taken into consideration for translation. And we have also forgotten that there is a Latin version that has been examined and scrutinized for about for 1700 yr"s or so and surly it toke Hebrew expertise of the day to bring it to Latin. Of which was also used for the KJV with the Hebrew and Greek text respectively.

Anyways that"s all I"ve got to say about that nonsense your dishing out.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 10:16:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
We are talking about Matthew's use of the Isaiah passage. Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek, and so used the greek word 'parthenos', which is unequivocally 'virgin'. Isaiah wrote in Hebrew. using the Hebrew word 'almah', which does not carry the same connotation of virginity.

However it is likely that Matthew did not use Isaiah's orginal Hebrew text (which being a 1st century Hellenised Jew he could not read) but used a Greek translation called the Septuagint. It was the translators of the Septuagint who first erred in translating 'almah' as 'parthenos' and Matthew was probably unaware of the error, or if he did know he didn't care because the error suited Matthews purpose which was to portray Jesus's birth as miraculous.

As Elihahu as shown, the context makes that a nonsense even if we ignore the mistranslation it relies on. Nonetheless, Matthew siezed on it because it suited his purpose of presenting Jesus in Messianic terms. There are several others examples of dubious quotation in Matthew. For example, there is no evidence that the the slaughter of the iinnocents ever happened (Luke doesn't mention anthing of the sort), but it provided Matthew with a chance to quote from Jeremiah 31:15, or rather a somewhat garbled and loose version there of.

Another example: The entire episode of the journey to Bethlehem justified the inclusion of a reference to Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

The Micah propecy was well known, so Luke also incudes an explnation of how the Gallilean Jesus was actually from Bethlehem after all. That problem is even referenced in John 7:41 "Others said, "He is the Messiah. Still others asked, "How can the Messiah come from Galilee?" Matthew (and Luke) clearly thought they had to address that awkward issue - unfortunately they clearly didn't communicate and so came up with completely different incompatible scenarios!

All the well-known 'prophecies' in Matthew fall apart on scrutiny, depending on partial and mis-quotations taken out of context, or are simply the result making up stuff to suit.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 5:06:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 10:16:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:
We are talking about Matthew's use of the Isaiah passage. Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek, and so used the greek word 'parthenos', which is unequivocally 'virgin'. Isaiah wrote in Hebrew. using the Hebrew word 'almah', which does not carry the same connotation of virginity.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, She was a parthenos, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 12:29:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 6:40:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:

I"m sorry but didn"t you just say that the text says "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son"?

Bs"d

No, the text doesn't say that. It might say so in Christians translations, but that's because they are corrupted in order to facilitate Christianity.

What the text says is "Behold, the young women is pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

That's what it says. And keep in mind, in Hebrew there are no capital letters, so it cannot say "Son". Also that is invented by the translaters.

And the house of David includes all of the house of David from David to the last known of his linage. Which involves a lot more then Ahaz. And the text says to the house of David not to the house of Ahaz.

The command to Isaiah to speak to the house of David, was spoken in the days of Achaz. Achaz was then the last descendant of David.

And Achaz is called "house of David" also in verse 2:

"Now it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to make war against it, but could not prevail against it. 2 And it was told to the house of David, saying, "Syria"s forces are deployed in Ephraim." So his heart and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind."

You see, "house of David" here is Achaz.

It should also be noted that the Stone edition of the Torah has two different Hebrew text to say the same thing.

Interesting. Never heard that. Please tell me all about it.
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 1:06:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 4:42:46 PM, DPMartin wrote:
So these so called jews think that the Jewish Prophet Isaiah is stupid or at least his God is stupid because the Creator and Judge of all things notified the House of David with a sign as a young woman has a child, that would have no distinction what so ever. And the name could be used by anyone who was aware of this text. So the only verifiable fulfillment would be a child of a virgin.

The prophecy is in the fact that God would choose a basta*d child as the vessel that he would fill with his spirit, which he did at the baptism of the man Jesus, when the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the Heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son 'TODAY' I have become your Father.

The Light of man came In the body of a human being, which he had filled with his spirit and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, (Dwelling place) the Sh'khinah, or Dwelling place, which was the body of the man Jesus that the Father had prepared for his Son, who was to come down and fill with his spirit that body that his Father had prepared for him, the earthly dwelling of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

And his name shall be Emmanuel=God is with us.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:15:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Bs"d

The sign was a sign to king Achaz, about the young woman who was pregnant, and that before her son would grow up, the two kings he was afraid of, would be exiled, together with their peoples.

It has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever.

As usual, the NT takes this text, which has no bearing on the messiah, it mistranslates it, and then presents it as a "messianic prophecy fulfilled by JC".

Therefore, and for a lot of other reasons, the NT is based on lies and deceit.
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:37:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:15:06 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
Bs"d

The sign was a sign to king Achaz, about the young woman who was pregnant, and that before her son would grow up, the two kings he was afraid of, would be exiled, together with their peoples.

It has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever.

As usual, the NT takes this text, which has no bearing on the messiah, it mistranslates it, and then presents it as a "messianic prophecy fulfilled by JC".

Therefore, and for a lot of other reasons, the NT is based on lies and deceit.

Amazing how you religious trolls manage to run amok here with multiple sock puppet accounts.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yavneh
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.
"Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues "air isn't true" but continues to breathe it while he argues. In their daily lives, Atheists continue to breathe-- they take medicine, fly on planes, watch TV, use computers and the Internet for communication and countless tasks, electrical lights when it's dark... all these are made possible by G-d's creations, and would not be possible via the Atheist worldview. They are breathing G-d's air all the time they argue against Him." -- Fly/Me
Eliyahu
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:59:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/3/2016 1:06:34 PM, Gentorev wrote:

And his name shall be Emmanuel=God is with us.

Bs"d

I had a neighbour called "Immanuel", was he also God?
Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:03:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.

No, what I'm asking is, how did the Jews go from being black to being white? Also, what happened to the entire nation of Israel?
Yavneh
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 6:24:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:03:27 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.

No, what I'm asking is, how did the Jews go from being black to being white? Also, what happened to the entire nation of Israel?

Bs"D

We never had black skin-- Abraham originated from the middle east.
"Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues "air isn't true" but continues to breathe it while he argues. In their daily lives, Atheists continue to breathe-- they take medicine, fly on planes, watch TV, use computers and the Internet for communication and countless tasks, electrical lights when it's dark... all these are made possible by G-d's creations, and would not be possible via the Atheist worldview. They are breathing G-d's air all the time they argue against Him." -- Fly/Me
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 4:30:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/9/2016 6:24:20 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:03:27 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.

No, what I'm asking is, how did the Jews go from being black to being white? Also, what happened to the entire nation of Israel?

Bs"D

We never had black skin-- Abraham originated from the middle east.

Jeremiah 14:2 Iudah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish, they are blacke vnto the ground, and the crie of Ierusalem is gone vp.

The word Jew comes from the word Judah, which is one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The original Jews, the real Jews/Judahites, are black.

Lamentations 4:7-8

7 Her Nazarites were purer then snow, they were whiter then milke, they were more ruddie in body then rubies, their polishing was of Saphir.

Purere than snow and whiter than milk is not referring to their skin color because v8 would contradict this verse.

8 Their visage is blacker then a cole: they are not knowen in the streets: their skinne cleaueth to their bones: it is withered, it is become like a sticke.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 4:32:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/9/2016 6:24:20 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:03:27 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.

No, what I'm asking is, how did the Jews go from being black to being white? Also, what happened to the entire nation of Israel?

Bs"D

We never had black skin-- Abraham originated from the middle east.

By the way, people in the Middle East today are Arab. The Ancient Israelites were not Arab they were Israelites, still are Israelites today.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 8:36:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:15:06 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
Bs"d

The sign was a sign to king Achaz, about the young woman who was pregnant, and that before her son would grow up, the two kings he was afraid of, would be exiled, together with their peoples.

It has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever.

As usual, the NT takes this text, which has no bearing on the messiah, it mistranslates it, and then presents it as a "messianic prophecy fulfilled by JC".

Therefore, and for a lot of other reasons, the NT is based on lies and deceit.

I do sympathize with the Jews. The Christians took your religion and turned it into the greatest story ever told and the best selling book of all times. They also made several Hollywood blockbuster movies and now command 2 billion Christian followers.
The only problem with the picture is no royalties were paid to the Jews.
So rather than making it a religious protest. A legal approach with charges of plagiarism and copyright infringement might be more rewarding. Remember me as a Jewish sympathizer when the settlement comes through...... Harikrish.
Yavneh
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 4:36:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 4:30:16 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/9/2016 6:24:20 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:03:27 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.

No, what I'm asking is, how did the Jews go from being black to being white? Also, what happened to the entire nation of Israel?

Bs"D

We never had black skin-- Abraham originated from the middle east.

Jeremiah 14:2 Iudah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish, they are blacke vnto the ground, and the crie of Ierusalem is gone vp.

The word Jew comes from the word Judah, which is one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The original Jews, the real Jews/Judahites, are black.

Lamentations 4:7-8

7 Her Nazarites were purer then snow, they were whiter then milke, they were more ruddie in body then rubies, their polishing was of Saphir.

Purere than snow and whiter than milk is not referring to their skin color because v8 would contradict this verse.

8 Their visage is blacker then a cole: they are not knowen in the streets: their skinne cleaueth to their bones: it is withered, it is become like a sticke.

Bs"D

Do a quick read of Jeremiah and Lamentations. You know what they focus on? Death, Destruction, Exile. And so, in these verses (one of which, by the way, is mis-translated form the hebrew-- 14:2 says "they bow down in black unto the ground"), the people are described as being metaphorically black-- with fear, with shame, with mourning. Just like "Her Nazirites were purer than snow" is not talking of skin color, but rather purity and sanctity.

In fact, Song of Songs 1:6 says: "Look not upon me, that I am blackened, that the sun hath tanned me," and what would be the point of this statement if all of the people were black?

A primary source on the skin color of the ancient Israelites, dating back to 100-150 CE, is found in the Mishnah, Tractate Nega'im (leprous afflictions) 2:1:

"A bright Baheret [type of diseased patch that creates impurity] looks dull on a light-skinned person [lit. German] and a dull one looks bright on a dark-skinned person [lit. Ethiopian]. Rabbi Yishmael says: Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel), may I be their atonement, behold they are like box-wood, not black and not white, but intermediate."

In sum, the ancient Israelites were not black.
"Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues "air isn't true" but continues to breathe it while he argues. In their daily lives, Atheists continue to breathe-- they take medicine, fly on planes, watch TV, use computers and the Internet for communication and countless tasks, electrical lights when it's dark... all these are made possible by G-d's creations, and would not be possible via the Atheist worldview. They are breathing G-d's air all the time they argue against Him." -- Fly/Me
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 5:21:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:36:55 AM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/11/2016 4:30:16 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

Bs"D

Do a quick read of Jeremiah and Lamentations. You know what they focus on? Death, Destruction, Exile. And so, in these verses (one of which, by the way, is mis-translated form the hebrew-- 14:2 says "they bow down in black unto the ground"), the people are described as being metaphorically black-- with fear, with shame, with mourning. Just like "Her Nazirites were purer than snow" is not talking of skin color, but rather purity and sanctity.

I've read both books.

Where is the mis-translation of Jer 14:2?

In fact, Song of Songs 1:6 says: "Look not upon me, that I am blackened, that the sun hath tanned me," and what would be the point of this statement if all of the people were black?

"Look not upon me, that I am blackened," -Is simply saying "Looke not vpon me because I am blacke," - KJV 1611

A primary source on the skin color of the ancient Israelites, dating back to 100-150 CE, is found in the Mishnah, Tractate Nega'im (leprous afflictions) 2:1:

"A bright Baheret [type of diseased patch that creates impurity] looks dull on a light-skinned person [lit. German] and a dull one looks bright on a dark-skinned person [lit. Ethiopian]. Rabbi Yishmael says: Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel), may I be their atonement, behold they are like box-wood, not black and not white, but intermediate."

In sum, the ancient Israelites were not black.

Out of all that you posted, you gave not one Scripture that says otherwise. That is why precept MUST be upon precept - Isa 28:10.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 1:47:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:36:55 AM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/11/2016 4:30:16 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/9/2016 6:24:20 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:03:27 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/7/2016 5:21:37 PM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:54:12 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:32:56 PM, Eliyahu wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:31:12 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"d

Off topic question.

Great. So where is your slavery in the Bible?

Bs"D

Sheesh, People. Answer a knowledge-seeker's question, even if it is off topic.

Exodus (Shmot, literally 'names') 1 gives you an account of it, after Pharoah's speech and before the Midwives episode. See also Chapter 5 for an intensifying of the burden.

It should be noted that the 'Chapter' system was invented by the early Christian Fathers; in Jewish terms, look for aliyot (Torah portions) 1 and 7 of Sefer (Book) Shmot, Parashat (Section) Shmot.

No, what I'm asking is, how did the Jews go from being black to being white? Also, what happened to the entire nation of Israel?

Bs"D

We never had black skin-- Abraham originated from the middle east.

Jeremiah 14:2 Iudah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish, they are blacke vnto the ground, and the crie of Ierusalem is gone vp.

The word Jew comes from the word Judah, which is one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The original Jews, the real Jews/Judahites, are black.

Lamentations 4:7-8

7 Her Nazarites were purer then snow, they were whiter then milke, they were more ruddie in body then rubies, their polishing was of Saphir.

Purere than snow and whiter than milk is not referring to their skin color because v8 would contradict this verse.

8 Their visage is blacker then a cole: they are not knowen in the streets: their skinne cleaueth to their bones: it is withered, it is become like a sticke.

Bs"D

Do a quick read of Jeremiah and Lamentations. You know what they focus on? Death, Destruction, Exile. And so, in these verses (one of which, by the way, is mis-translated form the hebrew-- 14:2 says "they bow down in black unto the ground"), the people are described as being metaphorically black-- with fear, with shame, with mourning. Just like "Her Nazirites were purer than snow" is not talking of skin color, but rather purity and sanctity.

In fact, Song of Songs 1:6 says: "Look not upon me, that I am blackened, that the sun hath tanned me," and what would be the point of this statement if all of the people were black?

A primary source on the skin color of the ancient Israelites, dating back to 100-150 CE, is found in the Mishnah, Tractate Nega'im (leprous afflictions) 2:1:

"A bright Baheret [type of diseased patch that creates impurity] looks dull on a light-skinned person [lit. German] and a dull one looks bright on a dark-skinned person [lit. Ethiopian]. Rabbi Yishmael says: Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel), may I be their atonement, behold they are like box-wood, not black and not white, but intermediate."

In sum, the ancient Israelites were not black.

Hitler is not infamous for killing blacks. He is infamous for killing Jews. Therefore it stands to reason Jews were not black. We also know Hitler thought blacks were inferior to whites. But not as inferior as the Jews because he exterminated 6 million Jews.
Yavneh
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 5:03:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Bs"D

At 2/14/2016 5:21:37 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:36:55 AM, Yavneh wrote:
At 2/11/2016 4:30:16 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

Bs"D

Do a quick read of Jeremiah and Lamentations. You know what they focus on? Death, Destruction, Exile. And so, in these verses (one of which, by the way, is mis-translated form the hebrew-- 14:2 says "they bow down in black unto the ground"), the people are described as being metaphorically black-- with fear, with shame, with mourning. Just like "Her Nazirites were purer than snow" is not talking of skin color, but rather purity and sanctity.

I've read both books.

Where is the mis-translation of Jer 14:2?

"They are black unto the ground" should be "they bow down in black unto the ground"

In fact, Song of Songs 1:6 says: "Look not upon me, that I am blackened, that the sun hath tanned me," and what would be the point of this statement if all of the people were black?

"Look not upon me, that I am blackened," -Is simply saying "Looke not vpon me because I am blacke," - KJV 1611

And why would she need to say that, if everyone else was black? How would she be any different?

A primary source on the skin color of the ancient Israelites, dating back to 100-150 CE, is found in the Mishnah, Tractate Nega'im (leprous afflictions) 2:1:

"A bright Baheret [type of diseased patch that creates impurity] looks dull on a light-skinned person [lit. German] and a dull one looks bright on a dark-skinned person [lit. Ethiopian]. Rabbi Yishmael says: Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel), may I be their atonement, behold they are like box-wood, not black and not white, but intermediate."

In sum, the ancient Israelites were not black.

Out of all that you posted, you gave not one Scripture that says otherwise. That is why precept MUST be upon precept - Isa 28:10.

Let's get a good translation of the text:

9 Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from the breasts? 10 For it is precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little. 11 For with stammering lips and with a strange tongue shall it be spoken to this people; 12 To whom it was said: 'This is the rest, give ye rest to the weary; and this is the refreshing'; yet they would not hear.

"Precept must be based upon precept"? If the KJV is what you're basing your statement on, then you can add yet another proof as to its incorrectness.

In sum, Song of Songs 1:6 is enough of a proof; the Mishnah also adds an explicit proof. Logically, the case is closed.
"Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues "air isn't true" but continues to breathe it while he argues. In their daily lives, Atheists continue to breathe-- they take medicine, fly on planes, watch TV, use computers and the Internet for communication and countless tasks, electrical lights when it's dark... all these are made possible by G-d's creations, and would not be possible via the Atheist worldview. They are breathing G-d's air all the time they argue against Him." -- Fly/Me
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 5:18:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 5:03:22 PM, Yavneh wrote:
Bs"D

At 2/14/2016 5:21:37 AM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:

Where is the mis-translation of Jer 14:2?

"They are black unto the ground" should be "they bow down in black unto the ground"

Why should it be that, because you said so? You have shown no Scriptural proof and you expect me to believe you? You demonic race has brainwashed us enough, now we are questioning everything you demons teach because you show no proof of it.

"Look not upon me, that I am blackened," -Is simply saying "Looke not vpon me because I am blacke," - KJV 1611

And why would she need to say that, if everyone else was black? How would she be any different?

Ok, this is how I know that you know nothing of the Scriptures. Who is the she??? Songs of Solomon were written by Solomon, not a woman.

Songs of Solomon 1:1 The song of songs, which is Solomons.

Solomon wrote the Songs of Solomon and they are all poems. Another wonderful example of why precept must be upon precept. Speaking of precepts, here is the precept for Songs of Solomon 1:1.

1 Kings 4:32 And he spake three thousand prouerbes: and his songs were a thousand and fiue.

Let's get a good translation of the text:

9 Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from the breasts? 10 For it is precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little. 11 For with stammering lips and with a strange tongue shall it be spoken to this people; 12 To whom it was said: 'This is the rest, give ye rest to the weary; and this is the refreshing'; yet they would not hear.

"Precept must be based upon precept"? If the KJV is what you're basing your statement on, then you can add yet another proof as to its incorrectness.

Right, and that is why you did not give Scripture that proves otherwise.

In sum, Song of Songs 1:6 is enough of a proof; the Mishnah also adds an explicit proof. Logically, the case is closed.

Yup, case closed because you cannot prove anything with Scripture, instead you rely on the doctrine of men. Have fun in slavery :)