nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 11:38 pm
You quote an entire chapter [Isaiah 53] which has no reference to Jesus.
Isa 53 is not the only reference to Jesus. We've already discussed Psa 22 and now we're discussing Isa 7:14.
Then how can we know that the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14:56 were false? If their witness didn't agree, doesn't that show that they weren't in collusion?
What were their charges?
The Israelites that did not believe were pruned and those that believed in Jesus were grafted on.
That's a Christian claim and you back it up only with Christian text, which proves nothing.
Using your logic, just because Jews claims something also proves nothing.
That is textual evidence (though highly questionable), not empirical evidence. Would any skeptic of the Bible consider text from the Bible as empirical evidence? I highly doubt it.
That those promised the covenant [the houses of Israel and Judah, ie. the Jews] still teach each other is nottextual evidence. It's objectively observable.
OK, next time I debate skeptics, I will then cite this and say look here, even a skeptic says the Bible is empirical evidence.
Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.[/i] (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)
The Hebrew word that is translated "fulfill" here is āśâ. It means:
do (1,333x), make (653x), wrought (52x), deal (52x), commit (49x), offer (49x), execute (48x), keep (48x), shew (43x), prepare (37x), work (29x), do so (21x), perform (18x), get (14x), dress (13x), maker (13x), maintain (7x), miscellaneous (154x). https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/
It does not really carry the meaning that it should be fulfilled as in complete realization of something. The emphasis is on the action, not the goal.
Out of the 2633 times āśâ is used in the Bible, there is only one reference I can find in the KJV that it is translated fulfill.
[Psa 148:8 KJV] 8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word
Even in this passage, it does not carry that meaning.
Look at the punishments prescribed in Deuteronomy for the people if they didn't keep the law. It would take a deeply immoral god to give people a set of laws to keep and punish them severely for not keeping it while knowing that they couldn't keep it.
Only if there was no way out would it be immoral. Since God sent his Son as the way out, God is moral.
Which interpretation do you agree with?
Right now, I personally believe it is a metaphorical description of heaven.
Right now? If you change your mind later, are you interpreting correctly or incorrectly?
I don't claim my interpretation of Ezekiel's vision of the heavenly temple is correct or incorrect. Further, I make no claim it has any relevance to what we're debating, which is passages that relate to Jesus being the Messiah.
There is no doubt the Masoretic was meticulously preserved from the original Hebrew over several centuries of work. It still does not show Psa 22 has been inerrantly preserved from the original. This is why I brought up the evidence of the DSS, which is earlier than the Masoretic. What makes more sense? An early Hebrew text being correct or a late Hebrew text being correct?
What makes the most sense is the text which fits the overall context being correct. The overall context of the Tanakh does not point to Jesus being the Messiah.
Remember the only difference we're talking about here is a vav and an yod. The difference is so small it can easily be miscopied.
.......
Interesting that all these "errors" happen to relate to Christian proof texts that Jesus is the Messiah.
First you suggest that an "error" is accidental, then you imply that they're all deliberate.
Let's look at Isa 7:14:
[Isa 7:14 KJV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
As I believe I've pointed out before, the Blue Letter Bible is a Christian source.
So, the issue here is how should it be translated, virgin or young woman.
Translating it with young woman doesn't make it any special sign:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
What is the sign then? There is nothing special about a young woman conceiving or bearing a son. The only thing is calling him Immanuel, which is nothing special as a miraculous sign.
However, if it's translated as a virgin, then that would be a miraculous sign.
Let's look at Isaiah 7:1 through :14.
King Ahaz of Judah is fearful of an impending invasion by the kings of Israel and Syria. Isaiah comes to give Ahaz a message of encouragement, assuring him that within the early life of a child soon to be born, Israel and Syria will no longer be a threat. Isaiah points out a young woman (the hebrew text is ha almah, "ha" being a definite article) and informs Ahaz that she is pregnant. Before her child is old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah says, the two kings threatening Judah will be gone.
If Isaiah were referring to a child to be born 700 years in the future, that wouldn't be a special sign; the two invading kings would obviously be gone by then. If you read on from verse 14, you see that what's being prophesied isn't the birth of the child; it's the downfall of the two invading kings. The prophecy makes sense in the context of the passage only if the child it refers to is to be born soon.
Another issue is the assertion that a woman miraculously conceiving would be a sign. A sign has to be visible, something which can be observed. No one saw Jesus conceived in Mary's womb, so his conception didn't qualify as a sign.
And if you're going to say that Mary experienced it directly, that would prove nothing as such a claim would not be considered valid coming from only one witness.
And if you're going to say that Joseph was told by an angel, that wouldn't prove anything either since he's told by an angel in a dream. Again, it's the word of only one witness. And even if he did have such a dream, we dream all kinds of things which don't happen.
Isa 53 is not the only reference to Jesus. We've already discussed Psa 22 and now we're discussing Isa 7:14.
And it's been pointed out that none of them refer to Jesus.
Then how can we know that the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14:56 were false? If their witness didn't agree, doesn't that show that they weren't in collusion?
What were their charges?
That's the point. We're not told everything they said, so we can't know if their witness agreed or not.
That's a Christian claim and you back it up only with Christian text, which proves nothing.
Using your logic, just because Jews claims something also proves nothing.
Jewish claims about Jewish texts are more believable than Christian claims about Jewish texts.
That those promised the covenant [the houses of Israel and Judah, ie. the Jews] still teach each other is not textual evidence. It's objectively observable.
OK, next time I debate skeptics, I will then cite this and say look here, even a skeptic says the Bible is empirical evidence.
Do you really not understand what I'm saying? The empirical evidence is what we see when we look around and notice that what the text says will happen when the new covenant is established has not happened. If the Bible is empirical evidence, it's empirical evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.
It does not really carry the meaning that it should be fulfilled as in complete realization of something. The emphasis is on the action, not the goal.
The emphasis in the law itself is on the action.
The hidden things belong to the Lord, our God, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah.
You can't avoid the meaning of a word in a specific context by going off and looking for some other translation of it in a different context.
Look at the punishments prescribed in Deuteronomy for the people if they didn't keep the law. It would take a deeply immoral god to give people a set of laws to keep and punish them severely for not keeping it while knowing that they couldn't keep it.
Only if there was no way out would it be immoral. Since God sent his Son as the way out, God is moral.
It would be immoral to command it in the first place if it couldn't be done. The text doesn't say, "This is what will happen if God doesn't send his son to be the way out." It says, "This is what will happen if you don't do what God tells you."
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.....
(Deuteronomy 28:15, KJV)
If that's what the early Israelites had to live under, then for their sake it would definitely have been better for the "way out" to come after the destruction of the first temple.
I don't claim my interpretation of Ezekiel's vision of the heavenly temple is correct or incorrect. Further, I make no claim it has any relevance to what we're debating, which is passages that relate to Jesus being the Messiah.
If Ezekiel's vision has anything at all to do with the messianic age, then it has everything to do with the identity----and role----of the Messiah. That's why the question about the presence and meaning of animal sacrifices in the vision is important.
This is why I brought up the evidence of the DSS, which is earlier than the Masoretic. What makes more sense? An early Hebrew text being correct or a late Hebrew text being correct?
What makes the most sense is the text which fits the overall context being correct. The overall context of the Tanakh does not point to Jesus being the Messiah.
This neither answers my question nor even provides any explanation, but is merely repeating your assertion.
Interesting that all these "errors" happen to relate to Christian proof texts that Jesus is the Messiah.
First you suggest that an "error" is accidental, then you imply that they're all deliberate.
I'm not claiming either way. All I said is it is interesting.
As I believe I've pointed out before, the Blue Letter Bible is a Christian source.
And it's an irrelevant accusation. Jewish sources are Jewish sources also, but that doesn't mean they should be automatically rejected.
If you don't want me to use BLB, what Bible interlinear and Hebrew dictionary do you want me to use?
If Isaiah were referring to a child to be born 700 years in the future, that wouldn't be a special sign; the two invading kings would obviously be gone by then.
Actually, Ahaz didn't ask for a sign, so the prophecy didn't necessarily have to be for Ahaz.
Isa 7:11-12 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
Another issue is the assertion that a woman miraculously conceiving would be a sign. A sign has to be visible, something which can be observed. No one saw Jesus conceived in Mary's womb, so his conception didn't qualify as a sign.
If a baby is born, obviously a baby had developed inside the womb. There is no need to actually see what was going on inside the womb.
And if you're going to say that Mary experienced it directly, that would prove nothing as such a claim would not be considered valid coming from only one witness.
Not sure what you're referring to. The pregnancy of Mary? Elizabeth, Mary's cousin said:
[Luk 1:41-42 KJV] 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
And if you're going to say that Joseph was told by an angel, that wouldn't prove anything either since he's told by an angel in a dream. Again, it's the word of only one witness. And even if he did have such a dream, we dream all kinds of things which don't happen.
Don't understand your argument. The reason an angel spoke to Joseph was because he had planned on "putting her away" since she was with child and he had not consummated the marriage yet.
[Mat 1:19-20 KJV] 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:29 pm
And it's been pointed out that none of them refer to Jesus.
I'll let readers judge whose argument is better.
What were their charges?
That's the point. We're not told everything they said, so we can't know if their witness agreed or not.
Don't really see the point of your argument then. If we don't know if they agreed or not, then what's it got to do with testimonies that generally agree that have minor differences?
Jewish claims about Jewish texts are more believable than Christian claims about Jewish texts.
Well, using that logic, Christian claims about Christian doctrine are more believable than skeptic claims about Christian doctrine.
OK, next time I debate skeptics, I will then cite this and say look here, even a skeptic says the Bible is empirical evidence.
Do you really not understand what I'm saying? The empirical evidence is what we see when we look around and notice that what the text says will happen when the new covenant is established has not happened. If the Bible is empirical evidence, it's empirical evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.
No, I don't really understand what you are saying. Yes, the Bible is something that we can hold and observe. But what the Bible text says is textual evidence. The Bible itself as an object can be empirical evidence, like the DSS or a Bible manuscript. We can analyze those to date them and find out what type of material it's made of. But what is written on the DSS or a Bible manuscript or a Bible translation would be textual evidence.
You can't avoid the meaning of a word in a specific context by going off and looking for some other translation of it in a different context.
What I've done is a word study, which is not avoiding the meaning of the word.
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.....
(Deuteronomy 28:15, KJV)
Were the Israelites actually able to observe them? They kept on failing so often that the vast majority of the prophets is about the Israelites failing to obey God.
If that's what the early Israelites had to live under, then for their sake it would definitely have been better for the "way out" to come after the destruction of the first temple.
No, Jesus's time had not come yet. I think I might have to go into more details about this after concluding about him being the Jewish Messiah.
If Ezekiel's vision has anything at all to do with the messianic age, then it has everything to do with the identity----and role----of the Messiah.
No, as I've pointed out, there does not have to be a linkage between the future utopia state and the Messiah. Even orthodox Jews agree to this. As Rabbi Skobac said:
Bible says the world will become a place of universal peace. All weapons will be destroyed and we have now this beautiful portrait in the Bible that's portrayed in many many many passages over and over and over again. This theme of a restored utopian perfected fixed world. But when you read these passages it's very interesting the vast majority of them the vast majority don't speak about any particular person. Meaning that the focus of these passages in the Bible is not on a person it's on what the world will look like in the future. It focuses on the world.
Isaiah 53: Rabbi Tovia Singer reveals the meaning of the most misused chapter in the Bible
A caller asks Rabbi Singer the question:
0:13
Historically how do we know that corporate Israel is what we're talking about in Isaiah 53 and it's not just one person?
He has a long intro, but eventually he responds that context is important.
7:26
The proper study of any passages let's go to the context ... which means we'll study the text using a rigorous method ... context is going to determine our understanding of this passage. This is a normal hermeneutical methods completely mainstream.
He then says we should look at the last word prior to Isa 52:13.
8:56
What is the very last word of Isaiah 52 verse 12? ... the word is Israel.
Yes, in the Hebrew, Israel is the last word in Isaiah 52:12. Here is the KJV translation.
How can one claim to understand the context when one simply pulls out a single word and don't even explain the context? The context of the usage is the God of Israel. Further, the context of the verse is Isaiah/God addressing the nation of Israel. Israel is the "ye/you" in the verse. The passage is also a reference to the Exodus. Given the reference to Exodus, it makes sense the servant of Isa 52:13 is a Moses figure, not the nation of Israel itself.
In the 13th verse, the servant is addressed in the third person (he), not the second person (ye/you), so it's not the nation of Israel as in verse 12.
[Isa 52:13 KJV] 13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
Further, exalted is a reference to God throughout Isaiah, not a man or even to Israel.
Isa 2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
Isa 2:17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.
9:14
Is it a big coincidence? So as it turns out Isaiah 52 describes Ben Israel who suffers as a result of persecution of her neighbors and that God will redeem Klaus all the sight of all the nations. That's it.
That's the argument? That simply Israel is the last word in the Isa 52:12? This is not even analyzing the context, but simply lifting a single word out of context.
9:31
Let's go to Isaiah 54... Who is Isaiah talking about? It's talking about qualities for the nation of Israel in the singular.
In Isaiah 54, it goes back to addressing Israel that God will restore Israel.
Isaiah 54:14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee
In Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue [that] shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This [is] the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness [is] of me, saith the LORD.
Nowhere does it state Israel will be her own deliverer or savior in Isaiah 54.
10:47
You are being asked to believe by Christians, by the Southern Baptists, by the Roman Catholic Church, by the Greek Orthodox church, by the Assemblies of God, by Jews for Jesus, Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus.
Yes, because it makes sense given the context.
11:06
Why in churches when Isaiah 53 is discussed never is Isaiah 41 discussed.
I'm assuming he's referring to Israel being called a servant.
Isaiah 41:8 But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
Sure, Israel is referred to as a servant in passages before Isa 53. But other things are referred to as servants of God, including an individual. Immediately before Isa 53, the servant in Isa 49 is an individual that restores Israel. So, if Rabbi Singer wants to go back, why did he skip mentioning Isa 49?
Isa 49:6-7 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, [and] his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, [and] the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
In Isaiah 50, God condemns Israel for their iniquities.
Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
Later, the servant talks about himself as one that was not rebellious.
Isaiah 50:5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.
So Israel and the servant cannot be the same from the chapters before Isaiah 53.
12:18
Isaiah 53 describes the reaction of the Gentile nations at the end of days when what happens in their view is like nothing they ever heard. What they will see is like nothing that ever considered.
This makes no sense because this means Isaiah 53 is written from the perspective of the Gentile nations.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
There is nowhere in the Bible is a prophecy spoken from the perspective of a Gentile.
13:36
I see so many Christians they I see that the very passion is so on but if you don't go back to the original you don't go to the context and it's a lot of trouble.
Interesting Rabbi Singer says this when he's full of passion and doesn't interpret things in context.
13:51
If the context doesn't determine the meaning of an ambiguous passage then we live in an alternative universe.
Well, from his own testimony, he must be living in an alternative universe.
This neither answers my question nor even provides any explanation, but is merely repeating your assertion.
I've already provided explanations.
If you don't want me to use BLB, what Bible interlinear and Hebrew dictionary do you want me to use?
The problem isn't just using the BLB; it's throwing in every translation of a word in every context instead of focusing on the context of the passage in question.
Actually, Ahaz didn't ask for a sign, so the prophecy didn't necessarily have to be for Ahaz.
Isa 7:11-12 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
Why do you stop quoting there instead of going on?
And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign...."
Ahaz is the one wearying Isaiah by refusing to ask, so he's clearly the one for whom the sign is intended.
If a baby is born, obviously a baby had developed inside the womb. There is no need to actually see what was going on inside the womb.
According to Matthew, the sign is supposed to be that a virgin shall conceive. You yourself pointed out that a woman getting pregnant and giving birth is no special sign. For a woman to become pregnant by some means not involving intercourse, especially in the first century CE, that would have to be seen to be a sign.
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
......according to the author of Luke.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Don't really see the point of your argument then. If we don't know if they agreed or not, then what's it got to do with testimonies that generally agree that have minor differences?
What about the witnesses against Jesus? What if their testimonies generally agreed but had minor differences?
Jewish claims about Jewish texts are more believable than Christian claims about Jewish texts.
Well, using that logic, Christian claims about Christian doctrine are more believable than skeptic claims about Christian doctrine.
.....if Christians can refute skeptic claims.
Do you really not understand what I'm saying? The empirical evidence is what we see when we look around and notice that what the text says will happen when the new covenant is established has not happened. If the Bible is empirical evidence, it's empirical evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.
No, I don't really understand what you are saying. Yes, the Bible is something that we can hold and observe. But what the Bible text says is textual evidence. The Bible itself as an object can be empirical evidence, like the DSS or a Bible manuscript. We can analyze those to date them and find out what type of material it's made of. But what is written on the DSS or a Bible manuscript or a Bible translation would be textual evidence.
The people to whom the new covenant was promised [the houses of Israel and Judah, the Jews] still teaching each other to "know the Lord" is not textual evidence. It's empirical evidence happening outside the Bible.
You can't avoid the meaning of a word in a specific context by going off and looking for some other translation of it in a different context.
What I've done is a word study, which is not avoiding the meaning of the word.
You have to end up where the context leads.
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.....
Were the Israelites actually able to observe them? They kept on failing so often that the vast majority of the prophets is about the Israelites failing to obey God.
The text says that they were able, but not always willing.
"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you;...."
(Deuteronomy 31:29, KJV)
If that's what the early Israelites had to live under, then for their sake it would definitely have been better for the "way out" to come after the destruction of the first temple.
No, Jesus's time had not come yet. I think I might have to go into more details about this after concluding about him being the Jewish Messiah.
The building of the second temple set a precedent; if you lose the temple you can build it again, no Messiah required as a sacrifice.
If Ezekiel's vision has anything at all to do with the messianic age, then it has everything to do with the identity----and role----of the Messiah.
No, as I've pointed out, there does not have to be a linkage between the future utopia state and the Messiah. Even orthodox Jews agree to this. As Rabbi Skobac said:
Bible says the world will become a place of universal peace. All weapons will be destroyed and we have now this beautiful portrait in the Bible that's portrayed in many many many passages over and over and over again. This theme of a restored utopian perfected fixed world. But when you read these passages it's very interesting the vast majority of them the vast majority don't speak about any particular person. Meaning that the focus of these passages in the Bible is not on a person it's on what the world will look like in the future. It focuses on the world.
He's saying that the Messiah won't be the focal point of the utopian world, not that the Messiah won't be present.
"And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them." (Ezekiel 37:24, KJV)
12:18
Isaiah 53 describes the reaction of the Gentile nations at the end of days when what happens in their view is like nothing they ever heard. What they will see is like nothing that ever considered.
This makes no sense because this means Isaiah 53 is written from the perspective of the Gentile nations.
That's exactly right.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
There is nowhere in the Bible is a prophecy spoken from the perspective of a Gentile.
How does that mean it can't happen here? As the rabbi points out, this is what the nations are supposed to say when it happens. In the text, the author is quoting the nations prophetically.
[Isa 52:13 KJV] 13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
Further, exalted is a reference to God throughout Isaiah, not a man or even to Israel.
You offer textual evidence that only God is to be exalted in Isaiah, and you assert that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.
So, for clarification----are you saying here that Jesus was God?
I'll let readers assess if your explanations explain anything.
As I believe I've pointed out before, the Blue Letter Bible is a Christian source.
If you don't want me to use BLB, what Bible interlinear and Hebrew dictionary do you want me to use?
The problem isn't just using the BLB; it's throwing in every translation of a word in every context instead of focusing on the context of the passage in question.
Actually, the way I see it is you're just throwing out continual accusations without following through on any of your original accusations. Again, if you accuse BLB of being a Christian source, then what alternative do you suggest?
And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign...."
Ahaz is the one wearying Isaiah by refusing to ask, so he's clearly the one for whom the sign is intended.
Isaiah addresses "House of David". So the question is who is that referring to? Wikipedia states it is the entire Davidic line of kings:
The Davidic line or House of David (Hebrew: בית דוד, romanized: Beit David) is the lineage of the Israelite king David.
You yourself pointed out that a woman getting pregnant and giving birth is no special sign. For a woman to become pregnant by some means not involving intercourse, especially in the first century CE, that would have to be seen to be a sign.
It is not the conception that is special, but a virgin that is specified that makes it unique.
......according to the author of Luke.
.....according to the author of Matthew.
Of course. And you reject it because it is a Christian source?
