The Bible God, the Law Breaker

[POI]

God is claimed to break "natural law" all the time, by walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the rotting dead, turning humans into salt, etc...

For Debate: Does God break all "law", or just some "law"? And if only some, why only some, and not all? Further, what is the point of breaking some "law", and not others? Or maybe, God breaks all "laws", which is why the Bible is illogical, immoral, and defies later human discovery?

Before you answer, a running theme is expressed among many theists... When a skeptic asks a theist, 'can God do anything?", the theist might respond with, "God can only do what is logically possible and/or what is in his moral nature". In essence, God strictly abides by some "law", but not others? By "law", I'm referencing natural law, the laws of logic, moral law, mathematics, and any others I may have missed. I trust you get the gist...?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #130]

You can't just stick the word "virgin" into a text which doesn't have it.

Sure I can. It's accurate. Excluding virginity from the verse, is changing the definition of the the word into a married woman or a whore.

The word in the text ["almah"] indicates a young woman, presumably married in this case. The word virgin ["betulah"] is not there.


The text says that Rezin and Pekah will fall "when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good". That's not a description of someone who always knew to choose good and reject evil.

It is with someone who knew to do good and not reject evil from the beginning. The first conscious thought of the child Jesus on earth, was good. He's the only person that kept being and doing good without evil.

The text clearly states that there will be a time during which this child does not yet know to choose good and reject evil. Based on that, if Jesus always knew to choose good and reject evil even as a child, this child cannot be Jesus.


The two kings mentioned are Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, and Isaiah is assuring King Ahaz of Judah that his enemies will fall during the early life of the child soon to be born. So the passage has nothing to do with Jesus, who wasn't born until centuries later.

Yes it does.

Mat 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mary was a virgin that hadn't lain with Joseph, when she bore her firstborn son Jesus. She wasn't a whore.

It doesn't refer to Mary. It refers to a woman who gives birth in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz, as the context of the passage clearly shows. Quoting Matthew to claim otherwise is a circular argument.


There's no Bible record of a son born of a virgin young woman period.

Already quoted the Bible:
Mat 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Again, circular argument.

And Emmanuel doesn't mean "God with us". It means "God is with us". It's a statement, not a title.


What's being conceded is that temptation in the wilderness would be of no merit to a Jesus incapable of being tempted. Being offered all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for one's worship isn't just enduring a hardship.

Have you so much as read:

Luk 4:2
And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Then hunger was the hardship he endured from not eating, but the text doesn't say he went into the wilderness to be tempted by hunger. It says he went to be tempted by Satan.


Why would someone need a "way of escape" from a mere hardship or trial?

You've never been in a natural hardship threatening with death...

Not every threat of death comes with a way of escape, so 1 Corinthians 10:13 can't be referring to escaping death. It must, therefore, refer to escaping temptation to do wrong. Thus, it is saying that the temptation to do wrong is common to Man.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #130]

You can't just stick the word "virgin" into a text which doesn't have it.

Sure I can. It's accurate. Excluding virginity from the verse, is changing the definition of the the word into a married woman or a whore.

The word in the text ["almah"] indicates a young woman, presumably married in this case.

Presuming marriage only to presume excluding virgins of marriable age...

The word virgin ["betulah"] is not there.

It is virgin in in every Bible translation. Miraculous sign alone demands it.

And parthenos is in Matthew 1 to ensure it. The same as when Jesus commands do no murder, to ensure the command not to kill, does not include all killing, whether of man or beast.

The text says that Rezin and Pekah will fall "when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good". That's not a description of someone who always knew to choose good and reject evil.

It is with someone who knew to do good and not reject evil from the beginning. The first conscious thought of the child Jesus on earth, was good. He's the only person that kept being and doing good without evil.

The text clearly states that there will be a time during which this child does not yet know to choose good and reject evil.

Of course, Which proves the Word made flesh, was a natural born babe. So that, for Jesus also, there will be a time during which this child also does not yet know to choose good and reject evil...

And, there will be a time during which this child also does not yet have conscious thought at all... Jesus Christ did not come out of the womb thinking and talking, nor according to some Jewish fables did Jeremiah.

Based on that, if Jesus always knew to choose good and reject evil even as a child, this child cannot be Jesus.

Exactly. Nor Jeremiah, nor any other natural born babe on earth. Jesus Christ came in the flesh of all men, by natural childbirth of a woman, that was also a virgin.

The two kings mentioned are Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, and Isaiah is assuring King Ahaz of Judah that his enemies will fall during the early life of the child soon to be born. So the passage has nothing to do with Jesus, who wasn't born until centuries later.

Yes it does.

Mat 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mary was a virgin that hadn't lain with Joseph, when she bore her firstborn son Jesus. She wasn't a whore.

It doesn't refer to Mary. It refers to a woman who gives birth in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz, as the context of the passage clearly shows.

False.

7:11
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. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

It refers to a virgin woman who gives birth at some time, after the kings of Syria have fallen.

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign of his own time, and so the Lord gave His own prophesied sign of His own timing:

Gal 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Presumptions put upon the Bible, lead to sloppy Bible reading.

Bible error is not by erroneous reading. Nor is Bible taught by erroneous presumptions.

Quoting Matthew to claim otherwise is a circular argument.

The Bible confirms it's own prophecies.

And Emmanuel doesn't mean "God with us". It means "God is with us". It's a statement, not a title.

Correct. Jesus with us, is God with us.

Jesus Christ is not just a title, but is the resurrected man, that was naturally born of a virgin woman.

What's being conceded is that temptation in the wilderness would be of no merit to a Jesus incapable of being tempted. Being offered all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for one's worship isn't just enduring a hardship.

Have you so much as read:

Luk 4:2
And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Then hunger was the hardship he endured from not eating, but the text doesn't say he went into the wilderness to be tempted by hunger. It says he went to be tempted by Satan.

He went to be tried by hunger, and the devil tried to take advantage of His suffering, without success. Jesus was not tempted with evil, having no lusting heart for any evil thing.

Neither do His people of pure hearts, whose own past lust for sin has been taken away by His grace:

Jhn 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Why would someone need a "way of escape" from a mere hardship or trial?

Perhaps not from a hang nail. But, lust for the flesh doesn't seek escape, but only satisfaction...

Jesus' way of escape from great hunger, was the devil trying to take advantage of His suffering, and tempt Him with evil, that Jesus has no heart, mind, nor lust for:

Mat 4:11
Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


Jesus' way of escape was after the trial of hunger, and the devil's unsuccessful temptations to lure Him into lusting for evil...

The way of escape for the victorious and strong in the battle, is after the good fight is fought.

You've never been in a natural hardship threatening with death...

Not every threat of death comes with a way of escape, so 1 Corinthians 10:13 can't be referring to escaping death.

Of course not. The escape is from hardship and trials. Those not familiar with such hardships and trials, are ignorant of seeking a blessed way of escape, rather than succumbing.

Persecutions are trials of the faithful, to remain steadfast in faith of the Lord. They have nothing to do with ungodly temptations of lust for fornication, drunkenness, theft, etc...

It must, therefore, refer to escaping temptation to do wrong.

If that's all the wrong-doer is tempted by, then that's all the wrong-doer knows...

Tit 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Thus, it is saying that the temptation to do wrong is common to Man.

Thus, it is saying that the temptation to do wrong is common to wrong-doers.

But the trials of hardship in this life are common to all flesh and blood, whether man or beast...Though some obviously have such a comfortable life, that they seek no escape from it. Which is fine for them, but is not the same for all.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #132]


The word in the text ["almah"] indicates a young woman, presumably married in this case.

Presuming marriage only to presume excluding virgins of marriable age...

Presuming marriage because Isaiah doesn't indicate otherwise. The absence of the word betulah ["virgin"] from Isaiah 7:14 is what excludes virgins.


The word virgin ["betulah"] is not there.

It is virgin in in every Bible translation.

Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible https://share.google/TfqU72TRZcQdGyiCU

And parthenos is in Matthew 1 to ensure it.

Parthenos is Greek. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah, which means "young woman," not "virgin".


It doesn't refer to Mary. It refers to a woman who gives birth in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz, as the context of the passage clearly shows.

False.

7:11
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. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

It refers to a virgin woman who gives birth at some time, after the kings of Syria have fallen.

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign of his own time, and so the Lord gave His own prophesied sign of His own timing

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign"

The sign is being given to Ahaz, so it has to be a sign which Ahaz will live to see. It would make no sense for a sign of the impending fall of Pekah and Rezin not to be given until 700 years after they fell.


Quoting Matthew to claim otherwise is a circular argument.

The Bible confirms it's own prophecies.

There's no prophecy of a virgin giving birth in the Jewish Bible.

He went to be tried by hunger, and the devil tried to take advantage of His suffering, without success. Jesus was not tempted with evil, having no lusting heart for any evil thing.

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."
(Matthew 4:1)

Jesus' way of escape from great hunger, was the devil trying to take advantage of His suffering, and tempt Him with evil, that Jesus has no heart, mind, nor lust for

So Satan telling him how easy it would be to turn stones into bread makes Jesus less hungry? How does that make sense?

The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were incapable of being tempted by Satan, that wouldn't be necessary; he could just sit there twiddling his thumbs.

Jesus' way of escape was after the trial of hunger, and the devil's unsuccessful temptations to lure Him into lusting for evil

The text still says that he was led into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.

The escape is from hardship and trials. Those not familiar with such hardships and trials, are ignorant of seeking a blessed way of escape, rather than succumbing.

.....

But the trials of hardship in this life are common to all flesh and blood, whether man or beast

If some are unfamiliar with the trials and hardship of life, then trial and hardship are not common to Man. Thus, what must be common to man----and what's to be escaped----is the temptation to do wrong.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #132]


The word in the text ["almah"] indicates a young woman, presumably married in this case.

Presuming marriage only to presume excluding virgins of marriable age...

Presuming marriage because Isaiah doesn't indicate otherwise. The absence of the word betulah ["virgin"] from Isaiah 7:14 is what excludes virgins.

Already pointed out enough, that the word can be for a young virgin or married young woman.

The prophesy calls for a virgin, in order to be a sign of God worthy of note among His people.

A young married woman giving birth is of God, but is not noteworthy as a specifically prophesied sign from God.

The word virgin ["betulah"] is not there.

It is virgin in in every Bible translation.

Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible https://share.google/TfqU72TRZcQdGyiCU

Of course, not translations by OT Jews rejecting NT Bible.

And a 'young woman' translation does not exclude virgin. Only a young 'married' woman translation would exclude the prophecy, as being a notable sign from the LORD Himself, but only another young married woman blessed with child by God.

It doesn't refer to Mary. It refers to a woman who gives birth in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz, as the context of the passage clearly shows.

False.

7:11
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. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

It refers to a virgin woman who gives birth at some time, after the kings of Syria have fallen.

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign of his own time, and so the Lord gave His own prophesied sign of His own timing

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign"

The sign is being given to Ahaz, so it has to be a sign which Ahaz will live to see.

The prophesy of a sign is given to Ahaz. Which Ahaz did not see, since there is no recorded fulfillment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, nor anytime after in the Bible,, until Matthew.

It would make no sense for a sign of the impending fall of Pekah and Rezin not to be given until 700 years after they fell.

It would only makes sense the fall of Rezin is impending in the time of Ahaz, if the LORD prophesied that he also would fall like Ephraim within 65 years. The only specific prophecy of destruction given in the time of Ahaz, was of Ephraim alone.

The only prophesied sign of the LORD Himself for the fall of the lands , that the Jews abhor, is when they are forsaken of her kings. No king is named, but rather only declares the lands shall be forsaken of her kings altogether.

That prophecy also includes the lands of Assyria and Egypt being overthrown, which was not until 610 B.C. by Babylon, and 330 B.C. by Alexander.

However, those lands from Syria to Egypt were not bereft of kings and pharaohs, until 64 B.C. by Rome just decades prior to the birth of Jesus Christ.

The prophecy of defeat given to Ahaz in the time of the young woman's birth, was of the abhorred lands being forsaken by her kings, as well as that of Assyria and Egypt. The independent kings of Syria to Egypt Egypt ended as provinces of Rome.

And several decades later the Bible give it's only record of fulfilling the LORD's prophecied sign to Ahaz, as being fulfilled by the birth of Jesus Christ from a young virgin woman...

Quoting Matthew to claim otherwise is a circular argument.

Matthew recording the sign of that prophecy fulfilled, is the only time the Bible does so.

The Bible confirms it's own prophecies.

There's no prophecy of a virgin giving birth in the Jewish Bible.

The Bible does not record any fulfillment of the prophesied sign of the LORD Himself, with a babe born of a young woman after the fall of all those lands, until Matthew. And Matthew calls her a young virgin woman.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #134]

Presuming marriage because Isaiah doesn't indicate otherwise. The absence of the word betulah ["virgin"] from Isaiah 7:14 is what excludes virgins.

Already pointed out enough, that the word can be for a young virgin or married young woman.

"Almah" refers to a woman's youth. "Betulah" refers to a young woman's virginity.

"Almah" is a feminine noun which has a masculine counterpart ["elem"] which means a young man; it doesn't mean a young virginal man.

The prophesy calls for a virgin, in order to be a sign of God worthy of note among His people.

A young married woman giving birth is of God, but is not noteworthy as a specifically prophesied sign from God.

The birth of the child isn't what's being prophesied in Isaiah 7. What's being prophesied is the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, because they are who Ahaz is concerned about. The early life of the child merely provides a time frame for the prophecy's fulfillment. A child whose birth prophesies the fall of two kings who fell centuries before the child was born would not be noteworthy.


Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible https://share.google/TfqU72TRZcQdGyiCU

Of course, not translations by OT Jews rejecting NT Bible.

They know their own language.

And a 'young woman' translation does not exclude virgin.

Again----although an "almah" can be a virgin, only the word "betulah" identifies an almah as a virgin.

Only a young 'married' woman translation would exclude the prophecy

Again, the prophecy isn't about the child. It's about Pekah and Rezin, whose fall is being measured against the infancy of the child.

The prophesy of a sign is given to Ahaz. Which Ahaz did not see, since there is no recorded fulfillment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, nor anytime after in the Bible,, until Matthew.

And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."
(Isaiah 8:3-4)

It would only makes sense the fall of Rezin is impending in the time of Ahaz, if the LORD prophesied that he also would fall like Ephraim within 65 years. The only specific prophecy of destruction given in the time of Ahaz, was of Ephraim alone.

The only prophesied sign of the LORD Himself for the fall of the lands , that the Jews abhor, is when they are forsaken of her kings. No king is named, but rather only declares the lands shall be forsaken of her kings altogether.

.....

The prophecy of defeat given to Ahaz in the time of the young woman's birth, was of the abhorred lands being forsaken by her kings, as well as that of Assyria and Egypt. The independent kings of Syria to Egypt Egypt ended as provinces of Rome.

For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.
(Isaiah 7:16)

The two kings----Pekah and Rezin----are named earlier in chapter 7.

Matthew recording the sign of that prophecy fulfilled, is the only time the Bible does so.

Isaiah says that a young woman will give birth, not that a "virgin" will give birth.

The Bible does not record any fulfillment of the prophesied sign of the LORD Himself, with a babe born of a young woman after the fall of all those lands, until Matthew.

See Isaiah 7:16 and 8:3-4 above. Isaiah tells of a child born shortly before the fall of Pekah and Rezin, and centuries before the birth of Jesus.

[RBD]

He went to be tried by hunger, and the devil tried to take advantage of His suffering, without success. Jesus was not tempted with evil, having no lusting heart for any evil thing.

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."
(Matthew 4:1)

Correct. He first fasted 40 days and hungered among the wild beasts, before the devil would take the opportunity to tempt Jesus to use His spiritual power and quit the trial prematurely, before His full victory over the flesh and the devil.

The temptation to quit a trial before full success, is not temptation with lust to cheat and be disqualified:
1Co 9:24
Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

2Ti 2:5
And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

A runner enduring hardship during the race may be tempted to slow for the silver or bronze, rather than the gold. But he is in no way a thieving runner, that is tempted with lust to steal a prize by running unlawfully.

Jesus' way of escape from great hunger, was the devil trying to take advantage of His suffering, and tempt Him with evil, that Jesus has no heart, mind, nor lust for

So Satan telling him how easy it would be to turn stones into bread makes Jesus less hungry? How does that make sense?

Such nonsense isn't even thought of by sensible people.

The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were incapable of being tempted by Satan, that wouldn't be necessary;

The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were capable of being tempted by Satan with His own lust, He wouldn't be quoting Scripture, but satisfying His own lust.

Heb 11:25
Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

Heb 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

he could just sit there twiddling his thumbs.

Already dismissed your insultingly bored christ.

But the trials of hardship in this life are common to all flesh and blood, whether man or beast

If some are unfamiliar with the trials and hardship of life, then trial and hardship are not common to Man. [/quote]

This is almost a good point, except that even the most privileged and secure of people, cannot avoid the final trial of suffering death.

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Rev 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving,...and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Thus, what must be common to man----and what's to be escaped----is the temptation to do wrong.

Thus, what must be common to sinful man----and what's to be delivered from----is the lustful temptation to do wrong.

Jhn 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #136]

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."
(Matthew 4:1)

Correct. He first fasted 40 days and hungered among the wild beasts, before the devil would take the opportunity to tempt Jesus to use His spiritual power and quit the trial prematurely, before His full victory over the flesh and the devil.

Because using his spiritual power and quitting the trial would be wrong.

The temptation to quit a trial before full success

.....is a temptation to do wrong.

And the temptation to bow down and worship something less than God in order to gain a high position is a temptation to do WAY wrong.

Jesus' way of escape from great hunger, was the devil trying to take advantage of His suffering, and tempt Him with evil, that Jesus has no heart, mind, nor lust for

So Satan telling him how easy it would be to turn stones into bread makes Jesus less hungry? How does that make sense?

Such nonsense isn't even thought of by sensible people.

Don't have an answer, huh?


The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were incapable of being tempted by Satan, that wouldn't be necessary

The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were capable of being tempted by Satan with His own lust, He wouldn't be quoting Scripture, but satisfying His own lust.

If Jesus wasn't capable of being tempted to use his free will to choose wrong over right, why would Satan waste his time trying to tempt Jesus to fall down and worship him?

To tempt someone, you have to offer them something. And for the temptation to be real, you can't offer them what they don't want. You have to offer them what they do want.


he could just sit there twiddling his thumbs.

Already dismissed your insultingly bored christ.

If you try to tempt someone who can't be tempted, what can they be other than bored?


If some are unfamiliar with the trials and hardship of life, then trial and hardship are not common to Man.

This is almost a good point, except that even the most privileged and secure of people, cannot avoid the final trial of suffering death.

Then everyone is familiar with trial and suffering, just as everyone has the free will to choose to do either good or evil.


Thus, what must be common to man----and what's to be escaped----is the temptation to do wrong.

Thus, what must be common to sinful man----and what's to be delivered from----is the lustful temptation to do wrong.

.....unless man endures temptation----yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #134]

Presuming marriage because Isaiah doesn't indicate otherwise. The absence of the word betulah ["virgin"] from Isaiah 7:14 is what excludes virgins.

Already pointed out enough, that the word can be for a young virgin or married young woman.

"Almah" refers to a woman's youth. "Betulah" refers to a young woman's virginity.

"Almah" is a feminine noun which has a masculine counterpart ["elem"] which means a young man; it doesn't mean a young virginal man.

Already pointed out enough, that the word can be for a young virgin woman, or married young woman.

The prophesy calls for a virgin, in order to be a sign of God worthy of note among His people.

A young married woman giving birth is of God, but is not noteworthy as a specifically prophesied sign from God.

The birth of the child isn't what's being prophesied in Isaiah 7.[/quote]

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Virgin prophesied.

What's being prophesied is the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, because they are who Ahaz is concerned about.

True. Which was the original prophecy, that was already given before the second prophecy of the virgin giving birth.

Isa 7:8
For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

The LORD then offered Ahaz a sign of his own choosing, and he declined.

Isa 7:12
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

The LORD rebuked Ahaz, and so gave His own prophesied sign to all the children of Judah and Israel, of a babe born of a virgin.

The early life of the child merely provides a time frame for the prophecy's fulfillment.

True, when both lands would be bereft of her kings, as well as that of Assyria and Egypt.

A child whose birth prophesies the fall of two kings who fell centuries before the child was born would not be noteworthy.

Of course not. No child born of young women before or after is noteworthy. Children are born every day.

A child born of a virgin is noteworthy at any time on earth.

And a 'young woman' translation does not exclude virgin.

Again----although an "almah" can be a virgin, only the word "betulah" identifies an almah as a virgin.

Which is why it's not wrong to translate the word as virgin, as it is elsewhere in the OT. Especially where context requires a virgin:

Gen 24:43
Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

You can demand 'young woman' be translated for personal interpretation, but the text calls for virgin as the noteworthy sign...

Only a young 'married' woman translation would exclude the prophecy

Again, the prophecy isn't about the child. It's about Pekah and Rezin, whose fall is being measured against the infancy of the child.

Again, the first prophecy is already given for Pekah and Rezin to fall within 65 years. And there were plenty of newborn children during, up to, and after that time. Such a prophecy would be meaninglessly common, unless there were no other children born at the time...

The noteworthy sign of a virgin born child, is only given after Ahaz refuses as sign for himself.

The prophesy of a sign is given to Ahaz. Which Ahaz did not see, since there is no recorded fulfillment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, nor anytime after in the Bible,, until Matthew.

And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."
(Isaiah 8:3-4)

Now, this is indeed a child named for the prophesied fall of Damascus and Samaria itself. Which is not Immanuel, God with us, but according to Assyria's quick plundering of Damascus, Samaria, and Judah.

The prophecy of defeat given to Ahaz in the time of the young woman's birth, was of the abhorred lands being forsaken by her kings, as well as that of Assyria and Egypt. The independent kings of Syria to Egypt Egypt ended as provinces of Rome.

For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.
(Isaiah 7:16)

The two kings----Pekah and Rezin----are named earlier in chapter 7.[/quote]

False translation for personal interpretation. Both her kings are without name, and can be at any time in the future. And that time will also be with the end of the Assyrian and Egyptians kingship. And finally, the only nation not mentioned at that time being bereft of a king, was Judea, who was king in name only.

[quote=Athetotheist post_id=1179116 time=1761712732 user_id=14379

The Bible does not record any fulfillment of the prophesied sign of the LORD Himself, with a babe born of a young woman after the fall of all those lands, until Matthew.

See Isaiah 7:16 and 8:3-4 above. Isaiah tells of a child born shortly before the fall of Pekah and Rezin, and centuries before the birth of Jesus.
[/quote]
Not of Syria and Egypt.

The original prophecy made to Ahaz was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's child. The later prophecy could only be fulfilled after the last king of Syria and Pharaoh of Egypt.

Conclusions thus far:

1. Virgin is the necessary translation for a notable sign at any time, and is a proper translative option. Many children are born of many young women in the land at any time. It's quite common.

The one notable birth later mentioned at the time, was by the name given, which was not that of Immanuel, but for quick defeat of Syria, Samaria, and Judah.

2. The prophecy of Syrian and Samarian defeat withing 65 years, was already given before the prophecy of the virgin born child.

3. The second prophecy was for the fall both of Syria and Samaria kings, as well as the lands of Assyria and Egypt.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #138]

"Almah" refers to a woman's youth. "Betulah" refers to a young woman's virginity.

"Almah" is a feminine noun which has a masculine counterpart ["elem"] which means a young man; it doesn't mean a young virginal man.

Already pointed out enough, that the word can be for a young virgin woman, or married young woman.

It doesn't matter if an "almah" can be a virgin. What matters is that only "betulah" refers to a woman's virginity.

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Virgin prophesied.

KJV mistranslation quoted.


What's being prophesied is the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, because they are who Ahaz is concerned about.

True. Which was the original prophecy, that was already given before the second prophecy of the virgin giving birth.

Isa 7:8
For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

Verse 8 prophesies the fall of Ephraim, but verse 16 prophesies the fall of the two kings themselves.

The LORD then offered Ahaz a sign of his own choosing, and he declined.

Isa 7:12
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

The LORD rebuked Ahaz, and so gave His own prophesied sign to all the children of Judah and Israel, of a babe born of a virgin.

In verse 12 Isaiah is addressing Ahaz himself as "house of David", as is indicated in verse 2. Thus, Isaiah is still referring to Ahaz's own situation.


The early life of the child merely provides a time frame for the prophecy's fulfillment.

True, when both lands would be bereft of her kings, as well as that of Assyria and Egypt.

The fall of Pekah and Rezin is specifically prophesied to take place during the early life of the child Immanuel.


A child whose birth prophesies the fall of two kings who fell centuries before the child was born would not be noteworthy.

Of course not. No child born of young women before or after is noteworthy. Children are born every day.

A child born of a virgin is noteworthy at any time on earth.

A child born to a virgin would be born to a betulah, not just to an almah.

And a 'young woman' translation does not exclude virgin.

Again----although an "almah" can be a virgin, only the word "betulah" identifies an almah as a virgin.

Which is why it's not wrong to translate the word as virgin, as it is elsewhere in the OT. Especially where context requires a virgin:

Gen 24:43
Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

You can demand 'young woman' be translated for personal interpretation, but the text calls for virgin as the noteworthy sign...

The text calls for no such thing. Abraham's servant is merely asking that a young woman come along and respond to him in a certain way. If she gives him a drink and offers to water his camels as well, she is to be the one to take back for Abraham's son to marry.

The servant doesn't have to recognize her as a virgin.

Now, Rebekah is referred to as a virgin----in verse 16. And what word is used to refer to her virginity? Betulah.

Again, the first prophecy is already given for Pekah and Rezin to fall within 65 years.

Again, the prophecy is that Ephraim will fall within 65 years. Pekah and Rezin are to fall within about two years, before the child soon to be born knows to refuse evil and choose good.

And even a 65-year span rules out Jesus and everyone else born 700 years later.


"And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."
(Isaiah 8:3-4)

Now, this is indeed a child named for the prophesied fall of Damascus and Samaria itself. Which is not Immanuel, God with us, but according to Assyria's quick plundering of Damascus, Samaria, and Judah.

The Lord spoke to me again:

“Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks
and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O, Immanuel!”
(Isaiah 8:5-8)

"Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" is what his father calls him.

"Immanuel" is what his mother calls him.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse: “before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah: “he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4

Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.

“Behold I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel.” Isaiah 8:18
https://share.google/fNpNUMEsaiygGAKYA


The two kings----Pekah and Rezin----are named earlier in chapter 7.

False translation for personal interpretation. Both her kings are without name, and can be at any time in the future. And that time will also be with the end of the Assyrian and Egyptians kingship. And finally, the only nation not mentioned at that time being bereft of a king, was Judea, who was king in name only.

This is grasping at straws. The two kings are not without name. They are Rezin and Pekah, who are named in 7:1. That is who the context calls for them to be, as you would say. Rezin and Pekah falling 700 years before Jesus knew to refuse evil and choose good is not noteworthy; it's more of a tautology.

The original prophecy made to Ahaz was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's child.

The mother of Isaiah's child called him Immanuel.

Virgin is the necessary translation for a notable sign at any time, and is a proper translative option.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... ean-virgin

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #136]

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."
(Matthew 4:1)

Correct. He first fasted 40 days and hungered among the wild beasts, before the devil would take the opportunity to tempt Jesus to use His spiritual power and quit the trial prematurely, before His full victory over the flesh and the devil.

Because using his spiritual power and quitting the trial would be wrong.

If you want to judge Jesus wrong, for not enduring all things in order to die for your sins, then that's your personal judgment.

Otherwise, no one is evil for not laying down one's life for another, especially not for strangers, and even most of all not for enemies...

And the temptation to bow down and worship something less than God in order to gain a high position is a temptation to do WAY wrong.

Mat 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

But he wasn't tempted to, He immediately rebuked the devil. Nor was He at all tempted by Peter to deny the cross:

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Being tried by natural events, and intrusive influences, is not being tempted with lust to do evil...

The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were incapable of being tempted by Satan, that wouldn't be necessary

The text has Jesus countering Satan's temptations with scripture. If Jesus were capable of being tempted by Satan with His own lust, He wouldn't be quoting Scripture, but satisfying His own lust.

If Jesus wasn't capable of being tempted to use his free will to choose wrong over right, why would Satan waste his time trying to tempt Jesus to fall down and worship him?

So, now you argue for a smart Satan, as well as a bored Christ.

Pro 1:17
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.

Some evil people will do anything to have good people do evil with them, even at the cost of their own lives:

Psa 57:6
They have prepared a net for my steps; my soul is bowed down: they have digged a pit before me, into the midst whereof they are fallen themselves. Selah.

No one says evil doers and thieves have to be smart...

Pro 8:1
Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?...But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

To tempt someone, you have to offer them something. And for the temptation to be real, you can't offer them what they don't want. You have to offer them what they do want.

So, the evil only offer evil to them that want evil. Therefore, everyone offered evil, must want evil.

"So, he offered you something evil?" "Yes." "Then you wanted the evil thing." "No, I refused it." "But then, why would anyone offer you something evil, if not because you want it?? I rest my case your honor, this is an evil person, that clearly wants evil things!!"

I believe this one definitively applies to the Scripture:

Tit 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Satan of course proved the accusation wrong, since He offered evil to the good. And Jesus proved the accusation wrong, by not wanting the evil.

he could just sit there twiddling his thumbs.

Already dismissed your insultingly bored christ.

As well as your smart Satan.

If some are unfamiliar with the trials and hardship of life, then trial and hardship are not common to Man.

This is almost a good point, except that even the most privileged and secure of people, cannot avoid the final trial of suffering death.

Then everyone is familiar with trial and suffering, just as everyone has the free will to choose to do either good or evil.

Now you got it. And unlike the committed evil doers, not everyone chooses evil, for not all lust for evil, but only seek the good...

Evil people cannot understand why anyone would continue doing good, even if it costs their lives, and especially if it's doing good for their own enemies:

Mat 27:42
He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.