Discussion:
Have any of you christers ever actually read Isaiah 7?
(too old to reply)
Ted
2023-01-04 19:41:17 UTC
Permalink
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.

If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
Dr. Who
2023-01-04 21:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!

“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa 8:3,
KJV)

Do you see any reference to Emmanuel there? And who "Went unto her"? And what
was she?

In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of Assyria
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be laid
waste by him, and the last greatly frightened. [Henry]
Ted
2023-01-05 00:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!
Kewl. What does that mean?
Post by Dr. Who
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa 8:3,
KJV)
Do you see any reference to Emmanuel
Actually, chapter 8 does reference Immanuel, but that's because he's
already been born.
Post by Dr. Who
And who "Went unto her"? And what was
she?
Isaiah is writing here in the first person, so he's explicitly
telling us it's his kid. Now, you can say that doesn't mean Immanuel
is his kid too, but that's moot. If he ain't Isaiah's, he's one of
his pal's.
Post by Dr. Who
In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of Assyria
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be laid
waste by him, and the last greatly
frightened. [Henry]
Yes, it's the same prophecy, different kid. And since Isaiah names
his own kids after his prophecies, chances are he's Immanuel's father
as well. (But it doesn't matter either way.)

The word "virgin" in chapter 7, btw is a deliberate deception. Almah
is translated everywhere else as young woman. There is a specific
Hebrew word for virgin, betulah, that Isaiah does NOT use here. If
he'd wanted to communicate that she was a virgin, he would have
called her betulah.
Dr. Who
2023-01-05 01:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who
the
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!
Kewl. What does that mean?
FWRL Floor Will Rolling Laughter. ;)
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a
son.
Post by Dr. Who
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa
8:3,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Do you see any reference to Emmanuel
Actually, chapter 8 does reference Immanuel, but that's because he's
already been born.
Yes and no.

But you miss the point re V3
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
And who "Went unto her"? And what was
she?
Isaiah is writing here in the first person, so he's explicitly
telling us it's his kid. Now, you can say that doesn't mean Immanuel
is his kid too, but that's moot. If he ain't Isaiah's, he's one of
his pal's.
Yet you are mixing up children all over the place, as well as their fathers.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of
Assyria
Post by Dr. Who
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be
laid
Post by Dr. Who
waste by him, and the last greatly
frightened. [Henry]
Yes, it's the same prophecy, different kid. And since Isaiah names
his own kids after his prophecies, chances are he's Immanuel's father
as well. (But it doesn't matter either way.)
It does matter, any error in lineage of thought corrupts all following
understandings and creates confusion. Especially in the mind of the speaker,
who after issuing the same error over and over again begins to accept and
believe it as truth.

Then six months later how is anyone, yourself included going to be able to
backtrack to the time when the "unimportant error" was made?
Post by Ted
The word "virgin" in chapter 7, btw is a deliberate deception. Almah
is translated everywhere else as young woman. There is a specific
Hebrew word for virgin, betulah, that Isaiah does NOT use here. If
he'd wanted to communicate that she was a virgin, he would have
called her betulah.
That is incorrect. I have already addressed that in part, and could add a lot
more info as to why, but you have chosen of dismiss that and continue on with
what you are saying here. Sticking with the dogma of the atheist does not
allow for truth in such matters. Sort of like the discussion of literacy in
those days.
Ted
2023-01-05 03:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Kewl. What does that mean?
FWRL Floor Will Rolling Laughter. ;)
Ah ic. Thanks. Fall to the floor first, right?
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Actually, chapter 8 does reference Immanuel, but that's because he's
already been born.
Yes and no.
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to Immanuel in chapter 8.
Post by Dr. Who
But you miss the point re V3
You make up the point. I googled it just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Isaiah is writing here in the first person, so he's explicitly
telling us it's his kid. Now, you can say that doesn't mean
Immanuel
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
is his kid too, but that's moot. If he ain't Isaiah's, he's one of
his pal's.
Yet you are mixing up children all over the place, as well as their fathers.
Projection?
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes, it's the same prophecy, different kid. And since Isaiah names
his own kids after his prophecies, chances are he's Immanuel's father
as well. (But it doesn't matter either way.)
It does matter, any error in lineage of thought corrupts all
following
Post by Dr. Who
understandings and creates confusion. Especially in the mind of the speaker,
who after issuing the same error over and over again begins to
accept and
Post by Dr. Who
believe it as truth.
Then six months later how is anyone, yourself included going to be able to
backtrack to the time when the "unimportant error" was made?
No, it doesn't matter because it doesn't alter my point.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
The word "virgin" in chapter 7, btw is a deliberate deception. Almah
is translated everywhere else as young woman. There is a specific
Hebrew word for virgin, betulah, that Isaiah does NOT use here. If
he'd wanted to communicate that she was a virgin, he would have
called her betulah.
That is incorrect.
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
Post by Dr. Who
I have already addressed that in part, and could add a lot
more info as to why,
Okay. Please do.
Post by Dr. Who
but you have chosen of dismiss that and
I've addressed everything you've put forth. I've dismissed nothing.
Post by Dr. Who
continue on with
what you are saying here. Sticking with the dogma of the atheist does not
allow for truth in such matters.
Ah yes, of course. You spew bullshit and I refute it. So you spew
more bullshit and I refute that. That must certainly mean I don't
allow for truth. LOL.
Post by Dr. Who
Sort of like the discussion of literacy in
those days.
I cited a reference. You didn't. Hell, you might as well just say the
literacy rate was 100%. Anything can be true when you make shit up.
Dr. Who
2023-01-05 04:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Kewl. What does that mean?
FWRL Floor Will Rolling Laughter. ;)
Ah ic. Thanks. Fall to the floor first, right?
Yes
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Actually, chapter 8 does reference Immanuel, but that's because
he's
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
already been born.
Yes and no.
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to Immanuel in chapter 8.
Then show where he does.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
But you miss the point re V3
You make up the point. I googled it just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Isaiah is writing here in the first person, so he's explicitly
telling us it's his kid. Now, you can say that doesn't mean
Immanuel
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
is his kid too, but that's moot. If he ain't Isaiah's, he's one of
his pal's.
Yet you are mixing up children all over the place, as well as their
fathers.
Projection?
Nope, Read both chapters and see.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes, it's the same prophecy, different kid. And since Isaiah names
his own kids after his prophecies, chances are he's Immanuel's
father
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
as well. (But it doesn't matter either way.)
It does matter, any error in lineage of thought corrupts all
following
Post by Dr. Who
understandings and creates confusion. Especially in the mind of the
speaker,
Post by Dr. Who
who after issuing the same error over and over again begins to
accept and
Post by Dr. Who
believe it as truth.
Then six months later how is anyone, yourself included going to be
able to
Post by Dr. Who
backtrack to the time when the "unimportant error" was made?
No, it doesn't matter because it doesn't alter my point.
It does when your point is the basis of your next point.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
The word "virgin" in chapter 7, btw is a deliberate deception.
Almah
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
is translated everywhere else as young woman. There is a specific
Hebrew word for virgin, betulah, that Isaiah does NOT use here. If
he'd wanted to communicate that she was a virgin, he would have
called her betulah.
That is incorrect.
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in scripture and by those who believe in
God.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
I have already addressed that in part, and could add a lot
more info as to why,
Okay. Please do.
Post by Dr. Who
but you have chosen of dismiss that and
I've addressed everything you've put forth. I've dismissed nothing.
You have continued to hold to that mistaken notion of young woman as if the
young woman does not mean virgin young woman, and virgin as being two
separate issues. Even what I posted earlier on the subject you dismissed as
if there were no truth to it.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
continue on with
what you are saying here. Sticking with the dogma of the atheist
does not
Post by Dr. Who
allow for truth in such matters.
Ah yes, of course. You spew bullshit and I refute it. So you spew
more bullshit and I refute that. That must certainly mean I don't
allow for truth. LOL.
No, you do not dispute it, you ignore it all, chose not to discuss it or the
understandings behind it, you change the goal posts, and you simply dismiss
it. To refute it you need to allow what was said and then show cause why
there is not truth there.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Sort of like the discussion of literacy in
those days.
I cited a reference. You didn't. Hell, you might as well just say the
literacy rate was 100%. Anything can be true when you make shit up.
I should you a book review from a person who backed up what I reported to you
earlier about the percentage of literacy. A percentage I gathered up years
ago from historical facts to dispute another person in your crown. You
preferred hearsay and misunderstandings, and then when I pointed it out,
would not acknowledge your error as to what the author of the book actually
said. I did not make a big deal out of it at the time thinking that you would
accept your error, but here you support your error. Allowing for only you to
be the correct on with false facts.

Ted, you are not the first to state what you did in devaluating God and His
word. You follow the longstanding arguments of many atheists, all of which
have been proven in error, both historically as well as by archeology. You
just picked up the old standards to rehash as if you are better at it than
they. I knew of a man, that many years ago devoted his life to proving the
Bible in error via archeology, and that the places mentioned are not to be
found where the Bible said they were, and all his excavations only proved the
Bible to be true. Many here have said things similar about the city of David,
only to be proven wrong via the current digs in Israel.

The man I spoke of died without satisfaction his heart so hardened about God
always looking for that one proof that the Bible was wrong. What a shame that
was.

I would hope you do not waste your life as he did.
Ted
2023-01-05 05:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it just
now and nobody knows why he brought
his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know that Shearjashub is Isaiah's
oldest kid.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in scripture
and by those who believe in God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert? Almah means young woman.
Betulah means virgin. Almah is translated everywhere as young woman
except in Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the translators were
deliberately deceptive. If Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah. Please point out what part of
that is "refuted".
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
I've addressed everything you've put
forth. I've dismissed nothing.
You have continued to hold to that mistaken notion of young woman as if the
young woman does not mean virgin young woman, and virgin as being two
separate issues. Even what I posted earlier on the subject you
dismissed as
Post by Dr. Who
if there were no truth to it.
If I did dismiss it without addressing it, then I apologize.
Post by Dr. Who
No, you do not dispute it, you ignore it all, chose not to discuss it or the
understandings behind it, you change the goal posts, and you simply dismiss
it. To refute it you need to allow what was said and then show
cause why
Post by Dr. Who
there is not truth there.
Right. That's what I've been doing.
Post by Dr. Who
I should you a book review from a person who backed up what I
reported to you
Post by Dr. Who
earlier about the percentage of literacy. A percentage I gathered up years
ago from historical facts to dispute another person in your crown. You
preferred hearsay and misunderstandings
"Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" by Catherine Hezser is "hearsay
and misunderstandings"? LOL.
Post by Dr. Who
and then when I pointed it out,
would not acknowledge your error as to what the author of the book actually
said. I did not make a big deal out of it at the time thinking that you would
accept your error, but here you support your error. Allowing for only you to
be the correct on with false facts.
Which error? I apologize if I missed it and failed to acknowledge.
Post by Dr. Who
Ted, you are not the first to state what you did in devaluating God and His
word. You follow the longstanding arguments of many atheists, all of which
have been proven in error, both historically as well as by
archeology. You
Post by Dr. Who
just picked up the old standards to rehash as if you are better at it than
they. I knew of a man, that many years ago devoted his life to
proving the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible in error via archeology, and that the places mentioned are not to be
found where the Bible said they were, and all his excavations only proved the
Bible to be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only think you do.
Post by Dr. Who
Many here have said things similar about
David, only to be proven wrong via the
current digs in Israel.
It's refreshing to encounter something on which we can agree. Yes,
David was real.
Post by Dr. Who
The man I spoke of died without
satisfaction his heart so hardened about
God always looking for that one proof that
the Bible was wrong. What a shame that
was.
"One" proof? There are dozens, at least.
Post by Dr. Who
I would hope you do not waste your life as
he did.
Believing silly myths and ignoring truth can arguably be said to be
"wasting your life". (Hint: that's you.) Seeking truth (me) can also
arguably said to be wasting it, I'll admit. But hey, whatever floats
your boat, dude. :-)
Dr. Who
2023-01-06 05:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it just
now and nobody knows why he brought
his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know that Shearjashub is Isaiah's
oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,

“Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and
Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the
highway of the fuller's field;” (Isa 7:3, KJV)
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in scripture
and by those who believe in God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert? Almah means young woman.
Betulah means virgin. Almah is translated everywhere as young woman
except in Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the translators were
deliberately deceptive. If Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah. Please point out what part of
that is "refuted".
Incorrect.

Isaiah 7:14

a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]

Virgin Birth

Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or ever
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated "virgin" for
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and for
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young, unmarried virgin
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes with man for
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing timbrels
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have no sexual
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14; Mat
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could mean a
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of the plain
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy Spirit, it only
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect plan of
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if we
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6-7; Mat
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:5-7; and
Heb 2:6-18.

The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen 24:16; Exo
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est 2:17, Est
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa 62:5; Jer
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam 1:4, Lam
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo 8:13);
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11; Eze 9:6;
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa 148:12;
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of marriageable age
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an unmarried girl
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe 1:8).

The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a maiden; an
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in every
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7, Mat 25:11;
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the root word
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of these original
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend that they
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only one who is
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.

Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture listed above
and then show us any and all errors.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
I've addressed everything you've put
forth. I've dismissed nothing.
You have continued to hold to that mistaken notion of young woman
as if the
Post by Dr. Who
young woman does not mean virgin young woman, and virgin as being
two
Post by Dr. Who
separate issues. Even what I posted earlier on the subject you
dismissed as
Post by Dr. Who
if there were no truth to it.
If I did dismiss it without addressing it, then I apologize.
I accept it, and take.it fairly lightly as it seems pretty common these days
on the net.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
No, you do not dispute it, you ignore it all, chose not to discuss
it or the
Post by Dr. Who
understandings behind it, you change the goal posts, and you simply
dismiss
Post by Dr. Who
it. To refute it you need to allow what was said and then show
cause why
Post by Dr. Who
there is not truth there.
Right. That's what I've been doing.
Post by Dr. Who
I should you a book review from a person who backed up what I
reported to you
Post by Dr. Who
earlier about the percentage of literacy. A percentage I gathered
up years
Post by Dr. Who
ago from historical facts to dispute another person in your crown.
You
Post by Dr. Who
preferred hearsay and misunderstandings
"Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" by Catherine Hezser is "hearsay
and misunderstandings"? LOL.
Yes, in regards to what you said about it. I showed you the comments from
someone who read her book and addressed the very issue you brought up,
showing the world that your understanding was incorrect, your comments since
that post only confirm to be that you do not read all that I write, or read
it seriously and your following accusations are therefore unmerited. I am
fairly used to that occurring because I do not typically write one liners.
And most people are not speaking seriously when they write their posts, at
least most of the time.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
and then when I pointed it out,
would not acknowledge your error as to what the author of the book
actually
Post by Dr. Who
said. I did not make a big deal out of it at the time thinking that
you would
Post by Dr. Who
accept your error, but here you support your error. Allowing for
only you to
Post by Dr. Who
be the correct on with false facts.
Which error? I apologize if I missed it and failed to acknowledge.
Post by Dr. Who
Ted, you are not the first to state what you did in devaluating God
and His
Post by Dr. Who
word. You follow the longstanding arguments of many atheists, all
of which
Post by Dr. Who
have been proven in error, both historically as well as by
archeology. You
Post by Dr. Who
just picked up the old standards to rehash as if you are better at
it than
Post by Dr. Who
they. I knew of a man, that many years ago devoted his life to
proving the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible in error via archeology, and that the places mentioned are
not to be
Post by Dr. Who
found where the Bible said they were, and all his excavations only
proved the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible to be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in that
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of him, and how
he died.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Many here have said things similar about
David, only to be proven wrong via the
current digs in Israel.
It's refreshing to encounter something on which we can agree. Yes,
David was real.
Post by Dr. Who
The man I spoke of died without
satisfaction his heart so hardened about
God always looking for that one proof that
the Bible was wrong. What a shame that
was.
"One" proof? There are dozens, at least.
He searched for many sites, discovered them all, and was honest enough to
cite his discoveries. Yet he was hoping for provable failures all along. Now
that he has passed, he has met his maker, and nows beyond any shadow of doubt
the reality of God.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
I would hope you do not waste your life as
he did.
Believing silly myths and ignoring truth can arguably be said to be
"wasting your life". (Hint: that's you.) Seeking truth (me) can also
arguably said to be wasting it, I'll admit. But hey, whatever floats
your boat, dude. :-)
Sorry, but I know in whom I believe and have heard his voice and received his
counseling and wisdom as needed. What is promised to the Believer I have
received and am growing in Him.

Yes there have been people in your shoes who have said I should see a psych,
or to my face said I was nuts, but when a person as seen the real thing it is
impossible to take it away from them, and that is the shoes I stand in.

When you hit the wall and stand there alone, seek Him, not with promises, not
with deals, but as Him for His reality in your life. Do not let religion
confine you. If you come into that situation, speak to him and study the
Bible, especially the NT, not disregarding the old. You will see the truths
unfold to you right before your very eyes, and you will find it a joy, not a
chore, to read his word, just for you.
Ted
2023-01-06 08:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it just
now and nobody knows why he brought
his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know that Shearjashub is Isaiah's
oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
“Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and
Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the
highway of the fuller's field;” (Isa 7:3, KJV)
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in scripture
and by those who believe in God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert? Almah means young woman.
Betulah means virgin. Almah is translated everywhere as young woman
except in Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the translators were
deliberately deceptive. If Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah. Please point out what part of
that is "refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or ever
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and for
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes with man for
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing timbrels
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have no sexual
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14; Mat
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could mean a
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of the plain
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect plan of
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if we
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:5-7; and
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen 24:16; Exo
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam 1:4, Lam
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo 8:13);
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11; Eze 9:6;
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa 148:12;
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe 1:8).
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in every
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7, Mat 25:11;
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the root word
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend that they
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only one who is
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture listed above
and then show us any and all errors.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
I've addressed everything you've put
forth. I've dismissed nothing.
You have continued to hold to that mistaken notion of young woman
as if the
Post by Dr. Who
young woman does not mean virgin young woman, and virgin as being
two
Post by Dr. Who
separate issues. Even what I posted earlier on the subject you
dismissed as
Post by Dr. Who
if there were no truth to it.
If I did dismiss it without addressing it, then I apologize.
I accept it, and take.it fairly lightly as it seems pretty common these days
on the net.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
No, you do not dispute it, you ignore it all, chose not to
discuss
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it or the
Post by Dr. Who
understandings behind it, you change the goal posts, and you simply
dismiss
Post by Dr. Who
it. To refute it you need to allow what was said and then show
cause why
Post by Dr. Who
there is not truth there.
Right. That's what I've been doing.
Post by Dr. Who
I should you a book review from a person who backed up what I
reported to you
Post by Dr. Who
earlier about the percentage of literacy. A percentage I
gathered
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
up years
Post by Dr. Who
ago from historical facts to dispute another person in your crown.
You
Post by Dr. Who
preferred hearsay and misunderstandings
"Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" by Catherine Hezser is
"hearsay
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
and misunderstandings"? LOL.
Yes, in regards to what you said about it. I showed you the
comments from
Post by Dr. Who
someone who read her book and addressed the very issue you brought up,
showing the world that your understanding was incorrect, your
comments since
Post by Dr. Who
that post only confirm to be that you do not read all that I write, or read
it seriously and your following accusations are therefore
unmerited. I am
Post by Dr. Who
fairly used to that occurring because I do not typically write one liners.
And most people are not speaking seriously when they write their posts, at
least most of the time.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
and then when I pointed it out,
would not acknowledge your error as to what the author of the book
actually
Post by Dr. Who
said. I did not make a big deal out of it at the time thinking that
you would
Post by Dr. Who
accept your error, but here you support your error. Allowing for
only you to
Post by Dr. Who
be the correct on with false facts.
Which error? I apologize if I missed it and failed to acknowledge.
Post by Dr. Who
Ted, you are not the first to state what you did in devaluating God
and His
Post by Dr. Who
word. You follow the longstanding arguments of many atheists, all
of which
Post by Dr. Who
have been proven in error, both historically as well as by
archeology. You
Post by Dr. Who
just picked up the old standards to rehash as if you are better at
it than
Post by Dr. Who
they. I knew of a man, that many years ago devoted his life to
proving the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible in error via archeology, and that the places mentioned are
not to be
Post by Dr. Who
found where the Bible said they were, and all his excavations only
proved the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible to be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in that
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of him, and how
he died.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Many here have said things similar about
David, only to be proven wrong via the
current digs in Israel.
It's refreshing to encounter something on which we can agree. Yes,
David was real.
Post by Dr. Who
The man I spoke of died without
satisfaction his heart so hardened about
God always looking for that one proof that
the Bible was wrong. What a shame that
was.
"One" proof? There are dozens, at least.
He searched for many sites, discovered them all, and was honest enough to
cite his discoveries. Yet he was hoping for provable failures all along. Now
that he has passed, he has met his maker, and nows beyond any
shadow of doubt
Post by Dr. Who
the reality of God.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
I would hope you do not waste your life as
he did.
Believing silly myths and ignoring truth can arguably be said to be
"wasting your life". (Hint: that's you.) Seeking truth (me) can also
arguably said to be wasting it, I'll admit. But hey, whatever floats
your boat, dude. :-)
Sorry, but I know in whom I believe and have heard his voice and received his
counseling and wisdom as needed. What is promised to the Believer I have
received and am growing in Him.
Yes there have been people in your shoes who have said I should see a psych,
or to my face said I was nuts, but when a person as seen the real thing it is
impossible to take it away from them, and that is the shoes I stand in.
When you hit the wall and stand there alone, seek Him, not with promises, not
with deals, but as Him for His reality in your life. Do not let religion
confine you. If you come into that situation, speak to him and
study the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible, especially the NT, not disregarding the old. You will see the truths
unfold to you right before your very eyes, and you will find it a joy, not a
chore, to read his word, just for you.
I never thought you were crazy, Robert. On the contrary, you're
likely more rational than your accusers. And I appreciate your taking
the time to respond in such detail, thanks. What you've explained
above deserves serious consideration, so I'm pleased the weekend is
here and I'll have time to do so.
Dr. Who
2023-01-06 18:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it just
now and nobody knows why he brought
his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know that Shearjashub is Isaiah's
oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
“Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou,
and
Post by Dr. Who
Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in
the
Post by Dr. Who
highway of the fuller's field;” (Isa 7:3, KJV)
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in scripture
and by those who believe in God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert? Almah means young woman.
Betulah means virgin. Almah is translated everywhere as young
woman
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
except in Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the translators were
deliberately deceptive. If Isaiah had intended to tell us she was
a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
virgin, he would have used betulah. Please point out what part of
that is "refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14;
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11;
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7,
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
I've addressed everything you've put
forth. I've dismissed nothing.
You have continued to hold to that mistaken notion of young
woman
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
as if the
Post by Dr. Who
young woman does not mean virgin young woman, and virgin as
being
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
two
Post by Dr. Who
separate issues. Even what I posted earlier on the subject you
dismissed as
Post by Dr. Who
if there were no truth to it.
If I did dismiss it without addressing it, then I apologize.
I accept it, and take.it fairly lightly as it seems pretty common
these days
Post by Dr. Who
on the net.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
No, you do not dispute it, you ignore it all, chose not to
discuss
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it or the
Post by Dr. Who
understandings behind it, you change the goal posts, and you
simply
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
dismiss
Post by Dr. Who
it. To refute it you need to allow what was said and then show
cause why
Post by Dr. Who
there is not truth there.
Right. That's what I've been doing.
Post by Dr. Who
I should you a book review from a person who backed up what I
reported to you
Post by Dr. Who
earlier about the percentage of literacy. A percentage I
gathered
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
up years
Post by Dr. Who
ago from historical facts to dispute another person in your
crown.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You
Post by Dr. Who
preferred hearsay and misunderstandings
"Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" by Catherine Hezser is
"hearsay
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
and misunderstandings"? LOL.
Yes, in regards to what you said about it. I showed you the
comments from
Post by Dr. Who
someone who read her book and addressed the very issue you brought
up,
Post by Dr. Who
showing the world that your understanding was incorrect, your
comments since
Post by Dr. Who
that post only confirm to be that you do not read all that I write,
or read
Post by Dr. Who
it seriously and your following accusations are therefore
unmerited. I am
Post by Dr. Who
fairly used to that occurring because I do not typically write one
liners.
Post by Dr. Who
And most people are not speaking seriously when they write their
posts, at
Post by Dr. Who
least most of the time.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
and then when I pointed it out,
would not acknowledge your error as to what the author of the
book
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
actually
Post by Dr. Who
said. I did not make a big deal out of it at the time thinking
that
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
you would
Post by Dr. Who
accept your error, but here you support your error. Allowing for
only you to
Post by Dr. Who
be the correct on with false facts.
Which error? I apologize if I missed it and failed to acknowledge.
Post by Dr. Who
Ted, you are not the first to state what you did in devaluating
God
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
and His
Post by Dr. Who
word. You follow the longstanding arguments of many atheists,
all
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
of which
Post by Dr. Who
have been proven in error, both historically as well as by
archeology. You
Post by Dr. Who
just picked up the old standards to rehash as if you are better
at
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it than
Post by Dr. Who
they. I knew of a man, that many years ago devoted his life to
proving the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible in error via archeology, and that the places mentioned are
not to be
Post by Dr. Who
found where the Bible said they were, and all his excavations
only
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
proved the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible to be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in
that
Post by Dr. Who
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of
him, and how
Post by Dr. Who
he died.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Many here have said things similar about
David, only to be proven wrong via the
current digs in Israel.
It's refreshing to encounter something on which we can agree. Yes,
David was real.
Post by Dr. Who
The man I spoke of died without
satisfaction his heart so hardened about
God always looking for that one proof that
the Bible was wrong. What a shame that
was.
"One" proof? There are dozens, at least.
He searched for many sites, discovered them all, and was honest
enough to
Post by Dr. Who
cite his discoveries. Yet he was hoping for provable failures all
along. Now
Post by Dr. Who
that he has passed, he has met his maker, and nows beyond any
shadow of doubt
Post by Dr. Who
the reality of God.
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
I would hope you do not waste your life as
he did.
Believing silly myths and ignoring truth can arguably be said to
be
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
"wasting your life". (Hint: that's you.) Seeking truth (me) can
also
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
arguably said to be wasting it, I'll admit. But hey, whatever
floats
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
your boat, dude. :-)
Sorry, but I know in whom I believe and have heard his voice and
received his
Post by Dr. Who
counseling and wisdom as needed. What is promised to the Believer I
have
Post by Dr. Who
received and am growing in Him.
Yes there have been people in your shoes who have said I should see
a psych,
Post by Dr. Who
or to my face said I was nuts, but when a person as seen the real
thing it is
Post by Dr. Who
impossible to take it away from them, and that is the shoes I stand
in.
Post by Dr. Who
When you hit the wall and stand there alone, seek Him, not with
promises, not
Post by Dr. Who
with deals, but as Him for His reality in your life. Do not let
religion
Post by Dr. Who
confine you. If you come into that situation, speak to him and
study the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible, especially the NT, not disregarding the old. You will see
the truths
Post by Dr. Who
unfold to you right before your very eyes, and you will find it a
joy, not a
Post by Dr. Who
chore, to read his word, just for you.
I never thought you were crazy, Robert. On the contrary, you're
likely more rational than your accusers. And I appreciate your taking
the time to respond in such detail, thanks. What you've explained
above deserves serious consideration, so I'm pleased the weekend is
here and I'll have time to do so.
Thank you. Although many may set out to prove you wrong, ;)
Ted
2023-01-06 19:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it just
now and nobody knows why he brought
his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know that Shearjashub is
Isaiah's
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
“Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou,
and
Post by Dr. Who
Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in
the
Post by Dr. Who
highway of the fuller's field;” (Isa 7:3, KJV)
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in scripture
and by those who believe in God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert? Almah means young woman.
Betulah means virgin. Almah is translated everywhere as young
woman
Post by Dr. Who
except in Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the translators were
deliberately deceptive. If Isaiah had intended to tell us she was
a
Post by Dr. Who
virgin, he would have used betulah. Please point out what part of
that is "refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14;
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the
flesh—if
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11;
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7,
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
I've addressed everything you've put
forth. I've dismissed nothing.
You have continued to hold to that mistaken notion of young
woman
Post by Dr. Who
as if the
Post by Dr. Who
young woman does not mean virgin young woman, and virgin as
being
Post by Dr. Who
two
Post by Dr. Who
separate issues. Even what I posted earlier on the subject you
dismissed as
Post by Dr. Who
if there were no truth to it.
If I did dismiss it without addressing it, then I apologize.
I accept it, and take.it fairly lightly as it seems pretty
common
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
these days
Post by Dr. Who
on the net.
Post by Dr. Who
No, you do not dispute it, you ignore it all, chose not to
discuss
Post by Dr. Who
it or the
Post by Dr. Who
understandings behind it, you change the goal posts, and you
simply
Post by Dr. Who
dismiss
Post by Dr. Who
it. To refute it you need to allow what was said and then show
cause why
Post by Dr. Who
there is not truth there.
Right. That's what I've been doing.
Post by Dr. Who
I should you a book review from a person who backed up what I
reported to you
Post by Dr. Who
earlier about the percentage of literacy. A percentage I
gathered
Post by Dr. Who
up years
Post by Dr. Who
ago from historical facts to dispute another person in your
crown.
Post by Dr. Who
You
Post by Dr. Who
preferred hearsay and misunderstandings
"Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" by Catherine Hezser is
"hearsay
Post by Dr. Who
and misunderstandings"? LOL.
Yes, in regards to what you said about it. I showed you the
comments from
Post by Dr. Who
someone who read her book and addressed the very issue you
brought
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
up,
Post by Dr. Who
showing the world that your understanding was incorrect, your
comments since
Post by Dr. Who
that post only confirm to be that you do not read all that I write,
or read
Post by Dr. Who
it seriously and your following accusations are therefore
unmerited. I am
Post by Dr. Who
fairly used to that occurring because I do not typically write one
liners.
Post by Dr. Who
And most people are not speaking seriously when they write their
posts, at
Post by Dr. Who
least most of the time.
Post by Dr. Who
and then when I pointed it out,
would not acknowledge your error as to what the author of the
book
Post by Dr. Who
actually
Post by Dr. Who
said. I did not make a big deal out of it at the time
thinking
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
that
Post by Dr. Who
you would
Post by Dr. Who
accept your error, but here you support your error.
Allowing for
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
only you to
Post by Dr. Who
be the correct on with false facts.
Which error? I apologize if I missed it and failed to
acknowledge.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Ted, you are not the first to state what you did in
devaluating
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
God
Post by Dr. Who
and His
Post by Dr. Who
word. You follow the longstanding arguments of many
atheists,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
all
Post by Dr. Who
of which
Post by Dr. Who
have been proven in error, both historically as well as by
archeology. You
Post by Dr. Who
just picked up the old standards to rehash as if you are better
at
Post by Dr. Who
it than
Post by Dr. Who
they. I knew of a man, that many years ago devoted his life to
proving the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible in error via archeology, and that the places
mentioned are
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
not to be
Post by Dr. Who
found where the Bible said they were, and all his
excavations
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
only
Post by Dr. Who
proved the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible to be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in
that
Post by Dr. Who
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of
him, and how
Post by Dr. Who
he died.
Post by Dr. Who
Many here have said things similar about
David, only to be proven wrong via the
current digs in Israel.
It's refreshing to encounter something on which we can agree. Yes,
David was real.
Post by Dr. Who
The man I spoke of died without
satisfaction his heart so hardened about
God always looking for that one proof that
the Bible was wrong. What a shame that
was.
"One" proof? There are dozens, at least.
He searched for many sites, discovered them all, and was honest
enough to
Post by Dr. Who
cite his discoveries. Yet he was hoping for provable failures all
along. Now
Post by Dr. Who
that he has passed, he has met his maker, and nows beyond any
shadow of doubt
Post by Dr. Who
the reality of God.
Post by Dr. Who
I would hope you do not waste your life as
he did.
Believing silly myths and ignoring truth can arguably be said to
be
Post by Dr. Who
"wasting your life". (Hint: that's you.) Seeking truth (me) can
also
Post by Dr. Who
arguably said to be wasting it, I'll admit. But hey, whatever
floats
Post by Dr. Who
your boat, dude. :-)
Sorry, but I know in whom I believe and have heard his voice and
received his
Post by Dr. Who
counseling and wisdom as needed. What is promised to the
Believer I
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
have
Post by Dr. Who
received and am growing in Him.
Yes there have been people in your shoes who have said I should see
a psych,
Post by Dr. Who
or to my face said I was nuts, but when a person as seen the real
thing it is
Post by Dr. Who
impossible to take it away from them, and that is the shoes I stand
in.
Post by Dr. Who
When you hit the wall and stand there alone, seek Him, not with
promises, not
Post by Dr. Who
with deals, but as Him for His reality in your life. Do not let
religion
Post by Dr. Who
confine you. If you come into that situation, speak to him and
study the
Post by Dr. Who
Bible, especially the NT, not disregarding the old. You will see
the truths
Post by Dr. Who
unfold to you right before your very eyes, and you will find it a
joy, not a
Post by Dr. Who
chore, to read his word, just for you.
I never thought you were crazy, Robert. On the contrary, you're
likely more rational than your accusers. And I appreciate your taking
the time to respond in such detail, thanks. What you've explained
above deserves serious consideration, so I'm pleased the weekend is
here and I'll have time to do so.
Thank you. Although many may set out to
prove you wrong, ;)
Ha. I wish. That's what I was griping about -- you seem to be the
only one who wants to.
Ted
2023-01-07 00:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land,
O Immanuel."


He's speaking to him.
Dr. Who
2023-01-07 03:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land,
O Immanuel."
He's speaking to him.
“The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,” (Isa 8:5, KJV)

He continued speaking here up to verse 8, V9 the Lord started another
prophecy.
Ted
2023-01-07 08:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land,
O Immanuel."
He's speaking to him.
“The LORD spake also unto me again,
saying,” (Isa 8:5, KJV)
Yes, he addressed Immanuel while speaking to Isaiah.
Post by Dr. Who
He continued speaking here up to verse 8,
V9 the Lord started another prophecy.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 05:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy
land,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
O Immanuel."
He's speaking to him.
“The LORD spake also unto me again,
saying,” (Isa 8:5, KJV)
Yes, he addressed Immanuel while speaking to Isaiah.
You might notice a comma before "O Immanuel"

He shall pass through Judah,.... O Immanuel.

It was all a part of the prophecy God gave to Isaiah that started in verse 5.

Then another started in V9

Isaiah was not speaking to Immanuel. Or did I misunderstand you?
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
He continued speaking here up to verse 8,
V9 the Lord started another prophecy.
Ted
2023-01-08 07:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy
land,
Post by Dr. Who
O Immanuel."
He's speaking to him.
“The LORD spake also unto me again,
saying,” (Isa 8:5, KJV)
Yes, he addressed Immanuel while speaking to Isaiah.
You might notice a comma before "O Immanuel"
He shall pass through Judah,.... O Immanuel.
It was all a part of the prophecy God gave to Isaiah that started in verse 5.
Then another started in V9
Isaiah was not speaking to Immanuel. Or
did I misunderstand you?
It was God speaking to Immanuel. The comma is irrelevant. The point
was that Immanuel must already have been born.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 23:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy
land,
Post by Dr. Who
O Immanuel."
He's speaking to him.
“The LORD spake also unto me again,
saying,” (Isa 8:5, KJV)
Yes, he addressed Immanuel while speaking to Isaiah.
You might notice a comma before "O Immanuel"
He shall pass through Judah,.... O Immanuel.
It was all a part of the prophecy God gave to Isaiah that started
in verse 5.
Post by Dr. Who
Then another started in V9
Isaiah was not speaking to Immanuel. Or
did I misunderstand you?
It was God speaking to Immanuel. The comma is irrelevant. The point
was that Immanuel must already have been born.
Ok, For some reason I thought you meant that Isaiah was talking to him.

Immanuel, of course did not exist in the personage of Jesus, at at that time,
but did figuratively By Prophecy and Faith.
Ted
2023-01-09 02:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 19:44:24 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Yes and yes. Jehovah speaks to
Immanuel in chapter 8
Then show where he does.
Why do I have to tell you it's in verse 8?
He speaks about him, bit difference.
Isaiah 8:8
"the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy
land,
Post by Dr. Who
O Immanuel."
He's speaking to him.
“The LORD spake also unto me again,
saying,” (Isa 8:5, KJV)
Yes, he addressed Immanuel while speaking to Isaiah.
You might notice a comma before "O Immanuel"
He shall pass through Judah,.... O Immanuel.
It was all a part of the prophecy God gave to Isaiah that
started
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
in verse 5.
Post by Dr. Who
Then another started in V9
Isaiah was not speaking to Immanuel. Or
did I misunderstand you?
It was God speaking to Immanuel. The comma is irrelevant. The point
was that Immanuel must already have been born.
Ok, For some reason I thought you meant that Isaiah was talking to him.
Immanuel, of course did not exist in the personage of Jesus, at at that time,
but did figuratively By Prophecy and Faith.
Okay.
Ted
2023-01-07 00:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.

Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Dr. Who
2023-01-07 05:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Post by Ted
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC

If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC

The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC meaning that his
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.

So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.

But at this point your "liar" appears to be a bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
Ted
2023-01-07 08:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Post by Ted
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the Shearjashub
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which means he was
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I pretty much
agree with the rest of your dates.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 06:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Post by Ted
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the Shearjashub
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which means he was
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I pretty much
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” (Isa 6:1,
KJV)

Then read about what happened, and when the Lord commissioned him starting at
verse 8.

Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his call to prophecy
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this occurred about
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that made him a prophet
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this account he
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine glory and
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a messenger to the
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy, he offered himself
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus commissioned to
give voice to the divine word."

Now, as to regards to his children, only two are listed in the Bible, as far
as I can tell. But on the web there are many false genealogies, some listing
as many as five children, the last on "Emmanuel" and two boys before
Shearjashub and one girl before him.
Ted
2023-01-08 07:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the Shearjashub
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which means he was
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I pretty much
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” (Isa 6:1,
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord commissioned him starting at
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his call to prophecy
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that made him a prophet
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this account he
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine glory and
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a messenger to the
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy, he
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus commissioned to
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But according to
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)

Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron. Isaiah was
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Post by Dr. Who
Now, as to regards to his children, only two are listed in the
Bible, as far
Post by Dr. Who
as I can tell. But on the web there are many false genealogies, some listing
as many as five children, the last on "Emmanuel" and two boys
before
Post by Dr. Who
Shearjashub and one girl before him.
No point taking bs seriously. If it isn't in the Bible then how the
heck else can they know.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 23:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the Shearjashub
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which means he
was
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I pretty much
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” (Isa
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord commissioned him
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his call to
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that made him
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this account
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine glory
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a messenger
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy, he
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus commissioned
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But according to
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron. Isaiah was
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,

“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.” (Isa
7:16, KJV)

And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar mitzpah (however
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully responsible for
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse specifies that before
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are aware of what is
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between 4-6
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Now, as to regards to his children, only two are listed in the
Bible, as far
Post by Dr. Who
as I can tell. But on the web there are many false genealogies,
some listing
Post by Dr. Who
as many as five children, the last on "Emmanuel" and two boys
before
Post by Dr. Who
Shearjashub and one girl before him.
No point taking bs seriously. If it isn't in the Bible then how the
heck else can they know.
There are a few writings that recorded similar things, but should be taken as
just history as written by men, not words of God.
Ted
2023-01-09 02:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the Shearjashub
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which
means he
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I pretty much
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” (Isa
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord commissioned him
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his call to
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that made him
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this account
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine glory
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a messenger
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy, he
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But according to
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron. Isaiah was
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“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.” (Isa
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar mitzpah (however
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse specifies that before
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are aware of what is
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between 4-6
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing Shearjashub
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't reasonable.


Isaiah: "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."

Ahaz: "Oh kewl! It'll be all okay before Immanuel knows to refuse the
evil and choose the good!"

Isaiah: "No, not Immanuel, I was talking about Shearjashub."

Ahaz: "Huh?? But you said Immanuel!!"

Isaiah: "Doesn't matter. You should have read Matthew Henry before
making such as ass of yourself."
Dr. Who
2023-01-09 03:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please share it.
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the Shearjashub
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which
means he
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I pretty
much
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting
upon
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.”
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord commissioned
him
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his
call to
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that made
him
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this
account
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine
glory
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a
messenger
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy, he
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But according to
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron. Isaiah
was
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
good,
Post by Dr. Who
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar mitzpah
(however
Post by Dr. Who
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse specifies that
before
Post by Dr. Who
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are aware of
what is
Post by Dr. Who
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between 4-6
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing Shearjashub
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't reasonable.
Isaiah: "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.
These two verses belong together. 14,15

***********************************
Post by Ted
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."
************************************
For the land that thou abhorrent will lose their kings, the land of Syria and
Israel, as mentioned in the next verse, 17 which was first spoken of in isa
7:2 "Ephraim is Israel"
Post by Ted
Ahaz: "Oh kewl! It'll be all okay before Immanuel knows to refuse the
evil and choose the good!"
Isaiah: "No, not Immanuel, I was talking about Shearjashub."
Ahaz: "Huh?? But you said Immanuel!!"
Isaiah: "Doesn't matter. You should have read Matthew Henry before
making such as ass of yourself."
Ted
2023-01-09 07:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 22:45:25 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in 730BC
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please
share it.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which
means he
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I
pretty
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
much
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting
upon
Post by Dr. Who
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.”
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
him
Post by Dr. Who
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his
call to
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that made
him
Post by Dr. Who
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this
account
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine
glory
Post by Dr. Who
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a
messenger
Post by Dr. Who
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy, he
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But according to
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron. Isaiah
was
Post by Dr. Who
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
good,
Post by Dr. Who
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.”
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar mitzpah
(however
Post by Dr. Who
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse specifies that
before
Post by Dr. Who
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are aware of
what is
Post by Dr. Who
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between 4-6
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing Shearjashub
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't reasonable.
Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
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.
These two verses belong together. 14,15
Yes. And 16 is next and belongs with 14 and 15. Or so assumes
everybody in the world except you and Matthew Henry.
Post by Dr. Who
***********************************
Post by Ted
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."
************************************
For the land that thou abhorrent will lose their kings, the land of Syria and
Israel, as mentioned in the next verse, 17 which was first spoken of in isa
7:2 "Ephraim is Israel"
Yes. The day that Ephraim departed from Judah was at the beginning of
Rehoboam's reign.
Dr. Who
2023-01-09 08:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 22:45:25 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in
730BC
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please
share it.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which
means he
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I
pretty
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
much
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
upon
Post by Dr. Who
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.”
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
him
Post by Dr. Who
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his
call to
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah;
this
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that
made
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
him
Post by Dr. Who
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this
account
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine
glory
Post by Dr. Who
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a
messenger
Post by Dr. Who
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of inadequacy,
he
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But according to
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron.
Isaiah
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
was
Post by Dr. Who
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose
the
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
good,
Post by Dr. Who
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.”
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar
mitzpah
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
(however
Post by Dr. Who
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse specifies
that
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
before
Post by Dr. Who
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are aware
of
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
what is
Post by Dr. Who
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between 4-6
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing Shearjashub
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't reasonable.
Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
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,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
and choose the good.
These two verses belong together. 14,15
Yes. And 16 is next and belongs with 14 and 15. Or so assumes
everybody in the world except you and Matthew Henry.
If you were to search around I'd bet that you would find most believers in
Christ would say the same thing. I am speaking of true believers.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
***********************************
Post by Ted
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."
************************************
For the land that thou abhorrent will lose their kings, the land of
Syria and
Post by Dr. Who
Israel, as mentioned in the next verse, 17 which was first spoken
of in isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:2 "Ephraim is Israel"
Yes. The day that Ephraim departed from Judah was at the beginning of
Rehoboam's reign.
Ted
2023-01-09 21:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:27:33 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 22:45:25 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died 715 BC
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given in
730BC
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please
share it.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE, which
means he
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I
pretty
Post by Dr. Who
much
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting
Post by Dr. Who
upon
Post by Dr. Who
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.”
Post by Dr. Who
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
him
Post by Dr. Who
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is his
call to
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah;
this
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple) that
made
Post by Dr. Who
him
Post by Dr. Who
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to this
account
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine
glory
Post by Dr. Who
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for a
messenger
Post by Dr. Who
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of
inadequacy,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But
according to
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron.
Isaiah
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose
the
Post by Dr. Who
good,
Post by Dr. Who
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.”
Post by Dr. Who
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar
mitzpah
Post by Dr. Who
(however
Post by Dr. Who
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse
specifies
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
that
Post by Dr. Who
before
Post by Dr. Who
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are aware
of
Post by Dr. Who
what is
Post by Dr. Who
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between 4-6
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't reasonable.
Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a
Post by Dr. Who
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,
Post by Dr. Who
and choose the good.
These two verses belong together. 14,15
Yes. And 16 is next and belongs with 14 and 15. Or so assumes
everybody in the world except you and Matthew Henry.
If you were to search around I'd bet that
you would find most believers in Christ
would say the same thing. I am speaking
of true believers.
It's a dishonest reading, ranking with the Protestant version of
Matthew 16:18 and the JW's of Luke 23:43. Christers have such little
respect for the Bible that they try to make it say what they want it
to say rather than just accepting what it clearly says.
Dr. Who
2023-01-09 22:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:27:33 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 22:45:25 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died
715 BC
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given
in
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
730BC
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please
share it.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE,
which
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
means he
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied. Otherwise, I
pretty
Post by Dr. Who
much
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting
Post by Dr. Who
upon
Post by Dr. Who
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.”
Post by Dr. Who
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
him
Post by Dr. Who
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is
his
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
call to
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah;
this
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem Temple)
that
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
made
Post by Dr. Who
him
Post by Dr. Who
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to
this
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
account
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the
divine
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
glory
Post by Dr. Who
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for
a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
messenger
Post by Dr. Who
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of
inadequacy,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But
according to
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron.
Isaiah
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and
choose
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
the
Post by Dr. Who
good,
Post by Dr. Who
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.”
Post by Dr. Who
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar
mitzpah
Post by Dr. Who
(however
Post by Dr. Who
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse
specifies
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
that
Post by Dr. Who
before
Post by Dr. Who
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are
aware
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
of
Post by Dr. Who
what is
Post by Dr. Who
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere between
4-6
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't reasonable.
Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a
Post by Dr. Who
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,
Post by Dr. Who
and choose the good.
These two verses belong together. 14,15
Yes. And 16 is next and belongs with 14 and 15. Or so assumes
everybody in the world except you and Matthew Henry.
If you were to search around I'd bet that
you would find most believers in Christ
would say the same thing. I am speaking
of true believers.
It's a dishonest reading, ranking with the Protestant version of
Matthew 16:18 and the JW's of Luke 23:43. Christers have such little
respect for the Bible that they try to make it say what they want it
to say rather than just accepting what it clearly says.
Well to a certain extent that is true, in light of the fact that many people
your are speaking of are not Born Again Believers. The rest who call
themselves Christian are in name only, but not in reality. They have a
pretense of Godliness but deny the power of it.

As to Matt 16:18 one needs to understand it in light of the language used as
when spoken by Jesus, as well as the total biblical context of the concepts.
Especially as only Jesus is the head of the ekklesia, or gathering of
believers. As to the RCC and their ilk, they totally misconstrued what that
scripture said as well, and their "Direct line of leadership" from Peter, has
huge gaps in it, on all three forms of their leadership genealogy.

Even Peter disavows their doctrine,...

“If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto
a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye
also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a
chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not
be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them
which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is
made the head of the corner,” (1Pe 2:3-7, KJV)

As to Luke 23:43 I have no clue what the JW says. And they always denied
until recent years that they are "Christians" as they claimed to follow
Jehovah, while not knowing who he is either.
Ted
2023-01-09 23:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 19:11:51 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:27:33 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 22:45:25 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:06:34 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
You make up the point. I googled it
just now and nobody knows why he
brought his oldest kid along.
Brought whose oldest kid along?
Why are you asking me this? You know
that Shearjashub is Isaiah's oldest kid.
Nothing there says he is his oldest kid,
Isaiah named his kids for his prophecies. His
first prophecy is in chapter 6, which
concludes with "a remnant will survive",
which is the meaning of the name
Shearjashub. And btw, this was around 15
years prior to the prophecy in the next
chapter.
Shear-jashub = “a remnant shall return”
Therefore ... Shearjashub is his oldest kid
AND he's around 15 when Isaiah brings him
along to see Ahaz. But one of the liars you
believe claims Isaiah is holding him in his
arms.
Isaiah became a prophet in 739 BC
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel was in 735 BC
Birth of Shearjashub date not established
Ahaz became King, around 739 BC Arguable, he died
715 BC
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
If he ruled for 16 years, then 715-16=731 BC
The prophecy after whom his kid was named was given
in
Post by Dr. Who
730BC
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
meaning that his
Post by Dr. Who
oldest kid was named after a prophecy not yet given.
So if you have a better timeline then this, please
share it.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
But at this point your "liar" appears to be a
bigger "liar" than mine. ;)
No, Isaiah became a prophet before 748 BCE and the
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy was almost twenty years prior to 730 BCE,
which
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
means he
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
around 15 when Immanuel was prophesied.
Otherwise, I
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
pretty
Post by Dr. Who
much
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
agree with the rest of your dates.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting
Post by Dr. Who
upon
Post by Dr. Who
a
Post by Dr. Who
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.”
Post by Dr. Who
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
6:1,
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Then read about what happened, and when the Lord
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
him
Post by Dr. Who
starting at
Post by Dr. Who
verse 8.
Britannica. "The earliest recorded event in his life is
his
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
call to
Post by Dr. Who
prophecy
Post by Dr. Who
as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah;
this
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
occurred about
Post by Dr. Who
742 bce. The vision (probably in theJerusalem
Temple)
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
that
Post by Dr. Who
made
Post by Dr. Who
him
Post by Dr. Who
a prophet
Post by Dr. Who
is described in a first-person narrative. According to
this
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
account
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
“saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the
divine
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
glory
Post by Dr. Who
and
Post by Dr. Who
holiness. He became agonizingly aware of God’s need for
a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
messenger
Post by Dr. Who
to the
Post by Dr. Who
people of Israel and, despite his own sense of
inadequacy,
Post by Dr. Who
he
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
offered himself
Post by Dr. Who
for God’s service: “Here am I! Send me.” He was thus
commissioned
Post by Dr. Who
to
Post by Dr. Who
give voice to the divine word."
Yes. I was using 748 as the year Uzziah died. But
according to
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Wikipedia, there's a range.
750 BC (Thiele) - 742 BC (Albright)
Either way, it proves your source Henry is a lying moron.
Isaiah
Post by Dr. Who
was
Post by Dr. Who
not holding Shearjashub in his arms.
Well look at it another way. The verse says,
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and
choose
Post by Dr. Who
the
Post by Dr. Who
good,
Post by Dr. Who
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.”
Post by Dr. Who
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:16, KJV)
And boys at age 13 or thereabouts are turned out at the bar
mitzpah
Post by Dr. Who
(however
Post by Dr. Who
it is spelled) and they are expected to know and be fully
responsible for
Post by Dr. Who
themselves as to right and wrong. However, the verse
specifies
Post by Dr. Who
that
Post by Dr. Who
before
Post by Dr. Who
the Child knows, etc. etc. and the age most children are
aware
Post by Dr. Who
of
Post by Dr. Who
what is
Post by Dr. Who
right or wrong begins much earlier, like anywhere
between
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
4-6
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Yes, that's all reasonable assuming he was referencing
Shearjashub
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
and not Immanuel. It's that assumption which isn't
reasonable.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a
Post by Dr. Who
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,
Post by Dr. Who
and choose the good.
These two verses belong together. 14,15
Yes. And 16 is next and belongs with 14 and 15. Or so assumes
everybody in the world except you and Matthew Henry.
If you were to search around I'd bet that
you would find most believers in Christ
would say the same thing. I am speaking
of true believers.
It's a dishonest reading, ranking with the Protestant version of
Matthew 16:18 and the JW's of Luke 23:43. Christers have such little
respect for the Bible that they try to make it say what they want it
to say rather than just accepting what it clearly says.
Well to a certain extent that is true, in light of the fact that many people
your are speaking of are not Born Again Believers. The rest who call
themselves Christian are in name only, but not in reality. They have a
pretense of Godliness but deny the power of it.
As to Matt 16:18 one needs to understand it in light of the
language used as
Post by Dr. Who
when spoken by Jesus, as well as the total biblical context of the concepts.
Especially as only Jesus is the head of the ekklesia, or gathering of
believers. As to the RCC and their ilk, they totally misconstrued what that
scripture said as well, and their "Direct line of leadership" from Peter, has
huge gaps in it, on all three forms of their leadership genealogy.
Even Peter disavows their doctrine,...
“If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto
a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye
also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ.
Post by Dr. Who
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a
chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not
be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them
which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is
made the head of the corner,” (1Pe 2:3-7, KJV)
As to Luke 23:43 I have no clue what the JW says. And they always denied
until recent years that they are "Christians" as they claimed to follow
Jehovah, while not knowing who he is
either.
Thanks for explaining, Robert.

Ted
2023-01-07 00:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or ever
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and for
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes with man for
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing timbrels
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have no sexual
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14; Mat
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could mean a
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of the plain
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect plan of
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if we
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:5-7; and
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen 24:16; Exo
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam 1:4, Lam
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo 8:13);
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11; Eze 9:6;
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa 148:12;
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe 1:8).
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in every
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7, Mat 25:11;
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the root word
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend that they
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only one who is
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture listed above
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.

But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
Dr. Who
2023-01-07 05:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14;
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11;
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7,
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.
But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
One thing that is needed to understand regarding the Jew. Unless they are
Born Again Christian, they are rabid Jesus haters. They have been this way
since soon after Jesus was resurrected, and so they have tried every trick in
the book to eliminate a virgin birth, times, dates, names, and word meanings.

Some Rabbi's over the centuries, non-christians have properly translated the
Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to to find truth, others have violently
opposed them. So it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and this goes
for so-called christian churches as well, I was listening to some debates the
last several days by Rabbi's and Jewish Believers, one was on the proper
translation of words in the book of the Psalms where they tried to establish
that it was the christians who changed the meanings of some words. Yet the
honest Rabbi's backed up the so-called translations of the word via its usage
in other books and scenarios, all of which proved the proper translation of
those words in Psalms was correct all along,

Suffice it to say, Buyer beware, Trust but verify and do not let and agenda
over-ride ones sensibilities.
Ted
2023-01-07 08:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14;
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the
flesh—if
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11;
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7,
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean only
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.
But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
One thing that is needed to understand regarding the Jew. Unless they are
Born Again Christian, they are rabid Jesus haters. They have been this way
since soon after Jesus was resurrected, and so they have tried
every trick in
Post by Dr. Who
the book to eliminate a virgin birth, times, dates, names, and word meanings.
Some Rabbi's over the centuries, non-christians have properly
translated the
Post by Dr. Who
Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to to find truth, others have
violently
Post by Dr. Who
opposed them. So it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and this goes
for so-called christian churches as well, I was listening to some debates the
last several days by Rabbi's and Jewish Believers, one was on the proper
translation of words in the book of the Psalms where they tried to establish
that it was the christians who changed the meanings of some words. Yet the
honest Rabbi's backed up the so-called translations of the word via its usage
in other books and scenarios, all of which proved the proper
translation of
Post by Dr. Who
those words in Psalms was correct all along,
Suffice it to say, Buyer beware, Trust but verify and do not let and agenda
over-ride ones sensibilities.
Note that none of the Jews ever claimed that Jesus never existed as a
real person. That myth was invented during the 18th century CE.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 06:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever
was, or
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies
playing
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would
have
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa
7:14;
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view
of
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the
flesh—if
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16;
Heb
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times
(Gen
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2;
Amo
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam
5:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63;
Psa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5;
Joe
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and,
in
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat
25:7,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is
the
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean
only
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the scripture
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.
But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
One thing that is needed to understand regarding the Jew. Unless
they are
Post by Dr. Who
Born Again Christian, they are rabid Jesus haters. They have been
this way
Post by Dr. Who
since soon after Jesus was resurrected, and so they have tried
every trick in
Post by Dr. Who
the book to eliminate a virgin birth, times, dates, names, and word
meanings.
Post by Dr. Who
Some Rabbi's over the centuries, non-christians have properly
translated the
Post by Dr. Who
Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to to find truth, others have
violently
Post by Dr. Who
opposed them. So it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and
this goes
Post by Dr. Who
for so-called christian churches as well, I was listening to some
debates the
Post by Dr. Who
last several days by Rabbi's and Jewish Believers, one was on the
proper
Post by Dr. Who
translation of words in the book of the Psalms where they tried to
establish
Post by Dr. Who
that it was the christians who changed the meanings of some words.
Yet the
Post by Dr. Who
honest Rabbi's backed up the so-called translations of the word via
its usage
Post by Dr. Who
in other books and scenarios, all of which proved the proper
translation of
Post by Dr. Who
those words in Psalms was correct all along,
Suffice it to say, Buyer beware, Trust but verify and do not let
and agenda
Post by Dr. Who
over-ride ones sensibilities.
Note that none of the Jews ever claimed that Jesus never existed as a
real person. That myth was invented during the 18th century CE.
All the Jews in the NT who believed in Jesus claim not only that he existed,
but many saw the Lord after he was resurrected. Josephus speaks of him, as
does some records of the Roman Government.

Very many testify to the fact that he existed, even the Rabbi's of that time
and following, they just deny that he was the Son of God.
Ted
2023-01-08 07:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever
was, or
Post by Dr. Who
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen
24:43), and
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies
playing
Post by Dr. Who
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would
have
Post by Dr. Who
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa
7:14;
Post by Dr. Who
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view
of
Post by Dr. Who
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the
flesh—if
Post by Dr. Who
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16;
Heb
Post by Dr. Who
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times
(Gen
Post by Dr. Who
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu
22:28; Deu
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer
46:11; Lam
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2;
Amo
Post by Dr. Who
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam
5:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63;
Psa
Post by Dr. Who
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5;
Joe
Post by Dr. Who
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27
means a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and,
in
Post by Dr. Who
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat
25:7,
Post by Dr. Who
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is
the
Post by Dr. Who
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None of
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some contend
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean
only
Post by Dr. Who
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a man.
Now how about you disproving this by following all the
scripture
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.
But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
One thing that is needed to understand regarding the Jew. Unless
they are
Post by Dr. Who
Born Again Christian, they are rabid Jesus haters. They have been
this way
Post by Dr. Who
since soon after Jesus was resurrected, and so they have tried
every trick in
Post by Dr. Who
the book to eliminate a virgin birth, times, dates, names, and word
meanings.
Post by Dr. Who
Some Rabbi's over the centuries, non-christians have properly
translated the
Post by Dr. Who
Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to to find truth, others have
violently
Post by Dr. Who
opposed them. So it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and
this goes
Post by Dr. Who
for so-called christian churches as well, I was listening to some
debates the
Post by Dr. Who
last several days by Rabbi's and Jewish Believers, one was on the
proper
Post by Dr. Who
translation of words in the book of the Psalms where they tried to
establish
Post by Dr. Who
that it was the christians who changed the meanings of some words.
Yet the
Post by Dr. Who
honest Rabbi's backed up the so-called translations of the word via
its usage
Post by Dr. Who
in other books and scenarios, all of which proved the proper
translation of
Post by Dr. Who
those words in Psalms was correct all along,
Suffice it to say, Buyer beware, Trust but verify and do not let
and agenda
Post by Dr. Who
over-ride ones sensibilities.
Note that none of the Jews ever claimed that Jesus never existed as a
real person. That myth was invented during the 18th century CE.
All the Jews in the NT who believed in Jesus claim not only that he existed,
but many saw the Lord after he was resurrected. Josephus speaks of him, as
does some records of the Roman Government.
Very many testify to the fact that he existed, even the Rabbi's of that time
and following, they just deny that he was
the Son of God.
Of course he existed. All scholars of antiquity agree. But there've
been some unscrupulous authors who've been convincing ignorant folks
that he never existed as a person. They rely on baseless evidence and
the fact that most people are unfamiliar with the gospels.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 23:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever
was, or
Post by Dr. Who
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen
24:43), and
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who
goes
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies
playing
Post by Dr. Who
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who
would
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
have
Post by Dr. Who
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
7:14;
Post by Dr. Who
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959)
could
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In
view
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
of
Post by Dr. Who
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the
perfect
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the
flesh—if
Post by Dr. Who
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14;
Isa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti
3:16;
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Heb
Post by Dr. Who
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times
(Gen
Post by Dr. Who
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu
22:28; Deu
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3,
Est
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1;
Isa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer
46:11; Lam
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo
5:2;
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Amo
Post by Dr. Who
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam
5:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa
78:63;
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Psa
Post by Dr. Who
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa
62:5;
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Joe
Post by Dr. Who
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27
means a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times
and,
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
in
Post by Dr. Who
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat
25:7,
Post by Dr. Who
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This
is
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
the
Post by Dr. Who
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None
of
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some
contend
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean
only
Post by Dr. Who
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a
man.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Now how about you disproving this by following all the
scripture
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.
But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
One thing that is needed to understand regarding the Jew. Unless
they are
Post by Dr. Who
Born Again Christian, they are rabid Jesus haters. They have
been
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
this way
Post by Dr. Who
since soon after Jesus was resurrected, and so they have tried
every trick in
Post by Dr. Who
the book to eliminate a virgin birth, times, dates, names, and
word
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
meanings.
Post by Dr. Who
Some Rabbi's over the centuries, non-christians have properly
translated the
Post by Dr. Who
Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to to find truth, others have
violently
Post by Dr. Who
opposed them. So it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt,
and
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
this goes
Post by Dr. Who
for so-called christian churches as well, I was listening to
some
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
debates the
Post by Dr. Who
last several days by Rabbi's and Jewish Believers, one was on
the
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
proper
Post by Dr. Who
translation of words in the book of the Psalms where they tried
to
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
establish
Post by Dr. Who
that it was the christians who changed the meanings of some
words.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Yet the
Post by Dr. Who
honest Rabbi's backed up the so-called translations of the word
via
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
its usage
Post by Dr. Who
in other books and scenarios, all of which proved the proper
translation of
Post by Dr. Who
those words in Psalms was correct all along,
Suffice it to say, Buyer beware, Trust but verify and do not let
and agenda
Post by Dr. Who
over-ride ones sensibilities.
Note that none of the Jews ever claimed that Jesus never existed
as a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
real person. That myth was invented during the 18th century CE.
All the Jews in the NT who believed in Jesus claim not only that he
existed,
Post by Dr. Who
but many saw the Lord after he was resurrected. Josephus speaks of
him, as
Post by Dr. Who
does some records of the Roman Government.
Very many testify to the fact that he existed, even the Rabbi's of
that time
Post by Dr. Who
and following, they just deny that he was
the Son of God.
Of course he existed. All scholars of antiquity agree. But there've
been some unscrupulous authors who've been convincing ignorant folks
that he never existed as a person. They rely on baseless evidence and
the fact that most people are unfamiliar with the gospels.
Then I must have misread your previous statement regarding none believe and a
myth of the 18th century,
Ted
2023-01-09 01:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:22:53 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
it's spot on. And irrefutable.
It has been totally refuted. Both in
scripture and by those who believe in
God.
How can it possibly be "refuted", Robert?
Almah means young woman. Betulah
means virgin. Almah is translated
everywhere as young woman except in
Isaiah chapter 7. Therefore the
translators were deliberately deceptive. If
Isaiah had intended to tell us she was a
virgin, he would have used betulah.
Please point out what part of that is
"refuted".
Incorrect.
Isaiah 7:14
a [a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever
was, or
Post by Dr. Who
ever
Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is
translated
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
"virgin" for
Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen
24:43), and
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
for
Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,
unmarried virgin
Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who
goes
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
with man for
Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies
playing
Post by Dr. Who
timbrels
Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who
would
Post by Dr. Who
have
Post by Dr. Who
no sexual
Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah
(Isa
Post by Dr. Who
7:14;
Post by Dr. Who
Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959)
could
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
mean a
Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In
view
Post by Dr. Who
of
Post by Dr. Who
the plain
Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy
Spirit, it only
Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the
perfect
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
plan of
Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the
flesh—if
Post by Dr. Who
we
Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14;
Isa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
9:6-7; Mat
Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti
3:16;
Post by Dr. Who
Heb
Post by Dr. Who
1:5-7; and
Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times
(Gen
Post by Dr. Who
24:16; Exo
Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu
22:28; Deu
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
32:25; Jdg
Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3,
Est
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
2:17, Est
Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1;
Isa
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
62:5; Jer
Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer
46:11; Lam
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
1:4, Lam
Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo
5:2;
Post by Dr. Who
Amo
Post by Dr. Who
8:13);
Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam
5:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 9:6;
Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa
78:63;
Post by Dr. Who
Psa
Post by Dr. Who
148:12;
Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of
marriageable age
Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an
unmarried girl
Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa
62:5;
Post by Dr. Who
Joe
Post by Dr. Who
1:8).
Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27
means a
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
maiden; an
Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times
and,
Post by Dr. Who
in
Post by Dr. Who
every
Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat
25:7,
Post by Dr. Who
Mat 25:11;
Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This
is
Post by Dr. Who
the
Post by Dr. Who
root word
Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36) . None
of
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
these original
Post by Dr. Who
words are used in connection with a married woman. Some
contend
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
that they
Post by Dr. Who
simply mean any young woman, but this is not true; they mean
only
Post by Dr. Who
one who is
Post by Dr. Who
a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has never known a
man.
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Now how about you disproving this by following all the
scripture
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
listed above
Post by Dr. Who
and then show us any and all errors.
I spent a few minutes yesterday looking this
up and found a couple of Jewish sites that
pointed out pretty much what I did above.
One new thing I learned was that almah in
verse 14 is given the definite article. So the
translators are again deliberately deceptive
in using "a" before virgin.
But I also read a couple of Christian sites
and they too present a good case, as you do
above. So basically, I'm not smart enough to
determine it one way or the other. To me,
both sides seem plausible.
One thing that is needed to understand regarding the Jew. Unless
they are
Post by Dr. Who
Born Again Christian, they are rabid Jesus haters. They have
been
Post by Dr. Who
this way
Post by Dr. Who
since soon after Jesus was resurrected, and so they have tried
every trick in
Post by Dr. Who
the book to eliminate a virgin birth, times, dates, names, and
word
Post by Dr. Who
meanings.
Post by Dr. Who
Some Rabbi's over the centuries, non-christians have
properly
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
translated the
Post by Dr. Who
Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to to find truth, others have
violently
Post by Dr. Who
opposed them. So it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt,
and
Post by Dr. Who
this goes
Post by Dr. Who
for so-called christian churches as well, I was listening to
some
Post by Dr. Who
debates the
Post by Dr. Who
last several days by Rabbi's and Jewish Believers, one was on
the
Post by Dr. Who
proper
Post by Dr. Who
translation of words in the book of the Psalms where they tried
to
Post by Dr. Who
establish
Post by Dr. Who
that it was the christians who changed the meanings of some
words.
Post by Dr. Who
Yet the
Post by Dr. Who
honest Rabbi's backed up the so-called translations of the word
via
Post by Dr. Who
its usage
Post by Dr. Who
in other books and scenarios, all of which proved the proper
translation of
Post by Dr. Who
those words in Psalms was correct all along,
Suffice it to say, Buyer beware, Trust but verify and do not let
and agenda
Post by Dr. Who
over-ride ones sensibilities.
Note that none of the Jews ever claimed that Jesus never
existed
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
as a
Post by Dr. Who
real person. That myth was invented during the 18th century CE.
All the Jews in the NT who believed in Jesus claim not only that he
existed,
Post by Dr. Who
but many saw the Lord after he was resurrected. Josephus speaks of
him, as
Post by Dr. Who
does some records of the Roman Government.
Very many testify to the fact that he existed, even the Rabbi's of
that time
Post by Dr. Who
and following, they just deny that he was
the Son of God.
Of course he existed. All scholars of antiquity agree. But
there've
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
been some unscrupulous authors who've been convincing ignorant folks
that he never existed as a person. They rely on baseless evidence and
the fact that most people are unfamiliar with the gospels.
Then I must have misread your previous statement regarding none believe and a
myth of the 18th century,
Yes, the myth that didn't appear anywhere until the 18th century is
the one that claims Jesus never existed as a real person. The ancient
apologists never had to argue with anybody about that, as every one
of their opponents at least knew he was a real person.
Ted
2023-01-07 01:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
Post by Dr. Who
I should you a book review from a
person who backed up what I reported
to you earlier about the percentage of
literacy. A percentage I gathered up
years ago from historical facts to
dispute another person in your crown.
You preferred hearsay and
misunderstandings.
"Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" by
Catherine Hezser is "hearsay and
misunderstandings"? LOL.
Yes, in regards to what you said about it. I
showed you the comments from someone
who read her book and addressed the very
issue you brought up, showing the world
that your understanding was incorrect,
Actually, you did. I was about to deny it but
looked it up instead and I see now what you
wrote. And the reviewer calls Hezser a
minimalist which, if true, greatly diminishes
my confidence in anything she says, as
minimalists lie just as much as do christers.
Ted
2023-01-07 01:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
I knew of a man, that many years ago
devoted his life to proving the Bible in
error via archeology, and that the
places mentioned are not to be found
where the Bible said they were, and all
his excavations only proved the Bible to
be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only
think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in that
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of him, and how
he died.
Who?
Dr. Who
2023-01-07 06:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
I knew of a man, that many years ago
devoted his life to proving the Bible in
error via archeology, and that the
places mentioned are not to be found
where the Bible said they were, and all
his excavations only proved the Bible to
be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only
think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in
that
Post by Dr. Who
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of
him, and how
Post by Dr. Who
he died.
Who?
My Mom died years ago at an early age, and now both my parents are gone, so I
only have memories and a library. I wish I had more to nail it down, but I do
not.
Ted
2023-01-07 08:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
I knew of a man, that many years ago
devoted his life to proving the Bible in
error via archeology, and that the
places mentioned are not to be found
where the Bible said they were, and all
his excavations only proved the Bible to
be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only
think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in
that
Post by Dr. Who
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of
him, and how
Post by Dr. Who
he died.
Who?
My Mom died years ago at an early age, and now both my parents are gone, so I
only have memories and a library. I wish I had more to nail it
down, but I do
Post by Dr. Who
not.
Sorry about your mom dying before her time. Your god sux.
Dr. Who
2023-01-08 07:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
I knew of a man, that many years ago
devoted his life to proving the Bible in
error via archeology, and that the
places mentioned are not to be found
where the Bible said they were, and all
his excavations only proved the Bible to
be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only
think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in
that
Post by Dr. Who
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of
him, and how
Post by Dr. Who
he died.
Who?
My Mom died years ago at an early age, and now both my parents are
gone, so I
Post by Dr. Who
only have memories and a library. I wish I had more to nail it
down, but I do
Post by Dr. Who
not.
Sorry about your mom dying before her time. Your god sux.
Naw, she went to heaven early and did not have to deal with the heartbreaks I
would have caused her. I asked God if she would know that I gave my life to
Him, years later, and I was later shown an answer in that the angels in
heaven shout out for everyone that is Born of God, and obviously she would
have heard my name mentioned. Scriptures point out that when we are forgiven
that God remembers our sins no more. So neither her or my Dad would know the
extent of my sins. I can thank Jesus for that. It would be nice if I could
forget them and undo any damage caused also, but I know for sure that once in
heaven I will have no memories of such things. As it is, I walk by faith
knowing that I have been forgiven and I am very grateful for that peace. Just
sharing my thoughts.
Ted
2023-01-08 07:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Dr. Who
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:45:31 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
(in
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:55:50 -0800, Dr.
Post by Dr. Who
I knew of a man, that many years ago
devoted his life to proving the Bible in
error via archeology, and that the
places mentioned are not to be found
where the Bible said they were, and all
his excavations only proved the Bible to
be true.
No. You know of no such man. You only
think you do.
Sorry, but my mom was involved deeply with what was going on in
that
Post by Dr. Who
particular science when it came to Biblical issues. She knew of
him, and how
Post by Dr. Who
he died.
Who?
My Mom died years ago at an early age, and now both my parents are
gone, so I
Post by Dr. Who
only have memories and a library. I wish I had more to nail it
down, but I do
Post by Dr. Who
not.
Sorry about your mom dying before her time. Your god sux.
Naw, she went to heaven early and did not have to deal with the heartbreaks I
would have caused her. I asked God if she would know that I gave my life to
Him, years later, and I was later shown an answer in that the
angels in
Post by Dr. Who
heaven shout out for everyone that is Born of God, and obviously she would
have heard my name mentioned. Scriptures point out that when we are forgiven
that God remembers our sins no more. So neither her or my Dad would know the
extent of my sins. I can thank Jesus for that. It would be nice if I could
forget them and undo any damage caused also, but I know for sure that once in
heaven I will have no memories of such things. As it is, I walk by faith
knowing that I have been forgiven and I am very grateful for that peace. Just
sharing my thoughts.
Thanks Robert.
Rod
2023-01-08 00:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa 8:3,
And in the Douay Rheims,

Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called
Emmanuel.
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Do you see any reference to Emmanuel there? And who "Went unto her"? And what
was she?
In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of Assyria
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be laid
waste by him, and the last greatly frightened. [Henry]
Dr. Who
2023-01-09 00:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa 8:3,
The above was speaking about the son of Isaiah, the second son.
Post by Rod
And in the Douay Rheims,
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called
Emmanuel.
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14,
KJV)
Post by Rod
Post by Dr. Who
KJV)
Do you see any reference to Emmanuel there? And who "Went unto her"? And what
was she?
In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of Assyria
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be laid
waste by him, and the last greatly frightened. [Henry]
Rod
2023-01-08 00:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa 8:3,
KJV)
Do you see any reference to Emmanuel there? And who "Went unto her"? And what
was she?
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called
Emmanuel.
Isa 7:15  He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the
evil, and to choose the good.


And in chapter 8;

Isa 8:3  And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived, and bore a
son. And the Lord said to me: Call his name, Hasten to take away the
spoils: Make hast to take away the prey.


Isa 8:8  And shall pass through Juda, overflowing, and going over shall
reach even to the neck. And the stretching out of his wings shall fill
the breadth of thy, land, O Emmanuel.
Post by Dr. Who
In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of Assyria
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be laid
waste by him, and the last greatly frightened. [Henry]
Dr. Who
2023-01-09 00:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by Dr. Who
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
FOTFWRL!
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.
Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.†(Isa 8:3,
KJV)
Do you see any reference to Emmanuel there? And who "Went unto her"? And what
was she?
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called
Emmanuel.
Isa 7:15 He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the
evil, and to choose the good.
And in chapter 8;
Isa 8:3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived, and bore a
son. And the Lord said to me: Call his name, Hasten to take away the
spoils: Make hast to take away the prey.
Isa 8:8 And shall pass through Juda, overflowing, and going over shall
reach even to the neck. And the stretching out of his wings shall fill
the breadth of thy, land, O Emmanuel.
The two verses are not related other than by being in the same chapter.

Here is what is related and where the subject changes.

Isa 8:4-5 (KJV)

4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother,
the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before
the king of Assyria.

5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,
Post by Rod
Post by Dr. Who
In these verses we have a prophecy of the successes of the king of Assyria
against Damascus, Samaria, and Judah, that the two former should be laid
waste by him, and the last greatly frightened. [Henry]
pyotr filipivich
2023-01-06 15:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
What a stupid question -- of course you haven't. You just took
Matthew's word for what it said.
If you do happen to read it, proceed to chapter 8 and learn who the
kid's father was.
Which version of Isaiah did you read.

OTOH, there is nothing quite as amusing as a Protestant who can
accept the literal meaning of a text, and then only their
interpretation of the literal meaning.
--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."
Loading...