PROPHECIES NOT FULFILLED (Part Two)

[oneGOD]

ISIAIH 7:"14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Heh, here is the correct translation:

ISIAIH 7:"14 Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the young woman is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel"

Thus, the woman--not a virgin --is already carrying the child whose birth is imminent; thus, the Isaiah verse cannot refer to a future conception. We see above that Isaiah was not speaking of a messiah which would appear eight hundred years later; he was referring to the present. The child he spoke of was already conceived; the child, which would soon be born, would be a sign--a good omen--to a king about to engage in battle.

The editors of the Royal Standard Version (RSV) and New English Translation (NET) of the Bible would undoubtedly have loved to uphold the traditional belief that Isaiah predicted that Jesus would be born of a virgin, but they evidently knew that was wrong: "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son.." (Isaiah 7:14) ... "Look, this young women is about to conceive and will give birth to a son." (Isaiah 7:14 NET), but they didn't do so because they evidently knew the proper translation is "young woman", not "virgin".

Additional evidence that the prophet in Isaiah referred to an event soon to be realized, and not an event in Bethlehem eight hundred years later, may be found in the very next chapter in Isaiah , where a child called "Immanuel" is born. As proof that the boys in these two Isaiah chapters are one and the same. Both chapters mention the conquest of the lands of two kings "before the boy" reaches a certain age; this key phrase links the two chapters to the same child, Immanuel. The unborn and born child in the two Isaiah chapters are further linked by the appearance of the name Immanuel in both places. Immanuel, which in Hebrew means "God is with us" is a name which one may be sure was carefully chosen by the prophet to reassure the king that God would be on his side. Thus, in the second chapter we see the exclamation, "O Immanuel", which is Isaiah's proud announcement that the child was born and represented a sign that "God is with us".

Before Birth of Immanuel

Isaiah 7:14-16 " The young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste"

After Birth of Immanuel

Isaiah 8:3-8 " And she conceived and gave birth to a son. Before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off ......O Immanuel"

Another reason for doubting that the child spoken of in Isaiah is the future Jesus Christ is that Isaiah notes that there will be a waiting period before the child will know the difference between right and wrong. This would not make sense if the child referred to by Isaiah were actually the future son of God: How could a God-entity not know the difference between right and wrong? Since the perfect son of a perfect God could not have been imperfect at birth, we have one more reason for believing that Isaiah was not prophesying the coming of the future messiah.

[Believer]

Peace,


5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the
government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called
Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; -Isaiah 9:5

That name is directly translated to:
Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.

truly this Son is Jesus Christ!
Jesus Christ is Wonderful in counsel, God the Mighty, the
Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.

[oneGOD]

Nice, ignore everything I wrote

[Believer]

Again, I don't know what your trying to prove.
Our two faiths recognize that Jesus was born of a Virgin who was also a young woman.

Try to disprove this solid prophecy for the Lord Jesus:
Jesus Christ is Wonderful in counsel, God the Mighty, the
Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.

[oneGOD]

I just proved to you that ISIAIH isn't about Jesus's birth man. I showed the proper translation

the young woman is conceiving

The woman is not a virgin and she is conceiving the baby NOW



ISIAIH said that 700 years before Jesus also. I also showed you that it is about this boy who will be a sign to AHAZ that he will not lose to the assyrians. Read my post again if you wish to see exactly how.

[Alpha]

It seems like you ignore my posts oneGOD. For I already responded to these kinds of speculations:http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=13415#13415

Unless you don't want to be banned again oneGOD, I suggest you stop opening a can of new worms when the can of old worms is not even finished.

[oneGOD]

It seems like you ignore my posts oneGOD. For I already responded to these kinds of speculations:http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=13415#13415

I know about this Alpha. However I missed something about the proper translation, so I made a new post to make my point clearer. If you read both posts you will see how they are different.

Unless you don't want to be banned again oneGOD, I suggest you stop opening a can of new worms when the can of old worms is not even finished

How about you send me a private message or you can AIM me at G0DLAKE and I'll show you that it was unfair to ban me in the first place.

I have talked to webmaster and it's all cool.
Laters

[Alpha]

Even when you use the "proper translation", it still brings up the same discussion with the other topic. We already cleared up the "virgin" and "young woman" thing. You are being repetative.

[webmaster]

The proper translation was done 2100 years ago by "The Essenes in Qumran "and couldn't have been tampered with! 200 years later Matthew also wrote in 1:23 the proper translation " 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Now people who don't believe in the virgin birth are now trying to do a proper translation to remove it.

Dead Sea Scrolls

29.[{Behold}] the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and he shall call his name Immanuel. (15) Butter [{and honey}]

Column VII Isaiah 7:15 to 8:8

1. (Continue 7:15) shall he eat so that he will know to refuse evil and choose good. (16) because {&be&}fore the youth shall know
2. to refuse the evil and to choose [&waw&} the good

The Essenes in Qumran who copied this scroll approximately 100 BCE are not to be considered the protectors of an accurate text identical with the Tanach which would have been revered by the Rabbis. They were actually far from the main stream and it is clear that the Q text of Isaiah is a "dialect" of Hebrew. It is not a translation, but is characterized by modifications in spelling and personal pronouns to match the then current Aramaic dialect that the Essenes would have spoken. It was much like changing "ye," "thee" and "thou" to "you" and "thine" to "yours" would be to us. Thus the preservation of an identical letter for letter received text was not at all a part of their motivation in their use of the scriptures. The Qumran texts that I have translated (1QaIsa) and (1QpHab) are dialects of Hebrew and not the Hebrew of the Tanach. Preservation of the original Hebrew letter for letter text was the role played by the Rabbis of the "main stream" in Jerusalem and Babylon (Sura, Nahardea and Pumbidita) and they had a special class, an office called Scribes, who carefully copied manuscripts then kept the new and destroyed the old. The Essenes were not and did not claim to be copyists of the same genre.

With this fact in mind, (that the Qumran scribes used their own discretion to alter the text to fit their own dialect), then the correspondence between the text of the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text of Isaiah is all the more remarkable.
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm

[oneGOD]

Peace

ISIAIH told Ahaz God will give him a sign to defeat the Assyrians and that Sign is that Jesus will come 700 years later, how is that make any sense man. Even if the translation was wrong, what is that sign that ISIAIH was talking about. Please, it's just so obvious the prophecy isn't about Jesus (peace be upon him) . Please, read it for yourself, think about it, it's just too obvious.

Salam.