Let's talk about Isaiah. I would be interested is seeing how this verse is translated in your bibles.

I will quote from the Stone Edition Tanakh Hebrew/English and I will also quote from the King James Bible.

Isaiah 7:14   A little background Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz so this conversation would take place between 3182-3198 BCE.

Ahaz has heard that Rezin, king of Aram and Pekakh son of Remaliah king of Israel are planning to invade Jerusalem of which Ahaz is king.

GOD said to Isaiah go out and meet Ahaz, you and your son at the end of the channel of the upper pool at the road of the launders field.

Basically, Isaiah says to Ahaz don't sweat anything cause it ain't gonna happen!

Isaiah7;1 Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son,and she will name him Immanuel. [15] he will eat cream and honey as soon as he knows how to abhor evil and choose good. [16]For BEFORE the child will know to abhor evil and choose good,the land of the two kings you fear will be abandoned.

The is Hezekiah, King Ahaz's coming son. Isaiah is telling him that BEFORE little Hezekiah knows right from wrong the two kings he fears, Rezin and Pekah, their land will be laid waste.

Now the King James version:

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 abhorest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Maiden or virgin,  this takes place almost 3200 years BEFORE Christ. The constant in both renderings is that the kings are gone before the child grows up.

What is in your book?

A famous text that actually depends on such a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew original is the proof text for the virgin birth of Jesus: “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.  Here, the Hebrew simply says a young woman, without any reference to a virgin, and the context makes it clear that the reference is to the prophet’s own time.

Source: Fisher, Eugene.  Faith without Prejudice.  1977

_________________________

Scholastic response?

Should have the Mithra apologists here to say you stole it from them soon. They are pretty good at starting threads dedicated to tearing down other peoples faiths. Dont ya just hate that?

Normally I dont respond to threads that are designed like this, but I will look over the info you posted.

Quoted: Should have the Mithra apologists here to say you stole it from them soon. They are pretty good at starting threads dedicated to tearing down other peoples faiths. Dont ya just hate that? Normally I dont respond to threads that are designed like this, but I will look over the info you posted.

____________

Mithra apologists?  Mithraism is what it is, and what it has become...who would need to appologize?

Quoted: Quoted: Should have the Mithra apologists here to say you stole it from them soon. They are pretty good at starting threads dedicated to tearing down other peoples faiths. Dont ya just hate that? Normally I dont respond to threads that are designed like this, but I will look over the info you posted. ____________ Mithra apologists?  Mithraism is what it is, and what it has become...who would need to appologize?

I am just saying that they may come by and say you stole all your references about virgin births and stuff like that  from them, like they say Christians stole it from them.

Just being pesty and shouldnt have, not usually my style. I guess after watching some Christians constantly push the "Jews are wrong and here is why" style and the JEws pushing the "Christians are wrong and here is why" style to be unedifying.

I am not saying folks shouldn’t ask questions or participate if they wish, I just don’t understand why folks always feel the need to correct others or point out things they shouldn’t believe in. I just don’t understand the motivation to do so.  To me this is like a Christian telling an Atheist why he is wrong, or an atheist telling a Christian why they are wrong. This type of thread is no different. There are a few people here who used to always post in the old GD threads and always participated in quite a manner that would be antichristian. I honestly thought the guy was an antichristian atheist. Turns out he is just an Antichristian Jew. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone on religious matters, but to always participate in a negative manner seems quite bigoted. Bigots are on all sides, I just don’t see why folks would consciously want to be one.

Besides the word Almah, never has nor does it mean Virgin, (As someone else has pointed out) It is even simpler to decide if this could in anyway be a prophecy about Jesus


Isaiah 7:14-16 – (14) Therefore the L-rd, of His own, shall give you a sign, “Behold the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanu’el.  (15) Cream and honey he [Immanu'el] shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; (16) for, when the lad [Immanu'el] does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

Every bit must be looked at as well.

At what age did baby Jesus mature?

What are the implications that Jesus sinned up to this age?

Which two kingdoms were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus?

How could the Kingdom of Israel be dreaded during the first century C.E( the time of the Jesus narative)., when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the eighth century B.C.E.?

Where is the account of Jesus eating cream and honey recorded?


if you actually study the history of Ahaz (the King Isaiah made the prophecy FOR), you'll learn that the two kings were Rezin and Pekah.

Israel had been invaded by Assyria. Ahaz was king of Judah, at this crisis refused to co-operate with the kings of Israel and Syria in opposition to the Assyrians. He was attacked and defeated by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Samaria (2 Kings 16:5; 2 Chr. 28:5, 6).

THIS is what Ahaz was worried about and THIS is what Isaiah's prophecy was about -- the two kings -- Rezin and Pekah.  Not virgin births.

Read of II Kings (16:9) and you'll see that Isaiah's prophecy in 7 is fulfilled:

“And seized it and exiled its inhabitants to Kir, and he slew Rezin,” and in that very year (ibid. 15: 30), “Hoshea the son of Elah revolted against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and he struck him and slew him… in the twentieth year of Jotham,”

Ahaz sided with Assyria, fighting with Tiglathpileser against Israel and Syria. Ahaz and the Assyrians won (as Isaiah 7 prophecied).

Rezin and Pekah were conquered and many of the people carried captive to Assyria (2 Kings 15:29; 16: 9; 1 Chr. 5:26). Soon after this Shalmaneser subdued the kingdom of Israel. Samaria was taken and destroyed (B.C. 722).

But, true to Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 7, throughout Ahaz reign, the kingdom of Judah was unmolested by the Assyrian power.

The prophecy had nothing to do with virgins having babies, and very little to do with the baby itself. We see that the prophesy is completely fulfilled in the text of the Hebrew Bible, not partialy in a work written hundreds of years after the close of the cannon of the Hebrew Bible.

Like I said in another thread, you can pull a verse or two out of the bible and twist it to mean just about anything that you want.  That's why we've got so many denominations and opinions on what the bible says and personally, I don't like any of em'.   Way too many things have been "interpeted" to mean one thing or another without real reguard for the original meaning.  

Quoted: Like I said in another thread, you can pull a verse or two out of the bible and twist it to mean just about anything that you want.  That's why we've got so many denominations and opinions on what the bible says and personally, I don't like any of em'.   Way too many things have been "interpeted" to mean one thing or another without real reguard for the original meaning.

What you say is only true to a point and doesnt tell the whole story about who is having problems with what the text says and means. The Hebrew Bible, is for the most part agreed upon by traditional Jews as to what it means. It is a Jewish work, about Jews written by Jews and in the Traditional Jewish language and except for some minor things here and there, we all are on the same page. That shouldnt be suprising and makes sense. Non Jews who wish to use these Jewish works for a part of their belief systems are the ones that are fractures into 1000's of camps. Again not suprising and it makes sense.

Quoted: A famous text that actually depends on such a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew original is the proof text for the virgin birth of Jesus: “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.  Here, the Hebrew simply says a young woman, without any reference to a virgin, and the context makes it clear that the reference is to the prophet’s own time.Source: Fisher, Eugene.  Faith without Prejudice.  1977 _________________________ Scholastic response?

Thank you for stating it, I fear I might have been unclear about that point in my post.

Quoted: Quoted: A famous text that actually depends on such a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew original is the proof text for the virgin birth of Jesus: “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.  Here, the Hebrew simply says a young woman, without any reference to a virgin, and the context makes it clear that the reference is to the prophet’s own time.Source: Fisher, Eugene.  Faith without Prejudice.  1977 _________________________ Scholastic response? Thank you for stating it, I fear I might have been unclear about that point in my post.

__________________

You did fine...the only fear to our collective Jewish viewpoints come from those whose who never had to study religion other than from rote.

B'Shalom,

Ed