# Let's make a deal!



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 8, 2006)

Ok, I'll tell ya what... I'll make a deal with you all.

Redwards, you say that I am 'gambling', but I don't see it that way.  

I had mentioned this somewhat a while back, but dropped it (and deleted the thread) because I felt that it hit a little too close to home with some folks, and as far as it being 'rebutted', well, let's just say the silence from the Christian community spoke volumes...

But perhaps it's time to lay it out there once and for all, and either 'put up or shut up', so to speak.

So before I make my offer of a deal, I think we should establish some common, fundamental ground.  If we don't agree on these basic ideas, then there is no point in discussing the 'deal' that follows.  Although I normally hate to 'assume' anything, I am assuming here that we are all in agreeance with these basic beliefs:

1. Isaiah 7:14 is the only place in the "Old Testament"  that the 'virgin birth' prophecy occurs. If there was no prophecy of a virgin birth, then no virgin birth occured, as there would be no plan for it by God and therefore just another pagan myth.

2. If there was no virgin birth, then Jesus was just another man like all other humans.

3. If Jesus was just another man, then he was not God in the flesh and his death did nothing for the human race, and cleansed no sins, thereby negating all teachings of Jesus in the NT.

4. The bible as it was originally written did not have chapters or verses numbered, those were added later by men for our convenience.

Now, if we can't agree on those four basic elements, then go ahead and stop reading now because it wouldn't matter anyway.  But if we do agree on those four elements, then  here is my proposition...

Isaiah 7:14 is the 'holy grail' of bible verses because it is the only one that mentions any prophecy of a 'virgin birth'.  In fact if you really break it all down, strip away all other doctrine and look at the backbone of Christianity, all Christianity hinges on this one verse.  If this verse is not true, then Christianity is nothing.

The verse states that a 'virgin' (young woman) will give birth to a child and name him Immanuel. It is believed that this refers to Jesus, because, as stated in the other thread,  a 'regular' conception/birth would not be a sign.  However, in the very next chapter, Isaiah himself says "Behold, *I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are signs *and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in Mt. Zion." (Isaiah 8:18).  

So apparently, Isaiah and God disagree with the thought that a 'normal' conception/birth would not be a sign.

So, we have a sign of a child being born in Isaiah 7:14.  Then in Isaiah 8:3, we have another prophecy of a child being (normally) conceived and born as a sign, this child being actually specified as Isaiah's son.  And just 15 verses later, Isaiah talks about the children (plural) that God has given him as signs to Israel.

Now, reading this _in context_ from chapter 7 all the way through chapter 10 (and let's remember again, God didn't put the chapter breaks there, man did.... so it should be read just like any other book or history book would be read), I have come to the conclusion that the child that was spoken of in Isaiah 7:14 and the child spoken of in Isaiah 8:3 are both children of Isaiah (based on Isaiah 8:18) and were both born during the lifetime of Isaiah AND King Ahaz, not hundreds of years later.  The prophecies that these children were signs for DID come true, as is documented in other books of the bible (the wars that occured and the two kings that were defeated by Israel).

So here is the 'deal' I will make with you all....  if you can give me a LOGICAL and CONTEXTUAL answer to the following question, I will admit that I could possibly be wrong about Jesus, and I will not say anything ever again derogatorily or contradictory about the NT or Jesus or Christianity in general.  BUT, your answer, of course, must be BIBLICAL.  I DO NOT CARE what Charles Spurgeon or Matthew Henry or any other commentary has to say on the subject, (I would take more authority from an 8th grade English teacher talking about reading comprehension) and if you post some cut and paste from one of their websites with some long explaination, I won't even bother to read it.  I am not saying that to be arrogant or hard-nosed, I'm saying it because historically, commentaries are nothing but circular reasoning and circular talking.  There is nothing circular about Isaiah chapters 7 - 10, it is very clear and concise. It's not a hard question, it doesn't take a difficult drawn-out loophole answer.  If the miraculous virgin birth is so clear in these verses, then the answer to this should be even easier.

The question is this... if Immanuel (7:14) and Mahershalalhashbaz (8:3) are not Isaiah's children that he speaks of in Isaiah 8:18, then who ARE Isaiah's children that he speaks of in 8:18 that were given to him and Israel as signs and wonders?

If Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz are not the children in 8:18, then please provide the names of the children AND the prophecies in which they were 'signs' for, since the names and prophecies of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz are very clearly spelled out for us.

This does not come from my notes, this does not come from a study book, this does not come from a Jewish web site or any other outside source.  This comes from reading the BIBLE, in context, as the historical document that it is.

I am very serious, and I WILL stick by my side of the bargain. If you can show me how (and who) I am wrong about this, I WILL NOT again 'dis' Christianity, even if it means I have to stay out of this part of the forum.

So come on! You want to shut me up once and for all? Make me put my foot in my mouth? Here's your chance to prove me wrong and put me in my place!


----------



## PWalls (Jul 8, 2006)

I am perfectly happy with my Christianity. As a matter of fact, I am satisfied and confident in it. I have no need to prove anything to you. I have FAITH in what I believe. That FAITH is sufficient.

Also, I doubt very seriously based on your past arguments that this particular thread would do anything for you. I have read too much negativity from you towards Christianity and those beliefs that anything short of a revelation by God Himself will do anything to change your mind. And, I do hope that this revelation will occur before it is too late for your sake.

I also like to remember a couple of verses out of the Old Testament in times like this. Proverb 26:4-5. It saves me some bad feelings and argumentative thoughts.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 8, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> This comes from reading the BIBLE, in context, as the historical document that it is.


 
This is the problem, you consider THE BIBLE as nothing more than a historical document. Until you realize, with God's intervention, that THE BIBLE is much more than just a "historical document" you will never understand THE TRUTHS in GOD's WORD.

IGNORE.

DB BB


----------



## redwards (Jul 9, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll tell ya what... I'll make a deal with you all.
> 
> Redwards, you say that I am 'gambling', but I don't see it that way.
> 
> ...


If you will go back and read your post you will find that you first stated you were betting, not I. I only acknowledged that you had made the statement.

And since Isaiah 7:14 is not the only verse of scripture in the 'Old Testament' where the virgin birth is foretold, I cannot participate any further, because, as you state "it wouldn't matter anyway".


----------



## SBG (Jul 9, 2006)

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 9, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> The question is this... if Immanuel (7:14) and Mahershalalhashbaz (8:3) are not Isaiah's children that he speaks of in Isaiah 8:18, then who ARE Isaiah's children that he speaks of in 8:18 that were given to him and Israel as signs and wonders?
> 
> If Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz are not the children in 8:18, then please provide the names of the children AND the prophecies in which they were 'signs' for, since the names and prophecies of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz are very clearly spelled out for us.



Dear Dixie Dawg

I shall in the spirit of justice take up your challenge. I must warn you that I am weak in bible study and weak yet in metal dexterity, as I am just up from two night shifts. However I digress. 

After a cursory reading of the texts you indicate and a little leafing trought concordences, I must indicate to you firstly that Isaiah's sons( said to have two) are Maher-shalal-hash-bax: "they hasten to the spoil: they speed to the pray" and Shear-jashub: "A remenant shall return." Their names are indeed the prophecies of Isaiah. By having these names they are indeed literal signs and wonders of their time! They speak of the two main themes favored by Isaiah, as is with biblical prophets: Judgement and Deliverance.

What will Isaiah do with these signs? He will do with them as with his disciples: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law and teaching among my disciples." In doing so Isaiah is creating the seed for the remament he talks about, who in turn will become the "virgin" again, as when God was with his people, as opposed to the *****s in Isaiah's day who are returned to idol worshipers. They know hate and its mire, more than love and its blessings and that is an understatement!

This is what Isaiah says about the jews of his day, 8-21" And they shall pass trough sorley distressed and hungry and when they are hungry, they will fret, and will curse by their king and their God; and whether they look upward or look to the earth they will behold only distress and darkeness, the gloom of anguish, and into thick darkness and widespread, obscure night they shall be driven away."

And then this Chaper 9: "But their will be no gloom for "her"  who was in anguish." I take this as meaning Isaiah's remanent, for Isaiah is indeed in anguish for the jews. The choice as to who to follow is plain to Isaiah.

Now the IMMANUEL that Isaiah talks about is to be born out of the virgin. Virgin? Yes virgin, but not only a physical virgin, or young human female of Isaiah's remanent, but also of the virgin people who have "no gloom for her", for they have cut themselves off of their countrymen's evil and tarry with God and his love (commandments). From this remanent a new "virgin" society will come up, because living in/with justice alone will see to it. It is easy to predict if you follow Isaiah's concepts of social justice, or a society based on people who do good and try to rid evil.

After all what I find most revealing in Isaiah is his critic of his society. He says it has gone astray. He explains in wonderful, precice detail what God's Judgement is for societies as his, and his groups ( deciples) presence within. Read chapter 8-21 up to chaper 9-2, " the people who walk in darness have seen a great light;.... I read the people, my deciples, who walk in this age of darkness have seen a great light.

This great light is Immanuel who was there all along and was waiting to be born of the flesh or in the jewish society...."God with us."

Isaiah is indeed a very complicated and wonderful prophet. He is complicated because he is an artist, a great poet, a super spiritual and he knows what "force" must be at hand in order that life be fruitful. JUSTICE a la Isaiah is, according to my humble spirit, the exquiste spirit of Isaiah. In his day he see little of it. Justice is the relationship to which Isaiah holds to even when it would be very easy to hate, loose patience, and just give up on all. It is his sound footing.

Isaiah is a very decieving read in my view. He is almost one who writes for those "who look and see". You cannot read him only as history or law. These are not enought to "see.". Reading Isaiah, and not "chosen', as those who hate or are poor in faith, do not see. His work is multi-leveled like good prophecy, and good poetry, or good visual art, but also he sentences are precices, cutting to the bare facts, and very logical and very beautiful. From a literary reading, his use of literary devices are exquisite. His understanding of the will of God, is akin to perhaps Saint Paul's understanding of Jesus Christ. Both make no error on who Immanuel was or would be. He would be of virgin birth on a social level and he would again be the source of "God with us" to the jews and eventually the gentiles.

Isaiah Chapter 9. "In the former time brought into contempt the land of Sebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time He will make it glorious, by the way of the Sea." I can only think of Saint Paul, arguing against curcumcision for the  new convert gentiles....

The way I see it, Immanuel is indeed "living" with us now...

I hope I have not wasted your time. It is all I can do now to try to earnestly reply to your query, which I have taken seriously and with real respect to you. I hope you will never stop asking questions, even if you bet you will stop doing so. LOL

Gordon


----------



## discounthunter (Jul 10, 2006)

i think you need to go to a religious only websight,instead of trying to find your answers on an outdoors sight.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 10, 2006)

Meaning??? My answer is for the birds?

Here is shorter version of my answer:

Jerimiah 31-21-22 Set up for youselves highway markers, make for yourselves guideposts; turn you thoughts and attention to the way  which you went into exile. Retrace your steps, O virgin Isreal, return to these your cities.

22 How long will you waver and hesitate, O you backsliding dautgher? For the lord has created a new thing in the land of Isreal: a female shall compass a man.


----------



## ramsey (Jul 10, 2006)

Dixie Dawg-- Good luck with your search for the truth. Just give me that --"ole time religion"-- it was good enough for my Daddy and Granddaddy which I both knew and respected for their full life with Jesus as their foundation. They were average men in most repects but their belief and deeds touched many.Did the Bible mean the same to each in every word and verse? No, I don't think so. I think each person finds the truth in their own way and time. God can and will touch you when you are willing to open your heart to him. Just be open and willing and your truth will come to you. One simple prayer can change your life. Good luck!


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Jul 11, 2006)

i just have a question and i will be the last one to even think about bashing anyone in your position so please dont think i am.  but why all of a sudden would you bring this up again.  nothing to my knowledge has been brought up recently so why unearth this now.  secondly i pray for you and your daughter.  I hope for what ever reason you got a bad taste in your mouth that you can forgive.  one last question when you reference the fact that man did all of the things to the bible that you refer to.  were you there when the bible was written.  do you not believe that men can be led by the lord God to do things.  how is it that you know these men were not guided by the Lord to do the things they did with the bible.  im not asking you to be a christian.  if your happy with your faith then thats fine.  if you can get it by God its alright by me.  i do ask that you not try to stir the pot anymore and yes by bringing up what i thought was a dead topic out of the blue for discussion again is stirring the pot.  if you have other intentions im sorry i misunderstood you but call a spade  a spade and this looks like a spade to me.


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 11, 2006)

My apologies to Gordon.  

A well thought out response, with not even an acknowledgement from the one asking the question.

Thank you for your time, Sir.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 11, 2006)

*...by My Spirit, says the Lord...*

I thought gordon 2's post was well done.  

I would guess the motivation for putting this answer out there has little to do with getting you, Kerri, to stop posting questions.  

Jeremiah 29:13
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

I am praying for you, Kerri. It's always the heart-search for the truth that will have answers from above.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 11, 2006)

Delton said:
			
		

> My apologies to Gordon.
> 
> A well thought out response, with not even an acknowledgement from the one asking the question.
> 
> Thank you for your time, Sir.



No apologie needed Delton. Sorry if my post made it seem to you. I detect you are frustrated with Mrs. Dixie Dawg?  

Here is something to divert our attention with, while the belle occupies the "powder room".


"Fiddle-dee-dee, War, War, War; this talk's spoiling all the fun..."

Who said this?
Who wrote this?
Where is it from?


----------



## PWalls (Jul 11, 2006)

gordon 2 said:
			
		

> No apologie needed Delton. Sorry if my post made it seem to you. I detect you are frustrated with Mrs. Dixie Dawg?
> 
> Here is something to divert our attention with, while the belle occupies the "powder room".
> 
> ...



Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind. First of the movie I believe when she was still protrayed as the little immature girl at the party.

Am I right?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 11, 2006)

Yep. Now who wrote it?


----------



## PWalls (Jul 11, 2006)

By the time I google it, someone will have responded for me I'm sure. I think it was a lady (Mary something), but I am probably wrong.

I remember the name of the plantation. TARA.

Does that make up for my lack of authorship memory?


----------



## PWalls (Jul 11, 2006)

HA. Googled it.

Margaret Mitchell.


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 11, 2006)

As many times the wife has tried to make me watch Gone with the Wind, I have not.

And will not... 

Just not my cup o' tea.   That, and it's too long of a movie!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 11, 2006)

"The man who writes about himself and his own time is the only man who writes about all people and all time."

"The liar's punishent is not in the least that he is not believed but that he cannot believe anyone else."

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism buy those who have not got it".

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapth the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonalble man."

"You see things; and you say,'why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?" "

George Bernard Shaw.

When justice is done, it brings joy ot the righteous but terror to evildoers.

Proverb 21-15


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 12, 2006)

Delton said:
			
		

> My apologies to Gordon.
> 
> A well thought out response, with not even an acknowledgement from the one asking the question.
> 
> Thank you for your time, Sir.




Hmmm... well, I don't know what all of the rest of you do, but I have a lot going on that doesn't allow me to log on to this board every day   

Gordon, I appreciate the response, it was obviously well thought out and took a lot of time and study for you to write!  I do have a response for you, but don't have the time to write it all out right now... I just checked in for a moment because I didn't want anyone to think I ran out on this... which obviously was thought anyway  

I will find time before the end of the week to sit and write you a response via PM.  Thank you again for your reply!

Kerri


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 12, 2006)

Kerri, can you respond by reply instead of PM. I'm just courious as to what your response is.

Thanks


----------



## Todd E (Jul 12, 2006)

If there were no responses to pot stirring thread starts...they would get the attention they deserve......none. IMO, nothing was going on here, so someone had to light something up. I can't see it and don't care to.

This message is hidden because Dixie Dawg is on your ignore list.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 12, 2006)

Todd E said:
			
		

> If there were no responses to pot stirring thread starts...they would get the attention they deserve......none. IMO, nothing was going on here, so someone had to light something up. I can't see it and don't care to.
> 
> This message is hidden because Dixie Dawg is on your ignore list.




Not surprising... actually quite typical... so much easier to bury the head in the sand and hope the difficult questions just 'go away'....    

I think it's just a little humorous that the threads in which y'all have no answers for are the ones called 'pot-stirring'   

If y'all had an answer, you would be giving it instead of complaining... the old saying seems to hold true... 'thou protesteth too much!!"   

Madsnooker if you would like to know my reply, I will PM it to you as well when I finish it.....


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 12, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> If y'all had an answer, you would be giving it instead of complaining... the old saying seems to hold true... 'thou protesteth too much!!"
> 
> Madsnooker if you would like to know my reply, I will PM it to you as well when I finish it.....



I think most people, myself included, are wondering why you'd ask a question publicly, and then give a private answer.


----------



## leroy (Jul 12, 2006)

Delton said:
			
		

> I think most people, myself included, are wondering why you'd ask a question publicly, and then give a private answer.




my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 13, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Not surprising... actually quite typical... so much easier to bury the head in the sand and hope the difficult questions just 'go away'....
> 
> I think it's just a little humorous that the threads in which y'all have no answers for are the ones called 'pot-stirring'
> 
> ...



Although you may have a ligitimate reason to reply to a question you posed by PM I would rather just see you answer by post. Not trying to be hard just not sure why you would make a bet and then when someone reply's you give your answer by PM.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jul 13, 2006)

When ever life gets you worried by all it's twists and turns, take comfort in the fact that some things are constant.  Or discomfort.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2006)

Dear Dixie Dawg,
The reply should be posted here, please. And, it took me perhaps 1.5 hrs to research and post the reply, not alot of thought went into it, mostly Isaiah and Jeremiah doing the gabing.  However, it took me 8 hours to get most of the spelling so I wouldn't have to stay after school.

So DixieDawg post here, for better or for worse.....


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## ramsey (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## leroy (Jul 14, 2006)




----------



## Handgunner (Jul 14, 2006)

Gents, we can look at this two different ways.

1.  Gordon stumped her, so she's doing research and such.... 

Or. 

2.  She's sticking up to her end of the deal...



> I am very serious, and I WILL stick by my side of the bargain. If you can show me how (and who) I am wrong about this, I WILL NOT again 'dis' Christianity, even if it means I have to stay out of this part of the forum.
> 
> So come on! You want to shut me up once and for all? Make me put my foot in my mouth? Here's your chance to prove me wrong and put me in my place!


----------



## Gator1679 (Jul 14, 2006)

Delton said:
			
		

> Gents, we can look at this two different ways.
> 
> 1.  Gordon stumped her, so she's doing research and such....
> 
> ...



Or.

3. She just hasnt had time to respond yet...

Dang fellows cut her some slack.


----------



## Keith48 (Jul 14, 2006)

Y'all can argue and debate all you want to. You are TOO LATE! I have experienced his grace and healing firsthand, and you can try to convince each other all you want, but I've got a made-up mind! TOO LATE!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 15, 2006)

The lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke  of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three dauthers. The first dauther he named Jemimah ( little dove), the second Keziah  (cassia, spice tree) and the third Keren-Happuch (horn of beauty). Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daugher's, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. Job 42:12-15


.......

You who dwell in the gardens with friends in attendance, let me hear your voice! Song of Songs 8:13


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 16, 2006)




----------



## leroy (Jul 16, 2006)

Its been what 4 days since we heard from DD, she must be real busy


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 17, 2006)

Has she posted anywhere else in the forum the last 4 or 5 days?


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 17, 2006)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> Has she posted anywhere else in the forum the last 4 or 5 days?


Her last post was on another thread about 2 minutes after her last post on this one.

Maybe she has been busy................


----------



## bustindeer (Jul 17, 2006)

op2: as howie would say " Deal or No Deal"


----------



## discounthunter (Jul 17, 2006)

maybe shes PMing with linwood?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 17, 2006)

I have had the good fortune to meet many  WW11veterans, as I work in a hospital and many vets  now find their way there. Usually with COPD.

However I usually find time to make these octogenarians know that their contributions in WW11 is not forgotten. I have met courriers, sappers, cavalry (tanks), tail gunners on bombers, and of course navy and infantry.

Last week I met again  with an infantry type, who I knew  he had been in the canadian army and that he had worn a US uniform!!! I said, "How could that be?" He said, "Well in Italy this american  soldier came over and said, we need tough, rugged soldiers for an USA/Canadian unit...and that the fighting was going to be tough." He said, "Well I don't know if I'm that tough, but I can hold my own, so I joined."

He had my attention! I said, to him, "You were in the Devil's Brigade weren't you? He said, "Yes...." We talked for a while about Italy and France and the relationship with american and canadian soldiers in the unit. He said, "At first it was not the best, but after a while  it settled down." And before I left him, I said "And the Movie, The Devil's Brigade was it true to life?"

He replied, "Yes, but that mountian we took, we took it at night! They filmed it during the day so the audience could see the action." LOL

The Devils Brigade which would be the origin of the US Delta force and Canada's special forces had an attrition rate of 600 percent. It was an american/canadian unit made up initially of lumberjacks, foresters, loggers and hunters. Brigade numbers were 1600...aprox 800 canadians and 800 americans. They opperated mostly at night.

Sometimes  legendary hero's are living in your town and you think how could that can't be?

......

Ecclesiastes12:1-7

Remember your Creator
in the days of you youth, 
before the days of trouble come
and the years approach when you will say,
"I find no pleasure in them"--
Before the sun and the light
and the moon and the stars grow dark,
and the clouds return after the rain:

when the keepers of the house tremble
and the strong men stoop,
when the grinders cease becaue they are few,
and those looking through the windows grow dim;

When the doors to the street are closed
and the sound of grinding fades;
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
but all their songs grow faint;

When men are afraid of heights
and of dangers in the streets;
When the almond tree blossoms
and the grasshoppers drags himself along
and desire no longer is stirred.

Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets.

Remember him--before the silver cord is severed, 
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well
and the dust returns to the ground it come from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jul 18, 2006)

Something I found:

Like many Old Testament prophecies, the sign of the virgin birth has both a typical and an antitypical—or a near and a later—fulfillment. Ahaz (c. 731-715 BC) was afraid that the recent alliance between Israel and Syria would tip the balance of power and spell Judah's doom. God, however, assures Ahaz through Isaiah that no such thing would happen—in fact, within 65 years, Israel itself would be completely gone from the land (Isaiah 7:8)! The virgin birth, thought by some to be by a maiden within Ahaz's house, was a sign from God that He would surely bring this to pass. Further, before the child could distinguish good from evil, both kings of Israel and Syria would be dead (verse 16; see II Kings 15:30; 16:9)!

Unfortunately, neither Isaiah nor the authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles document the fulfillment of this prophecy in Ahaz's time. We are left to assume that it indeed happened, or it would be a worthless sign to Ahaz. The virgin and her son Immanuel remain unknown in history.

The only other significant debate regarding this prophecy is the Hebrew word 'almâ, translated "virgin." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament comments:

Since betûlâ is used many times in the OT as a specific word for "virgin," it seems reasonable to consider that the feminine form of this word ['almâ] is not a technical word for a virgin but represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX translates it as parthenos in two of its seven occurrences, and that its use in Isa 7:14 was quoted to Joseph by the angel as a prediction of the virgin birth. . . . There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

The Greek term for "virgin," parthenos, which Matthew uses in Matthew 1:23, has exactly the same meaning and nuances. Spiros Zodhiates writes in The Complete Word Study New Testament, "Generally it refers to a maiden or damsel of marriageable age," yet "particularly in the sense of one who has not known a man." The plain sense of both usages is that a literal virgin is meant. Otherwise, the sign becomes "no big deal"—thousands of young women have sons every day! But how often does a virgin bear a son?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 18, 2006)

*Yes, that's a wrap here...*

Good read, David.  Thanks for posting.  I pray that truth hits the mark for many readers here.   

Let's remember that the fight for truth is won in heaven (and HAS been won by our Lord IN heaven, too).  With that in mind, pray for those who need eyes to see.  An 'intellectual debate' won is never the same as 'spiritual eyes' opened.


----------



## Hawkeye (Jul 18, 2006)

The only thing that I dissagree with in your original post is this;
The verse states that a 'virgin' (young woman) will give birth to a child and name him Immanuel. It is believed that this refers to Jesus, because, as stated in the other thread, a 'regular' conception/birth would not be a sign. However, in the very next chapter, Isaiah himself says "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in Mt. Zion." (Isaiah 8:18


The Hebrew original on this verse does not say he will be named emmanuel, it says he will be called emamnuel which means God with us.
The Messiah son of Mariame was not named Emmanuel but "Yehoushua" which means God's salvation, which is whom we in the west call Jesus.
I think this is very important info as many say well the bible says ,he shall be name emmanuel, Jesus is not emamnuel.

So we should seek better translations of teh english Bible, if your translations say he shall be name emmanuel, then it is a bad translation and may hold other errors.
Jesus in fact was called, LOrd, My God and he said if you have seen me ,you have seen the Father, so in fact while he was on earth he was (The) emmanuel ( God With Us). But He was called Yehoushua (Jesus)
Shalom


----------



## Michael Lee (Jul 19, 2006)

First I want to say thank you to you all that have put so much time and thought into a thread that was started as a "debate" and made it into an excellent source of biblical information that I personally am able to learn from.

Also,


			
				discounthunter said:
			
		

> i think you need to go to a religious only websight,instead of trying to find your answers on an outdoors sight.


 
or she could just go to chruch.

ML


----------



## leroy (Jul 21, 2006)

So has she threw in the towel or what, its been 9 days


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 22, 2006)

The jews in my neck of the woods are gone to Isreal on "vacation"! Maybe that's were D-Dawg is also.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 30, 2006)

Delton said:
			
		

> I think most people, myself included, are wondering why you'd ask a question publicly, and then give a private answer.




Here ya go!


			
				todd e said:
			
		

> If there were no responses to pot stirring thread starts...they would get the attention they deserve......none.



Far be it from me to be a pot-stirrer!!  

I have emailed a reply to the two who requested it 

Sorry for the delay.... I am completely covered up with work and getting Lacy ready for school and have not had time to even visit here... Bull was nice enough to email me and let me know there was a post asking where I was... I appreciate the concern!  Everything is fine, just OVERWHELMINGLY busy!  Had I known I would be this covered up, I would not have made a statement I couldn't reply to in a timely manner... I think you all know me well enough by now to know THAT'S THE TRUTH!!! 

I'll pop in when I can, not sure how things will be for the next few weeks... but until then I hope y'all keep the cobwebs off this part of the forum!   


Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 30, 2006)

And by the way... yes, please pray for Israel!  I wish we were more like them.... they have a few of their people killed by guerrilla forces and the very next day they are kickin' BUTT.... we have thousands of people killed on 9/11 and what do we do??? NOTHING!  It's actually embarrassing..... 

Anyway... please keep Israel in your prayers, as I know Jerusalem is holy to you as well!

Kerri


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 30, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Here ya go!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I, along with a few others requested that it be put in here as well.


Delton


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 30, 2006)

Delton said:
			
		

> I, along with a few others requested that it be put in here as well.
> 
> 
> Delton




I will happily PM it to you and anyone else who wants a copy of it!  
Although be warned... it's 4 PM's worth! LOL


----------



## Handgunner (Jul 30, 2006)

Got it, thanks.

Why do you refuse to post it in here?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 31, 2006)

David Mills said:
			
		

> Something I found:
> 
> Like many Old Testament prophecies, the sign of the virgin birth has both a typical and an antitypical—or a near and a later—fulfillment. Ahaz (c. 731-715 BC) was afraid that the recent alliance between Israel and Syria would tip the balance of power and spell Judah's doom. God, however, assures Ahaz through Isaiah that no such thing would happen—in fact, within 65 years, Israel itself would be completely gone from the land (Isaiah 7:8)! The virgin birth, thought by some to be by a maiden within Ahaz's house, was a sign from God that He would surely bring this to pass. Further, before the child could distinguish good from evil, both kings of Israel and Syria would be dead (verse 16; see II Kings 15:30; 16:9)!
> 
> Unfortunately, neither Isaiah nor the authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles document the fulfillment of this prophecy in Ahaz's time. We are left to assume that it indeed happened, or it would be a worthless sign to Ahaz. The virgin and her son Immanuel remain unknown in history.



Two Biblical passages, 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was contemporaneously fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated. 



> The only other significant debate regarding this prophecy is the Hebrew word 'almâ, translated "virgin." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament comments:
> 
> Since betûlâ is used many times in the OT as a specific word for "virgin," it seems reasonable to consider that the feminine form of this word ['almâ] is not a technical word for a virgin but represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX translates it as parthenos in two of its seven occurrences, and that its use in Isa 7:14 was quoted to Joseph by the angel as a prediction of the virgin birth. . . . There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin.



There are many instances where it cannot be proved that it designates a young woman who IS a virgin!   Exodus 2:8,  Psalms 68:26, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8




> The Greek term for "virgin," parthenos, which Matthew uses in Matthew 1:23, has exactly the same meaning and nuances. Spiros Zodhiates writes in The Complete Word Study New Testament, "Generally it refers to a maiden or damsel of marriageable age," yet "particularly in the sense of one who has not known a man." The plain sense of both usages is that a literal virgin is meant. Otherwise, the sign becomes "no big deal"—thousands of young women have sons every day! But how often does a virgin bear a son?



* But what about the rest of the prophecy??*

Regarding the LXX translations/renderings, here is information I have found:

The Jewish response is based on evidence available today, which has convinced scholars (of all religious persuasions) that the LXX is a Church-rendered Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.  It is not the original Septuagint, which was a 3rd century B.C.E translation into Greek of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), commissioned by King Ptolemy II of Egypt, and which was carried out by 72 of the most learned, bi-lingual Jewish scholars of the time.  The evidence includes: 

§         Historical accounts (the writings of Josephus and St. Jerome, the Letter of Aristeas)

§         Scriptural items (statements in the Talmud, errors of omission in the LXX)

§         Linguistic data (comparative linguistic analysis of the Greek in the LXX vis-à-vis the Greek spoken in the 3rd century B.C.E)

§         Inconsistencies in the way the Greek word parqenoz  (parthenos) is translated in the KJV (e.g., at Gen 24:43 it is rendered "the virgin", while at Gen 38:24 it is rendered "the maid", so that it does not exclusively mean "a virgin")

§         The Church-rendered LXX defeats the standard Christian argument as well.  The claim is that, in Isaiah 7:14,  (almah) is translated into Greek as parqenoz  (parthenos), which, it is claimed, means "a virgin".  Yet, the LXX is not consistent in its transation of this noun.  The LXX renditions of all seven instances of  (almah) in all seven instances in the Hebrew Bible are shown below:

Reference:  Genesis 24:43; Isaiah 7:14  parqenoz (parthenos)
Greek Translation in LXX(1)= parthenos
 ~~~~~~
Reference: Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:26 [67:26 in LXX]

Proverbs 30:19; Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8

Greek Translation in LXX:  neanis (neanis)

§         According to the Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the noun parqenoz (parthenos) may have any of the following meanings:  "a maid", "a maiden", "a virgin", "a girl".  The noun neanis (neanis) is shown in the same source to have any of the following meanings: "a young woman", "a girl", "a maiden".  The application in the Church-rendered LXX of two distinctly different terms to the Hebrew noun  (almah), rules out a definitive proof that this term exclusively means "a virgin".  [The LXX rendition of the masculine counter-part of  (almah), namely,  (elem), is neaniskoz (neaniskos), which, according to the Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, has the following meanings: "a youth", "a young man".  Clearly, there is no positive indication of virginity in any of these terms.

§         According to the LXX, Genesis 34:3 also defeats the claim that parqenoz (parthenos) is used exclusively for "a virgin".  Dinah, who was raped by Shechem, is referred to as a parqenoz (parthenos) after being raped, which is contrary to the claim on the exclusivity of parqenoz (parthenos) for idenfying "a virgin".

 Butputting aside the notes and studies and differences from all of the translations, the question still remains... * what about the rest of the prophecy??*
The verses Isaiah 7:15-16 state that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14) reaches the age of maturity (“… he knows to reject bad and choose good …”), the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact, they will be killed.

If this prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus, what two kings in Jesus' time was this referring to and what happened to them? Where are they mentioned in the NT?
It always comes back to this... reading in context will tell you the entire prophecy, not just picking and choosing the parts that are needed to fit! 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Count Down (Jul 31, 2006)

No offense, but you can peel and onion to the point where you have nothing left,  I think has just been done.  Maybe it's my limited understanding, maybe I'm to simple to hang with you all, but I'm trying.  
Dixie, you have my thoughts already.


----------



## Tn_Extreme (Jul 31, 2006)

Israel/Jews is paying for their failure to realize who Jesus was and their rejection of God's gift. They are so blinded and hearts so hardened that they cant see. I have been lucky ti see several jewish people saved. To see the look on their face when the Holy Spirit enters their heart and lets them see the truth behind what they have been taught to reject and run from is priceless.


----------



## discounthunter (Jul 31, 2006)

we have thousands of people killed on 9/11 and what do we do???nothing!its actually embarrassing....


dd are you purposely trying to start something or are you just ignorant?we have tens of thousands of troops overseas doing "something".i suggest you get your nose out of your ....bible and get back into the real world.


----------



## redwards (Aug 1, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> ......
> .........
> So here is the 'deal' I will make with you all.... if you can give me a LOGICAL and CONTEXTUAL answer to the following question, I will admit that I could possibly be wrong about Jesus, and I will not say anything ever again derogatorily or contradictory about the NT or Jesus or Christianity in general. BUT, your answer, of course, must be BIBLICAL. I DO NOT CARE what Charles Spurgeon or Matthew Henry or any other commentary has to say on the subject, (I would take more authority from an 8th grade English teacher talking about reading comprehension) and if you post some cut and paste from one of their websites with some long explaination, I won't even bother to read it. I am not saying that to be arrogant or hard-nosed, I'm saying it because historically, commentaries are nothing but circular reasoning and circular talking. There is nothing circular about Isaiah chapters 7 - 10, it is very clear and concise. It's not a hard question, it doesn't take a difficult drawn-out loophole answer. If the miraculous virgin birth is so clear in these verses, then the answer to this should be even easier.
> .......
> ........


Dixie Dawg,
I'm not trying to be controversial here, but just please explain one thing. First, you set out guidelines under which you ask people to respond. Then when you post responses; rebuttals; or whatever, you do the very thing that you ask others to not do.
Ref. 
Does any part of this response:
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=786844&postcount=54
remotely resemble any statements on this webpage:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714b.html
para. E.2
 

God is Love - 1 John 4:16
Jesus is the Light of the World - John 8:12
Holy Spirit blesses the soul - Eph 1:13


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Aug 1, 2006)

redwards said:
			
		

> Dixie Dawg,
> I'm not trying to be controversial here, but just please explain one thing. First, you set out guidelines under which you ask people to respond. Then when you post responses; rebuttals; or whatever, you do the very thing that you ask others to not do.



The part I posted was not a reply in response to my original question, and isn't under the 'guidelines'  

It was a separate and different question about translations of bibles, not about the virgin birth.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Aug 1, 2006)

discounthunter said:
			
		

> we have thousands of people killed on 9/11 and what do we do???nothing!its actually embarrassing....
> 
> 
> dd are you purposely trying to start something or are you just ignorant?we have tens of thousands of troops overseas doing "something".i suggest you get your nose out of your ....bible and get back into the real world.




DH,  
NOW we have troops over there... how long after 9/11 did it take us to get our *** in gear and do something about it??? THAT was my point. People know not to mess with Israel or there WILL be retaliation.  It takes a WHOLE LOT to get the US to respond to attacks. A LOT!!!!!!

And I have been in the real world for a very long time now, so not sure if you're the one trying to start something?


----------



## redwards (Aug 1, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> The part I posted was not a reply in response to my original question, and isn't under the 'guidelines'
> 
> It was a separate and different question about translations of bibles, not about the virgin birth.


OK, I'll take you at your word, I suppose somewhere under this topic: 



> Was She, or Was She not "A Virgin"?
> Her OB/GYN Would Have Known!
> 
> Part 2: The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14


the subject of translations of bibles is discussed, and you were using that quoted portion as an example to clarify the differences in translations. 
  
From my point of view, enough said on the subject.

God is Love - 1 John 4:16
Jesus is the Light of the World - John 8:12
Holy Spirit blesses the soul - Eph 1:13


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Aug 1, 2006)

redwards said:
			
		

> OK, I'll take you at your word, I suppose somewhere under this topic:
> 
> the subject of translations of bibles is discussed, and you were using that quoted portion as an example to clarify the differences in translations.
> 
> ...



Well, if you visited the site, you wouldn't have to take my word for it, you would have seen it 
It's on the bottom of the Part II page...

BUT... I had to go to the site to look for it.  I posted what I had from my notes.  The group that runs that site is made up of many of the Jewish scholars I studied with during my search a few years back, so much of the information in my notes is now posted on their site.  Which is good to know as it will save me a lot of time digging through notes!!   Just for clarification!


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 2, 2006)

I guess I don't understand the english language...Dixie Dawg. I don't know what your PM has to do with your initial post here. What about t;he virgin birth being important to this discussion? Did I post in vain? I'm not saying your my problem, but I have one with following the subject or subjects here with the PM your send me. I don't get it follows my or your post.??? The whole virgin birth thing was not the important part of your questioning here???? I miss-under-stood?

If I understand a little the Bible according to you is a historical document. Isaiah is a historian. The bible is like modern/abstract art; It is there as witness to society. God's relationship with Isreal is just another social story, like many others. Faith has noting to do with the Isaiah. He was not a man of faith. His deciples were not people of faith. The jews were not a people of faith, they are rather a people of history???

And from another post your say christianity is a cult.

I mean Goldy Locks meets the wolf with an Usi in her basket, tans his skin to her wall and plays with the cubs like a house cat!  But I don't think the story was first told like that, and so I don't get what your reply is with reference to your query. I just don't. But then again it might just be the english...mine. 

Thats it for me....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Aug 2, 2006)

gordon 2 said:
			
		

> I guess I don't understand the english language...Dixie Dawg. I don't know what your PM has to do with your initial post here. What about t;he virgin birth being important to this discussion? Did I post in vain? I'm not saying your my problem, but I have one with following the subject or subjects here with the PM your send me. I don't get it follows my or your post.??? The whole virgin birth thing was not the important part of your questioning here???? I miss-under-stood?



I think you must have.... my original post said that it is my belief that Immanuel was a child of Israel's... and if Immanuel could in no way be Israel's child then who were the children he referred to in chapter 8.   My PM was the evidence to support that belief.  Maybe go back and re-read my original post?  I'm sure it's a simple miscommunication... your original post seemed to be somewhat in the vicinity of what I was talking about?



> If I understand a little the Bible according to you is a historical document. Isaiah is a historian. The bible is like modern/abstract art; It is there as witness to society. God's relationship with Isreal is just another social story, like many others. Faith has noting to do with the Isaiah. He was not a man of faith. His deciples were not people of faith. The jews were not a people of faith, they are rather a people of history???



Well, both.  The Jews are a people of faith, AND history.  My point is that Christians seem to leave out the 'history' part and try to read into everything as 'prophecy'.  Yes, Isaiah was a man of faith. He also was an historian and documented HISTORICAL happenings.  Isaiah 7:14 is an HISTORICAL event that happened during Isaiah's lifetime, not 400+ years later.   Christians seem to forget that the bible was not written in modern times... it was written in a different time and a different 'world', and the people of that time understood what was being written. 



> And from another post your say christianity is a cult.



Well... let's see..... from Webster's dictionary:
cult: 1. a.  A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 

b.The followers of such a religion or sect. 

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 

3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 

4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 

5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. 

b. The object of such devotion.

I'd have to say yes, that pretty much sums up Christianity.... don't you think??



> I mean Goldy Locks meets the wolf with an Usi in her basket, tans his skin to her wall and plays with the cubs like a house cat!  But I don't think the story was first told like that, and so I don't get what your reply is with reference to your query. I just don't. But then again it might just be the english...mine.
> 
> Thats it for me....



I think we have a miscommunication as to the question in my original post... if you go back and re-read it and still think I gave you an off-the-wall answer, please PM me and let me know and I'll try to see if I can get you something more along the lines of what you were expecting?


----------



## PWalls (Aug 2, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> I'd have to say yes, that pretty much sums up Christianity.... don't you think??




Actually, that definition sums up all religions. Not just Christianity.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Aug 2, 2006)

PWalls said:
			
		

> Actually, that definition sums up all religions. Not just Christianity.




Touche!   
PWalls... don't fall out of your chair... but I must say, I agree with you!!!   

Now, don't go getting used to me saying that....


----------

