Jump to content

Reading The Bible


Karhoof
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah. "God" took the opportunity to kill off 70,000 people that needed killing anyhow.

 

mwc

I probably thought this myelf at one time, but it eventually occurred to me that these 70,000 people never had the opportunity to change. No one offered them a second chance. Isn't redemption and forgiveness part of this religion?

 

This just sounds like Pat Robertson giving God credit (blame?) for some disease process. "Yeah, and don't do that agin (sic) or you'll get another disease."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Karhoof

    23

  • mwc

    11

  • Neon Genesis

    8

  • Citsonga

    8

I probably thought this myelf at one time, but it eventually occurred to me that these 70,000 people never had the opportunity to change. No one offered them a second chance. Isn't redemption and forgiveness part of this religion?

The glorious bible speaks of many, many chances these "types" had to change. Certainly "god" knew their hearts and knew, unlike you or I could ever know anything, but truly K*N*E*W that they'd never change.

 

These people were the worst of the worst. I'll explain how we know this. These people were the worst of the worst because GOD killed them in a righteous plague. You have to be pretty bad to have the actual, real, "GOD" of the entire universe send a plague to kill you off. Yet that's the case here.

 

If only these people who could never, ever, change would have changed...then they could have lived. Then their neighbor's would have gotten the plague instead. But since they got the plague they were "bad" people and had to die.

 

So it makes perfect sense...see? ;)

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So it makes perfect sense...see? ;)

 

mwc

I'm getting that queezy feeling again. Like my communion wafer is on its way back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is where it gets really rich:

 

As a punishment for this sin Jehovah (YHWH) brought three days of pestilence that killed 70,000 Israelites. (2 Sam. 24:12-16) Was that unjust? Were 70,000 innocent people dying for the king’s error? The Bible plainly shows that we all are sinners deserving of death; it is only by God’s undeserved kindness that we live. (Rom. 3:23; 6:23; Lam. 3:22, 23) So those who died had no special “right” to life. Additionally, can any human today say for sure that those 70,000 were not guilty of some serious sin not mentioned in the historical record?

 

So there is your apologist explanation.

 

And this is why I loathe apologists. Pull anything you want out of your ass and, as long as it supports scripture, you're doing gods work.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

 

These people were the worst of the worst. I'll explain how we know this. These people were the worst of the worst because GOD killed them in a righteous plague. You have to be pretty bad to have the actual, real, "GOD" of the entire universe send a plague to kill you off. Yet that's the case here.

mwc

 

Funny, this scenario shows me that there is no biblegod. His allknowingness, allpowerfulness would have made their heads explode, not simply killed them off in some random plague. ;)

Rational though tells me that Judah suffered a plague and after weeks of trying to figure out why, they ultimately blamed god/Satan for the actions of their King that magically caused them to die off like last weeks flies.

 

Is this the template for the christian practice of passing the buck?

 

 

I know exactly how you feel Shyone. My stomach has been doing a slow roll for weeks now and I haven't even started the New Testament!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational though tells me that Judah suffered a plague and after weeks of trying to figure out why, they ultimately blamed god/Satan for the actions of their King that magically caused them to die off like last weeks flies.

 

Lol, that's what it looks like to me. Just a bunch of superstition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational though tells me that Judah suffered a plague and after weeks of trying to figure out why, they ultimately blamed god/Satan for the actions of their King that magically caused them to die off like last weeks flies.

The funny thing about ancient stories is that there could have been a plague, or a war, or any number of things...or nothing. But the idea that there was an "angel" that was the one doing the destruction and it raised its sword against the city at one point tells me that there was a probably a war of some sort and they were getting their asses kicked.

 

All signs point to the census truly being one as a prelude for war. The general not supporting the king in this endeavor. Not wanting to be delivered to his "enemies" (where did that come from?). The death of everyone afterward. The angel with the sword (as I mentioned). And finally the fight ending sacrifice.

 

If I had to guess I'd say this had something to do with say Egypt or a similar power since only they could inflict such damage but there's no way to prove such a thing (to my knowledge). There's no way to really date these David stories very well. I think they're remnants of the Canaanite/Egyptian days but that may not be the case (or the case across the board) so call it a hunch at best.

 

I'm far more confident in the idea that the plague isn't a plague but more likely a battle.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts - I remember reading that 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings were essentially written down by the King's scribes as court records. 1 & 2 Chronicles were written by contemporary historians who were not part of the royal court, and thus not sucking up to the King. This supposedly accounts for the discrepancies.

 

Psalms - these songs were written by a number of different people over a long period of time. It was common practice for writers to attribute their writings to some great personage from the past, such as David or Solomon. Some of the "Psalms of David" and "Psalms of Solomon" may actually have been written by those kings, but most likely were not.

 

Proverbs - most of the Book of Proverbs is not considered to be written by Solomon. These snippets of "wisdom" were attributed to the "wisest man ever" in an attempt to lend weight to them.

 

Ecclesiastes - again, probably not written by Solomon. It seems to be an attempt to show that life without God is a pointless mess. Lamentations is even more fun.

 

The Song of Songs, also attributed to Solomon, is unlikely to be his writing. It's a great bit of erotic poetry, and what the hell it's doing in the Bible is anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How wise is someone who thinks that the solution to a fight over the identity of a baby is to split the baby in half?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts - I remember reading that 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings were essentially written down by the King's scribes as court records. 1 & 2 Chronicles were written by contemporary historians who were not part of the royal court, and thus not sucking up to the King. This supposedly accounts for the discrepancies.

 

I'm going to bring up something that no one seems to find important but that bugs me. I don't have my Bibles at hand right now, but in Kings and/or Chronicles there are frequent references to another set of documents that is no longer extant. I know all the scholars lament the "loss" of these documents, but I was stuck a different way.

 

My impression, wrong or right, is that the author(s) wrote the stories long after the events when there were no longer accurate records but rather memories and perhaps sketchy records (like the gospels). I saw the references to the court records as a cover up to explain why the didn't have more detail and as a fraudulent basis to claim more truth than they deserved.

 

IOW, I think that their references are fake. Perhaps vague memories of something that might have existed, but something no longer existent.

 

Imagine writing a history of America after Washington has been reduced to rubble and Americans are now locked in a fenced area of Wyoming. "The rest of the history is recorded in the Congressional Records." Except there are no Congressional records.

 

Well, just my imagination going wild I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All signs point to the census truly being one as a prelude for war. The general not supporting the king in this endeavor. Not wanting to be delivered to his "enemies" (where did that come from?). The death of everyone afterward. The angel with the sword (as I mentioned). And finally the fight ending sacrifice.

 

If I had to guess I'd say this had something to do with say Egypt or a similar power since only they could inflict such damage but there's no way to prove such a thing (to my knowledge). There's no way to really date these David stories very well. I think they're remnants of the Canaanite/Egyptian days but that may not be the case (or the case across the board) so call it a hunch at best.

 

I'm far more confident in the idea that the plague isn't a plague but more likely a battle.

 

mwc

 

These are very good points you raise! I'll definitely be looking deeper into these possibilities on the next reading.

 

 

A couple of thoughts - I remember reading that 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings were essentially written down by the King's scribes as court records. 1 & 2 Chronicles were written by contemporary historians who were not part of the royal court, and thus not sucking up to the King. This supposedly accounts for the discrepancies.

This isn't the first time I've heard that. I read my wife's copy of her college text Understanding the Old Testament. Bernhard W. Anderson is a good historian, but an incredible bore. I thought (breifly) about doing a book report on it, but didn't bother. He's about as dynamic as the Priestly Writer.

 

Ecclesiastes - again, probably not written by Solomon. It seems to be an attempt to show that life without God is a pointless mess. Lamentations is even more fun.

 

Ecclesiastes was definitely not written by Solomon. Solomon was an attention whore. You can't hold a Royal Court entertaining kings from other nations and not be one. The author of Ecclesiastes is too human. I maintain that he's far wiser, but he's no king.

Yeah, Lamentations was a hoot! LOL

(I'm into Ezekiel now)

 

 

I'm going to bring up something that no one seems to find important but that bugs me. I don't have my Bibles at hand right now, but in Kings and/or Chronicles there are frequent references to another set of documents that is no longer extant. I know all the scholars lament the "loss" of these documents, but I was stuck a different way.

 

My impression, wrong or right, is that the author(s) wrote the stories long after the events when there were no longer accurate records but rather memories and perhaps sketchy records (like the gospels). I saw the references to the court records as a cover up to explain why the didn't have more detail and as a fraudulent basis to claim more truth than they deserved.

 

IOW, I think that their references are fake. Perhaps vague memories of something that might have existed, but something no longer existent.

 

You may not be far off the mark. The scribes are mentioned often and they would have recorded (not everything, but) all the mundane things of the day. Thus the frequent refferences to "... these and all the other deeds of Saul, are they not recorded in the book of ...?"

Any of these record would have probably been carried off to Babylon. Rule #1 - know thy enemy. Over time, why would they have any reason to keep them? With Egypt right there producing paper like Hammermill, they wouldn't even need to recycle.

 

 

 

On a completely different note, I just scored big time at a book sale. I picked up an RSV study bible, a Catholic bible, a Book of Mormon and an older reference book on the bible (maps, timelines of all the major players, tons of info right down to biblical weights and measures) all for $10.00! Was hoping for an NASB, but oh well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ecclesiastes was definitely not written by Solomon. Solomon was an attention whore. You can't hold a Royal Court entertaining kings from other nations and not be one. The author of Ecclesiastes is too human. I maintain that he's far wiser, but he's no king.

Yeah, Lamentations was a hoot! LOL

(I'm into Ezekiel now)

 

 

 

And is it just me or does it seem like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs have different views on the government? Like Proverbs seems very anti-government and often rants about how evil it is whereas Ecclesiastes has a more favorable view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go...

 

Isaiah 7:14 - 16 reads,

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

15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16For 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.

 

This, these three verses, are the christian Holy Handgrenade.

Pull the pin on this and the whole thing blows up.

 

MWC, Davka or anyone else with a good understanding of Hebrew, give me a little help here.

What I've got so far is, Isaiah tells Ahaz that a child has already been concieved, or is about to be concieved. By the time this child reaches the age of accountabiblity, his (Ahaz) foes will have been overthrown.

(let's not even get into the fact that this child is never mentioned to any degree again. :Hmm: )

 

This takes place 100 YEARS BEFORE THE EXILE TO BABYLON! This kid is loooooooong dead by that time. Fully 680+ years before the supposed birth of Jesus... whose name was supposed to be Emmanuel!

 

 

 

Any christians reading this... even any christian guests, please log in and explain to me how god missed the mark by 700 years or so and is still "unerring".

 

mwc's link gives a decent look at translating Isaiah 7:14. Beyond that, I would like to point out the direct context.

 

You've quoted only verses 14-16, but if we back up and start again at the beginning of Isaiah 7 and read through the battle narrative, we then come to this:

 

Isaiah 7

[7] Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

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

[9] And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

 

So, we see right off the bat that there is a time limit to the prophecy of the enemy being broken, which is "three score and five years," or sixty-five years. Then we come to this:

 

[10]Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

[11] Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

 

So, Ahaz is supposed to ask for a "sign" regarding the prophecy about their delivery from their enemies, which of course is supposed to be fulfilled within the 65 years noted previously. And then we come to:

 

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

 

Christians claim that this "sign" is a prophecy about Jesus, but in context it is obviously referring to the sign mentioned in verse 11, which in turn is relating to the prophecy in verses 7-9 that is to be fulfilled within 65 years. So, clearly then, verse 14 can only be fulfilled by someone born in less than that 65 years, and therefore simply canNOT be about some Jesus coming hundreds of years later.

 

Now, looking closer at verses 14-16:

 

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

[15]Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

[16]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.

 

Now, what child is this about? Behold, ye needest look no further than the very next chapter:

 

Isaiah 8

[3]And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

[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.

So here we see that before this child grows up, the thwarting of the enemies listed in chapter 7 is to take place! Do you see the glaring parallel? This is apparently the child prophesied about in 7:14-16!

 

The child in 8:3-4 is born of a sexual union ("I went unto the prophetess"), so in reference to the debate about the word "virgin" in 7:14, either it doesn't mean "virgin" at all, or if it does imply "virgin" then it must have meant that she was a virgin at the time that the prophecy was given, not that she would have a virgin conception.

 

But wait, there's more:

 

[8]And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

 

Now, this should be a clincher. While the child may have technically been named Mahershalalhashbaz (I won't bother trying to pronounce that name!), here in part of an oracle after the birth of the child, the name "Immanuel" pops up, apparently in reference to the child. What reason for this reference would there be other than this child being the fulfillment of the prophecy in the previous chapter?

 

So, I think it's safe to assume that the book of Isaiah told of the fulfillment of the prophecy in chapter 7 with the child in chapter 8. It wasn't about Jesus, it was about Mahershalalhashbaz. It turns out to be pretty simple when simply looking at the context, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So here we see that before this child grows up, the thwarting of the enemies listed in chapter 7 is to take place! Do you see the glaring parallel? This is apparently the child prophesied about in 7:14-16!

 

 

One apologetic response I've heard from fundamentalists is that the Isaiah prophecy is a "double prophecy" that's referring both to the situation with Ahaz and to Jesus, but there's nothing in the text to suggest it's a "double prophecy" (whatever that means). Did the concept of "double prophecies" even exist in Judaism or is this a fundamentalist apologetic invention?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So here we see that before this child grows up, the thwarting of the enemies listed in chapter 7 is to take place! Do you see the glaring parallel? This is apparently the child prophesied about in 7:14-16!

 

 

One apologetic response I've heard from fundamentalists is that the Isaiah prophecy is a "double prophecy" that's referring both to the situation with Ahaz and to Jesus, but there's nothing in the text to suggest it's a "double prophecy" (whatever that means). Did the concept of "double prophecies" even exist in Judaism or is this a fundamentalist apologetic invention?

 

I am aware of that argument, but there's nothing in the text, nor in any OT prophetic text that I am aware of, that even remotely implies the "double prophecy" (also called "dual prophecy") argument. I strongly suspect that it is an apologetics invention that developed because of the need to deal with the fact that a lot of these OT texts, when taken in context, clearly do NOT mean what the NT authors claim that they mean. So, the apologists acknowledge the original contextual meaning, and then claim a secondary meaning, but those secondary meanings are NOT supported by the original texts.

 

One way to obliterate the "double prophecy" argument in this particular case is to note that Isaiah 7:14 wasn't talking about a virginal conception, as is obvious in the fulfillment in 8:3-4. In addition, if they really want to insist that it means virginal conception and that it had two fulfillments, then that would mean that there was ANOTHER virginal conception before Mary's.

 

So, not only is the "dual prophecy" concept bullshit, but it also opens a whole other can of worms for them to have to try to weasel their way out of. Why can't they just accept the fact that the NT authors FABRICATED the prophetic fulfillments by taking OT texts out of context?

 

Realizing this stuff is basically what sealed my disbelief when I was going through my deconversion, since these so-called amazing prophecies allegedly fulfilled with Jesus are nothing more than contrived crapola.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've quoted only verses 14-16, but if we back up and start again at the beginning of Isaiah 7 and read through the battle narrative, we then come to this:

 

Isaiah 7

[7] Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

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

[9] And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

 

So, we see right off the bat that there is a time limit to the prophecy of the enemy being broken, which is "three score and five years," or sixty-five years. Then we come to this:

 

[10]Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

[11] Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

 

So, Ahaz is supposed to ask for a "sign" regarding the prophecy about their delivery from their enemies, which of course is supposed to be fulfilled within the 65 years noted previously. And then we come to:

 

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

 

Christians claim that this "sign" is a prophecy about Jesus, but in context it is obviously referring to the sign mentioned in verse 11, which in turn is relating to the prophecy in verses 7-9 that is to be fulfilled within 65 years. So, clearly then, verse 14 can only be fulfilled by someone born in less than that 65 years, and therefore simply canNOT be about some Jesus coming hundreds of years later.

 

Now, looking closer at verses 14-16:

 

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

[15]Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

[16]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.

 

Now, what child is this about? Behold, ye needest look no further than the very next chapter:

 

Isaiah 8

[3]And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

[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.

So here we see that before this child grows up, the thwarting of the enemies listed in chapter 7 is to take place! Do you see the glaring parallel? This is apparently the child prophesied about in 7:14-16!

 

The child in 8:3-4 is born of a sexual union ("I went unto the prophetess"), so in reference to the debate about the word "virgin" in 7:14, either it doesn't mean "virgin" at all, or if it does imply "virgin" then it must have meant that she was a virgin at the time that the prophecy was given, not that she would have a virgin conception.

 

But wait, there's more:

 

[8]And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

 

Now, this should be a clincher. While the child may have technically been named Mahershalalhashbaz (I won't bother trying to pronounce that name!), here in part of an oracle after the birth of the child, the name "Immanuel" pops up, apparently in reference to the child. What reason for this reference would there be other than this child being the fulfillment of the prophecy in the previous chapter?

 

So, I think it's safe to assume that the book of Isaiah told of the fulfillment of the prophecy in chapter 7 with the child in chapter 8. It wasn't about Jesus, it was about Mahershalalhashbaz. It turns out to be pretty simple when simply looking at the context, doesn't it?

 

I know, that's a lot to quote, but I just wanted to run through a couple of things here.

I'm aware of the stated 65 years, but the Hebrew text (from a number of sites I've looked at) show that it reads as, this virgin/maiden is already pregnant or about to conceive.

The child in Isaiah 7 is to be born of a virgin/maiden. Isaiah's wife is clearly neither.

The child in Isaiah 8 is born to his wife.

 

The parallel is there, but the door is still wide open for these being two different children.

 

If we really want to get technical, we could say that 7:8 simply states that all of Ephraim will be thrown down within 65 years. 7:16 states that Ahaz' foes will be vanquished before this child can think for himself. ;)

All told, I think we're just seeing Isaiah's fundy view of the political situation of the day.

 

As I'm just finishing up with the prophets (mid Zechariah now), I've noticed that most of them seem to hold a recurring theme throughout their "ministry". I see Isaiah as just staying in character with the prophesies above.

 

@NG - I have to find that quote (though you may have already seen it), that basically says, "Apologists lie. They lie to cover their lies. They lie to cover the lies they told when they lied about lying... etc."

 

On yet another note: I am now very sure that the prophets were never meant to be read straight through. Seeing them all in a crowd like I have, it becomes quite clear that they were little more than the crazy street preachers, replete with signboards, shouting "Doom! DOOM! THE END IS NIGH!!" that we see in any major city today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, not only is the "dual prophecy" concept bullshit, but it also opens a whole other can of worms for them to have to try to weasel their way out of. Why can't they just accept the fact that the NT authors FABRICATED the prophetic fulfillments by taking OT texts out of context?

 

Realizing this stuff is basically what sealed my disbelief when I was going through my deconversion, since these so-called amazing prophecies allegedly fulfilled with Jesus are nothing more than contrived crapola.

Even if it was intended to be a dual prophecy, Jesus still didn't fullfill it because the prophecy said the Messiah would be named Immanuel but his parents named him Jesus. I don't get why Christians will read the verse that says to name him Immanuel but then immediately forget it says that one second after. It drives me nuts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go...

 

Isaiah 7:14 - 16 reads,

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

15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16For 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.

 

This, these three verses, are the christian Holy Handgrenade.

Pull the pin on this and the whole thing blows up.

 

MWC, Davka or anyone else with a good understanding of Hebrew, give me a little help here.

What I've got so far is, Isaiah tells Ahaz that a child has already been concieved, or is about to be concieved. By the time this child reaches the age of accountabiblity, his (Ahaz) foes will have been overthrown.

(let's not even get into the fact that this child is never mentioned to any degree again. :Hmm: )

 

This takes place 100 YEARS BEFORE THE EXILE TO BABYLON! This kid is loooooooong dead by that time. Fully 680+ years before the supposed birth of Jesus... whose name was supposed to be Emmanuel!

 

 

 

Any christians reading this... even any christian guests, please log in and explain to me how god missed the mark by 700 years or so and is still "unerring".

 

 

Immanu-'el in hebrew means god-admist-us

 

when young women in the bible got translated to greek young women became virgin , yet it is unlikely it was to meant a actual virgin birth (parthenogenesis) it most likely meant a virgin would get married,become pregnant in the usual way, then give birth like anyone else..

 

this verse was then referenced in the the gospel of Matthew 1:18-25 in connection with its account of the virgin birth of Jesus......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished the Old Testament the other day and have been thinking about a few things (Well, more than a few. I've got a couple of pages of notes to check on).

 

One thing that just hit me was, time and again, god admonishes the Israelites for following the heathen practice of sacrificing their own children. I could list a handful of passages where god warns them not to do it and dozens more where he says they will be punished for doing just that.

 

So what does he do with his own firstborn?

 

God is unchanging? Bullshit!

New god = new rules.

 

I gotta say, I gave myself a major facepalm for not seeing this before.

 

 

 

Even if it was intended to be a dual prophecy, Jesus still didn't fullfill it because the prophecy said the Messiah would be named Immanuel but his parents named him Jesus. I don't get why Christians will read the verse that says to name him Immanuel but then immediately forget it says that one second after. It drives me nuts.

They justify it by singing Hymns that call him Emmanuel.

"See? We do call him that!" LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest marabod
They justify it by singing Hymns that call him Emmanuel.

"See? We do call him that!" LOL

 

I think the names are irrelevant here. If even his parents confused their sons and called them in reversed order, so the older one would be Judas and the younger one Jesus, we would still have now Judas Christ and the hymns calling him Emmanuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, not only is the "dual prophecy" concept bullshit, but it also opens a whole other can of worms for them to have to try to weasel their way out of. Why can't they just accept the fact that the NT authors FABRICATED the prophetic fulfillments by taking OT texts out of context?

 

Realizing this stuff is basically what sealed my disbelief when I was going through my deconversion, since these so-called amazing prophecies allegedly fulfilled with Jesus are nothing more than contrived crapola.

Even if it was intended to be a dual prophecy, Jesus still didn't fullfill it because the prophecy said the Messiah would be named Immanuel but his parents named him Jesus. I don't get why Christians will read the verse that says to name him Immanuel but then immediately forget it says that one second after. It drives me nuts.

 

Well, to pick a nit here, it actually says that his name would be called immanuel.

 

Immanuel means "god (is) with us." Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus) means "he will save." But then the name Jesus came to be known as the name of God Incarnate, i.e. "god with us."

 

So the Christians have caused the name of Jesus to also mean "God with us."

 

Hey, I didn't study all that apologetic crap for nothin' ya know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the stated 65 years, but the Hebrew text (from a number of sites I've looked at) show that it reads as, this virgin/maiden is already pregnant or about to conceive.

The child in Isaiah 7 is to be born of a virgin/maiden. Isaiah's wife is clearly neither.

The child in Isaiah 8 is born to his wife.

 

Here is Strong's definition of the term for "virgin" here:

 

almah

 

1 ) virgin, young woman

 

a ) of marriageable age

 

b ) maid or newly married

 

We know that the "virgin" part is strongly contested as something imposed onto it by Christians, and as a Christian source Strong's has to include that. But, regardless of that, they also point out that it can also simply mean a "young woman" who is "newly married," in which case Isaiah's wife could easily fit the role. In addition to that, if she was "about to conceive" and then did in chapter 8, then it would seem all the more fitting to the situation, wouldn't it?

 

Due to the parallels between the prophecy in chapter 7 and the child mentioned in chapter 8, including the oracle of sorts in which the child in chapter 8 is referred to as "Immanuel," I think there is a fairly solid case that this child was intended as the fulfillment of the prophecy in question.

 

If not, oh well, we still know that Jesus can't be the fulfillment, due to the contextual issues already raised.

 

Enjoy the rest of your studies.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the "virgin" part is strongly contested as something imposed onto it by Christians, and as a Christian source Strong's has to include that. But, regardless of that, they also point out that it can also simply mean a "young woman" who is "newly married," in which case Isaiah's wife could easily fit the role. In addition to that, if she was "about to conceive" and then did in chapter 8, then it would seem all the more fitting to the situation, wouldn't it?

I'm familiar with the "almah" issue, but I see what you're saying now. Since I'm not ready to start the New Testament yet, I think I'll go back and re-read these two chapters.

 

 

Due to the parallels between the prophecy in chapter 7 and the child mentioned in chapter 8, including the oracle of sorts in which the child in chapter 8 is referred to as "Immanuel," I think there is a fairly solid case that this child was intended as the fulfillment of the prophecy in question.

One of the things I'll be looking for is whether or not this is his first child. I thought he already had at least one. That's why I made the comment that Isaiah's wife was neither a virgin or a maiden.

 

 

If not, oh well, we still know that Jesus can't be the fulfillment, due to the contextual issues already raised.

Agreed. We already see that (if this is the same child) that it couldn't possibly be a virgin birth, because Isaiah himself tells us that he "went unto the prophetess and she conceived".

Even an Apologist can't spin that! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, after reading chapters 7 & 8 again I can clearly see that Isaiah is NOT talking about the same child in both places.

All we have to do is back up to 7:3 to see it.

3Then 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;

I didn't think the child in ch. 8 was Isaiah's firstborn. ;) The prophetess, already having bore a child, can hardly be seen as a maiden much less a virgin.

 

I also went back and re-read something from the book I mentioned in post 36 of this thread (don't know why, but the link function won't work for me). I'm looking at about 5 pages of text from that book that I think you would find very interesting. The author goes into great detail on chapters 7 & 8. I can't find any online text version, but I could always scan them as a jpeg and e-mail them to you if you like.

He too sees these as two very different children and dissuades the entire notion of this being a prophesy of Jesus. The whole thing comes together in these 5 pages.

 

It makes a lot of sense to me, however, this is still just his view. I'd like to see some other takes on this before nailing this issue shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be a different/ new wife conceiving the second son. They did that back in the day. I haven't looked it up to see whether it ever mentions how many wives Isaiah has but that is a possible interpretation based on what you quoted. I have only read through all the prophets once many years ago and I don't remember much except that yeah they all seem a bit deranged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, after reading chapters 7 & 8 again I can clearly see that Isaiah is NOT talking about the same child in both places.

All we have to do is back up to 7:3 to see it.

3Then 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;

I didn't think the child in ch. 8 was Isaiah's firstborn. ;) The prophetess, already having bore a child, can hardly be seen as a maiden much less a virgin.

 

I also went back and re-read something from the book I mentioned in post 36 of this thread (don't know why, but the link function won't work for me). I'm looking at about 5 pages of text from that book that I think you would find very interesting. The author goes into great detail on chapters 7 & 8. I can't find any online text version, but I could always scan them as a jpeg and e-mail them to you if you like.

He too sees these as two very different children and dissuades the entire notion of this being a prophesy of Jesus. The whole thing comes together in these 5 pages.

 

It makes a lot of sense to me, however, this is still just his view. I'd like to see some other takes on this before nailing this issue shut.

But the term in question doesn't necessarily mean "virgin" or "maiden." As noted in Strong's definition in a previous post, it can refer to a "young woman" who was "newly married." There's no reason to insist that it's referring to a virgin or maiden, because the term has a broader definition.

 

Also, as Midnight-mindwanderings mentions, the child in 7:3 could be from another mother. I don't know, it's been quite a while since I've read through Isaiah, and I don't know if it even says. Maybe I should crack it open and take a look again.

 

I am also a little curious about the book you referred to.

 

At any rate, though I can't say that it's an iron-clad case that the child in chapter 8 is meant as the fulfillment of the prophecy in chapter 7, I do have to wonder about a couple things:

 

(1) Why was the child in chapter 8 presented in a fashion that parallels the prophecy in chapter 7 if the child was not meant as the fulfillment of the prophecy?

(2) Why was the name "Immanuel" used in the oracle following his birth if the child was not meant as the fulfillment of the prophecy?

 

Do you see why I can't help but acknowledge the glaring appearance of fulfillment here? Again, I can't say it's iron-clad, but I also can't see how this child could not be the intended fulfillment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.