Does Isaiah 7:14 Prophesize the Virgi...

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4602 Jun 17, 2012
<QUOTE Allen Richards>Please observe what you did in response to the four 19th century grammars I quoted. You immediately tried to find some way to impose your assumptions/presuppositions, derived from modern grammars, onto the 19th century grammars!

Translators and students of Hebrew, in the 19th century, would have no reason to try to find some way to make the discussions of parentheses say, "parenthetical information is uneccessary and can be arbitrarily omitted."

They would have understood the discussions in the simplest, most logical way. They would not and did not try to impose your 20th century assumptions/presuppositions onto 19th century grammars!<end QUOTE>
gundee123 wrote:
Sir, if you would be so kind, please cite any 19th century source that says that information placed in parentheses are a necessary part of the main sentence (smile).
Supercilious (smile) notwithstanding you are still trying to impose your 20th century assumptions/presuppositions onto a 19th century text!

IRC the only thing necessary in a sentence is a subject, verb, and a direct object.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4603 Jun 17, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Argument from ingnorance/silence! You cannot argue that in 19th century writings since none of the grammars say that parenthetical information is necessary therefore it must be unnecessary and can be arbitrarily omitted.
Sir, here is what you 19th century source explicitly says:

“Parenthesis may also be indicated by (). They may enclose a whole independent sentence, and whatever it is, it is understood to be no more a part of the grammatical construction than a foot-note would be. If a closer grammatical relation is intended, neither dashes nor parenthesis, but only commas, should be used.”

By the way, sir, here is an grammar excerpt on the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses:

“Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Clauses

Restrictive Clauses Are Necessary

A restrictive clause is necessary to the meaning of a sentence. For example:

The bucket that has apples in it is the one I want.
If you removed the clause “that has apples in it,” the meaning of the sentence would be lost. The clause is necessary to the meaning of the sentence and is therefore a restrictive clause. Because it’s a restrictive clause, it should take the relative pronoun that.

Nonrestrictive Clauses are Unnecessary

A nonrestrictive clause is not necessary to the meaning of a sentence. In fact, it can be removed from a sentence without affecting its meaning. For example:

The bucket, which is blue, has apples in it.
There are apples in the bucket, which is blue.
If you removed the nonrestrictive clause “which is blue,” from either of the sentences above, the meaning of the sentences would not be lost. We’d still know that the bucket has apples in it. Note that in the second example, the nonrestrictive clause adds information about something that has already been identified. Because the clause is unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence, we know it’s a nonrestrictive clause, and therefore should take the relative pronoun which.

Use that before a restrictive clause.
Use which before a nonrestrictive clause”(smile).

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4604 Jun 17, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<QUOTE Allen Richards>Please observe what you did in response to the four 19th century grammars I quoted. You immediately tried to find some way to impose your assumptions/presuppositions, derived from modern grammars, onto the 19th century grammars!
Translators and students of Hebrew, in the 19th century, would have no reason to try to find some way to make the discussions of parentheses say, "parenthetical information is uneccessary and can be arbitrarily omitted."
They would have understood the discussions in the simplest, most logical way. They would not and did not try to impose your 20th century assumptions/presuppositions onto 19th century grammars!<end QUOTE>
<quoted text>
Supercilious (smile) notwithstanding you are still trying to impose your 20th century assumptions/presuppositions onto a 19th century text!
IRC the only thing necessary in a sentence is a subject, verb, and a direct object.
Sir, S + V + DO are only one of several times of sentence patterns. However, sir, parentheses are never essential to any sentence patterns, right (smile)?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4605 Jun 17, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<QUOTE Allen Richards>Please observe what you did in response to the four 19th century grammars I quoted. You immediately tried to find some way to impose your assumptions/presuppositions, derived from modern grammars, onto the 19th century grammars!
Translators and students of Hebrew, in the 19th century, would have no reason to try to find some way to make the discussions of parentheses say, "parenthetical information is uneccessary and can be arbitrarily omitted."
They would have understood the discussions in the simplest, most logical way. They would not and did not try to impose your 20th century assumptions/presuppositions onto 19th century grammars!<end QUOTE>
<quoted text>
Supercilious (smile) notwithstanding you are still trying to impose your 20th century assumptions/presuppositions onto a 19th century text!
IRC the only thing necessary in a sentence is a subject, verb, and a direct object.
Sir, S + V + DO are only one of several types of sentence patterns. However, sir, parentheses are never essential to any sentence patterns, regardless if it is the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, right (smile)?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#4607 Jun 18, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
...
You are even further wrong because the instant diasagreement is about a deliberate, willful mistranslation of one sentence in English trying to make it say the opposite of what it does say. I don't need instruction, from rank amateurs, in Hebrew or Greek, and I certainly don't need instruction in English.
If that were true, this debate would have ended long ago...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#4608 Jun 18, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't watch biased Islamic videos. If you have something to say, say it in your own words, don't link to a video. As I said there is absolutley nothing in the the Hebrew or Greek scriptures which foretells Muhammad. The disciples received the comforter during their lifetimes. It is recorded in the NT. Yeshua, NOT, Issa, was not talking about some bedoin in Saudi 400-500 years later!
You ought to read some of the nonsense about the "Bible Code"...

By carefully selecting the "right" starting point and skipping the "proper" number of letters, one can go through the Torah and find the "hidden message" that Morhammud is the Messiah.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#4609 Jun 18, 2012
Adam wrote:
@Allen Richards
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh WA Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
Translation:"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Mohammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
You ignored that part.
May peace and blessings be on all the Messengers of God. Prophet Muhammad is a direct descendant of Isma'il, the first son of Prophet Ibrahim(Abraham). Prophet Muhammad was born in Makkah as a fullfilment of the prayer of Abraham. With respect to the lineage of Prophet Muhammad [pbuh], there are three versions: The first was authenticated by biographers and genealogists and states that Muhammad’s genealogy has been traced to ‘Adnan. The second is subject to controversies and doubt, and traces his lineage beyond ‘Adnan back to Abraham. The third version, with some parts definitely incorrect, traces his lineage beyond Abraham back to Adam.
After the jews broke and transgressed against God's laws the prophecy went over to the Arabs.
Muslims have a SEVERE problem with logic...

If, as they claim, Moses and Jesus were both also prophets of the same God, but the people somehow perverted the message, WHY would anyone in their right mind think that there could EVER be a "final" prophet?

If the children of Israel changed the message given to them through Moses so badly that the God of the Bible had to send Jesus down to correct them, and then a mere 6-1/2 centuries later had to send yet another "prophet" to correct them yet AGAIN, then it should be obvious to anyone that n the 14 centuries since Mohammud there has been MORE than enough time for the message to have been grossly perverted.

And in fact, that is exactly what we see when we look at the actual performance of Islam in the world today...
Shill Killer

Yukon, OK

#4610 Jun 18, 2012
their was never a j in the hebrew language at this time his name is not jesus the word jesus comes from the god of zus his name is Yahshua His fathers name is Yahweh And you will cause them to forget my name And the world has Here Is Proof

In the back of most king james pervertions it reads see god see Yahweh

The words lord god baal elohim were added to his name because the devine reverance of his name was believed to be to holy to be spoken so man changed his name and and made him a god the very thing he warns you not to worship A god and or gods....this is A fact the dead sea scrolls do not read god it reads in hebrew YHWH In short Yahweh

http://www.google.com/search ...

Only a few are called and chosein to even understand his name......Yahweh is not A god.

A fact is A fact All the above are fact but yet you look over it why ??????because you love your sin to much to change.

but it is not all your falut it has to do with satan rev.12/9

All I see on here post after post are his words his words His words are his laws 613 of them the one you nailed to the cross. these are laws of peace and love and by nailing them to a cross the world is in a sinful mess. with the laws their would be peace and love in the world.....this is a hoax played by the roman catholic church to decieve you into being a sinner.

Do you people not know the power satan has....And she has decieved you into god worship the very thing Yahweh warns you not to worship....

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4611 Jun 18, 2012
Adam wrote:
@Allen Richards
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh WA Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
Translation:"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Mohammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
You ignored that part....
I suggest you learn Hebrew because whereever you are getting your information doesn't know Hebrew any better than you do! The word that is being translated "Muhammad" is Machmad. It is written mem, cheth, mem, daleth. For it to spell Muhammad it would have to be written mem, waw, cheth, ayin, mem, mem, daleth!

And the suffix "im" is not an honorific it is the plural. Check any Hebrew grammar!
After the jews broke and transgressed against God's laws the prophecy went over to the Arabs.
Auf deutsch es heisst scheisse! YHWH often punished the Israelits in the OT for their transgressions but there is no record of YHWH ever transferring anything to the Arabs. If YHWh was going to do that it would have been done he would not have waited 500-600 years and he would not have chosen a murdering pedophile!

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4612 Jun 18, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, S + V + DO are only one of several types of sentence patterns. However, sir, parentheses are never essential to any sentence patterns, regardless if it is the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, right (smile)?
That is your unsupported opinion! There is nothing in any 19th century gramamr which states or suggests that. In fact 2 of the grammars I cited say exactly the opposite. You keep trying to impose your preconceptions/presuppositions onto Gesenius!

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4613 Jun 18, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, here is what you 19th century source explicitly says:
“Parenthesis may also be indicated by (). They may enclose a whole independent sentence, and whatever it is, it is understood to be no more a part of the grammatical construction than a foot-note would be. If a closer grammatical relation is intended, neither dashes nor parenthesis, but only commas, should be used.”
What is your point? A clause can be completely relevant yet not be a part of the "grammatical construction!" Just like it says a footnote is not part of the "grammatical construction" but it is relevant information that the author wanted the reader to know.
By the way, sir, here is an grammar excerpt on the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses:
“Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Clauses
Restrictive Clauses Are Necessary
A restrictive clause is necessary to the meaning of a sentence. For example:
The bucket that has apples in it is the one I want.
If you removed the clause “that has apples in it,” the meaning of the sentence would be lost. The clause is necessary to the meaning of the sentence and is therefore a restrictive clause. Because it’s a restrictive clause, it should take the relative pronoun that.
Nonrestrictive Clauses are Unnecessary
A nonrestrictive clause is not necessary to the meaning of a sentence. In fact, it can be removed from a sentence without affecting its meaning. For example:
The bucket, which is blue, has apples in it.
There are apples in the bucket, which is blue.
If you removed the nonrestrictive clause “which is blue,” from either of the sentences above, the meaning of the sentences would not be lost. We’d still know that the bucket has apples in it. Note that in the second example, the nonrestrictive clause adds information about something that has already been identified. Because the clause is unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence, we know it’s a nonrestrictive clause, and therefore should take the relative pronoun which.
Use that before a restrictive clause.
Use which before a nonrestrictive clause”(smile).
Another copy/paste from a 20th century grammar, which OBTW is unidentfied. None of the four 19th century grammars I cited, say anything about restrictive/nonrestrictive clauses.

Why would a 19th century student of Hebrew frantically, depserately, as you are doing, to find some way to arbitrarily omit anything/everything in parentheses? None of the then current grammars suggest any such thing!

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#4614 Jun 18, 2012
A blast from the past...
(25 March 2012, to be precise...)
G_O_D wrote:
If I have sex with a virgin, it very possible and normal that she "shall conceive".
Note "shall" is future tense. Most female virgins alove today "shall concieve", half of thembeing male sons.
Ther is nothing, zip, nada supernatural in 7:14.
There is also nothing to support the passage refering to Jesus 700 years later. It could have refered to an male child born on the planet in the last 2700 years.
It could have beed Moshe Dayan for all we know.
And Moshe Dayan fulfilled a lot more of the Messianic prophecies than Jesus did...

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4615 Jun 18, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, S + V + DO are only one of several types of sentence patterns. However, sir, parentheses are never essential to any sentence patterns, regardless if it is the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, right (smile)?
That is irrelevant! To write a grammatical sentence the very minimum requirements are S+V+DO.

And OBTW I am still waiting for you to tell me the meaning of this sentence, with the clause, "primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) omitted? particularly the phrase, "as present to the mind under given circumstances?"

"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing [] as being present to the mind under given circumstances."

What are the "given circumstances" that a 19th century student of Hebrew would look for in interpreting Hebrew?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4616 Jun 18, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
You ought to read some of the nonsense about the "Bible Code"...
By carefully selecting the "right" starting point and skipping the "proper" number of letters, one can go through the Torah and find the "hidden message" that Morhammud is the Messiah.
Not that I agree with the proponents of Bible codes, you should take your own advice and actually read about the codes. It is all done by computers, humans do not select anything.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#4617 Jun 18, 2012
Liam R wrote:
A blast from the past...
(25 March 2012, to be precise...)
<quoted text>
And Moshe Dayan fulfilled a lot more of the Messianic prophecies than Jesus did...
Where was Moshe Dayan born?
Freddy G

Yukon, OK

#4618 Jun 18, 2012
Anyone who uses the word Yahweh Is not that bad...I just wish more people understood how man made him a god....when he is not he is your heavenly father Yahweh.
Freddy G

Yukon, OK

#4619 Jun 18, 2012
Here is A link I come Across And double checked the Hebrew words.

&fe ature=related

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#4620 Jun 18, 2012
Spiderman wrote:
@Allen Richards
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh WA Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
Translation:"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Mohammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarly im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.
. DEUTERONOMY 33:2
He (Muhummed pbuh) shined forth from mount Paran (in Arabia), and he came with ten thousand saints.(Referring to the conquest of Makkah).(d)
DEUTERONOMY 32:21:
and I (God Almighty) will move them (the Jews) to jealousy with those (the Arabs) which are NOT A PEOPLE (a non-entity): I will provoke them (the Jews) to anger with a FOOLISH NATION," |the pre-Islamic Arabs)
Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesized in the book of Isaiah and is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:
"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."
Mohammad (PBUH) received his first revelation in the cave called HIRA which is located in Saudi Arabia, one day he was in the cave praising Almighty When Archangel Gabriel came to the cave and commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying IQRA- "Read", he replied "I am not learned"
The Prophesy of Mohammad (PBUH) in the Torah (Old Testament)
The Qur'an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospels"
Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc.(pbut) will fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.
However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):
'Among their brethren' clearly refers to a nation other than the Israelites. Otherwise it should have been 'Amongst yourselves'. The reference in (Deuteronomy 18:18) could fit nobody else except Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and not Prophet Jesus, for the following reasons:
Do not forget that deuteronomy 18:18 is linked to deuteronomy 34:10
34:10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face
So if the prophet that is mentioned in deuteronomy 18:18 must be like Moses, it cannot be someone from the children of Israël . Because that is contredicting deuteronomy 34:10.
(World Religions from Ancient History to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472)
God sent the angel Gabriel* to teach Muhammad* the exact words that he should repeat to the people. The words are therefore not his own; they did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the angel. These are written down in the Qur'an word for word exactly as they came from God.Now that we know that prophet we must listen to him, for, according to the Bible, God says
"I will punish anyone who refuses to obey him"
Mohammad was a fake, a phony, and a fraud, certainly NOT a prophet of God. He was a thief, rapist, and murderer. And here is proof that Mohammad was a murderer:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TKB...

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#4621 Jun 18, 2012
WOW!

Still trying to make a knocked up Jewish girl into a virgin 700 years later.

Anyone who bases their beliefs on a single mistranslated Hebrew word is a word away from being an atheist.

If I was that deranged I hope my family would put me in an asylum.

She's NOT a virgin. Your beliefs are false. Grow up and get a life.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#4622 Jun 18, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
WOW!
Still trying to make a knocked up Jewish girl into a virgin 700 years later.
Anyone who bases their beliefs on a single mistranslated Hebrew word is a word away from being an atheist.
If I was that deranged I hope my family would put me in an asylum.
She's NOT a virgin. Your beliefs are false. Grow up and get a life.
As of 6/13/2012, you have 24,622 posts since July, 2011 (which averages to over 72.5 posts a day counting from 7/15/2011), yet you have the audacity to tell others to "Grow up and get a life." lol!

That's too rich!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 11 min ROCCO 64,311
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 45 min Truth Teller 106,580
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 45 min crucifiedguy 281,925
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 1 hr Steve III 497
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Steve III 45,259
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 183,189
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Steve III 654,272
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Gabriel 973,912
More from around the web