Does Isaiah 7:14 Prophesize the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

[gundee123]

Allen Richards wrote:

Correcting quote malfunction.
I guess you do have more asinine objections! First I don’t give ache wrap about your unsupported self-serving opinion of the scholar and source I quoted! Please state your credentials as a Hebrew scholar and then note the credentials of the author I quoted.

Sir, please know that I am neither a Hebrew scholar, nor in reverence to anyone scholar simply because he or she possess certain credentials, with all due respect.

After all, sir, remember that you said offered that “scholars sometimes err and state opinions without supporting them,” right? But then again, perhaps, you have the “credentials” to make such a claim, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

“Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen, Ph.D.(1993) in Theology, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, is Lecturer in Old Testament Exegesis and Biblical Hebrew at the same university. He has various publications to his name, especially on Isaiah, from a text-linguistic and literary viewpoint.”

Sir, I see that (unlike Emmanuel Tov) there is not much information about him on the internet, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

Now you are trying to explain a text book you cannot comprehend. Try actually reading what Dr. Wieringen wrote instead of dismissing it out-of-hand?
“It makes no sense to consider the definite article here as an emphatic or deictic element; pace: Bartelmus (1984) 61; Joüon/Muraoka (1991) 511-512 (§ 137 n N) The relationship between the use of the definite article and the determination of a concept is much more complex than it seems to be at first glance. Barr (1989) 309 proves that determination and the use of the hebrew article do not coincide. In general expressions, the definite article can be used as an indicative of a general notion. Cf. 1 Sam 17:34 (twice). Cf. also Müller (1991) 323-324. The word [Hb.]“haalmah” does not indicate a concrete identifiable young woman, but an indefinite young woman. Pg. 58.
The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6-12” By Archibald L. H. M. Wieringen, 1998”
http://books.google.com/books...

Sir, rather than read a textbook that according to you I cannot comprehend,“Why not I just follow your lead about scholars offering unsupported opinions,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

I wonder if it means the page number in the book cited where the author Barr “proves that determination and the use of the hebrew article do not coincide. In general expressions, the definite article can be used as an indicative of a general notion. Cf. 1 Sam 17:34 (twice).” And “Cf. also Müller (1991) 323-324.” means that Müller offers further evidence in support of Barr! A full biographical entry can be found for both at the back of the book.

Sir, please see my previous comment (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

What specific Hebrew grammar rule does it contradict if you don’t mind me asking? The two sentences are to be read together not separated as you did! Here they are in-context. The author Wieringen introduces the citation of Barr and Müller thus,“The relationship between the use of the definite article and the determination of a concept is much more complex than it seems to be at first glance.”

Sir,“Isn’t this simply an “unsupported opinion,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?....

[gundee123]

....

Allen Richards wrote:

“Barr (1989) 309 proves that determination and the use of the hebrew article do not coincide.

Sir,“Does Barr proves it or does he “alleges” it,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

In general expressions, the definite article can be used as an indicative of a general notion. Cf. 1 Sam 17:34 (twice). Cf. also Müller (1991) 323-324.”

Wow sir, i.e.,“You claimed that I offered ambiguous replies, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

Infantile bulk wrap! Wrong! Read Wieringen and if you still have any objections, review the sources he cites Barr and Müller instead of making infantile comments like this. You are not a Hebrew scholar and modern scholarship does not support your assumptions/presuppositions or your out-of-context quotes from Gesenius!

Sir, please post the specific evidence that you want me to read, if you would be so kind (smile).

[gundee123]

Allen Richards wrote:

There is no contradiction in how I and the JPS, which I quote below, understand this passage. Here grammar expert Gundee once again manipulates language trying to make a passage say what it does not say. Your explanation above is nonsense! Pay attention grammar expert and I will show you why Gn 24:43 and Is 7:14 are different.

Sir, I can hardly wait for your to explain this to me (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

First a question do all these verses refer to the same or a different person? No long complicated grammar bulk wrap, simply “the same woman” or “a different woman.” Or does it refer to five different women, or some other number?

Sir, I trust that this not some type of a loaded question, especially since it really does make any sense, with all due respect. After all, sir, indefinite wives might be the same or different, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

Now rather than quote a few words out-of-context, as you do, all the verses in-context.

But sir, it was you who explicitly said:

Allen Richards wrote:

In Gen 24:43 the almah was mentioned three times previously vss. 38, 39 and 40.

As such, sir, I pointed out what specifically these verses said as it related to “almah,” right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

JPS Gen 24:37-40
(37) And my master made me swear, saying: Thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell.
(38) But thou shalt go unto my father's house, and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son.
(39) And I said unto my master: Peradventure the woman will not follow me.
(40) And he said unto me: The LORD, before whom I walk, will send His angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house;
***
Gen 24:43 behold, I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden that cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say: Give me, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher to drink;

Sir,“Do we agree that the Hebrew word for which is translated as “the maiden” is “haalmah,” if you do not mind my asking? And if so, please explain how “haalmah” changed from “the maiden” at Gen 24:43 to “a virgin” at Isaiah 7:14, if you would be so kind (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

Verse 37 and 38 are indefinite because there is no predetermined wife waiting in Abraham’s homeland for his servant to bring back for Isaac. Abraham told his servant to find a wife [indefinite] for Isaac among his people.

Sir, I do not object thus far (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

Vs. 39 the servant suggests that perhaps the woman he chooses will not come with him.

Objection sir, because a woman (indefinite) was not previously mentioned in a prior verse, right? Yet, sir, the first time woman is mentioned here, it appears to be prefixed with the definite article, right? And if so, sir,“Doesn’t this contradict your argument that the “almah” at Isaiah 7:14 must be indefinite because it had not been previously identified,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

Vs. 40 Abraham promises that YHWH will send his angel with the servant and prosper his journey so that the servant would find a wife for Isaac.

I have no objections here, sir (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

In vs. 43 the servant prays to YHWH that the Almah who comes to draw water and to whom he speaks and says “Give me, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher to drink;” and she shall say to me:“Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels;” let the same be the woman whom the LORD hath appointed for my master's son.”

Once again, sir, I see that “woman” is prefixed with the definite article for a second time (smile)....

[gundee123]

....

Allen Richards wrote:

I don’t know about you and your alleged grammar expertise that sounds very, very definite to me.

Sir, please see that the use of the definite article at Gen 24:43 (haalmah) refutes your argument that since the “almah” at Isaiah 7:14 had not previously been identified, she must take the indefinite article, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

Several things make her definite, she does a specific thing, comes to draw water, the servant will speak specific words to her and she will respond with specific words. Then the servant prays that this is the woman that YHWH has appointed to be Isaac’s wife.

Once again, sir, this “almah” had not been previously identified prior to Gen 24:43, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

These are not the words of Moses, or a prophet, but a servant explaining to Rebekah’s father and brother how Abraham had sent him to get a wife for Isaac.

Sir, please tell us the relevance of who were speaking, if they were speaking Hebrew (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

This reveals your ignorance, Check Gesenius, any noun with a preposition is definite!“By the well”“al-ayin” that is how weak my argument is. Your assumptions/presuppositions fail again!

Okay sir,“Did you just imply that Gesenius asserts that “any noun with a preposition is definite,” if you do not mind my asking? And if so, sir,“Did you also use as an example “By the well”?

Well, sir, since you revealed my ignorance and how weak my argument is, then perhaps, you can now explain why there is a prepositional phrase in the same chapter at Gen 24:11, i.e.,“by a well,” yet the definite article has been omitted, if you would be so kind (smile).

[gundee123]

Allen Richards wrote:

What is your point?

Sir, my point is perhaps, we should first try to discern what Isaiah 7:14 says in Hebrew, rather than argue about how it should be translated into English (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

Produce your evidence?

Well, sir, your BDB states that “harah” was an adjective at Isaiah 7:14. And if so, sir, please know that “harah” as an adjective means “pregnant”(smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

That means that the angel was talking to the person he was addressing. Isaiah was not. That is an important difference!

Sir, please explain the “important difference” in the angel telling the woman she was pregnant versus Isaiah telling King Ahaz that the young woman was pregnant, if you would be so kind (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

I’m not interested in your assumptions/presuppositions. In Isaiah the Almah is not already pregnant according to Keil and Delietszch, and Joüon-Muraoka who OBTW is your “only modern up-to-date Hebrew grammar.” Also the JPS translates this as “the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Sir, please cite Joüon-Muraoka verbatim quote that explicitly indicates the “almah” was not already pregnant, if you would be so kind (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

I think I was talking about “hinneh.” Behold does NOT have the definite article in 7:14 or 3:1, right (smile)?

Yes sir, I agree. On the other hand, sir, what follows “hinneh” is the definite article “ha” at both Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 3:1, right (smile)?

Allen Richards wrote:

May I suggest you learn to read Hebrew so that you can recognize the definite pronominal prefix when you see it.

Thank you, sir, for your very kind suggestion. After all, sir, I was only aware of “pronominal suffixes,” but not “pronominal prefixes” until now (smile).

Allen Richards wrote:

And what does that mean to you? It means to me that “a virgin” is NOT a wrong translation.

Well, sir, since “ha” cannot mean both definite and indefinite, I think that one claim counteracts the other, right (smile)?

[gundee123]

James Sawyer wrote:

Gundee, again forgive me, but I am going to have to ask you for that study that "you did," where you found out that "you and I" know that Lawyers, politicians, and pastors often times lie.

Well, actually I did not say that “you and I know,” but rather “we know,” right? But to eliminate any further confusion, please know that I do concede that I used the term “we” very loosely.

On the other hand, according to a Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans gave Congress politicians “low” or “very low” rating for honesty and ethical standards, which was the lowest of the 22 professions surveyed. Meanwhile, lawyers occupied the 7th lowest place (40 percent). And finally, the clergy was rated at 16th (10 percent).
http://www.sodahead.com/fun/gallup-poll-shows...

James Sawyer wrote:

I know that I have never made such a claim so I would ask you to report back to me on that study that you did in finding credible information. Substantiating documentation seems to go a lot further with me since you told me that you never deal in beliefs. I believe on Thursday in post #4972 in your last paragraph you stated...

gundee123 wrote:

Again, please know that none of my argument are predicated on any belief, but rather based on my examination of the evidence (or the lack thereof) that would substantiate or refute any particular argument

gundee123 wrote:

Yes, I agree, if one wants to engage in a serious discussion (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

Your words say one thing Gundee but we will put those words to the test over the next few days and see if you are sincere or are you trying to convince people that they are worthless.

Please know that I welcome the challenge, and I trust that the feeling is mutual (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

You almost remind me of the man in the movie, "The Obsolete Man" who is trying to convince Mr. Wordsworth that he is a bug and that he, "Mr. Wordsworth" is delusional. One may conclude that you are standing up on a podium and you're looking down on us Christians, trying as hard as you can to convince each and everyone of us that you deal in facts not beliefs.

Wow! Please know that I never tried to convince anyone to deal in facts, not beliefs. You see, I simply shared with you my perspective and the paradigm in which I was coming from, right (smile)?

James Sawyer wrote:

Well let's see if that is meant just for things that have to deal with religion or do you honestly live by the Socratic method. I'm sure we will find out soon enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Yes, I think that you and I might have a more insightful and thought provoking debate than I originally thought that it would be (smile)....

[gundee123]

...

James Sawyer wrote:

I want you to substantiate your first sentence of your first post. It really is not that hard Gundee, that is if you deal in facts and not beliefs.

Well, since you are challenging me to substantiate that one of the tenets of Christianity is the “Virgin Birth” of Jesus and that Isaiah 7:14/Mat 1:123 are the alleged proof texts, then perhaps, these excerpts will help:

(1)“The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by ...“
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

(2)“The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth is the teaching that Jesus was miraculously conceived in Mary without the aid of a human father in any way whatsoever.

Second, let’s look at reasons why people believe Jesus was conceived by a virgin as well as some reasons why people don’t believe this teaching. Three big reasons why many believe in the Virgin Birth are:

Scriptures proclaim it.(Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:22-23 and Luke 1:34-35) These are the primary texts for this teaching.

Belief in the Virgin Birth affects other doctrines. For example, the Virgin Birth explains how Jesus was God incarnate and without sin. Another doctrine that is affected by this belief is the authority of the Bible. If the Virgin Birth is not true, then the whole Bible can be questioned.

Unbelievable numbers: This is the traditional teaching of the Church, has been for nearly two thousand years, millions have believed this and millions continue to believe it.”
http://thelearningpastor.me/2010/12/02/the-do...

James Sawyer wrote:

I am just waiting for that study that you did on your assertion. Please note there is no mention of of Isaiah or Matthew in the CNN article.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/...

Well, I trust that you are not asking me to post everything that I have ever read, studied, and researched on the issue of the alleged prophesized “Virgin Birth” of Jesus, right? Also, I trust that the above link substantiates my claim that Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:22-23 as the scriptural proof text, which, by the way, is not based on my belief, right (smile)?

James Sawyer wrote:

This is interesting but not relevant to our conversations.

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, perhaps, it might become relevant, especially when you have to offer empirical evidence to substantiate your claims when they are based on your beliefs, right (smile)?

James Sawyer wrote:

Are you claiming you were a Christian when you were younger but waited until you grew up to read the Bible?

No, I am claiming that I was raised up in the Baptist faith. And as a child, there was a lot of indoctrination and very little reading. In fact, I later found that much of the scripture that I had been taught had actually been twisted to agree with a certain denominational teaching, with all due respect.

Nonetheless, after I did not own studies and research as an adult, I could no longer try to defend that which I was raised up to believe. As such, beliefs became less important to me (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

Please explain?

Well, it appears that “beliefs” are a part of your perspective, whereas it is not a part of mine (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

We'll see Sgt. Hulka, we'll see.

Hooah (smile)!

[gundee123]

Allen Richards wrote:

Quoting your own source out-of-context! Your argument must always fail unless you quote in-context and consider the entire statement! I am creating two categories to place some of your replies in, Gundee’s Grammar Games [GGG] and Idiotic Interpretations [II]. This reply is II.~
GGG! Which grammar rule[s] are you citing which allows you to disregard information that the author specifically included and point out with a footnote? II from 1st reply repeated. When one reads the entire footnote 1 they must realize that the author states an additional subcategory for “§ 137 Determination and indetermination: the article, III. Imperfect determination.” That subcategory is “at the beginning of a prophetic announcement” This is followed by the scriptural example “Is 7:14.”
1 At the beginning of a prophetic announcement Is 7.14 [Hb.] haalmah a virgin or the virgin (in any case, determinate for the prophet).
GGG you are correct you did NOT specifically refer to Isa 7:14 and I did say that the reference to “English idiom” in Ges Kau § 126 {4} referred to only the scriptural example which immediately followed the reference and you have NOT provided any evidence to contradict me in either case, only your own II.
Wail hail dood I guess that invalidates my entire argument. Is that what you are trying to say?
GGG. Keep this asinine objection in mind for a moment.
I’m sorry amigo you cannot eat your cake and have it too! You are arguing against your own source which you touted as “one of the only up-to-date advanced reference grammars available in English” and you cited another source which states that Gesenius “is the old standard that has been replaced by Joüon and Muraoka. Gesenius does not take account of new research made possible through the discovery of various Northwest Semitic dialects such as Ugaritic, or through peripheral Akkadian found at Mari and Amarna.” This would also hold true for Gesenius’ Lexicon published years before his grammar. All of your out-of-context quotes from Ges-Treg are “the old standard that has been replaced by Joüon and Muraoka” and other modern sources!
If you would be so kind please show me where Joüon-Muraoka said anything about Almah in Isa 7:14 [not]/having the definite article? More II, quoting Joüon-Muraoka out-of-context to support your GGG.

Okay sir, it appears that you are now asserting that none of Gesenius work can be used to substantiate any arguments, right? And if, sir, this must also means that Kau § 126 {4} is now obsolete in our debate, right?

And by the way, sir, I trust that you do mind that I am going to create three categories for your response that do not address the title of this thread :(1) Small Fry – Inconsequential Arguments; (2) Big fry – Revelant Argument; (3) Hooah sir!– Derailments (smile).

[James Sawyer]

gundee123 wrote:

...
Well, since you are challenging me to substantiate that one of the tenets of Christianity is the “Virgin Birth” of Jesus and that Isaiah 7:14/Mat 1:123 are the alleged proof texts,

Gundee... Gundee, I apologize if I have not made my self clear so I will now attempt to make myself crystal clear; Did you or did you not make this statement?

gundee123 wrote:

"Most of the people within the Christian community have been taught to believe that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus", by which it is affirmed at Mat 1:23.

Now since you would never make a statement like that unless you have personally done a study, because in your words, beliefs don't matter. I need your study that you have personally done that "Most people within the Christian Community have been taught this, your study Gundee, not someone elses study, although I have yet been shown any study that has been done on your claim in the first post of this thread.

I can appreciate what you are trying to do Sgt. Hulka but I need that study that you did prior to you starting this thread. You see I am not interested in anything you believe but rather proof that you have done an assertion on a particular claim that you are making.

gundee123 wrote:

...Well, I trust that you are not asking me to post everything that I have ever read, studied, and researched on the issue of the alleged prophesied “Virgin Birth” of Jesus, right?

I want you to post what proof you had that "most people" have been taught that Isaiah 7:14 Prophesied the Virgin Birth of Jesus, because you don't deal in beliefs remember,

gundee123 wrote:

...beliefs are not important to me....

You did say that, didn't you Gundee? Where is "your study" that "you made" in your first sentence of your first post? Otherwise, did you just tell me a ball face lie?

We'll get to these others things later Sgt. Hulka but I need to find out if you started this thread on a lie.

[Allen Richards]

gundee123 wrote:

Sir, rather than get into another “small fry” argument, I am going to simply say,“Hooah sir”(smile)!

Like child you introduce arguments then dismiss my replies by saying it is a "small fry” argument. Quit acting like a spoiled brat, if you don't want me to reply to something, DON"T POST IT!

Sir, please see that nothing at §126 {2}(g) is placed within a nonrestrictive “parenthetical clause,” nor is there anything within that contradict Gesenius’ assertion that “the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite,” right? In addition, sir,§ 126 {2}(g) does not contradict the “principle that the article is prefixed to known things,” right (smile)?

What is this "nonrestrictive 'parenthetical clause,'" garbage? There is nothing in any grammar concurrent with the 1909 Ges-Kau about nonrestrictive clauses. Nothing in §126 {4} contradicts §126 {2}(g). The words “the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite,” are only Gesenius’ unsupported opinion, from his 1846 lexicon not his 1909 grammar right (smile)? And your other source Joüon-Muraoka also does not have this out-of-context quote.

Sir, I am not here to search for your alleged evidence, especially when you can very easily quote the excerpt, with all due respect (smile).

I’m sorry if you are too ignorant and/or too lazy to read a source I quote, and link to and specifically tell you what to look for.

I will provide such scriptural evidence after you provide scriptural evidence that reveal that Mary had a pet name for Jesus. After all, sir,“Isn’t this the argument that you raised at post #13 as follows:

I thought I was dealing with a mature adult not a stubborn child! Is there anything in Isaiah which states or implies that any woman was present with Isaiah, his son, and Ahaz? OTOH Isaiah 7:14 states “she shall call his name Immanuel.” Which suggests that only the mother will call Immanuel by that name.

Well, sir,“Does this mean that you are no longer going to invoke the “argument from silence” defense,” if you do not mind my asking?

I don’t have an argument from silence! I wonder if there were any aliens, or pink unicorns with Isaiah and Ahaz, the text does not say there weren’t.

At any rate, sir, here is what the Isaiah 7:14 specifically states in Hebrew:
“hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el”

Please refrain from telling me what anything in Hebrew states since you know virtually nothing about actual Hebrew!

And, sir, the most accurate English translation without losing the Hebrew contextual meaning as it relates to grammar and syntax would be:
“Look, the young woman [is] with child and [about to] give birth to a son; call his name Immanuel.”

Who told you that is the most accurate English translation? Here is the most accurate translation according to the 1917 Jewish Publication Society English translation.

JPS Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In other words, sir, Hebraic scholars have opined that from a contextual perspective, the emphasis of Isaiah 7:14 is not based on the Christian claim of the virginity of the young woman ....but rather based on the imminent birth of a son and his name thereof. As such, sir, Isaiah 7:14 “do not” prophesize the “Virgin Birth” of Jesus some 700+ years later.

Who are those alleged unidentified “Hebraic scholars” and how is their opinion relevant?“opine” means “opinion” not scholarly evidence. See Joüon-Muraoka.

Unfortunately, sir, rather than confront this issue head on, it appears that you would rather engage in a bunch of different “small fry” arguments, right (smile)?

Nothing to confront. Everything I have argued is germane to the discussion of Isaiah 7:14.

[Allen Richards]

Quoting your own source out-of-context! Your argument must always fail unless you quote in-context and consider the entire statement! I am creating two categories to place some of your replies in, Gundee’s Grammar Games [GGG] and Idiotic Interpretations [II]. This reply is II.~

GGG! Which grammar rule[s] are you citing which allows you to disregard information that the author specifically included and point out with a footnote? II from 1st reply repeated. When one reads the entire footnote 1 they must realize that the author states an additional subcategory for “§ 137 Determination and indetermination: the article, III. Imperfect determination.” That subcategory is “at the beginning of a prophetic announcement” This is followed by the scriptural example “Is 7:14.”

1 At the beginning of a prophetic announcement Is 7.14 [Hb.] haalmah a virgin or the virgin (in any case, determinate for the prophet).

GGG you are correct you did NOT specifically refer to Isa 7:14 and I did say that the reference to “English idiom” in Ges Kau § 126 {4} referred to only the scriptural example which immediately followed the reference and you have NOT provided any evidence to contradict me in either case, only your own II.

Wail hail dood I guess that invalidates my entire argument. Is that what you are trying to say?

GGG. Keep this asinine objection in mind for a moment.

I’m sorry amigo you cannot eat your cake and have it too! You are arguing against your own source which you touted as “one of the only up-to-date advanced reference grammars available in English” and you cited another source which states that Gesenius “is the old standard that has been replaced by Joüon and Muraoka. Gesenius does not take account of new research made possible through the discovery of various Northwest Semitic dialects such as Ugaritic, or through peripheral Akkadian found at Mari and Amarna.” This would also hold true for Gesenius’ Lexicon published years before his grammar. All of your out-of-context quotes from Ges-Treg are “the old standard that has been replaced by Joüon and Muraoka” and other modern sources!

If you would be so kind please show me where Joüon-Muraoka said anything about Almah in Isa 7:14 [not]/having the definite article? More II, quoting Joüon-Muraoka out-of-context to support your GGG.

Observe how you blew off this entire post with two sentences!

gundee123 wrote:

Okay sir, it appears that you are now asserting that none of Gesenius work can be used to substantiate any arguments, right? And if, sir, this must also means that Kau § 126 {4} is now obsolete in our debate, right?

Only if it contradicts the modern up-to-date Hebrew sources!

If you don't agree with what a source says don't post it!

[James Sawyer]

Sgt Hulka, I think Lt. Dan has sighted his target in. You need to duck because Lt. Dan has located your cordinance! Don't worry Hulka, "we" are not finished yet, not by a long shot.

[James Sawyer]

gundee123 wrote:

...
Yes, I think that you and I might have a more insightful and thought provoking debate than I originally thought that it would be (smile).

I would say this to you Gundee if you were in front of me now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[James Sawyer]

gundee123 wrote:

Please know that I welcome the challenge, and I trust that the feeling is mutual (smile).

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[A Christian]

Rome harnessed the christian religion for political power' nero had several priest's act as early popes & some of these popes had armies of which they murdered many people and even in Alexander's time they killed all in opposition to them! Jesus would not be any part of such evil! you know a good tree by its fruit' these people you mention were romans and they at that time lived and breathed evil' it was their blood right or so they thought' however' Jesus forgives those who repent & the present church tries to do whats right before Almighty God/Allah' thank goodness! Thanks be to God/Allah'

NO one can denigh 'Jesus tried more than any other person to improve us and face truth' and use truth so we may have life in 'greater abundance' and He confirmed Almighty God/Allah' Commandments and helped the sick and stood up against wrong doers! if HE was here Physically now i would sure like Him to be my very best best friend! and also when we pray humans never ask God/Allah if He's OK' we are all a tiny bit self centered & selfish & arrogant myself included! it you'st to say on my school reports, MUST TRY HARDER'

[Allen Richards]

gundee123 wrote:

Sir, my point is perhaps, we should first try to discern what Isaiah 7:14 says in Hebrew, rather than argue about how it should be translated into English (smile).

I read Hebrew quite well and have for some years. A mall vendor was surprised Saturday that I could read a Hebrew charm at his stall which read "Mazel Hai." Good life!

Well, sir, your BDB states that “harah” was an adjective at Isaiah 7:14. And if so, sir, please know that “harah” as an adjective means “pregnant”(smile).

That is correct that is the lexical entry however according to Keil and Delitszch "harah" is a participial adjective and it does not describe an existing pregnancy. See JPS Isaiah 7:14!

Sir, please explain the “important difference” in the angel telling the woman she was pregnant versus Isaiah telling King Ahaz that the young woman was pregnant, if you would be so kind (smile).

I deduct that the angel could see

Sir, please cite Joüon-Muraoka verbatim quote that explicitly indicates the “almah” was not already pregnant, if you would be so kind (smile).

When you act like an idiot I will treat you like one. I am tired of your arrogant, supercilious evasions! What does the word virgin mean, stated twice, in Joüon-Muraoka mean, dummy? Must I remind you that is your source which you touted as one of the most up-to-date Hebrew grammars available.

Yes sir, I agree. On the other hand, sir, what follows “hinneh” is the definite article “ha” at both Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 3:1, right (smile)?

What is your point? While you are focusing on the definite article which you can't even recognize you are ignoring the different contexts. Isaiah uses hinneh" 90+ times and always uses it to introduce a future event! Both 3:1 and 7:14 are future events!

Thank you, sir, for your very kind suggestion. After all, sir, I was only aware of “pronominal suffixes,” but not “pronominal prefixes” until now (smile).

Whatever. You still can't recognize the Hebrew defintie article!

Well, sir, since “ha” cannot mean both definite and indefinite, I think that one claim counteracts the other, right (smile)?

See grammar sources already, cited. You cannot read Hebrew, the grammar sources contradict you and you have provided nothing but your own unsupported opinion that they are wrong.

[Allen Richards]

gundee123 wrote:

.... Sir, please see that the use of the definite article at Gen 24:43 (haalmah) refutes your argument that since the “almah” at Isaiah 7:14 had not previously been identified, she must take the indefinite article, right (smile)?

I told you I inadvertently set a trap for you but you blindly, arrogantly persist in your copy/paste knee jerk argument. Not only had “haalmah,” at Gen 24:43, been previously introduced in the text but the servant had already met her and had a conversation with her and at 24:43 he is telling the father and brother of “haalmah” how he came to meet Rebekah. In chap.

24:1-9 Abraham commissions his servant to find a wife for his son Isaac, they have the first conversation about “a wife” proposed for Isaac.“The woman” and how she relates to the indefinite “wife” in the earlier verses is clearly explained in these verses.

In vss. 10-27 the servant travels to Aram, meets a woman he does not yet know, converses with her and learns she is the one YHWH intended to be Isaac’s wife.

Vss 28-48 the servant goes to Rebekah’s home and tells Bethuel and Laban everything that happened. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see that at vs. 43 “haalmah” is known to the servant.

Once again, sir, this “almah” had not been previously identified prior to Gen 24:43, right (smile)?

Bulk wrap! See above reply! This “almah” had been introduced in the text and the servant had already met her, vss 10-27! While you were trying to play words games with the indefinite and definite article you totally ignored the context!

Sir, please tell us the relevance of who were speaking, if they were speaking Hebrew (smile).

I wonder if servants were perfectly trained in all the grammar rules of Hebrew? I don’t think God was using this servant as a prophet. But mainly the servant was telling the father and brother of “haalmah” something that had already happened!

Okay sir,“Did you just imply that Gesenius asserts that “any noun with a preposition is definite,” if you do not mind my asking? And if so, sir,“Did you also use as an example “By the well”?

No I did NOT imply anything I clearly stated it.

Well, sir, since you revealed my ignorance and how weak my argument is, then perhaps, you can now explain why there is a prepositional phrase in the same chapter at Gen 24:11, i.e.,“by a well,” yet the definite article has been omitted, if you would be so kind (smile).

In the 1917 JPS it reads “by the well,” with the definite article. I am not chained to the KJV, which has 800+ words that have changed in meaning or dropped out of the language altogether!

[gundee123]

James Sawyer wrote:

Gundee... Gundee, I apologize if I have not made myself clear so I will now attempt to make myself crystal clear; Did you or did you not make this statement?

gundee123 wrote:

Most of the people within the Christian community have been taught to believe that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus, by which it is affirmed at Mat 1:23.

Yes, I made this statement (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

Now since you would never make a statement like that unless you have personally done a study, because in your words, beliefs don't matter.

If you would be so kind, please cite where I specifically said “in [my] words” that “beliefs don’t matter,” Or perhaps, you simply “believe” I said that, right (smile)?

James Sawyer wrote:

I need your study that you have personally done that "Most people within the Christian Community have been taught this, your study Gundee, not someone elses study, although I have yet been shown any study that has been done on your claim in the first post of this thread.

Well, please know that I am neither prepared nor willing to offer the readings, studies, and research that I have intermittently undertaken for over a 30-year timeframe on this thread. On the other hand, I will offer “empirical evidence” that “Most of the people with in the Christian community have been taught to believe that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus, which is affirmed at Mat 1:23.”

However, I will offer this “empirical evidence” in three phases. First, I will reveal the origins of the Christian doctrinal teaching that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, which was based on “statements of beliefs” or creeds. Then, I will offer empirical evidence to show how Isaiah 7:14 became the scriptural proof text for substantiating the Virgin Birth story found at Mat 1:23. And lastly, I will offer empirical evidence that reveal that most Christians today still believe both of the aforementioned claims.

On the other hand, if it is your objective to ensure that I can substantiate each claim that I make (or have made) with empirical evidence, then I most respectfully ask that you quote my claims “verbatim,” rather than try to paraphrase what you might think that I meant, okay? For example, I did not say “beliefs don’t matter” as you have alleged, but rather I said,“... none of my argument are predicated on any belief ..,” right? In addition, I said that “beliefs were no longer that important to me, unless they could be substantiated with empirical evidence,” right?

So, with this being said, I first offer excerpts from the creeds that the Early Church Fathers “taught” that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. In fact, here are the first 3 sections of catechesis that they taught to new converts and/or children, which reads:“1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,..“(The Apostle Creed).

And the second statement of belief reads:“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being [substance] with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made truly human.”(The Nicene Creed).

Now, just in case you were not aware, the third creed (the Athanasian Creed) pretty much focused on teaching the Trinity and Christology. So, I will pause for now to allow you the opportunity to review and/or refute this first phase of empirical evidence that I offer (smile)....

[gundee123]

...

James Sawyer wrote:

I can appreciate what you are trying to do Sgt. Hulka but I need that study that you did prior to you starting this thread.

“Who is Sgt. Hulka,” if you do not mind my asking? And by the way,“Do you know me personally? You see, I ask this question based on your style of asking questions and based on some of the comments that you’ve made to our very good friend, Allen Richards. Now, before you answer my second question, please remember what you asked at post #5006 as follows:

James Sawyer wrote:

Do you agree with me that for someone to be taken serious, they shouldn't lie?

James Sawyer wrote:

You see I am not interested in anything you believe but rather proof that you have done an assertion on a particular claim that you are making.

Again, please know that this proof will be forthcoming in three difference phases (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

I want you to post what proof you had that "most people" have been taught that Isaiah 7:14 Prophesied the Virgin Birth of Jesus, because you don't deal in beliefs remember, You did say that, didn't you Gundee?

No, I did not say that I “don’t deal in beliefs.” However, I did make the following statement at post #4972:

gundee123 wrote:

Again, please know that none of my argument are predicated on any belief, but rather based on my examination of the evidence (or the lack thereof) that would substantiate or refute any particular argument (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

Where is "your study" that "you made" in your first sentence of your first post? Otherwise, did you just tell me a ball face lie?

Well, I never promised to offer any study, but rather I will offer evidence in 3 phases (smile).

James Sawyer wrote:

We'll get to these others things later Sgt. Hulka but I need to find out if you started this thread on a lie.

Wow! I still do not know who Sgt. Hulka is. And as for a lie, I think that it will be best to let time be the judge, okay (smile)?

[Freddy G]

I would just like to say it one more time Yahweh Is not A god.....In the back of the king james Concordance it says the words lord gog baal elohim were added to his name because the devine reverance was believed to be to holy to be spoken so man made hime a god the dead sea scrolls read YHWH In short Yahweh...this is a fact and just think about rev 12/9 and they are.....very few are called to understand his name much less his laws that were nailed to a cross the BIGGEST HOAXED Ever played on mankind can you see what this world has become without these laws Agiant sinful shit hole....Please read this for yourself then pray for understanding.you will be blessed just to understand his name.....