Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-22-2007, 05:58 PM | #111 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
This is probably the best article I've seen on 7:14: http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html I'm currently discussing 7:14 at B-Hebrew: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...July/date.html Most of the posters there are Christian and some of them are fluent in Biblical Hebrew. As near as I can tell, every Christian there that is fluent in Biblical Hebrew agrees that Isaiah was referring to a woman in his time. Some of them believe in a "double prophecy" but not based on Translation considerations. I believe there is only one there, Harold Holmyard, who does think a double prophecy is supported by Translation (as opposed to Interpretation). Speaking of which, does anyone know what happened to Spin? Was he suspended and/or digging with Levin? Isn't this how Kirby got started? Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
|
07-23-2007, 04:40 AM | #112 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
|
Quote:
I think it likely that Isaiah was referring to a Jungfrau/virgin who would produce a son the old-fashion way. There is nothing particularly miraculous about this nor is the promise of a sign tantamount to the promise of a miracle. On the other hand, the arrival of a first-born male was clearly deemed a matter of some import in that culture. |
|
08-01-2007, 05:56 AM | #113 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
|
Hi Folks,
Let's see how Sauron comments on the evidence outline given above. (In fact, one wonders what type of evidence he is looking for. Perhaps he would give an example.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And clearly the NT is a powerful evidence, with many specific examples given. More than Celsus-Origen, more than Justin-Trypho, more than Toldet Yeshu, etc. Trying to hand-wave away a primary evidence like the NT would never be done by real scholars like David Flusser and Lawrence Schiffman. Especially when the NT has corroborating support as has been shown. Note the humorous Sauron demand-game. Ask for specific 1st-century proofs and then declare the books with the deepest 1st-century origins totally off-limits simply because the many books in the NT are not Sauron's fav reading. Then say in essence "aha.. we don't have a lot of such 1st-century proofs". Yes I grant that this type of thread is the typical time-and-energy-waster that is par for the course on IIDB. The skeptic sets up an artificial construct and then goes around the merry-go-round trying to get the readers dizzy. Shalom, Steven |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|