JoeWallack

JW:
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

Jayhawker Soule

You might find Betulah 'A Girl of Marriageable Age' by Gordon J. Wenham of interest.

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.

Steven Avery

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:

Originally Posted by praxeus Including a quote from skeptic Paul Tobin, and my note: The simple facts of the birkat ha-minim, Talmud pasages and Toldet Yeshu supply the evidence you want, on top of the records of the early church writers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron Because your statement doesn't answer the three items I asked for. ... 1. the Jews had a "strong interest" in refuting christianity; 2. the Jews cared enough that they would go to the trouble to directly confront christians whom they believed were twisting OT scripture to support their messianic beliefs;.... 3. that there was a huge amount of interest on the part of Jews in the 1st century on this topic, or about christians in general.

Oh, so if you set up an artificial list of demands, then you can ignore all the historical evidence of early Jewish interest in refuting the Christian view. Understood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus No, it isn't. Circular referencing the NT to prove a claim found in the NT won't work, prax. Never has.

This is typical IIDB confusion. The issue was what evidences exist of early Jewish antagonism to Christianity.

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