mark9950

The author of the Gospel of Matthew tries to establish Jesus as the Messiah forecasted by the Old Testament by taking verses out of their context from the Old Testament (some which are not even prophecies) and contrive them to "fit" a future Jesus.

These are among the most glaring errors in the bible. Anyone who reads the context of these Old Testament verses will find that they very obviously have nothing to do with a future Jesus.

(Matthew 1:21-23 NRSV) She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

(In the Old Testament verse, Isaiah is trying to give King Ahaz a sign that was to happen during their time period (seven centuries before Jesus) that Judah will not be invaded, this has nothing to do with a future Jesus whatsoever.

Matthew pulls this verse completely out of context to try to make his Jesus birth story look forecasted by the Old Testament. The "virgin" part is also misquoted. The word in the Isaiah verse means a young woman who was not necessarily a virgin. There is a specific Hebrew word for virgin which is not used here)

NOGO

I repeat Isaiah 7:14 says that the maiden is with child.
Mary is not the maiden in Isaiah 7:14

Here is an example of one translation which has the tense of the verb correct.

YLT Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

Here is what CEV says about the word that is translated as VIRGIN

CEV Isaiah 7:14
But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin [3] is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel. [4] 15-16Even before the boy is old

7.14 virgin: Or "young woman." In this context the difficult Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation made about 200 (B.C. )and used by the early Christians, the word parthenos had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman," Matthew understood it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1.23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus.


Now look at the context of Isaiah 7:14

Note that the birth of the child in question is a sign for King Ahaz.
This King lived 700 years before Jesus, so, Jesus cannot be a sign for King Ahaz.
Contrary to many Christian Bibles the verb is in the present and the child is in effect born a few verses later.
What is the sign?
Verse 16 gives it. Before the child knows enough to refuse evil and chosse good, the treath against King Ahaz will be removed.

How can this be Jesus since it says
"Before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good"?

The boy was born as a sign to King Ahaz.
Was this the same child as Isaiah 7:14?
Note the similarity between verses 7:16 and 8:4
In both cases it is a sign for King Ahaz that the threat against his kingdom will be lifted.

Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus.

Jayhawker Soule

I suspect that the comment is as inaccurate as it is rude. Discussions of Isaiah 7:14 crops up periodically here with little new being said.

Bede

Sorry Nogo, really can't be bothered with you. But just to help you along:

He's talking about the wedding night when the girl is still a maiden. First time they make love - its a big deal and both wonderful and beyond understanding. Sadly, we seem to have lost a lot of that today.

B

EstherRose

The way I understand this passage is that these things are difficult to understand because there is no path to follow. You can't see the trail of an eagle as it flies, the tracks of a snake on a rock, or the path of a ship on high seas because any wake disappears. The final one, the way of a man with a maiden...every guy I know complains about not understanding what women want or what a woman wants from a man. That's all he's saying.

The verse about the way of an adulteress is separate from the other verses. It states the obvious, that women who sleep around don't think they've done anything wrong.

ex-preacher

20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'

Does this sound like sodomy to anyone else?

EstherRose

Food was often used as a metaphor for sex in the bible.

RED DAVE

From EstherRose:

You mean there are metaphors there. Gasp! Then maybe the whole thing can be treated as a metaphor. Maybe the creation story in Genesis may be treated as a metaphor. Maybe hell can be treated as a metaphor.

What a religion for sadists, jerks and intellectual and moral cowards.

RED DAVE

NOGO

This thread is about Proverbs 30:20

NOGO

Nonsense!

First, you need to explain why the author has never experiences a wedding night, as you call it? And if he has never experienced such a night how would he know that it is so wonderful?

Second, if a girl is still a maid until she has sex with her husband then the word means exactly the same as virgin and we all know that there is a word for that in Hebrew and it isn't "almah".

Third, if the wedding night is the subject of this proverb then
WHY not call it that?
WHY not call it the ways of a man with his newlywed wife?
WHY add a comment about adultery right after.

Fourth, how do you explain that the comment about adultery is not numbered at the begining when he says that there are three of these and four of those.

On the wedding night the girl is no longer a maiden since she is no longer available.