Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hebrew Israelite questions
#11
(01-11-2013, 12:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: When we see the other two times the phrase "zeal of the L-RD of Hosts" is used (Isa 37 and II Kings 19), it refers to the utter failure of Assyria's siege.

How was it an utter failure? The Assyrians collapsed the Northern 10 tribes and took them captive.

Jeremiah 50:17
Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria has devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon has broken his bones.

And so how do you say it was a failure?
#12
Context in Isaiah 7, 8, and 9 shows Isaiah was not speaking of the Messiah: The word "messiah" is absent, the prophecy spoke of and occurred in Biblical times, and even applying the chapter to Jesus' time leads to many odd questions, such as "who were the two kings surrounding Jerusalem during Jesus' birth in either 6 BCE (according to Mat) or 4 CE (according to Luk) who would be gone by the time Jesus knew to choose good from evil, as explicitly foretold in Isaiah 7?"

Matthew says "the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (1:23)." The verse in Isaiah reads, "the young woman is pregnant, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."
The differences are immense. According to Matthew, the woman is not yet expecting, but Isaiah says she already is. Matthew says "they" will call him Immanuel, and so Joseph should name him Jesus; Isaiah says "she" will name him Immanuel, and she indeed named him Immanuel, as a sign to the Kingdom of Judah that G-D will be with them and will be safe from the Assyrian siege.

MessianicJew Wrote:
benyosef Wrote:It is possible to be a young woman and not a virgin without being promiscuous...
Any time the female is not mentioned as being married, an adulterous or a whore it does. It can't mean anything else according to Gods law.

Interesting theory, but it is not backed by any Biblical text. You are being presumptuous with that claim.

MessianicJew Wrote:Here in verse 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Again, my question is where is the text to support your "fact [that] God told them they could take those young girls for wives?" All we have is that the Jews could keep them. Maybe they were taken as wives, maybe they were taken as mere slaves, we really don’t know.
I just realized how far we had drifted from the initial point. Where do you see that Jews were not permitted to marry non-virgins? Only kohanim were ever commanded to be careful about the sexual state of their wives (Num 21). We see in Deut 22 how there could be a claim of lack of signs of virginity on one's wife, but if the wife was from other nations (as in Num 31), this process would not apply.
Ultimately, since Num 31 doesn’t use the term "betulah,” we don’t really care if they were virgins.

MessianicJew Wrote:
benyosef Wrote:When we see the other two times the phrase "zeal of the L-RD of Hosts" is used (Isa 37 and II Kings 19), it refers to the utter failure of Assyria's siege.
How was it an utter failure? The Assyrians collapsed the Northern 10 tribes and took them captive.

Did you even read my post? Or the verses I brought? Assyria succeeded in exiling the Northern Kingdom, but failed in besieging Jerusalem. Hezekiah outlived Sanchayriv, and the Kingdom of Judah hung around until Nevuchadnetzar came to town.
#13
(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: Context in Isaiah 7, 8, and 9 shows Isaiah was not speaking of the Messiah: The word "messiah" is absent, the prophecy spoke of and occurred in Biblical times, and even applying the chapter to Jesus' time leads to many odd questions, such as "who were the two kings surrounding Jerusalem during Jesus' birth in either 6 BCE (according to Mat) or 4 CE (according to Luk) who would be gone by the time Jesus knew to choose good from evil, as explicitly foretold in Isaiah 7?"

Herod was one of them who died.

(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: Matthew says "the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (1:23)." The verse in Isaiah reads, "the young woman is pregnant, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." The differences are immense.

The difference are not immense, you are turning a mole hill into a mountain.

(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: According to Matthew, the woman is not yet expecting, but Isaiah says she already is.

Conceive and pregnant are the same thing, especially in ancient times.

(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: Interesting theory, but it is not backed by any Biblical text. You are being presumptuous with that claim.

It isn't a theory, none of those female Midianites were not virgins. Your theory is that a horse back riding incident can lose a woman's virginity, that is your theory not backed by the bible and your presumption.
#14
(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: Again, my question is where is the text to support your "fact [that] God told them they could take those young girls for wives?" All we have is that the Jews could keep them. Maybe they were taken as wives, maybe they were taken as mere slaves, we really don’t know.

It is all inclusive. You don't get what keep for yourself means? It means you can use them how you want. Which would include the option of marriage or servitude.

(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: I just realized how far we had drifted from the initial point. Where do you see that Jews were not permitted to marry non-virgins?

Exodus 22:16-17 (King James)

(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: We see in Deut 22 how there could be a claim of lack of signs of virginity on one's wife, but if the wife was from other nations (as in Num 31), this process would not apply.
Ultimately, since Num 31 doesn’t use the term "betulah,” we don’t really care if they were virgins.

Whoever just fed you this vomit is a liar. It specifically says that the only women you can keep for yourself are those who have not lied with a man. Why do you need the word betulah mentioned when A single word can define an action, or a person place or thing? Virgin defines any person who has not had sex with anyone. So anyone who reads about someone who hasn't lied with anyone sexually and automatically understands they are a 'virgin'.

(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: benyosef wrote: "When we see the other two times the phrase "zeal of the L-RD of Hosts" is used (Isa 37 and II Kings 19), it refers to the utter failure of Assyria's siege.
MessianicJew wrote: "How was it an utter failure? The Assyrians collapsed the Northern 10 tribes and took them captive."
Did you even read my post? Or the verses I brought? Assyria succeeded in exiling the Northern Kingdom, but failed in besieging Jerusalem. Hezekiah outlived Sanchayriv, and the Kingdom of Judah hung around until Nebuchadnezzar came to town.

Jesus is a name that defines 'he who will save his people from their sins'

And this whole thing started with you mentioning Pekah and Rezin and both don't fit Immanuel. Then you're trying to say that the woman who gives birth to Immanuel was married, and yet there is no genealogy given nor name of the woman.

Jesus was born in a time that was due to the direct result of Babylonian and Assyrian attacks which later led to Roman occupation.
#15
MessianicJew Wrote:Herod was one of them who died…this whole thing started with you mentioning Pekah and Rezin and both don't fit Immanuel.

What does "Pekah and Rezin don’t fit Immanuel" mean? What did I miss in my explanation of Isaiah 7, 8, and II Kings 15 and 16?
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, Isaiah was speaking about Jesus: If Herod was one king who died, who was the second? Which two armies were surrounding Jerusalem when Jesus was born? And if Jesus was born after Herod died (per Luke), then you have no kings! Do you see what steps are taken to force Jesus into Biblical texts? Even ignoring the "virgin/young woman" issue, he doesn’t fit Isaiah’s prophecy!

MessianicJew Wrote:The difference are not immense, you are turning a mole hill into a mountain…you're trying to say that the woman who gives birth to Immanuel was married, and yet there is no genealogy given nor name of the woman.

The differences are immense because Christians are claiming the NT is G-D-inspired, yet Matthew makes "minor" changes to Isaiah’s words: "a virgin" instead of "the young woman;" "will conceive" instead of "is pregnant." It matters not that it doesn’t say explicitly who the young woman was, for Isaiah and Ahaz both knew her (hence: "the" young woman). If Isaiah’s prophecy was speaking of Jesus, why would Matthew need to change anything? Why change the word of G-D?

MessianicJew Wrote:It is all inclusive. You don't get what keep for yourself means? It means…marriage or servitude.

If the verse is "all inclusive," it’s not a command to take them as wives, as you said, but only an option.

You’re right: I should have said "signs of virginity," not "virginity," can be lost non-sexually.

What is your point from Num 31? The girls can be virgins even if the Torah doesn’t say "betula." "Almah" isn’t there either, but we know they were young women. My point is that "almah" only means "young woman," regardless of sexual experience, and "betula" only means "virgin," regardless of age, so when Isaiah said "almah," he was not speaking of a virgin.

MessianicJew Wrote:[Jews are not to marry non-virgins in] Exodus 22:16-17

Contrary to your claim, this passage actually obligates the rapist to marry a non-virgin! Biblically, Jews are not prohibited from marrying non-virgins; only kohanim are.
#16
(01-17-2013, 04:08 PM)benyosef Wrote: What does "Pekah and Rezin don’t fit Immanuel" mean? What did I miss in my explanation of Isaiah 7, 8, and II Kings 15 and 16?

Because Emmanuel means 'God is with us'. Not 'mighty God'. Hezekiah is not named Immanuel. In fact, it is your side that says Jesus name wasn't Immanuel. Therefore Jesus is not Messiah. Now, you are the one claiming someone who is not named Immanuel actually is Immanuel. The irony is stunning to say the least. And I couldn't wait for it to happen, and it finally did. I find that interesting. I guess you are in disagreement with other non-Jesus believing Jews on this forum.

If this prophecy is not literal, but symbolic, both you and I are out of an argument. We are left to believe in certain ways.

(01-17-2013, 04:08 PM)benyosef Wrote: And if Jesus was born after Herod died (per Luke), then you have no kings!

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings.

That is what Prophecy states above.
#17
(01-17-2013, 04:08 PM)benyosef Wrote: The differences are immense because Christians are claiming the NT is G-D-inspired, yet Matthew makes "minor" changes to Isaiah’s words: "a virgin" instead of "the young woman;" "will conceive" instead of "is pregnant." It matters not that it doesn’t say explicitly who the young woman was, for Isaiah and Ahaz both knew her (hence: "the" young woman). If Isaiah’s prophecy was speaking of Jesus, why would Matthew need to change anything? Why change the word of G-D?

You assume what "the" entails. And in ancient Hebrew "knew" means sexual intimacy for example: Adam "knew" his wife. So Isaiah and Ahaz definitely didn't "know" her either. You can't say they "met" each other prior, it isn't written. The word "the" never automatically means a prior personal connection when used to speak of an individual.

(01-17-2013, 04:08 PM)benyosef Wrote: If the verse is "all inclusive," it’s not a command to take them as wives, as you said, but only an option.

It wouldn't matter, because whores are not an option for a wife anyway. And the word betulah isn't there, which means anywhere we find a young woman, we can understand she is a virgin unless otherwise mentioned she is not.
#18
(01-17-2013, 04:08 PM)benyosef Wrote: You’re right: I should have said "signs of virginity," not "virginity," can be lost non-sexually.
What is your point from Num 31? The girls can be virgins even if the Torah doesn’t say "betula." "Almah" isn’t there either, but we know they were young women. My point is that "almah" only means "young woman," regardless of sexual experience, and "betula" only means "virgin," regardless of age, so when Isaiah said "almah," he was not speaking of a virgin.

And I'm saying almah and betulah do not have to be used, that a definition of a word can be used in description. The description of a virgin is found in Numbers 31, a young woman who has not known a man by lying with him. So when we find this definition in other places, we understand that it means the same. I don't need to use the word 'steal' to understand what happens when someone takes something that isn't theirs. If someone describes a virgin, they don't need to use the word virgin for me to recognize meaning when the description of a virgin is given.

(01-17-2013, 04:08 PM)benyosef Wrote: Contrary to your claim, this passage actually obligates the rapist to marry a non-virgin! Biblically, Jews are not prohibited from marrying non-virgins; only kohanim are.

Not true, Deuteronomy 22:17 describes a maid being a virgin.
In Exodus 22 she is a maid not betrothed, which means she is a virgin.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn't have anything to do with the sons of Aaron and so it applies to everyone, also Isaiah doesn't say this young woman is betrothed.
#19
The House of David are scared for Aram and Ephraim have teamed-up. Isaiah takes his son to tell Ahaz that the siege will not succeed. The sign? The woman is pregnant, will deliver a boy, and will name him Immanuel (G-D is with us). Before the child can choose good from evil, the land of the besieging kings will be abandoned.

Isaiah then has a son, and before this child can speak, the plunder of Assyria will be no more, but not until Assyria exiles Zevulun, Naftali, and the rest of the Northern Kingdom.

What about the Kingdom of Judah? Though they walked in darkness, they have seen a great light, and the yoke they bore was smashed as on the day of Midyan. How do they know they will be ok? Because the children’s names are signs that G-D will protect the Kingdom of Judah ("A remnant will return," "G-D is with us"). There’s another child, named "Mighty G-D" (Hezekiah), who will reign with righteousness and outlive Assyria. The Zeal of the L-RD of Hosts will perform this.

Where is the Messiah here? These are all contemporaneous matters. If you were to say this all speaks of Jesus, then who were the kings killed between Jesus’ birth and Jesus knowing good from evil? You claim Herod is one, but A. he wasn’t besieging Jerusalem, B. who is the second?, and C. according to Luke, Jesus was born after Herod died. Why would Isaiah give Ahaz a sign about Ahaz outliving the siege if the sign would occur centuries after their deaths?

MessianicJew Wrote:You assume what 'the' entails. And in ancient Hebrew 'knew' means sexual intimacy…The word 'the' never automatically means a prior personal connection when used to speak of an individual.

The Torah doesn’t say either of them "knew" her, but Isaiah referred to her as "the" young woman, which is an indication they are both cognizant of this young woman. If it wasn’t someone they were aware of, why say "the" young woman? Why not "a" young woman?

Why did Matthew make even "minor" edits? Why wasn’t G-D’s word good enough as is?

In reference to your last point, I present to you Gen 43:3, where the word "the" ("the man") clearly indicates prior knowledge or mention; conversely, Judges 13:2 tells of "a man of Tzora," but because he’s not mentioned before, we can’t say "the" man.
What does "the" mean according to you?
#20
MessianicJew Wrote:...a definition of a word can be used in description…You can't say they 'met' each other prior, it isn't written…

This is a telling juxtaposition. First you say that although the word "virgin" is absent in Num 31, we know they were because of a descriptive clause ("had not known a man"). Then you insist Isaiah and Ahaz could not have known this woman because it doesn’t say explicitly they met her, despite the use of the descriptive clause "the." Well, which is it? Can descriptive clauses work or no?
You are also mistaking my position. I did not say that "anytime the Torah wants to speak of a virgin, it’ll only use this word," what I was always saying is that whenever the Torah uses the word "betula," it can only mean "virgin," and whenever the Torah uses the word "almah," always refers to youth, never explicitly to sexual experience.

MessianicJew Wrote:[Jews can’t marry virgins based on] Deut 22:17…Ex. 22…

Wouldn’t it be great if you could provide verses that show Jewish men are obligated to only marry virgins, instead of giving cases of rapists and seducers? If such a rule existed, Lev. 21:7, which bars kohanim from marrying non-virgins, would be pointless, for such a rule would apply to everybody.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)