Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

The only thing I am sure of is that we are closer to the day of Christ's return today than yesterday. And, given that we have no guarantee of anything beyond this present moment, we should all live ready.

Yup.. ready yourself to have your pagan crosses broken by Jesus (p) and your pigs killed by him and to have him be a witness against you for falsehood if you don't change your pagan ways!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

The false pen of the scribes can add whatever they like ,isn't it?!

more examples of biblical textual modifications will be in the right time......

Due credit to you. I asked for a variant reading of a Messianic prophecy concerning David’s throne and you gave me one. Jeremiah is one of the longest books in the Hebrew scriptures. The writings of Jeremiah were made over a period of about 45 years but the book is arranged according to subject matter rather than chronologically. Hence, in compiling the book, new additions would not be simply added to the end but would often be included somewhere in the middle. This would entail rewriting, editing and rearranging the book’s contents a number of times. It seems from what you have shown me that some of these early incomplete versions of Jeremiah began to be translated into the Greek Septuagint and that the Qumran Hebrew manuscript is one such incomplete version. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: a comparison of the Masoretic text with the Septuagint throws some light on the last phase in the history of the origin of the Book of Jeremiah, inasmuch as the translation into Greek was already under way before the work on the Hebrew book had come to an end... The two texts differ above all in that the Septuagint is much shorter... Even if the text of the Septuagint is proved to be the older, it does not necessarily follow that all these variations first arose after the Greek translation had been made, because two different editions of the same text might have been in process of development side by side... I would point out that there are many Messianic prophecies that speak of the Messiah’s death (Isaiah 53:12; Daniel 9:26) before ruling as king over the whole earth forever (Daniel 7:14). If these Messianic prophecies are mere inventions of the Jews why would they include such details?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

The writings of Jeremiah were made over a period of about 45 years but the book is arranged according to subject matter rather than chronologically. Hence, in compiling the book, new additions would not be simply added to the end but would often be included somewhere in the middle. This would entail rewriting, editing and rearranging the book’s contents a number of times. It seems from what you have shown me that some of these early incomplete versions of Jeremiah began to be translated into the Greek Septuagint and that the Qumran Hebrew manuscript is one such incomplete version.

Hiroshi ,It seems you didn't read the article well ...

format_quote Originally Posted by The Jeremiah Dilemma
by Farrell Till

the passage concerns a central biblical theme (messianic prophecy) and must therefore be considered important, yet it was in neither the Septuagint version nor the Jeremiah scroll found at Qumran. These omissions have grave implications for the inerrancy doctrine, because they suggest that significant editing occurred in at least one Old Testament book after completion of the original manuscript. So what exactly are we to conclude from this? After verbally inspiring Jeremiah to write his manuscript, did Yahweh decide he could improve on the original and then direct someone to reorganize the material and insert the passages that weren't available to the Septuagint translators or to the scribe who made the Qumran copy? If so, what does this say about the omniscience of Yahweh that we hear so much about? Or if the changes didn't happen under Yahweh's direction, did some scribe or committee of scribes just take it upon themselves to do the editing? Either way again, the proponents of Bible inerrancy have a serious problem on their hands. They preach a doctrine that simply cannot be squared with known facts.

and

format_quote Originally Posted by The Jeremiah Dilemma
by Farrell Till

To explain the problem posed by these variations in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, proponents of the inerrancy doctrine once attributed the deviations from the Masoretic text to poor translation, but after the discoveries in Cave Four, this "explanation" became hard, if not impossible, to defend. Work on the Septuagint version began in Alexandria around 285 B.C., and the Jeremiah manuscript found at Qumran, like the Isaiah scroll, was dated in the early second century B. C. Since the Qumran text of Jeremiah was parallel in content and organization to the Septuagint version, here was tangible evidence that at one time, for at least two centuries, a shorter, differently arranged version of the book existed. Hence, variations from the Masoretic text in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah resulted not from careless translation but from a radically different Hebrew text that the translators had before them

2-

format_quote Originally Posted by jewishencyclopedia

Passage on Sabbath Not Genuine(in the book of Jeremiah).

The one non-authentic passage incorporated in group 2 is that concerning the Sabbath, xvii. 19-27. The reason why the prophet can not be credited with the authorship of this passage, though in form and content it is not unlike Jeremiah, is the high value put upon the observance of holy days, which is wholly foreign to the prophet. The author of the passage not only recommends the keeping of the Sabbath day holy as a day of rest ordained by God, but he even goes so far as to make the possibility of future salvation, and even directly the destruction of Jerusalem, depend upon the observance or non-observance of this day.

for more Ungenuine Passages in Later Sections. look up www. jewishencyclopedia.com



3- There is a consensus of scholars, has gathered around a thesis of multiple sources for the book of Jeremiah(wikipedia).


4- Quote from ( Reading the book of Jeremiah: a search for coherence,
By Martin Kessler )

In their search for an -authentic Jeremiah- kernel in the Oracles against the Nations ( Jeremiah 46-51). ninewenth-century scholars were keenly concerned with the ip.sissinta veiha cii the prophet. Another one of their vital concerns was the representation of God. since it was thought to have occupied a crucial place in the prophets thought world. The question was asked whether the representation of VI twit in the Oracles against the Nations agreed with the representation in texts that were considered to have been written I>v the "historical" Jeremiah. As is amply evident front research, Jeremiah viewed NIFIWIf as the God of Israel. He is highly exalted above the heathen gods and merciful and gracious toward his people. Because of the proud and In tgrateful at-titude of Ott' people, Wiwi' threatened them through his prophet with destruction of the land and deportation of the inhabitants if they per-sisted in their refusal to listen to the prophetic proclamation and did Ilia repent. If thev. On the other hand, would listen to YIINVI I'S voice, would permit them to cominue to live in the land. In the prophetic or-acles addressed to Israel and Judah, Vi twit is represented as a God who is willing to forgive and who is inclined to revoke his ihrIller threats. In the oracles addressed to the nations, however, Vinyl I appears as an ir-reconcilable God of vengeance who announces rnin to the nations. These oracles contain threats of destruction exclusively, while the preaching of repentance is completely lacking. Since these representa-tions of N't twit were fouricl to diverge so radically., scholars concluded that the Oracles against the Nations cannot be ascribed to Jeremiah.



5- In accordance with the current trend of Bible scholarship ,most of the critics deny the authorship of Jeremiah . (How to Understand the Book of Jeremiah By Duane S. Crowther.)




6- The process of the book's composi-tion has certainly taken place in successive stages (cf. W.MelCane's hypothesis of a "rolling corpus") and it would ap-pear that the location of these prophecies in the Septuagint represents an earlier literary situation than does their position 246 in the Hebrew Masorelic text. Later proto-apocalyptic interests of Jewish interpreters and scribes has led to the foreign nations prophecies being transposed to form the end of the Jeremiah literary collection .To regard Jeremiah as the author of the entire collection is almost certainly mistaken. (Jeremiah
By Ronald Ernest Clements)


I have dozens of internal proofs for my point but I think those are enough for now.....

and don't ever forget ,the question of textual modification to the book of Jeremiah is by no mean crucial to the problem.....

I have stated before (using the Quran) that Jeremiah besides others are not included the corpus of what the Quran calls (the true scriptures revealed by God) .......

call it textually been preserved or otherwise ...It just doesn't matter ..... if it doesn't belong the Quranic corpus of the scripture,who will ever care for its textaul preservation statue?!


To sum up:

The claim that the writings of the book of Jeremiah are based on the inspired words ,the prophet Jeremiah received from God,is certainly mistaken , the work was written by multiple hands and been modified for hundred of years after the death of Jeremiah .....

to add, Even if God inspired Jeremiah (assuming him to be a prophet) something to say, we have a Quranic clue that the Torah is nothing but the work of Moses ,and the only time the Quran talks of non-Mosaic work would be (Alzabur) revealed to David.......



anyway the positive part in your post was :

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

I would point out that there are many Messianic prophecies that speak of the Messiah’s death (Isaiah 53:12; Daniel 9:26) before ruling as king over the whole earth forever (Daniel 7:14). If these Messianic prophecies are mere inventions of the Jews why would they include such details?

That is exactly where we should go ,

I would like you ,to better than asking yourself Was that text transmitted correctly?, to ask yourself ,instead, Is that text telling the truth ?
I hope you wouldn't waste our time in the thread with your narrow difinition of corruption (aka textual modification) and go to the broader sense and ask the crucial Question ,are those passages applied to Jesus?

the (No) answers ,will be elaborated in the immediate following posts....



peace

Origin of Christianity, Messianic prophecies (1)

The following objective expositions on the way the writers of the new testament used the old testament ,would enable us to understand where the Jesus of the new testament ,came from .......

all The writers of the New testament used to Quote the Old testament ,and apply what they quote on some of the traditions they had regarding Jesus .... but when ever one examine the quotations and their application on the tradictions ,one would be surprise to find out easily ,that they are nothing but misquotations,misapplications ....

so what? some people would suggest that the writers weren't Jews ,but pagan converts who misunderstood the old testament .......... some others would suggest that they were intentionally deceiving the readers for some kind of benefits......

- I don't believe the writers to be neither pagan converts ,nor conspirators ..................

- I believe that they were not merely Jews but religious and good readers of the old testament .....

- I believe that they were totally convinced that their application of such passages on the traditions they had regarding Jesus ,is very meaningfull .......... and such reflections they had on the old testament ,should be reached to every Jew living ......

- I believe that the writers of the gospels never thought of their writing as directly inspired by God ,neither they imagined that their work will be one day a scripture ... all what they had in mind to write a biography of the man using the material they received and beside the biography some of their reflection on how such material has echoed some of the old testament passages.....

- I believe that both the concepts of the king messiah and the concept of God were applied to him after his mission was terminated.

The following are our exposition to the exegesis of the writers of the new testament, such flawed exegesis would produce later all the methodolgies of christianity !....


Details:


where to begin ? which old testament passage ?

I think we should begin with what is called (the prophecy of the virgin birth),as it is the first one in the first page of gospel of Matthew .....

The problem of the virgin birth prophecy aka when now becames later :


after the writer of the gospel traced what he calls the The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah ,he goes on telling us the circumstances around the birth ,ignoring (or being ignorant) of the reaction of the people of such good un-married woman who became pregnant !....

Matthew 1: 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”


afterwards the writers surprises us with a piece of exegesis never been preceded by any Jew ...

Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “(The young woman-virgin) will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).


that is to say,after the man read and reflected on Isaiah 7, he first got convinced that such wonderous pregnancy,birth was a fulfilment of the word of God that been revealed hundreds of years ago...

the man included such included such personal reflection on his work in hope we share him the idea....

well , let's check the passage he Quoted in its original context :

Isaiah 7
The Sign of Immanuel
*1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
*2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
*3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, *and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”


The reader who read that for the first time should have idea about the historical context of that passage ,Thomas Paine explained the context in the clearest of terms :

format_quote Originally Posted by ;Thomas paine

On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.
At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.
In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.
Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.
The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.
It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with.

Problems of applying that passage to Jesus:

1- It is crystal clear from the original context that the prophecy is not a supernatural prediction centuries in advance. In no way is it indicated by the text that it concerns the Messiah, nor is it indicated that it would occur hundreds of years later.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. (Isaiah 7:14-16, NASB)


2- There is a futile argument common while dealing with problem ,it is the linguestic one.....
in one hand the critics argue if Isaiah wanted to say (virgin) he would have used the hebrew word (Bethula) as it is the only word in Hebrew that denotes directly the meaning of virginity, instead of the already used word (Almah) that means a youthful spouse recently married ,the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys .
On the other hand the christian counter argument , is that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste .....

we have 2 Notes on the previous controversy:

The first Note:

both of those opinions (whether the critics or the christian defense) mere exaggeration...

first :the critics claim that (Bethula) never used to denote sexual lose of virginity,is challenged by the the use of the word in Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin(Bethula) girded with sackcloth for the husband (Ba'al) of her youth.
The word ba'al seems to be never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

second: The christian claim that the word (Almah) never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste ,is strongly challenged by the use of the word in proverb 30:18

Proverbs 30 :18 “There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with (Almah) a young woman. 20 “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’


Kenneth E. Nahigian "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy)
"the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."

The HarperCollins Bible Commentary ( Proverbs 30:19)
"The saying about the mysterious ‘ways’ (Prov. 30:18-19) may refer to lack of visible means of propulsion or movement that leaves no trace, with ‘the way of a man with a fertile woman’ as a reference to either procreation or sexual attraction generally."

to sum up the use of both (Bethula) and (Almah) is controversal , and both of the words could be rendered (virgin and young woman ,not neccesarily virgin) ,the claim that Almah MUST BE translated as virgin is mere a dellusion.....

The second Note:

The previous linguestic controversy is proved nonsensical ,waste of time basically because even if in the verse there is a word that means exclusively, every time, in every context (A virgin) ,the problem remains?

"The word almah is capable of being used of a woman up until the time she bears her first child. All the text need mean in Isaiah is that a young woman of marriageable age will soon conceive and bear a son. The woman may indeed be a virgin at the moment the prophecy is uttered. But that is not the point of the text, nor is there the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child. "John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, pg. 243

Every virgin will one day in the future (unless she decided not) conceive and bear a child ..... no miracle in that ....



till next (so called) prophecy ..

peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

So then, which meaning was meant at Isaiah 7:14? Was "almah" intended to mean "a young woman" or was it intended to mean "a virgin"?

If you read my post well, you will find out that it doesn't really matter if it means virgin , if it is taken with certainity that Isaiah intended virgin, it would imply only that the girl is virgin at the time of the prophecy.not she will conceive as a virgin , "a woman who is now a virgin will (by natural means, once she is united to her husband) conceive the child Emmanuel ...... there isn't the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child ......

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

The translators of the Greek Septuagint settle the matter because they used the Greek word "parthenos" which can only mean "virgin". .

That is not true ......

1- The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication. And in fact this word could also be used to refer to non-virgin women who weren't married. Homer so uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek would know of this word's versatile and indefinite meaning. The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (Richard Carrier)


The fact that the LXX22 (followed by Matthew) translates 'almah with the Greek word itapetevog (paethenos) is not con-clusive evidence that 'almalt means "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 , the Greek word parthenos does not always mean virgin. Isaiah, Volume 1
By Terry R. Briley





2- In the Septuagint, Genesis 34:3 has the word "parthenos" used twice in reference to Jacob's daughter, Dinah, after she was raped. A woman who has been raped is no longer a virgin.


3- That the author was referencing the Septuagint is completely irrelevant. It's what Isaiah wrote in the Hebrew Scriptures that is relevant.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

The translators of the Greek Septuagint settle the matter .

If that settles the linguestic matter (which I affirmed to be irrelevant to the criticism),for you ,It won't settle the real problem with the passage (the out of context application)...

I have said before ,If you would insist to use it as (virgin ),then ok ..

there is no problem with that ,and indeed Isaiah might thought of the young woman refering to as a Virgin the moment he uttered the promise ....... but that won't resolve the real problem ,which I explained before.....


you know from now and on ,for your convinience, I will accept the meaning as (virgin) ,so don't go there again to the linguestic argument (which as I said before to be completely irrelevant to the problem) ... go this time to the contextual problem (the only real problem with the passage)....



peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

If you want to leave aside the linguistic issues then that is fine by me..

leaving the the linguistic issue ,is my advice for anyone would care to get the ONLY REAL problem with the passage ......

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

But your whole argument seems to be that Matthew is misapplying Isaiah 7:14 and taking liberties by translating "almah" as "parthenos"

The problem of Matthew not that he understood the word as meaning virgin ,neither when Isaiah refered to the virgin (if that was the meaning he intended when he uttered the prophecy) ,it is when Matthew believed such virgin-young lady contemporary of Isaiah ,to be a reference to a virgin came hundred of years later.....

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace-seeker

The gist of the argument seems to be that the interpretation that Matthew provides comes more out of his own desired conclusion, reading the OT from an already formulated Chriso-centric vantage point, than out of pure exegesis of the passage independent of the Christian framework that he is trying to communicate. .

To add .....

I believe that sometimes a text could be understood in more than one way .... I have no problem with that .....
and I believe that sometimes a text seems to be vague would be later due to the accumulation of knowledge to be understood in better terms....

but that is not the case with Matthew ..the passage is neither vague nor open to double meaning ..it is in the clearest literal language , and the context leaves not the slightest chance to apply it to the far future ....

so the argument is not that he had no right to reflect on the passage ,or even explain it in better terms that he thought to be proper,It is that his Exegesiscal application has passed all the limits of sensical meaning.....

why he did that? the fact he wasn't unique ..... later I will give examples of a pesher type exegesis(and similar other types) that been (and still) by even non-christians .....

such exposition would give use a lesson that whenever there is religious zeal ,there is such kind of faulty exegesis .....

the consequences of finding out that such exegesis to be faulty is so serious ,as it turns all the basic chirsitian biblical methodologies to be faulty as well .....

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

the words have a double meaning and also apply to Jesus as Matthew 2:15 shows .

Though ,

1- Dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture.
Double Fulfillment Double fulfillment means that a specific passage will be fulfilled on two or more occasions. This is not a correct ap-proach to biblical interpretation because prophecy can only be fulfilled once. If a certain prophecy could have multiple fulfillments then it wouldn't be specific. Sometimes Isaiah 7:14 is given as an example of double fulfillment. It is said that there was a near fulfillment in refer-ence to a child born in Ahaz's day, but whoever that child was, it was certainly not a virgin-born baby. This is especially problematic in light of the clear statement in Matthew 1:22,23, which says specifically that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy from A to Z
By Thomas Ice, Timothy J. Demy


but let's, for the sake of argument , assume such concept to be right (the concept of dual Fulfillment been criticised by numerous christian scholars) .....


let's first,put istead of the word virgin (Mary) and instead of Immanuel (jesus)

Isaiah 7:14

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin Mary will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Jesus. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when Jesus knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before Jesus knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread (the kingdoms of Israel and Judah)will be laid waste.


If it is a double fulfillment ,just When were the two kingdoms ( the kingdoms of Judah and Israel) were abandoned before Jesus (supposing him the Emmanuel in the passage) knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

That is the question that has to be ,reasonably answered ,before any talk about a so called dual fulfillment....

I read your post , but sorry to tell you nowhere my question was answered !!


When were the two kingdoms (Israel and Judah)were abandoned during the time ,after the birth of Jesus up till before he knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

don't worry about the other points in your post to be addressed later but now my focus.....

I have asked

When during the time from the Birth of Jesus till before he knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ?

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

we know from history that these kingdoms were brought to waste

and you provided incredible date to be applied to Jesus ...

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

i've even given the dates in my previous post 733-732 B.C.

from the passage in Isaiah we know that the two kingdoms are standing and powerful but before (Immanuel aka Jesus) knew enough to reject the wrong and choose the right ,they were layed waste.....

If they were already waste before the birth of Jesus then ..nothing been twice fulfilled ,as it is suggested.....