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

[Grace Seeker]

According to Islam, Jesus has never died up until now. The lifetime of Jesus would then still be continuing. Islam holds also that Jesus is a prophet. So what did Jesus himself prophesy about the kingdom?

He spoke of a time of wars, earthquakes, diseases and famine (Luke 21:10-11) among other great tribulations (Matthew 24:21) that would mark a time when the kingdom of God would be near (Luke 21:31). We are seeing these signs in the very time in which we live today.

Every generation has had their wars, natural disasters and other dire terrors to deal with. And each suggests that the time period is worse than any other which preceeded them. I'm not sure that such perception actually fits with reality. 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.

If we could learn do that, to live in the now of Christ's presence, then we would not have to worry about when he was going to return.

 

[جوري]

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

 

[Hiroshi]

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?

 

[Hiroshi]

Every generation has had their wars, natural disasters and other dire terrors to deal with.

The scale and frequency of these disasters in modern times is out of all proportion to those of the past. I can quote some staggering statistics. Never since 1914 have we had world wars. Only this morning there was a major earthquake (6.3 on the Richter scale) in Christchurch, New Zealand.

 

[Al-manar]

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 ...

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

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-

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 :

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

 

[Al-manar]

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, 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 :

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

 

[Hiroshi]

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.....

Presumably Muslims accept that Jesus was born from a virgin. You just reject the notion that this was foretold in Bible prophecy.

Isaiah 7:14 uses the word "almah" meaning "maiden". "Maiden" is commonly used in English to mean either (1) a young woman or (2) a virgin and the same is true of the Hebrew word. "Almah" is applied to Rebekah before her marriage when she was also called "a virgin" (bethula) in Genesis 24:16, 43.

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"? The translators of the Greek Septuagint settle the matter because they used the Greek word "parthenos" which can only mean "virgin". (The Parthenon was the chief temple of the virgin goddess Athena built on the acropolis. And the name Parthenon comes from the Greek "parthenos": virgin). So centuries before Jesus' birth there was a clear and unambiguous statement in the Greek Septuagint, translated from the divinely inspired Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, that a virgin would give birth.

 

[Al-manar]

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 ......

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.

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

 

[Hiroshi]

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.

If you want to leave aside the linguistic issues then that is fine by me. But your whole argument seems to be that Matthew is misapplying Isaiah 7:14 and taking liberties by translating "almah" as "parthenos". I think that I have made a reasonable point here in showing that the Septuagint used exactly the same rendering at this verse.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If you want to leave aside the linguistic issues then that is fine by me. But your whole argument seems to be that Matthew is misapplying Isaiah 7:14 and taking liberties by translating "almah" as "parthenos". I think that I have made a reasonable point here in showing that the Septuagint used exactly the same rendering at this verse.

I understand Al-Manar's argument to be that Matthew interprets Isaiah 7:14 and many other OT passages to his own end, i.e. to show that Jesus is the Messiah, but that he does so by using texts that where not always read and interpreted that way by others before him. Thus, the argument is not so much that Matthew is right or wrong, but that he (for that time period) is unique in his interpretation. 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.

 

[Hiroshi]

I understand Al-Manar's argument to be that Matthew interprets Isaiah 7:14 and many other OT passages to his own end, i.e. to show that Jesus is the Messiah, but that he does so by using texts that where not always read and interpreted that way by others before him. Thus, the argument is not so much that Matthew is right or wrong, but that he (for that time period) is unique in his interpretation. 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.

Many prophecies might not become clear until they were actually fulfilled. Hosea 11:1 says "out of Egypt I called my son" referring to the young nation of Israel being brought out of slavery and bondage to Egypt. But (as is often the case) the words have a double meaning and also apply to Jesus as Matthew 2:15 shows. Surely no one would have readily taken the verse as a Messianic prophecy until it was known that Jesus' family had to flee to Egypt and return to escape king Herod. But I take this to be a bona fide prophecy nevertheless, since I believe that both Hosea and Matthew were inspired by God. Perhaps you disagree?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't disagree with Matthew's understanding that Jesus' life fulfills what Hosea spoke of. But I do think it is an example of what Al-manar speaks of as Matthew reading back into the text after the events of Jesus' life, rather than that understanding naturally arising out of the text with regard to the Messiah prior to Jesus' coming.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't disagree with Matthew's understanding that Jesus' life fulfills what Hosea spoke of. But I do think it is an example of what Al-manar speaks of as Matthew reading back into the text after the events of Jesus' life, rather than that understanding naturally arising out of the text with regard to the Messiah prior to Jesus' coming.

which of course there is no problem with given that according to christianity, the fullest revelation of all god's promises and decrees is to be found in the advent of christ. to argue that jews did not understand the prophecies in the like manner that christians do largely has no bearing on the truth of the bible. it is a little like saying that islam could not be true given the fact that neither jews, nor christians recognize mecca as the house of god. having browsed through this thread i can't help but notice that largely the same points the other has brought up can be used against islam to the same effect.

 

[Hiroshi]

I don't disagree with Matthew's understanding that Jesus' life fulfills what Hosea spoke of. But I do think it is an example of what Al-manar speaks of as Matthew reading back into the text after the events of Jesus' life, rather than that understanding naturally arising out of the text with regard to the Messiah prior to Jesus' coming.

Presumably though, you would accept that Micah 5:2 (foretelling that the Messiah would come out of Bethlehem) is a miraculous prophecy documented by Matthew since others apart from him shared this view (Matthew 2:5-6). But do you not trust anything in Matthew's gospel unless you can find support elsewhere for it?

 

[Al-manar]

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 ......

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.....

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 .....

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....

 

[Sol Invictus]

al-manar, i must congratulate you on thinking critically on the matter of judeo-christian scripture. the best one can do is examine a religion and if they truly believe that it is false then it is right and good to disbelieve it. while i certainly do not wish to be drawn into another discussion while my particular interests are still within another thread (at this time at least), i do think that i should at least make one post to help the christian position (not that god needs any help but hey, what can i do, i'm a team player). i hope you'll forgive the fact that i'm only focusing on your last post (though given that the current discussion seems geared towards it then i don't expect this to be a problem).

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.....

correct me if i have understood you incorrectly but it would seem that what is argued against here is the concept of double-fulfillment, right? to this end you write that dual-fulfillment is completely alien to scripture and then quote from a christian scholar (i believe) to prove your point. that said, given that the question is on the matter of dual-fulfillment, let us seek to answer this first.

Though ,

1- Dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture.
( a ) 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

( a ) now this may be due to the fact that we have not been provided with only the partial quote above and not his evidence for the matter but i must first note that the author does nothing to actually prove the fact that prophecy could only be fulfilled once. it seems rather capricious and self-serving of him to state this as a fact (particularly since we have been given no evidence). as it concerns my rebuttal, how then would he understand the following:

… And it shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you shall be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. … Deuteronomy 28:63-64 NASB

the above prophecy by moses is fulfilled multiple times. the history of the jews within israel is one of exile and return and this prophecy applies to all these instances and so merely from a cursory reading of scripture we can understand that your above cited claim is incorrect. so no, the concept of multiple fulfillment to prophecy is clearly taught in scripture.

( b ) 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....

"Interpretation 5 above seems the most promising. An unmarried young woman within the royal house would shortly marry and conceive. Her son would be called Immanuel ("God is with us"), probably in ignorance of the prophecy (which may have been given in the presence only of Ahaz) and possibly even as a presumptuous gesture to give the support of a complacent piety to the king's pro-Assyrian policy. Before the child is old enough to eat the characteristic food of the Land of Promise in its solid form (and so, if this is meant, well before the age of moral discretion), the Assyrians would lay waste the lands of Aram and Israel, which they did in 733-732 B.C., only a year or two after the prophecy was given.

"The "sign" of the child, therefore, constitutes an indication that the all-sovereign and all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it rebukes the king's lack of faith in him. It is true that the instrument of this devastation was to be Assyria, the very power Ahaz was courting instead of relying wholly on God. But in fact the events of 733-732 not only heralded the downfall in 722 of Samaria--the capital city of the northern kingdom that was a large part of the domain of the house of David in its earlier days--but within a generation led to the devastation of Judah itself (cf. 1:7).

"The prophecy was given to the house of David and not simply to Ahaz ("you" in v. 14 is plural). In the fullness of time, the messianic Child would be born of that house. He was to be a symbol of God's salvation of his people, not simply from physical foes like Rezin and Pekah, but ultimately from sin (cf. Matt 1:21). He represents the final purpose of God in his person as well as his work. For he is, in fullness of meaning, God with us; and his mother was a virgin at the time of her conception and not simply, as in the case of the earlier royal mother, at the time of the prophecy. Matthew's concept of fulfillment is very wide-ranging and flexible and embraces many different kinds of correspondence between an OT passage and a NT event (cf. G.W. Grogan, "The New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament," Tyndale Bulletin 18 [1967]:54-59).

i didn't exactly know where best to stick the above so i just placed it here.

( b ) the prophecy states that before the child knows right from wrong these two kingdoms will have been destroyed. that is, that the child would experience the destruction of the davidic monarchy before coming of age. this is exactly what happened both in the case of the case of child born shortly after and in the case of christ. in fact all israel still experiences the destruction of the davidic monarchy to this day.

in light of the above, all your questions have been met and answered, and more importantly, i hope that therefore the discussion can move on. while i am engaged in my own thread i do tend to browse through here from time to time to see what point this debate has reached.

 

[Al-manar]

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 ?

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

Careful. There may be opportunity to point out that there is a goose and gander thing going on here.

 

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) Though I read the rest of your post , sorry to tell you nowhere my question was answered !!

( b ) 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 ?[/QUOTE]
( a ) now, now, al-manar,, simply stating the above without proof does not constitute an answer. i showed you that the concept of multiple fulfillment is present within scripture and in opposition you have done nothing to disprove this point except to say that i have not answered your question. you have not even touched my argument and in light of this fact, i will have to disagree with you. one can not just assert facts without any evidence.

( b ) where do you get abandoned from? we know from history that these kingdoms were brought to waste (i've even given the dates in my previous post) and that more importantly, that the davidic monarchy was brought to an end. i've answered the above in my previous post and once again you have done nothing to show how i could be incorrect. all you are doing reasserting your own opinion without even dealing with what i have brought up. that is not how a debate functions nor does it prove your point, in fact it hints at the opposite. so no, al-manar, my points still stand. please deal with the evidence before you make such sweeping claims.

 

[Al-manar]

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 ?

we know from history that these kingdoms were brought to waste

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

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.....