ISAIAH PROPHESIED ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY, AND (some) CHRISTIANS ACCEPTING ISLAM: (Jesus, punishment)

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by ashai

Ushta

Err How should I say this ... oh well ! The so-called prophecy about the Virgin birth is not so.. Christians, apparently Muslims too, use a text from the Septuagint which has a word that can be translated as virgin. However the Septuagint was a translation into Greek. In the original Hebrew there is different word that means maiden/young woman and not virgin. Moreover Isaiah was talking specifically of a Jewish king.

Any Jew out there or any reasonably informed Bible student will know that this 'prophecy' is mere ledgerdemain and wishful thinking

Ushta All
Ashai

Not so much wishful thinking - if this son of the Hebrew king was so important that Isaiah dedicated so much space to him, why does he disappear from the records of history and scripture immediately? He's a total nonentity in the Old Testament other than Isaiah's prophecy.

As to the Hebrew word "Almah" it means young woman or "maiden". Maidens are presumed to be virgins in Hebrew culture.

Regards,
Scott

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by ashai

Ushta

Err How should I say this ... oh well ! The so-called prophecy about the Virgin birth is not so.. Christians, apparently Muslims too, use a text from the Septuagint which has a word that can be translated as virgin. However the Septuagint was a translation into Greek. In the original Hebrew there is different word that means maiden/young woman and not virgin. Moreover Isaiah was talking specifically of a Jewish king.

Any Jew out there or any reasonably informed Bible student will know that this 'prophecy' is mere ledgerdemain and wishful thinking

Ushta All
Ashai

But the Septuagint translation is pre-Christian (completed by the first century BC) and so far as I know there are no examples of the Hebrew text translated still in existence, so how do you know it is a mistranslation to use parthenos? You can't rely on the modern Hebrew text to correct the Septuagint as that is post-Christian and was standardised at a time when there were great tensions between Judaism and Christianity. Evidently the Jewish translators of the Septuagint didn't think they had made a mistake and neither did the diaspora Jews who used the Septuagint almost exclusively at around the time of Christ. I, as an Orthodox Christian, have far more trust in the accuracy of the Septuagint than I do in the Masoretic Text precisely because, whilst the Septuagint was translated by pre-Christian Jews the MT was collected by post- and anti-Christian Jews.

James

[ashai]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

But the Septuagint translation is pre-Christian (completed by the first century BC) and so far as I know there are no examples of the Hebrew text translated still in existence, so how do you know it is a mistranslation to use parthenos? You can't rely on the modern Hebrew text to correct the Septuagint as that is post-Christian and was standardised at a time when there were great tensions between Judaism and Christianity. Evidently the Jewish translators of the Septuagint didn't think they had made a mistake and neither did the diaspora Jews who used the Septuagint almost exclusively at around the time of Christ. I, as an Orthodox Christian, have far more trust in the accuracy of the Septuagint than I do in the Masoretic Text precisely because, whilst the Septuagint was translated by pre-Christian Jews the MT was collected by post- and anti-Christian Jews.

James

Ushta

The Qumram version of Isaiah, which is far older that the Septuagint and in Hebrew, has alma which is the correct Jewish word and means young woman or maiden. The same word is used in the Masoretic text and in the Jewish Bible So whether you prefer the Septuagint ( why would any one prefer a transaltion of the original for accuracy over the original I don't know) or not the alam rendering is older and in the original language.

Ushta Te
Ashai

[ashai]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Not so much wishful thinking - if this son of the Hebrew king was so important that Isaiah dedicated so much space to him, why does he disappear from the records of history and scripture immediately? He's a total nonentity in the Old Testament other than Isaiah's prophecy.

As to the Hebrew word "Almah" it means young woman or "maiden". Maidens are presumed to be virgins in Hebrew culture.

Regards,
Scott

Ushta Scott

Even if I were to grant your position, which I do not, the fact remains that there is no reason to prefer maiden to young woman. As to Isaiah dedicating so much space , I don't know what you call much space but Isaiah has a lot of chapters and this 'lot of space' is not even one chapter

Ushta Te
Ashai

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by ashai

Ushta

The Qumram version of Isaiah, which is far older that the Septuagint and in Hebrew, has alma which is the correct Jewish word and means young woman or maiden. The same word is used in the Masoretic text and in the Jewish Bible So whether you prefer the Septuagint ( why would any one prefer a transaltion of the original for accuracy over the original I don't know) or not the alam rendering is older and in the original language.

Ushta Te
Ashai

Firstly, there is evidence to suggest that there were at least two Scriptural traditions, one which lead to the LXX and one to the MT. Finding an old manuscript that follows one tradition does not discount the possibility of a different one. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge the Dead Sea Scrolls are 1st century BC and the LXX was compiled between the 4th and 1st centuries BC, so a DSS manuascript would have to be newer than or a contemporary of anything in the LXX. Thirdly, the fact that almah can be translated as maiden in English means that it can also be translated as parthenos in Greek. Parthenos is more specifically a virgin, but maidenhood is another name for virginity also and hence there is a certain degree of presupposition of virginity in the use of the term maiden. Clearly the Jewish translators of the LXX thought that parthenos was the appropriate word and as they were pre-Christian I have more faith in their opinion of the meaning of the text than I have in the post-Christian compilers of the MT.

As to why I prefer the Septuagint, it's quite simple. It has always, from the very beginning, been the OT of the Church. The vast majority of OT quotes in the NT come from it and, hence, I see no reason to follow the anti-Christian (and opposing Christianity was one of the major reasons for its compilation) MT. Of course I would prefer to follow the original manuscripts from which the LXX was translated but as these are now lost we have no option to do so. Anybody who tries to say that the modern Hebrew text (MT) is the original is being disingenuous and as the DSS show variant readings, some of which correspond to the LXX and some of which correspond to the MT it is quite inaccurate to suggest that the LXX is a poor translation. It simply comes from a variant textual tradition (and one which I believe, as an Orthodox Christian, is more correct than the one that forms the basis of the MT).

James

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by ashai

Ushta Scott

Even if I were to grant your position, which I do not, the fact remains that there is no reason to prefer maiden to young woman. As to Isaiah dedicating so much space , I don't know what you call much space but Isaiah has a lot of chapters and this 'lot of space' is not even one chapter

Ushta Te
Ashai

Well, it is a significant prophecy, and prophecy often has many meanings. Prophecy may often refer to events which turn out to repeat themselves in metaphor at any rate.
So Isaiah predicted all this importance to a child that vanishes in the Hebrew text? Sure, Isaiah may have been stroking the king's ego - so what?

The prophecies of Isaiah and Micah have a lot of importance not just to Jesus, for He did not fulfill all those prophecies Himself. The event of Christ's birth, according to the text of the Gospels triggered the attention of the Magi - who were Zoroastrian!/Manichaean? sages who were renowned for their astrological researches and prognostications - so something in the heavens - a one time phenomena, or more likely a Zodiacal event sent emissaries from these seers traveling a long way to research and authenticate. Something of this event was to trigger one of the greatest faiths the world has seen and be considered as essential to the founding of a second great religion (Islam) in the home areas of the faith of Zoroaster(Persia). Somehow the significance of the events of the Gospels and the Surah of Maryam and the Table Set would seem to overpower the birth and death of an insignificant prince of Judea.

Now look at the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah and see the prophecy that Christ did not fulfill:
"

THE MESSIAH WILL APPEAR TO GATHER THE JEWS BACK TO ISRAEL
Both Isaiah and Micah identify the general time when this redeemer will appear.
Isaiah 2 promises: "It shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established... and all nations shall flow unto it."
In Micah 4:1 we read: "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains... and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths..."
These sentiments are echoed in the Book of Job where it says: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth..." -Job 19:25 (KJV)
"The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see..."-Isaiah 40:5
"The excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord ... [when] the ransomed of the Lord [the Jews] shall return." -Isaiah 35 (KJV)
Isaiah continues in this same passage by next identifying the "redeemer's" family line. He wrote: "there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse... and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding... with righteousness shall he judge..."-Isaiah 2 (KJV)
The "redeemer", "the glory of the Lord" will appear at Carmel and Sharon in the "last days". He will come from the family line of Jesse, who was the father of King David.
Isaiah continues by next describing an event which will unmistakably identify the time of the coming of the "redeemer". He wrote: "it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people... and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."-Isaiah 11 (KJV)
The redeemer will begin to "recover", "assemble" and "gather" the "dispersed" Jews back to Israel when he appears in the "last days."
We can be certain that the time we live in right now is the "last days" referred to in the prophecies because we know that the Jews have already returned to Israel. These prophecies have already been fulfilled! Their fulfillment began in the mid-1800s with the coming of Baha'u'llah, who is a direct descendant of Jesse and David and whose name, when translated into English, is "the Glory of God".

THE GLORY OF GOD COMES TO ISRAEL FROM THE EAST
Isaiah continues by next telling us the direction from which the Messiah will come. He wrote: God "raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings..."-Isaiah 41:2 (KJV)
He continues: "I am God... calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man who executeth my judgement from a far country." -Isaiah 46 (KJV)
Similar statements can be found elsewhere in the Bible. For example, in Ezekiel 43 it says: "the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east... and the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east".

Baha'u'llah, the "glory of God", literally came to Israel from "the east" at the "time of the end" when the "dispersed of Judah" were beginning to return to Israel "from the four corners of the earth."
MESSIAH COMES WITH A NEW NAME
Isaiah next promises that the "redeemer" will appear with a "new name." He wrote: "I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." -Isaiah 56
Again he promises: "thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name." -Isaiah 62 And again he warned: "ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee and call his servants by another name." -Isaiah 65 (KJV)
Some Christians assert that the redeemer's new name is Jesus. This might have been true if it weren't for the fact that Jesus did not appear in the "last days" at a time when the Jews began to return to Israel. And also if for the fact that Jesus also promised that he too will have a "new name" when he returns.
Jesus promised: "Him that overcometh... I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." -Revelation 3:12 (KJV) Jesus repeats this same promise of a "new name" two other times in this same book. (See Rev 2 and Rev 19)
When the "redeemer" comes to Israel from the "east" he will have a "new name." His "servants" shall be called "by another name." He will make "all things new." We will get a "New Jerusalem" which will also come with a "new name."

Baha'u'llah, whose name in English, is translated as "the glory of God", came to Israel from the "east" at a time when the "dispersed" Jews began to return to Israel and his voluminous writings have created a "New Jerusalem"... a new system of religious belief and practice.
MESSIAH COMES TO AKKA AND MT. CARMEL
Isaiah began by telling us where the Messiah will come from. He wrote that the redeemer would come to Israel from the east. Next, Isaiah continues by telling us the place where the Messiah will come to.
He wrote: "The excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord ... [when] the ransomed of the Lord [the Jews] shall return." -Isaiah 35 (KJV)
In another place in his book Isaiah repeats this same promise: " Sharon shall be a fold of flocks and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in for my people that have sought me." -Isaiah 65 (KJV) In these two passages, Isaiah has described a very specific area of Israel. He says that "the glory of the Lord" will come to "Carmel", "Sharon" and "Achor". The city which was known in ancient times as Achor (also spelled Acre), today is called Akka. The city of Akka is located at the foot of Mt. Carmel in Israel and both Akka and Mt. Carmel are situated on the plain of Sharon. As you can see, Isaiah was very specific about where the Messiah will appear. He said that the redeemer will come to Akka and Mt. Carmel. "http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/linklibrary.pl?pageid=714

That's for starters, and Jesus did not come from the east, nor did the nations pour into Israel (they were already there until the Romans cast the native people out).

In my opinion this expected individual (Jesus) would have sent the Parsi and the Magi looking to see if the Shah Bahram had come. Jesus was not the Shah Bahram - the second individual of the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah MIGHT indeed be the Shah Bahram (indeed I believe He is).

Regards,
Scott

[ashai]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Firstly, there is evidence to suggest that there were at least two Scriptural traditions, one which lead to the LXX and one to the MT. Finding an old manuscript that follows one tradition does not discount the possibility of a different one. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge the Dead Sea Scrolls are 1st century BC and the LXX was compiled between the 4th and 1st centuries BC, so a DSS manuascript would have to be newer than or a contemporary of anything in the LXX. Thirdly, the fact that almah can be translated as maiden in English means that it can also be translated as parthenos in Greek. Parthenos is more specifically a virgin, but maidenhood is another name for virginity also and hence there is a certain degree of presupposition of virginity in the use of the term maiden. Clearly the Jewish translators of the LXX thought that parthenos was the appropriate word and as they were pre-Christian I have more faith in their opinion of the meaning of the text than I have in the post-Christian compilers of the MT.

As to why I prefer the Septuagint, it's quite simple. It has always, from the very beginning, been the OT of the Church. The vast majority of OT quotes in the NT come from it and, hence, I see no reason to follow the anti-Christian (and opposing Christianity was one of the major reasons for its compilation) MT. Of course I would prefer to follow the original manuscripts from which the LXX was translated but as these are now lost we have no option to do so. Anybody who tries to say that the modern Hebrew text (MT) is the original is being disingenuous and as the DSS show variant readings, some of which correspond to the LXX and some of which correspond to the MT it is quite inaccurate to suggest that the LXX is a poor translation. It simply comes from a variant textual tradition (and one which I believe, as an Orthodox Christian, is more correct than the one that forms the basis of the MT).

James

Ushta James

May I ask what is the evidence that suggests two traditions? Also, are there any manuscripts in Hebrew that support the reading of the Septuagint?

As to Qumram. The 'monastery' was probably active betwen 170 BC and the end of the Second Jewish War. However, the manuscript of Isaiah found at Qumram, is the oldest edxtant manuscript of a book of the bible dated, I believe to 400s/500s BC. So even though the Qumram community was not as old the manuscript certainly is.

As to parthenos, it means Virgin and there are other words to express maiden in Greek If the Hebrew writer of Isaiah wanted to say virgin , he would have used the Hebrew word for virgin which is Bethulah '

Also while the Masoteric may not be the original , when we discover a very ancient manuscript, like the Qumram Isaiah, that its almost identical to the Masoretic text, one cannot call the Masoretic an anti Christian text any more because 400 plus BC is no time to write an anti-Christian text

[ashai]

" Well, it is a significant prophecy, and prophecy often has many meanings. Prophecy may often refer to events which turn out to repeat themselves in metaphor at any rate.
So Isaiah predicted all this importance to a child that vanishes in the Hebrew text? Sure, Isaiah may have been stroking the king's ego - so what? "

Ushta popeeyesays

The thing is that you are assuming that this must be a prophecy about Christ. In fact Isaiah like all prophets were often employed by the kings and is perfectly natural that he might have been talking about the King's son. Incidentally , prophecy did not always involve a foretelling. In any case , many other prophecies in th Bible went unfulfilled at least so far. And there are some who backfired like the prophecy about Nebuchadnezar conquering Tyre.

I find this a case of Christian belief reading something into a text that isn't there, I might be wrong but I do not think so. The whole Virgin Birth is at best an allegory and at worst an attempt to cater to Greek religious views. After all, the virgin child combo had been floating around the Middle East at least since Isis and that was around 2000 years before Jesus. The Greeks , notable eclectics, had adopted the myth into their religious world view, and, needless to say Christianity was from the beginning looking for Greek converts

Ushta Te
Ashai