sincerly said:
If you would stop looking at your own biased thinking, you would be able the discern the truth in what Isaiah has been recording from verse 1:1 through 66:24-----and again, I have read and understand Isaiah 7 in relationship to the rest of Isaiah and the Bible as a whole.------It is not a myth. GOD is Real and HIS dealings with rebellious people didn't just start.
This is hopeless. :banghead3
You do understand that this thread is the occurrences of the word HARAH being used in the Hebrew scriptures, but the main focal point is about the HARAH on one chapter in particular - Isaiah 7.
The Hebrew word - - or harah don't occur anywhere else in the Book of Isaiah, so talking about the context of those other chapters are irrelevant.
The only exception I would allow is Isaiah 8, because both Isaiah 7 & 8, is about Ahaz and Judah being in the middle of war against the alliance of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram.
The signs of both chapters, is about how the King of Assyria will end the threat to Judah, by invading Israel and Aram; the child's age - whether he be Immanuel or Maher-shalal-hash-baz - denote when this event will occur.
I don't disagree with you in regarding that virgin birth occurred, as narrated by Matthew in Matthew 1, but I do disagree with Matthew's choice on quoting Isaiah's partial sign.
You think I disagreeing with you about Matthew's birth story...well, I am not. Do I disagree with you about Matthew using Isaiah's sign...most certainly.
It is not a question of whether Jesus' virgin birth is true or not, but whether the context to harah mean pregnant now or pregnant later is the issue. The disagreement has to do with the language and context.
When Matthew was quoting Isaiah's (partial) sign, Matthew wrote in Greek, and he had quoted from Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, not from Isaiah's book original language - Hebrew...which in my mind is mistake. And I believed when the KJV were translating Isaiah 7, it used the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
This is quite apparent, when the KJV used other OT books from other languages, to translate specific verses. The KJV had used (in translation of OT to English) mostly Masoretic Text, as the main sources, but on occasions used either the Greek Septuagint or even rarer occasions - the Latin Vulgate Bible.
As an example of using Latin, instead of Hebrew or Greek sources - Isaiah 14:12:
Isaiah 14:12 said:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:12 said:
ëykh' näfal'Tä miSHämayim hëylël Ben-shächar nig'Da'Tä lääretz chôlësh al-Gôyim
Isaiah 14:12 said:
אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם׃
It should have been translated like this:
Isaiah 14:12 said:
How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
Why use the Latin "Lucifer" for the "morning star", and not the translation of
hëylël (
הֵילֵל) - "morning star" or "day star"?
This jumping from one source (Hebrew) to another (Latin), then back to the original source (Hebrew), on the same chapter, only show the dishonesty of the KJV; they have motives in changing sources, just as they did in Isaiah 7 (Hebrew -> Greek -> Hebrew). It is certainly not consistent.
When translating ancient texts from other language, you would not jump from one language to another, unless your main source (which would be Hebrew) were missing words, passages or chapters.
The inconsistencies in the quotes, is not just from KJV, but from Matthew himself. Matthew had quoted 2 other verses from begone prophets - Jeremiah 31:15 and Hosea 11:1. And I have mentioned these two quotes previously, the later in post 1098.
Hosea 11:1 said:
When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
The quote speak of God having brought his Israel out of Egypt, but if this quote is supposed to be prophecy of some distant future, like when Joseph took Mary and Jesus into and out of Egypt, then shouldn't these verse be written in future tense, not past tense as can be seen in my quote?
Matthew's quoted Jeremiah, also speak in past tense, not future tense. If Jeremiah 31:15 were prophecy, then they too be presented in future tense.
And yet you would argue that Isaiah sign about the virgin birth of Jesus, when the sign was already completed 700 years earlier.