ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[gnostic]

It isn't True Christians who is doing the twisting, but those who believe in myths and false reports/teachings.

Sincerely, false reports/teachings is coming from within your group, especially those who refused to read the context of the WHOLE CHAPTER...OR those who choose to ignore them.

You give us image of cherry picking Christians, which is certainly not complimentary, because dishonesty and deception is the key to your belief.

You do know how to read a whole chapter, don't you?

You can distinguish the difference between chapter and a single verse, can't you?

You can? That's great, sincerely. Now can you read Isaiah 7 without your biased preconception and tell me HOW 7:14 IS RELATED TO ISAIAH 7 (whole chapter, mind you)?

Why is 7:14 presented with 7:15-17, within the chapter?

Can you be really once in your life?

 

[sincerly]

I find it laughable that he would accuse me of "illogic, false reasoning", when he refused to read the whole chapter, to find out what the verse (7:14) mean WITHIN THE CHAPTER.

All this "virgin birth" and "messiah" are not found in Isaiah 7; it is only because Matthew say so, and the church and Christians believe in this nonsense because "he said so".

Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for Jesus as a teacher, but he has created liars out of these Christians and churches.

Matthew have not only twisted the context of Isaiah 7:14 verse, in his infancy narrative, but also in verses Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15.

Hosea 11:1 is speaking in the past tense, and yet Matthew (in Matthew 2:15) and the church has twisted the meaning, so that it is prophetic future tense.



Hosea doesn't speak in future tense until after verse 4 (Hosea 11:5 and onward).

And in Hosea 11:5, Israel does get deported, some going to Egypt after Samaria has fallen, for worshipping foreign gods. If Hosea 11:1 applied to Jesus and his parents going into Egypt, then shouldn't Hosea 11:5 also applied to them as well? Wouldn't that make them (Jesus & co) evil idol worship peers of Ba'al (11:2)?

It funny how they only select verse suit them, but not all other verses that doesn't.

That level of dishonest actually turn my stomach.

Again, all are free to believe or disbelieve the Scriptures, but The Bible isn't just one Prophet ,but many and all are with the message of repenting and returning to the true worship of the Creator GOD.
The Adversary began with lying and that M.O. will continue to the end of earth's history. Your conclusions will be your witness---per the Scriptures. It is just that simple.

 

[sincerly]

Sincerely, false reports/teachings is coming from within your group, especially those who refused to read the context of the WHOLE CHAPTER...OR those who choose to ignore them.

You give us image of cherry picking Christians, which is certainly not complimentary, because dishonesty and deception is the key to your belief.

You do know how to read a whole chapter, don't you?

You can distinguish the difference between chapter and a single verse, can't you?

You can? That's great, sincerely. Now can you read Isaiah 7 without your biased preconception and tell me HOW 7:14 IS RELATED TO ISAIAH 7 (whole chapter, mind you)?

Why is 7:14 presented with 7:15-17, within the chapter?

Can you be really once in your life?

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.

 

[CG Didymus]

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-----

Biased? We all know the fundamental Christian way of interpreting Scripture. This is only one point. How about "Lucifer" and the Prince and King of Tyre? Is Isaiah talking about The Adversary, the Christian devil? No, not in context. Same thing. If that's how your religion teaches you, that is what you will see and that is what you will believe.

And I'll bet Jesus is working just fine for you. Your heart is filled with the love and power of the Lord. But the devil, hell, personal salvation, a virgin born Messiah that is coming back a second time are not from Judaism. They are Christian concepts. You believe them. You see the proof of them everywhere. I just barely looking at the surface. The simple English translation and I see problems areas with the Christian belief system everywhere.

I believed once, but I was gullible and naive at the time. However, while I was in the state of being a believer, it was great. I felt the power of God. I felt the love of God in my heart. But, to be honest, I also felt it while I believed in the Baha'i Faith. I felt it while I was a even more naive and gullible young hippie in the 60's believing in Native American religion in "Americanized" Eastern religion.

So what is the truth? The love I felt and gave to others or what I believed? All of them caused me to surrender to a spiritual reality and give of myself. They all called it something different, but each got me to a spiritual place. Was I deceived? Were some of those religious movements a little questionable? Probably, but if I believed in them they worked. So what is truth? Yours or theirs? All of them have some "questionable" notions.

 

[Tumah]

And that "point" is in regards to Isaiah's son by the prophetess. (8:18)

It sounds like you are saying that Emmanuel is the same as Maher-shalal-chash-baz. But that would be in direct contradiction to everything you've said until now.

Ex.31:13 should be obvious and I would hope that Isa.66:22-23 was familiar to you.

They are. But I don't see either of them speaking about the Messiah himself.

Do you remember posting this in that last post?---""'"ואמרת - the ו in the beginning of the word makes it possible to switch this word to imperfectve, but it doesn't have to. So this word can either mean "and you shall say" or "and you said.""""?

In other words, you can make GOD'S messages mean what-so-ever you please. GOD isn't consistent according to your post.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. You have similar examples in English:
Running - is this word past present or future?
I was running.
I am running.
It depends on context. That doesn't mean that my usage of the word "running" is inconsistent. It just means that it has multiple applications and I need to determine the intent from context.

The word ואמרת has two parts to it "ו" and "אמרת".
The "ו" simply means "and". Gen. 1:2 "והארץ" - "and the land". "וחשך" - "and darkness".
The second word "אמרת" means "say" in the second person, perfective. In other words "you said." An example would be Gen. 32:13 "ואתה אמרת" - "and you said."
However, when you put these two letters together you get Ex. 7:9 "ואמרת אל אהרן" - and you shall say to Aaron.

The reason why this works is because the "ו" has the ability to change a word from the perfective from the imperfective.

However none of this has anything to do with the word הרה.

I wasn't being sarcastic, just understanding why Jesus would acknowledge the back-sliddings and the denials of HIS being sent to save the lost from the house of Israel.

And I am understanding why the Pharisees of the time didn't want to acknowledge him. Thank you for that!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So is this what this has come to? Can we close this thread or is more linguistic education and understanding needed?

 

[RabbiO]

So is this what this has come to? Can we close this thread or is more linguistic education and understanding needed?

It doesn't matter if this thread is closed..... This subject will just pop up again, as it has more than once in the past.

Peter

 

[sincerly]

Biased? We all know the fundamental Christian way of interpreting Scripture. This is only one point. How about "Lucifer" and the Prince and King of Tyre? Is Isaiah talking about The Adversary, the Christian devil? No, not in context. Same thing. If that's how your religion teaches you, that is what you will see and that is what you will believe.

And I'll bet Jesus is working just fine for you. Your heart is filled with the love and power of the Lord. But the devil, hell, personal salvation, a virgin born Messiah that is coming back a second time are not from Judaism. They are Christian concepts. You believe them. You see the proof of them everywhere. I just barely looking at the surface. The simple English translation and I see problems areas with the Christian belief system everywhere.

I believed once, but I was gullible and naive at the time. However, while I was in the state of being a believer, it was great. I felt the power of God. I felt the love of God in my heart. But, to be honest, I also felt it while I believed in the Baha'i Faith. I felt it while I was a even more naive and gullible young hippie in the 60's believing in Native American religion in "Americanized" Eastern religion.

So what is the truth? The love I felt and gave to others or what I believed? All of them caused me to surrender to a spiritual reality and give of myself. They all called it something different, but each got me to a spiritual place. Was I deceived? Were some of those religious movements a little questionable? Probably, but if I believed in them they worked. So what is truth? Yours or theirs? All of them have some "questionable" notions.

Therefore, from those scriptures which you doubt/disbelieve----Prov.14:12---(from the O.T.---Jewish Bible), ""There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. ""

And from 2Pet.1:10, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

And Peter was acknowledging the admonition of Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Fast forward to The end of Jesus' ministry to the lost sheep of Israel. Matt.23:37-38, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Ezek.3:4-27, was one of those prophets, "And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel;"

In Matt.5:17-18, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Luke 19:10, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost". "
now consider Matt.10:5-6, in regards to this mission of establishing the "kingdom of GOD". "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".
That message is verified/attested to in Matt. 15:23-28; Mark 7:26-30; Acts 13:45-46; Rom.9:4-8; Eph.2:12-18.

Instead of being a light to the Gentiles, the Jewish Nation had made GOD's words of non-effect---as was noted in their attitude toward other peoples who desired to have GOD as their GOD.(God is not a/the respecter of persons. (Deut.10:17; Acts 10:34)

As Jesus said in John 17:17, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. "

 

[CG Didymus]

... Jesus said in John 17:17, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. "

What was God's Word at the time he said that? His words, as remembered by his followers, and their "witness" as to what he did became God's Word according to Christians. But what language did Jesus speak? If it wasn't Greek then even the "originals" were translations.

But getting back to the point of the thread. How would you say "A young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son" and "A young woman shall conceive" in Hebrew?

 

[gnostic]

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:

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!

ëykh' näfal'Tä miSHämayim hëylël Ben-shächar nig'Da'Tä lääretz chôlësh al-Gôyim

אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם׃

It should have been translated like this:

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.

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.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
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

Hi Gnostic, do you enjoy banging your head against the wall??
This time (the period of Isaiah's writing) was approx.710 years after Moses had prophesied prior to the Israelites going into the "Promised land" Deut.6:12-15, "Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."

That was prophetic. Where was the Northren kingdom(Israel) aligned with the "nations" against Judah/Ahaz who had gone after the gods of the "nations" and causing the people to Sin.(to the point of sending his children thrugh the fire.)?
Assyria didn't come to "save" Ahaz, but to ravage Judah as is seen in 8:7-8.
Yes, as Isaiah said,8:9-14 those who believe Isaiah will obey and go into Babylon's captivity for that 70 years.

God is able to give or remind of prophecies as HE Deems necessary. Moses rightly said, "ye are a stiff-necked people". GOd reminded Ahaz of GOD'S power in that 7:14 verse.

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:
It should have been translated like this:

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.

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.

Of course, I understand your purpose and strategy in these posts.

What you fail to comprehend concerning the Scriptures is that GOD's messages are not in single words or a chapter, but that which is produced in the entire Bible concerning the Creator GOD, the fall of mankind, and GOD'S plan for the restoration of all things----minus the wickedness which was caused by an Adversary and those who follow his leadership.

 

[gnostic]

sincerly:

I know that you and I disagree on many things, especially in with regards to the sign in Isaiah 7. But I would like to establish some ground rules, by asking you a question now, and if we are in agreement, then I will give you an example with some questions in my next reply.

Do you agree or not that when someone (like Matthew) quoting from passage of a prophet that's supposed to be a prophecy of the future, then the context and wording of the quoted passage should be written in future tense?​

So do you understand and agree with the above question?

What I mean is that the supposed prophecy shouldn't be written in past tense? Do you agree?

 

[sincerly]

sincerly:

I know that you and I disagree on many things, especially in with regards to the sign in Isaiah 7. But I would like to establish some ground rules, by asking you a question now, and if we are in agreement, then I will give you an example with some questions in my next reply.

Do you agree or not that when someone (like Matthew) quoting from passage of a prophet that's supposed to be a prophecy of the future, then the context and wording of the quoted passage should be written in future tense?
​

So do you understand and agree with the above question?

What I mean is that the supposed prophecy shouldn't be written in past tense? Do you agree?

Your ground rules?? Sorry Gnostic, but the Lord GOD specified the ground rules for HIS Scriptures. Believe/obey and live. However, I do understand your proposition.

 

[gnostic]

Your ground rules?? Sorry Gnostic, but the Lord GOD specified the ground rules for HIS Scriptures. Believe/obey and live.

Why are you concentrating on this? That's not really the question. I just simply want US to communicate on an agreed protocol, where I ask the initial question, you answer with a simple answer, so that I can give you an example followed by a few questions, which you would answer these questions, without hesitation and without evasion.

That's all, I meant by ground rules. But you have already wasted my time with 2 simple words - ground rules, in which I have to explain further.

However, I do understand your proposition.

Then do you agree that (quoted) prophecy, the passage would be written in the FUTURE tense? Yes or no?

If you aren't sure, then say so. All I just want from you was a honest answer, without evasions. I expect and want nothing less your answers.

 

[sincerly]

Your ground rules?? Sorry Gnostic, but the Lord GOD specified the ground rules for HIS Scriptures. Believe/obey and live. However, I do understand your proposition.

Why are you concentrating on this? That's not really the question. I just simply want US to communicate on an agreed protocol, where I ask the initial question, you answer with a simple answer, so that I can give you an example followed by a few questions, which you would answer these questions, without hesitation and without evasion.

That's all, I meant by ground rules. But you have already wasted my time with 2 simple words - ground rules, in which I have to explain further.

Then do you agree that (quoted) prophecy, the passage would be written in the FUTURE tense? Yes or no?

If you aren't sure, then say so. All I just want from you was a honest answer, without evasions. I expect and want nothing less your answers.

Why??? Could it possibly be that "your rules" are with the same motive that the serpent "logically"(and with motive) presented to Eve---beguiling falseness??

I am not wasting your time---Unless you feel that your posts are being shown for the falseness they present and are countered by the "Truths of GOD'S Scriptures".
I realize that you do not believe either.

The "If --then", "thou shalt not--in the day" is as much prophetic as "this is prophetic", etc.

I have given honest answers without evasions and as timely as my time table allowed. I'm not subject to your whims/opinions, but I am subject to the Creator GOD.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have given honest answers without evasions and as timely as my time table allowed.

That's good to hear. Did you answer my question from an earlier post:

How would you say "A young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son" and "A young woman shall conceive" in Hebrew?

You know, some people are under the impression that Isaiah was talking about a "young girl" that was possibly present and with child already. If that's true then the "sign" was about her and her child. Your answer should help clear things up.

 

[gnostic]

Why??? Could it possibly be that "your rules" are with the same motive *that the serpent "logically"(and with motive) presented to *Eve---beguiling falseness??

Man, you are either paranoid or delusional.

You are get bent all-out-of-shape, the moment I mentioned "ground rules".*

I simply want us to move forward in this debate, instead of being stuck in merry-go-round.

Right now, we are stuck in this "ground rule" pit, because you can't answer simple question.

It was just a simple question, in which you would you could have answer with "yes", "no" or *"I don't know".*

Depending on your answer, I would give you an example, and then ask questions, so we can forward.*

I am not asking for "why" answer yet, because you haven't answer my question, and I haven't give an example.

I am not wasting your time---Unless you feel that your posts are being *shown for the falseness they present and are countered by the "Truths of *GOD'S Scriptures".
I realize that you do not believe either.

*
It is not so much as belief, as attempt to understand the passage.

It is possible to understand what is written without "believing".*

So I will rephrase my question, yet again:

A) Do you agree that passage QUOTE by gospel authors (like Matthew or Luke) that supposed to be PROPHETIC, should be written in the future-tense?​

You still don't like the about question? Perhaps, I will reverse the questions around, and perhaps, just perhaps, you can answer the question without hedging, without being evasive.

B) Can a passage still be prophetic about the future, if it was written in past-tense fashion?​

Answer one (A) or the other the question (B), I don't really care.*

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
I have given honest answers without evasions and as timely as my time table allowed. I'm not subject to your whims/opinions, but I am subject to the Creator GOD.

That's good to hear. Did you answer my question from an earlier post:

How would you say "A young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son" and "A young woman shall conceive" in Hebrew?

CG D, Where have I ever claimed to read or write or speak the Hebrew language?
However, I do read the English translations which were translated from the earlier translations and they presented that which was accepted as truth by Jesus and have been carried forth until the last approx 25-30 years ----when drastic alterations of the meanings of certain Scriptures began to be presented.

You know, some people are under the impression that Isaiah was talking about a "young girl" that was possibly present and with child already. If that's true then the "sign" was about her and her child. Your answer should help clear things up.

CG D, you are one of those believers and I have in approx. 1/5 of the posts shown that "if" to be false--Not True.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Why??? Could it possibly be that "your rules" are with the same motive *that the serpent "logically"(and with motive) presented to *Eve---beguiling falseness??

Man, you are either paranoid or delusional.

I'm neither paranoid or delusional, but it seems from your post that your like to project. Nor am I gullible.

You are get bent all-out-of-shape, the moment I mentioned "ground rules".*

I simply want us to move forward in this debate, instead of being stuck in merry-go-round.

Right now, we are stuck in this "ground rule" pit, because you can't answer simple question.

It was just a simple question, in which you would you could have answer with "yes", "no" or *"I don't know".*

Depending on your answer, I would give you an example, and then ask questions, so we can forward.*

I am not asking for "why" answer yet, because you haven't answer my question, and I haven't give an example.


*
It is not so much as belief, as attempt to understand the passage.

It is possible to understand what is written without "believing".*

So I will rephrase my question, yet again:

A) Do you agree that passage QUOTE by gospel authors (like Matthew or Luke) that supposed to be PROPHETIC, should be written in the future-tense?
​

You still don't like the about question? Perhaps, I will reverse the questions around, and perhaps, just perhaps, you can answer the question without hedging, without being evasive.

B) Can a passage still be prophetic about the future, if it was written in past-tense fashion?
​

Answer one (A) or the other the question (B), I don't really care.*

The merry-go-round is because of your handling of the Scriptures.
How about playing by my "ground rules"? The Scriptures are Correct--from Genesis to Revelation.?

And you did ask why---
Originally Posted by gnostic
Why are you concentrating on this?

 

[gnostic]

The merry-go-round is because of your handling of the Scriptures.
How about playing by my "ground rules"? The Scriptures are Correct--from Genesis to Revelation.?

You still can't answer a direct question, can you?

You said you're not being evasive, but you can't seem to answer without giving this tiresome run-around. What are you afraid of?

If you actually believe the bible is correct, then you have nothing to fear, because you don't think I understand because as you often accuse me of being - "unbeliever".

Playing by your rules? You mean being evasive like you?

Well, I couldn't be like you, because I am being open and honest with you. You are evasive as the serpent that you have accuse me of bring of.

You don't like rules, I will retract "rules", then answer the bl@@dy question.

Answer either:

A) Do you agree that passage QUOTE by gospel authors (like Matthew or Luke) that supposed to be PROPHETIC, should be written in the future-tense?​

or...

B) Can a passage still be prophetic about the future, if it was written in past-tense fashion?​