Re: Indeed: re: virgin birth, census -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:38:31 04/08/02 Mon
Author: Adilbrand
Subject: Re: Indeed: re: virgin birth, census
In reply to: mt. healthy mountaineer, indeed 's message, "Indeed: re: virgin birth, census" on 15:23:03 04/08/02 Mon

And if there were a census, my other points still stand.

And the Hebrew language is actually fairly precise on many points. They did not use the word for virgin. Hence, the Hebrews did not mean "virgin".

Further, the "prophecy" in question doesn't even refer to Christ! It refers to some dude named Immanuel.

Isaiah's prophecy was that the child Immanuel was to have been born in 742 BCE, the first year of King Ahaz's reign. Ahaz, the king of Judah, faced the combined armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah explained to Ahaz that he should not form an alliance with Assyria. In support of this advice, God would provide a sign: a young woman would conceive and bear a child who would be named Immanuel. The sign would have only have been effective if it happened almost immediately. It would not have given a lot of support to Isaiah's prophecy if more than seven centuries passed before it was fulfilled, over 700 years after King Ahaz' death.

Isaiah was clearly not referring to some event that would occur centuries later. When he referred to the far future, as in Chapter 11, he typically used a phrase such as "In that day."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]