NOT a messianic prophecy (Page 2)

JX Amaro: My point, which was obvious to anyone who read it, was that not just Christians view Psalm 22 as a Messianic prophecy - even some Jews like Rashi do. I proved my point, objectively and with verifiable facts. Nice try trying to use a straw man argument (ie, trying to sell readers into thinking I thought Rashi was a prophet) in a pathetic attempt to create the illusion of having won the point. Sad that you have to stoop so low, but also very telling.

DontNeedChrist:

"I'll bet real money that DNC will take his absurd post down within 24 hours and offer no explanations. LMAO!!!!!! - JX Amalek

On the contrary I stand by every typed word. Pay up fool.

JX Amaro: @DNC: So you stand by every word. Fine. Let's examine those words to expose you as the intellectually dishonest charlatan you are:

DNC: “Here's a newsflash for you. Rashi is not a prophet.”
OK, show me where I say Rashi is a prophet. (He can't.)
DNC: “You think opinion is prophecy? You are sadly mistaken.”
Again, where do I say Rashi's opinions are prophecy? (He can't, because I didn't. Bang!)
(DNC's quotes are from the fourth paragraph on his last post on Page 1.)

This is called a “Straw Man Argument” also known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” Here is the definition that comes up if you put “Straw Man Argument” into Google Search:
“A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.”

That is what DNC has done. He is trying to claim that I erroneously think Rashi is a prophet and that I think Rashi's opinions count as prophecy! And on exposing that “error” he thinks he was won the argument on Psalm 22!!! LOL. (In other words, he has to default into “Fantasy Land” so as to pretend to win an argument. And he has done this on other threads, too. Like accusing a person of being an “anti-semite,” it's one of his “go-to” strategies when he has otherwise lost the argument.)

Great, dude. Keep your post up. Let everyone see DNC “the Charlatan” in action! LMAO!

DontNeedChrist:

Here are your words regarding Psalm 22:

"As Christian claims are apparently unacceptable, let's see what Rashi, considered one of the greatest of all the Jewish commentators, had to say. Contrary to DNC's wild and dogmatic claims, Rashi believed that Psalm 22 was a prophecy of the future and about the Messiah!"

Also:
"My point, which was obvious to anyone who read it, was that not just Christians view Psalm 22 as a Messianic prophecy - even some Jews like Rashi do."

ONE commentator's interpretation does not make it so. Though Rashi is a renown and well respected sage, his commentaries are not absolute and many sages and rabbis have disagreed with him on many issues of halacha and interpretations of biblical events over the centuries. His opinions are not final. They are his take; his opinion; his perspective.

You JX Amalek only present his views when he seems to align with your christian agenda. When Rashi writes of things that clash with christian dogma, you are silent.

YOU presented Rashi's interpretations in order to reinforce your claim of prophecy and you know it. There are many sages that disagree with Rashi concerning Psalm 22. So what? None are right, none are wrong. That's why it's called commentary; interpretation; opinion; perception; etc.

You think presenting Rashi's OPINION on a golden pedestal proves anything? It's duly noted but is in no way absolute. Nice try.

This psalm is written BY DAVID ABOUT HIMSELF. It is not about the messiah or jesus or anyone else.

DontNeedChrist:

Moving on...

Isaiah 7:14
Another christian favorite.

THE PASSAGE:
“Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, ‘Ask a sign of the Lord, your G-d. Ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask, for I will not tempt the Lord.’ Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, O house of David: Is it enough that you weary men, but will you also weary my god?’
Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

THE HEBREW:
The Hebrew word used for “young woman” is “almah”. It refers to a woman of the age typical for marriage. Almah denotes age only — it just means “young woman”, “woman of marrying age”. Any woman — married, single, virgin, or even a whore — of that age is an almah.

Biblical Hebrew has a specific word that means “virgin" “bethulah”, and it was used frequently in Isaiah’s time. It refers to a woman who is a virgin. If Isaiah had meant that the mother of Immanuel was a virgin, he would surely have used bethulah.

We KNOW the young woman in question is not a virgin because SHE IS ALREADY PREGNANT derived from accurate translations.

"...behold, THE YOUNG WOMAN IS WITH CHILD."

If she is with child logically she is not a virgin. Common sense.

THE CONTEXT:
About 735 years before jesus was born, Judah (the house of David) was under attack from Israel and Syria. Judah’s King Ahaz was approached by the prophet Isaiah to console him and give him a sign as to how long the siege would last. Isaiah replied that it would be a short time because there was a child to be born who would be called Immanuel by his mother, and that before this child was old enough to distinguish right from wrong, Israel and Syria would have been defeated. About three years later, Syria was defeated and pillaged by Assyria and Israel was forced into submission to Assyria. Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled over 700 years BEFORE jesus was born. Isaiah simply prophesied that a child would be born to a woman who would name her son Immanuel. When Ahaz would see this, he would be assured that G-d would save the Kingdom of Judah.

The child might have been any child near that time. The point was not to identify the child, but to specify the duration of the siege. The young woman spoken of is referred to with a definite article as “THE young woman” (as opposed to “A young woman” which Matthew changes it to). It was a woman known to either Isaiah or Ahaz in their time. The identity of the child is secondary to the age he will be when Ahaz’s enemies are defeated.

Immanuel may have even been one of Isaiah’s many sons:

Isaiah 8:18-
“Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given to me are for SIGNS and for SYMBOLS to Israel from G-d Almighty, who dwells in Mount Zion.”

NOT JESUS:
"Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

How could sinless man/god jesus have to learn how the difference between bad and good? Immanuel was a completely different person born over 700 years before jesus.

Nowhere in the NT is jesus called or referred to as Immanuel. In Luke 1:31 the angel Gabriel tells Mary what to name him:

"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus."
NOT IMMANUEL.

In Matthew 1:21 "an angel of the Lord" comes to Joseph and says:
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus..."
NOT IMMANUEL.

Christians claim because Immanuel means "G-d with us" it's just another name for jesus. But the angels failed to tell his parents to name him Immanuel. The meaning of a different name has nothing to do with his given name. It's forced and illogical.

The mountain of evidence regarding Isaiah 7:14 is overwhelmingly against the subject of the chapter being the messiah or jesus.

JX Amaro:
@DNC: Actually, one counter-example (especially a high-value one like Rashi) is dispositive to your dogmatic claim that there are no messianic prophecies in Psalms that any Jewish thinker would acknowledge – Christians (including Jewish Christians) being arbitrarily dismissed.
(Note: In Law, a “dispositive” fact or piece of evidence is one that immediately ends the dispute. For example: IF Joe Blow is accused of killing Billybob the Hillbilly, and the defense produces Billybob the Hillbilly alive and well, THEN the case immediately ends and Joe Blow walks away a free man.)

This point hardly needs to be made. It’s obvious. What’s interesting is the way it exemplifies the Judaic tendency to re-define reality in arbitrary and self-serving ways. Indeed, one can argue that the Talmudic witchdoctors invented “pilpulism” as a specialized “alchemical” technique to do precisely this – twist words and definitions like silly putty so as to rewrite Scripture. If one doesn’t know what “pilpulism” means, it’s a Talmudic technique of hairsplitting words and then hairsplitting the hairsplit word. In this way, a table becomes a chair, an ocean becomes a forest and so on – language games. And this serves as a brief but interesting introduction to the discussion on Isaiah 7:14.

At stake is this: Was Isaiah describing a “young woman” or a “virgin”? According to DNC, Isaiah uses the Hebrew word “almah” and this means young woman. According to DNC, if Isaiah had meant a virgin, he would have used the word “bethulah.” According to DNC, this seals the deal and Christians are exposed as dolts and fools or whatever. Let’s investigate.

First of all, I would like to point out something incredibly OBVIOUS that just happens to escape the eye of DNC. It is this: In the first portion of verse 14, the reader is told that there will be a “sign” (an “ot”). (14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign (“ot”): The virgin/young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.) Just why a “young woman” giving birth would be a “sign” from God is something that DNC might care to explain to us. Young women give birth all the time. So what? A “sign” seems to imply something miraculous, something people might take note of as sufficiently unusual. Let’s verify the point:

In 2 Kings 20:8-11, we get the following exchange between Isaiah and the King:
“8 Hezekiah had asked Isaiah, “What will be the sign (“ot”) that the Lord will heal me and that I will go up to the temple of the Lord on the third day from now?”
9 Isaiah answered, “This is the Lord’s sign to you that the Lord will do what he has promised: Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?”
10 “It is a simple matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps,” said Hezekiah. “Rather, have it go back ten steps.”
11 Then the prophet Isaiah called on the Lord, and the Lord made the shadow go back the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.”

Thus we see a “sign” (ot) is used to mean something miraculous. It obviously follows that the “sign” (ot) in 7:14 also suggests something miraculous. (Again, why would a “young woman” giving birth be a sign from God?)

At this point, one hardly need go on. Common sense destroys DNC’s “talking point.” But let’s look a bit more at these Hebrew words as we can assume DNC and fellow delusional Jews will try to play the Hebrew “Language Games” (“pilpulism”) card.

Exposing the trick is quite easy. A “young woman” and a “virgin” are NOT mutually exclusive terms. Moreover, we see in Genesis 24 that Rebecca is referred to as BOTH a “betulah” (in v.16) and an “almah” (in v. 43). The two words are used interchangeably for the same virginal, young woman – Rebecca. This point is dispositive to the case (see definition above). For verification of this point showing both the Hebrew and English, go here:
http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/genesis/24.html

There is more: When the Alexandrian Jews translated the Scriptures into Greek, they translated the Isaiah 7:14 “almah” as “parthenos” – an unmarried virgin. Will DNC & Friends now tell us that the creators of the Septuagint were Christian propagandists, long before the advent of Christianity? LOL. Ixne.

Again, the facts are plain and obvious. Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a virgin birth as a “sign” from God. Jewish disinformation agents obfuscate this FACT with Rabbinic “language games” to: A) disparage Christianity; and B) keep Jews blind to the FACT that Jesus was the Christ of prophecy and Christianity is the “True Vine,” the true and authentic faith of YHWH undistorted by the mythologies of the dark sages and witchdoctors of the Judaic death cult.

Unreconstructed Jews, and/or anyone brainwashed by the Yeshivas (ie, Rabbinic re-education camps), might want to think deeply and ruminate on this. The exodus from Judaic Babylon begins here.

DontNeedChrist:

Continuing on with Tehillim 22:17

Time for a Hebrew lesson
כְּאַרְיֵה (c'aryeh)

Let’s examine the Hebrew word(s) used in Psalm 22:16-17 that are claimed to mean “pierce.” Both ari and aryeh mean lion. Same root word. When they lead with the letter כְּ (caf) which means “like” or “as,” it reads “LIKE A LION” or “AS A LION.” Now let’s find other instances in the Tanach where these words together occur:

Genesis 49:9 –
“A cub [and] a grown lion is Judah. From the prey, my son, you withdrew. He crouched, rested LIKE A LION (c'aryeh), and LIKE A LION (c'aryeh), who will rouse him?”

גּ֤וּר אַרְיֵה֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ כָּרַ֨ע רָבַ֧ץ כְּאַרְיֵ֛ה וּכְלָבִ֖יא מִ֥י יְקִימֶֽנּוּ

Isaiah 38:13 –
“I made [myself] until morning LIKE A LION (c'aryeh), so it would break my bones; from day and night You shall finish me.”

שִׁוִּ֚יתִי עַד־בֹּ֙קֶר֙ כָּֽאֲרִ֔י כֵּ֥ן יְשַׁבֵּ֖ר כָּל־עַצְמוֹתָ֑י מִיּ֥וֹם עַד־לַ֖יְלָה תַּשְׁלִימֵֽנִי

Psalm 22:17 –
“For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, LIKE A LION (c'aryeh), my hands and feet.”

כִּֽי־סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֖רֵעִים הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּֽ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי

Same word כְּאַרְיֵה (c'aryeh) used in different passages. The claim is…it means “pierced” in Psalm 22:16-17 so let’s apply that to the other verses:

Genesis 49:9:
“A cub [and] a grown lion is Judah. From the prey, my son, you withdrew. He crouched, rested PIERCED, and PIERCED, who will rouse him?”

Isaiah 38:13
“I made [myself] until morning PIERCED, so it would break my bones; from day and night You shall finish me.”

It’s more than apparent that the word pierce cannot apply at all in the other passages yet it’s THE SAME WORD in Psalm 22:16-17. Why do these christian Hebrew “experts” claim its meaning has changed in one verse but not in others? Because they are forcing the jesus narrative where it never was. The ignorance of how Hebrew works compared to English is glaringly obvious. There is no consistency here.

The claim that a lion "pierces" the flesh when it bites is desperation. JX Amalek asks what is a lion going to do with a man’s hands and feet if not pierce them….lick them? But he himself forgets he points out one translation that specifies the word "maul." Both great sages Rashi (of whom JX Amalek is fond of) and Ibn Ezra describe the lion's bite as "crushing." That word works just fine. Was jesus “crushed?” So much for the humor attempt.

But we are not talking about literal lions here. These are metaphors for David's enemies and continue on throughout many of his psalms using animal analogies like dogs, bulls, lions, etc. LIKE A LION, David’s enemies maul or crush his hands so he cannot fight back and his feet so he cannot run away. There is no crucifixion prophecy…only in the wishful eyes of christians that will stop at nothing to misrepresent the original Hebrew. But why pay attention to context? Just zero in on ONE WORD and poof, instant jesus prophecy. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

There are no christian or Jewish “versions” of scripture. The Tanach was written in Hebrew and a small part in Aramaic. That’s a fact. There are no versions, there are translations and translations are never 100% accurate.

In a nutshell, JX Amalek is stating translations or “versions” as he refers to them are more accurate than the original Hebrew. Makes perfect sense. Just like the telephone game. By the time it reaches the end of the line the original word or phrase is completely lost. But the christian “version” is more accurate. Sure, ok.

Convenient you don't respond to poetry's post because it paints you into a corner which shows you have no cohesive response. So just ignore it and maybe it will go away.

Now, in answer to the "ot" (sign) issue – you think I haven't seen that excuse before? Crystal clear response to that is the "sign" is not that a woman is going to give birth. You're correct, nothing miraculous about that. The "sign" is that Isaiah is prophesying that by the time the child is old enough to learn good from evil, the wicked king Ahaz's enemies will be defeated. Ahaz's enemies will be defeated in the time it takes the child to learn good from evil. THAT IS THE SIGN.

This begs the question were there two virgins that gave birth here? Is this so-called woman that Isaiah points to the first virgin-birth and then over 700 years later there's another so-called virgin-birth? Love to hear an answer to that one. Let the deflecting begin.

DontNeedChrist:

And to address your misguided point about Genesis 24 referring to Rebecca as both a young maiden and a virgin. Take note: the Torah uses BOTH Hebrew words in the description. So there is an elaboration, an additional description attributed to Rebecca. She is a young woman AND a virgin. Almah and b'tulah. Did Isaiah use these two terms? NO.

Yes an almah can most certainly be a virgin and vice-versa. But how would one know? If Isaiah wanted to emphasize the young woman's virginal status he would have used the descriptive term. But he did not. Why? Because as I presented in an earlier post, the proper translation states the young woman IS ALREADY WITH CHILD. Hence Isaiah does not use the word b'tulah.

So referring to this issue as some sort of Jewish "trick" is unfounded.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

E s s e n c e: DNC, you have the patience and knowledge of a righteous man to dealing with this character jx amaro

His ignorance, stupidity and stubbornness will make even Jesus rebuke him if he was alive. This type of Christians are ill educated with entitlement and proud of their ignorance spreading misconceptions and lies about Judaic writings, Rabbis, Sages, and Judaism. Thank you DNC for taking your time and effort to set the record straight from the lies this people spread.

JX Amaro:
I really don’t know why I bother. Maybe it’s because I have bullets to spare…

On Point One:
(Preliminary, Explanatory Note: Somewhat confusingly, DNC is talking about Psalm 22 due to a discussion on the “Blatant Mistranslations” thread of amoregrowers – see page 5. Anyone just popping in on this should go to those comments first to get the greater context of my remarks.)

OK, let’s have a REAL lesson on Hebrew, not a “Guru DNC” teach-in for the Judaic group-think crowd. Go to this site and scroll down to 22:16:
http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/psalms/22.html
Here we have English and Hebrew side by side. Moreover, if you put your mouse-pointer on a Hebrew word, you get the possible definitions. When we get to the Key Word (kaariay), these are the possibilities: to dig, to plot, to bore or open. So a translator has to work with that. That a translator MIGHT translate it as “pierce” accords with the possibilities of “to bore or open” given the context of the verse – angry, barking dogs with long, sharp teeth have surrounded David. Thus, the usual Christian translation is NOT a tendentious mistranslation. The Christian translation is perfectly sensible and sound.

Here, to remind the reader, is a typical Christian translation: “Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.” (NIV)

The translation doesn’t read as forced or awkward to me. The reader is free to reach whatever conclusion they like.

Point Two:
DNC claims that I didn’t respond to Poetry123. Apparently that’s a scandal of some sort. Am I obligated to answer everything? Is this the, “Ask JX Amaro Show”? Whatever. Let the reader go back to the “Blatant Mistranslations” thread and read the FIRST SENTENCE in Poetry123’s comment. Nevermind, I’ll quote it for you: “Sorry this is a repeat of what DNC said- but it bears repeating...” Presumably, if it’s a repeat of DNC’s talking points, then what I said in regard to DNC applies to Poetry123 – duhhh. Poetry123 then added some potty idea about the scribe being a sloppy scribe. OK, maybe. Readers can go to the pictures and make their own conclusions on that.

Point Three:
DNC, finally (!), returns to issues relative this thread in regard to Isaiah 7:13. His explanation of the “sign” is far from persuasive. He avoids the whole issue with the sign being miraculous (which I demonstrated); he claims the sign has to do with King Ahaz’s enemies being defeated before the child learns good from evil (nothing miraculous there); and he doesn’t bother to explain why the Jewish Septuagint translated “almah” as virgin (no surprise). Once again, DNC is just ignoring the OBVIOUS in his perverted war against Christianity. The “sign” is something miraculous and the miracle is a virgin birth. Duhhh.

(Note to reinforce the point: DNC wants us to believe that this miraculous “sign” is that of a Great Power – Assyria – knocking over two rather small regional powers – Aram and Ephraim – in a short period of time. That’s a miracle? LOL.)

Obviously, whether using almah (which DNC acknowledges as virgin inclusive) or betulah (which is NOT virgin exclusive (see Joel 1:8)) one needs to consider the context. And the context is something miraculous – a “sign” from God. There is nothing miraculous about a young woman giving birth and there is nothing miraculous about a great power defeating two small powers. The virgin birth scenario is the only one that makes sense.

-----)))))))>

@Jaguar: I just love it when people who deny and spit on Jesus then play the Jesus card! Yes, Jaguar claims I will be (or should be) rebuked by Jesus for referring to “Judaism” as a death cult (nevermind it’s war against Jesus – the means to salvation), and apparently I am mean to false rabbis, dark sages and the vile likes of Rambam (aka Maimonides). (Here is a quote from Rambam’s Letter to Yemen: “...Jesus the Nazerene, may his bones be ground to dust...”)

To get up to speed, Jaguar might want to review the New Testament in general or John 8:42-47 in specific. And you can forget the knee-jerk “anti-semitism” moonshine. Jesus and all the original Christians were Jewish. My argument is purely theological. I argue that “Judaism” is a gnostic-mystery cult created AFTER 70 AD by the Yavne School. Yohanan Ben Zakkai and his cronies made a sleazy deal with the Empire to get protection as they wiped out the entire priesthood and became – by default – the monopoly spiritual overlords of the Jewish people. The Sadducees, the Essenes and all the rest were eliminated, much like Stalin eliminating the “old bolsheviks.” From this coup d’ etat, the Mythmakers of Yavne built “Rabbinical Judaism” and the Talmud and invented the “Oral Torah” myth to make it all appear “kosher.” However, as the blessed St Paul took the Gospel to the gentiles, they couldn’t wipe out Christianity. Thus began the “dirty war” against Christianity. Key to this dirty war are all the tricks of mistranslations and misinterpretations of things like Isaiah 7:14 (to say nothing about Daniel 9!). I could go on at length on this subject. Disagree with my views, if you like. But they are far from uneducated. Christianity is the “true vine” – the fulfillment of the promise. Judaism is a heretical apostasy and a spiritual death cult. Deal with it

poetry123: I went to the site you directed the reader to and here's what I found

http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/psalms/22.html

First of all it shows the word as כָּאֲרִי  ka'ari with a yud not a vav. It doesn't even pretend to be ka'aru.

Even the transliterated English on that page says the word is Käáriy

If we posted in color you would see the first letter- כ- caf- is in yellow.  They break the word up for us and acknowledge the caf is a prefix meaning like or as.  This is accurate.

So then we are left with the word ארי- ari- meaning lion. No problem there.

I guess they depend on their audience being totally ignorant of Hebrew- and talk about playing games...LOL

When you put your mouse over the word ארי- ari- it says כָּרָה- karah- meaning to dig.

I suppose it made perfect sense to you- the bait and switch.  But those of us that can read Hebrew are shaking our heads and laughing at the dishonesty.

The link you posted confirms the word means like a lion.

Thanks for sharing

JX Amaro: Jeesh! Have I been refuted? Have I refuted myself in an epic blunder of folly? After all, I did lose the “Iddo Challenge” to ag – Ouch! Let’s investigate:

First of all, the point of the post was to demonstrate that the usual Christian translation of Psalm 7:14 – using the word “pierce” – was NOT a “Blatant Mistranslation.” (The debate started on the “Blatant Mistranslations” thread, and DNC moved his response to here – for whatever reason.) The qbible source that I cited – so people could investigate for themselves – uses Hebrew from the Masoretic text (more on this in a moment). There you can use your mouse-pointer to see available translation possibilities. I then stated that a translator MIGHT (I emphasized that word in my posting by putting it in the “all caps” format) translate it as “pierce,” according with the “to bore or open” possibility. I concluded that the Christian translation was reasonable and not tendentious and therefore not a “Blatant Mistranslation.” I still stand by that.

Second: I hate to ruin Poetry123’s victory party, but we must re-visit the Masoretic text. This is where things get tricky, and I doubt anyone really cares, and I would hate to think Poetry123 has popped the cork on the champagne bottle too quickly – but…

...but the Masoretic text is the object of much debate. And this is an issue that was dealt with already on “Blatant Mistranslations.” To spare you the bother of jumping around, I will quote from myself on this issue (from page 4 of the thread):
“But don’t take my word for it, let’s quote from a source:
‘Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts that predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ.’
This is the link to fact-check:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html
So basically, the Rabbis lied, not the Christians.”

I stand by this, too. Proudly.

Third: I will now concede a wee little bit. I probably should have made the above posting with some type of statement that the qbible source was using the Masoretic text for it’s Hebrew and I should have noted my concerns on that. So, OK, that was a bit of a blunder on my part. It’s kind of a small blunder and probably doesn’t warrant pulling out the quality vino, but do what you like. This “JX Amaro character” isn’t infallible, you know. LOL

E s s e n c e: Poetry, thank you for sharing this information

E s s e n c e:
@ jx amaro "I concluded that the Christian translation was reasonable" this guys is a joke, someone that speaks Hebrew points out the inconsistencies and dismisses it, his need to suit the knowledge to his narrative is quite comical.

DontNeedChrist:
OK, time to respond to Mr. Amalek's shtyut.

Amalek: "OK, let’s have a REAL lesson on Hebrew..."

LOL!!!

Wow...gotta laugh right off the bat. YOU DON'T SPEAK, READ OR WRITE HEBREW. You have made that embarrassingly obvious. All you know is the garbage you get from the internet. Hence your beloved website qbible.com which is a CHRISTIAN source. Ever consider researching Hebrew sources for Hebrew? Nah, that wouldn’t work for your agenda. The only “Hebrew" you know is from christian translations. But Hebrew doesn't matter...only Greek or English. G-d forbid the Hebrew has any authority. You do not know Hebrew and your buddy XP or AA or whatever he calls himself is equally uneducated. Good lord give us a break already.

It’s so confounding how you value translations so much and diss the original Hebrew. You do yourself no favors by trying to convince the reader that a translation is “better.” It’s never better. Never accurate. What a joke…moving on.

Amalek: “DNC claims that I didn’t respond to Poetry123.”

Yup. It’s still a valid claim because you have yet to respond. You cherry pick your responses, makes it easier I guess.

Amalek: “He (DNC) avoids the whole issue with the sign being miraculous."

Go back and reread genius. I addressed it in full detail. The miraculousness of Isaiah’s predictions are front and center. He points to a young woman (THAT’S ALREADY PREGNANT!) and prophesies she will give birth to a boy and even reveals his name. Can you do that? Can I do that? Seems pretty miraculous so far. But the child is secondary. The overriding narrative is that in the time it takes a child (could be ANY child) to learn good from evil is when Ahaz’s enemies will fall. Could you predict the timespan of a war? I can’t. Isaiah did. Pretty miraculous. THAT is what Isaiah 7 is about. Isaiah is sent to King Ahaz by G-d to comfort and reassure him that an impending attack will fail and it came to fruition a few years later. No virgins, no messiahs, no jesus. Deal with it.

Also you did not address how many virgin birth claims we’re dealing with here. Was there a virgin birth in Isaiah and Ahaz’s day? Nope. Why would a prophecy of the birth of a child over 700 years in the future mean anything to Ahaz who was long dead when baby jesus came along? Which warring countries were defeated during jesus’ time? You ignore the context and focus on MISTRANSLATIONS! You seem to take pride in badly translated scripture. That's on you. Go figure.

Amalek: “The virgin birth scenario is the only one that makes sense.”
See above. Makes NO sense.

Amalek: “Judaism is a heretical apostasy and a spiritual death cult.”
If this isn’t anti semitic rhetoric I don’t know what is. Your baby jesus was a Jew so apparently he was part of this so-called death cult. Such idiocy. Keep shooting yourself in the foot. We laugh.

The rest of your post is way too ugly to respond to.

JX Amaro:
@Jaguar: Free Advice: Before calling other people a “joke” and “stupid,” you might want to learn the BASICS of grammar and syntax. LOL. After all, educated people might conclude that YOU are the “stupid” person and the “joke.” Ouch!

@DNC: Gee, did I say something? Wow! Triggered!!! LOL.

Point One: I will grant you that I do not read/write Hebrew. Point for you. Gloat if you like, I could care less. Now put down the bottle and try to pay attention: Even from the (doctored) Masoretic text you can make the Christian translation work. The Lions bit doesn’t matter. As I said before: lions/dogs – it doesn’t matter a bit. The implication is clear as to what the lions/dogs are going to do to the hands and feet: bite/pierce the flesh (like nails in a crucifixion). Duhh. You are engaged in a “much ado about nothing” debate so you can pretend to have won and defended Judaism from the completely evil (and no doubt anti-semitic) JX AMALEK!!!! LOL. Zonk!

Point Two: You claim I didn’t respond to Poetry123? Maybe you should re-read my post. I did. People can look at the photographic evidence for themselves and reach whatever conclusion they like about this “sloppy” scribe. Unlike you, I’m not a dogmatist who raves and drools and demands people agree with my conclusions (on pain of being slandered as an “anti-semite” if they disagree). I made my case and presented my evidence. Readers can decide whatever they want (and they should go back and read the entire discussion on the “Blatant Mistranslations” thread (starting of page 4) for context). Another Zonk!

Point Three: Wow! This is where the wheels really fly off! LOL. A) A young woman with child (already pregnant) isn’t relevant to anything. At issue is the CAUSE of the pregnancy: natural or unnatural (virgin). Duhh. B) Predictions on the gender and the name of the child? LMAO/ROFL. OMG, even by DNC standards this is really idiotic. You think it is a “divine miracle” to predict the gender of a child? Seriously? 50/50 odds!!! You don’t need divine intervention to get that! But wait! It gets even better!!! DNC is so clueless he thinks the child will be “named” (as in a first name (eg, Joe, Bob, Bill) “Immanuel.” Zonk! Total fail. Read Isaiah 9:6 where you learn that the child will also be called “Prince of Peace,” “Mighty God,” and “Wonderful Counselor” among other things. That doesn’t mean people will call this person “Prince” either. Isaiah is naming qualities and characteristics of the child. And “Immanuel” means God-Is-With-Us. Isaiah’s point is to put a name to the ESSENCE of the child. Jeesh! For verification and further elaboration on this point go here: https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=933&article=1400
C) Then DNC further humiliates himself by actually doubling down on his potty idea that the miracle is in predicting a short war in which a great power (Assyria) knocks over two small powers (Ephraim and Aram) in a short period of time. Fortunately, Scripture gives us a splendid example of YHWH actually intervening in a war in roughly the same time period so we can judge things correctly. Friends/Enemies, turn to 2 Kings 19:35. Here we see the “Angel of the Lord” swooping down and laying waste to 185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. This effectively saved Judah from certain destruction and forced the Assyrians to go back to Assyria. That, friends/enemies, is a miracle of YHWH! Again, DNC completely fails and renders himself a total laughingstock! Too funny.

Point Four. After the laugh riot, it’s refreshing to see that DNC actually raises a point that is interesting and that neither I nor possibly anyone else will be able to fully answer. By a “common sense” reading of Isaiah 7-12 it would roughly seem that the child in question might be Hezekiah. Hezekiah did purge the temple of the Baalist priesthood and we are told he ruled in a way that was right in the eyes of the Lord, unlike Ahaz. Yet he didn’t rule over any type of “Messianic Age” as suggested in chapters 9 and 11. So what to make of this? I could indulge myself and wax on at length with my own personal opinion, but I don’t think anyone would care. In short, Christianity believes that these sections and much else in Isaiah point to the coming of Jesus. You are certainly free to make up your own mind on that. This stuff has been debated by minds far brighter than mine to say nothing of yours. LOL.

Point Five. DNC then trails off (thankfully) by dismissing my discussion on the origins of Judaism as some type of “anti-semitic” filth. He then says if my views aren’t anti-semitic, he doesn’t know what is. Guess what? I agree with that! Yes! We have consensus! (Can we have a group-hug now?) Yes, I agree that DNC doesn’t know what anti-semitism is. If he did know what anti-semitism is, he wouldn’t cheapen it by tossing it out every time he starts losing an argument (which is quite often, in fact). An anti-semite is a person with a guttural dislike for Jewish people as a corporate whole – be the Jew in question a religious Jew, a secular Jew or anything in between. My opposition is for Rabbinical Judaism as a theological construct. As such, I deconstruct it and attempt to show it’s (squalid) roots and then show how the roots lead to a problematic tree of thought. You are free to agree or disagree. Either way, I will still be glad to have dinner with any Jew or go out to a ball game. No problem.

Whew! What a gas!!!

DontNeedChrist:

Oh where to begin. Just when one thinks the misguided couldn't be anymore misguided, a new post appears that outdoes the previous one.

Amalek: "@DNC: Gee, did I say something? Wow! Triggered!!! LOL."

Just going to blast past your immature little quips. Not worth the time.

Amalek: "Point One: I will grant you that I do not read/write Hebrew. Point for you."

Not just a point.

GAME. SET. MATCH!

Keep in mind little fella, we know BOTH sides of the argument. We understand what the original Hebrew means and we see the appalling translations that you so proudly present. We can compare them side by side. YOU CANNOT. You only understand bad translations mined from the internet and you admit your Hebrew ignorance. Therefore you are ill- equipped for this conversation sir. Go ahead and stand by your Greek, English or even Pig Latin "versions." We really don't care. It's reduced to amusement on our side, trust me.

Amalek: "The implication is clear as to what the lions/dogs are going to do to the hands and feet: bite/pierce the flesh (like nails in a crucifixion). Duhh."

As I pointed out previously, two commentators render the meaning as "crushed" which a lion or dog can also do. Were jesus' hands and feet crushed? Don't recall that little detail. So it's not conclusively "pierce" and we've already explained ad nauseum that the Hebrew words in question mean "like a lion"–– NOT PIERCE.–– You're admitting now that the text refers to a lion but also saying the same word means pierce. Get your story straight. Fun to watch you paint yourself into a corner.

The animal metaphors are consistent with how David refers to his enemies. He also writes in past and present tense. The context clearly shows it's DAVID poetically and metaphorically writing about HIMSELF and the anguish he feels as his enemies pursue him. Not sure how many more times this FACT has to be emphasized. It's not prophecy.

Amalek: "Unlike you, I’m not a dogmatist who raves and drools and demands people agree with my conclusions (on pain of being slandered as an “anti-semite” if they disagree)"

Anti semites say things like Judaism is a "death cult." Chabadniks are sleazy. The rabbis lied. If you don't want to sound like an anti semite, then don't sound like an anti semite. If it walks like a duck --- it's a duck.

Amalek: "A) A young woman with child (already pregnant) isn’t relevant to anything. At issue is the CAUSE of the pregnancy: natural or unnatural (virgin). Duhh."

Here's your problem. There is a vast narrative going on here in this Isaiah chapter. You the christian however are focused on ONE WORD. The English word "virgin" translated from the Greek "parthenos" badly translated from the Hebrew words "ha almah." Now your entire argument hinges on ONE WORD and you have to scramble to prove that word is accurate and the rest of the text be damned.

You claim now that the issue is the CAUSE of the pregnancy? Really? The woman is already pregnant. Did your parents not sit down and have that talk with you? Why in the world would anyone in this story remotely question how a woman becomes pregnant? Isaiah did not use the Hebrew word for virgin regardless of your claims and utterly terrible translations. It never crossed the mind of any of the players in this scene. Only when Matthew blundered and misquoted Isaiah did this circus begin. Not at that time and not now with anyone with an ounce of Hebrew knowledge. Sorry that counts you out.

Amalek: "You think it is a “divine miracle” to predict the gender of a child? Seriously? 50/50 odds!!!"

It goes deeper than that junior. Your tunnel vision is a stumbling block. Look at the whole picture. Stop focusing on one word or one aspect. Isaiah is sent to Ahaz to reassure him his enemies will be defeated in a certain time frame. THAT IS THE NARRATIVE...PERIOD. Isaiah then proceeds to prophesy various "signs" that this will in fact happen. He points to a pregnant woman they both know and predicts the gender, the name and the time frame of the eventual fall of his enemies. The time frame is generally the time ANY CHILD...not just this one in particular...takes to learn bad from good. Did your sinless man/god jesus need time to learn bad from good? Was he ever named Emanuel? NOPE.

Amalek: "DNC is so clueless he thinks the child will be “named” (as in a first name (eg, Joe, Bob, Bill) “Immanuel.” Zonk! Total fail."

You're now claiming the child will not be named or called Emanuel? Here's the verse:
Isaiah 7:14 – "Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his NAME Emanuel."

Hmmm. Says the mother will call his NAME Emanuel. Am I missing something here? You're denying what the text says? Then you go verse hopping to the next favorite christian proof-text Isaiah 9:6 (which is really Isaiah 9:5 in the Tanach) but who cares right? Let's go on a Tanach tour with Amalek, forget the other verses. This one's even better!

Now Isaiah is talking about a baby again. Gotta be jesus. Gotta be! But wait, let's look at what that verse actually says when translated more accurately:

Isaiah 9:5 (Tanach)
"For a child HAS BEEN born to us, a son given to us, and the authority IS upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Wait a minute, that's not how the KJV or NIV or other christian bibles present it. The baby has already been born in Isaiah's day. "HAS BEEN" born. The authority IS upon his shoulder. What authority? Kingship of course. This child either is or will shortly be king and have governmental authority. When did jesus have authority on his shoulder? Now on to the names in question...and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Ahh, wonderous advisor, mighty G-d and everlasting Father refer to G-d Himself, not the child. The only name that applies to the child is prince of peace. Well who is this king that will have authority and be known as a prince of peace? Check a history book. King Hezekiah...King Ahaz's SON. Remember, this only a couple of chapters after the so-called infamous virgin-birth prophecy so it's around the same time frame. Ahaz was a wicked king but Hezekiah is renowned as a king whose reign was one of peace. Hence the title "prince of peace."

And here is Amalek's favorite sage Rashi with commentary on this verse. Take it away Rashi!:

"The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty G-d and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days."

Thank you Rashi. Amalek adores you but probably not at this moment.

So....your future virgin-born messiah concept is completely dismantled using the correct time frame, commentary from your favorite sage, and accurate Hebrew translation. My work is done here. Moving on.

Amalek: "Friends/Enemies, turn to 2 Kings 19:35. Here we see the “Angel of the Lord” swooping down and laying waste to 185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. This effectively saved Judah from certain destruction and forced the Assyrians to go back to Assyria."

YES! BINGO! Isn't that what Isaiah prophesied for Ahaz? Now we see in writing how Isaiah's prediction comes true WITHIN AHAZ'S LIFETIME! Let's look a few chapters previous to what Amalek points out in 2 Kings 16:2:

"Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem."

Skip down to verse 5:
"Then Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war, and they besieged Ahaz, but COULD NOT WAGE WAR [with him]."

VOILA...the two kings Ahaz feared would defeat him are in fact defeated by Ahaz just as Isaiah had foretold and this prophecy occurred in AHAZ'S LIFETIME. Not over 700 years in the future after he is dead and buried.

THIS is what Ahaz was worried about (the two kings attacking him) and THIS is what Isaiah's prophecy was about -- the two kings -- whose names were Rezin and Pekah. Not virgin births. Belittle it and laugh at it all you want. What you have just done by presenting the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is prove my point for me. Thank you very much. Wasn't too difficult now was it? Virgin birth - HA!

Amalek: "Hezekiah did purge the temple of the Baalist priesthood and we are told he ruled in a way that was right in the eyes of the Lord, unlike Ahaz. Yet he didn’t rule over any type of “Messianic Age” as suggested in chapters 9 and 11."

Nowhere does it say Hezekiah's reign will be a "messianic age." Now you're just embellishing which shows desperation. It was simply a peaceful reign compared to his wicked father's tumultuous reign. And when did jesus reign during any messianic era? When was this messianic era? Clue me in please. It ain't happened yet and your jesus certainly failed at fulfilling probably the single largest messianic prophecy of all...WORLD PEACE.

Amalek: "My opposition is for Rabbinical Judaism as a theological construct. As such, I deconstruct it and attempt to show it’s (squalid) roots and then show how the roots lead to a problematic tree of thought."

And your tactics for this noble cause is to use anti semitic rhetoric in public forums that is as old as anti semitism itself. Surely you can find a more constructive way to convey your perspective aside from calling Jews, rabbis and sages sleazy, cult-like liars. Take a good look at your words then take a good look in the mirror.

E s s e n c e:
dontneedchrist be easy with the facts and information given, poor jx amaro 's head and ego will be
YouTube

poetry123:

הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל
The young woman is pregnant and will have a son and call his name Imanu el.
____________________
Who is this עלמה- almah? Probably Isaiah is talking about his own wife who is pregnant.

Isaiah had 3 sons and all of their names are symbolic to a prophecy.

The name עמנו אל- Imanu el refers to this prophecy and follows the pattern of the names of his other sons.

Isaiah says- Before the boy knows to reject bad and choose good...

Same in chapter 8- Before the boy knows to call father and mother...
This is in reference to his third son- the one hashem tells her to call Maher shalal hash baz.

In this prophecy in chapter 7 he puts a time stamp on when Judea will be saved- and the name עמנו אל- hashem is with us- is a symbolic name for this saving.

הנה אנכי והילדים אשר נתן לי ה לאתות ולמופתים בישראל
8:18 Isaiah says his sons that were given to him as signs of prophecies  

So we see his sons were used for signs- Shear yashuv and Maher shalal hash baz and also Imanu el.

Shear yashuv meaning- the remnant will return-- Imanu el meaning- hashem is with us-- Maher shalal hash baz meaning- swift are the spoils, speedy is the plunder. Each of these names were symbolic to the events surrounding particular prophecies. 
____________________
So why did Isaiah call his wife עלמה- almah?

We know she is married and already had a son- so what's the point to call her as if she was a young woman?

We see this as a term of endearment.  We also see in chapter 8 he refers to her as נביאה- neviah- a prophetess.  These are both ways to praise her and elevate her and show his love for her by connecting her to youth and purity.

The word alem/almah- both for a boy and girl doesn't express virginity- only youth. 
______________________
So verse 16 says even before the baby would grow up to be a boy- Judea will be saved from its enemies.  You can't disconnect this verse from the rest of Isaiah's words-- that was the whole point of the sign.  It was given to Ahaz for the threat he was facing at the moment.

But let's say I take your version that Isaiah gave a sign to Ahaz and that sign is a virgin would give birth.

Now I keep reading and it says before this baby becomes a boy that Judea will be free from the threat. So this virgin birth must occur soon. If you want to read a virgin birth you still have to read that it happened in Ahaz's time.

No matter how you read it- the sign is still a sign for Ahaz and the threat he's facing.

DontNeedChrist:

Isaiah 8:18-
“Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given to me are for SIGNS and for SYMBOLS to Israel from G-d Almighty, who dwells in Mount Zion.”

JX Amaro:
For the most part, this is just too dumb to respond to. Anyway…

Oh yay, DNC can read Hebrew. It really doesn’t matter. If anything, it puts him in a disadvantage as he is reading the Hebrew of the DOCTORED Masoretic text. That is the TRICK and I hope Christian readers – among others – understand that and aren’t fooled by the Judaic Ministry of Disinformation. To say it again, the Masoretic text derives from centuries after the days of Jesus. The Masoretic text was filled with subtle alterations and changes that aimed at – among other things – erasing the many pointers that pointed to Jesus. This was part of the “dirty war” to destroy and de-legitimize Christianity. The Septuagint, conversely, is far older and pre-dates the advent of Christianity. Accordingly, in areas of contention, it is FAR MORE reliable than the Masoretic text.

Here, again, is a demonstration that this point isn’t some “conspiracy theory” that I cooked up in my own mind, but a point of serious, academic scholarship:
‘Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts that predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ.’
This is the source:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html

And here is another source – a Jewish scholar – verifying that “pierced” is correct:
“Accordingly, I have to conclude that “pierced” is the better reading of the alternatives–under the praxis of textual criticism.” source:
https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/psalm-22-they-pierced-and-the-septuagint/

Then DNC goes into his usual word game moonshine. Why it’s “crushed” he says! Pierced/Crushed – it doesn’t make a difference. A dog/lion/crucifixion would crush bones in the hands and feet as much as pierce the skin. This is yet another DNC total fail and an example of the way DNC grasps at straws so he can pretend to have won a point.

Next point: DNC: “The context clearly shows it's DAVID poetically and metaphorically writing about HIMSELF and the anguish he feels as his enemies pursue him. Not sure how many more times this FACT has to be emphasized. It's not prophecy.”
My response: Really? Then why is he so concerned about his hands and feet? Anguish??? That doesn’t make any sense at all. It would only make sense if he thought his enemies were going to crucify him, as Romans did per Standard Operating Procedure. Needless to say, David didn’t live in the Age of Rome. Moreover, let’s quote the verses from the end of Psalm 22:
“27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, 28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. 29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him – those who cannot keep themselves alive. 30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. 31 They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!”
According to DNC, that is NOT prophetic! That’s right, your eyes and your common sense are wrong! That has NOTHING to do with the future. Oh please... Obviously it’s prophetic. Equally obvious are the distortions of DNC. Yet another Total Fail.

Oh, then we get back to “the virgin” business. Fine. Let’s carefully analyze this from the standpoint of (1) context and (2) syntax. 1) In terms of context, observe that in verse 11 God offers to give Ahaz a sign either from the highest heights or the lowest depths. This can only mean something miraculous, something incredible. (Obviously, this disqualifies the “Isaiah’s Child” thesis). Now 2) observe the syntax. Verse 14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (almah) will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” (NIV) See that symbol after the word “sign”? It looks like this (. That is called a colon. Do you understand what a colon ( signifies? Here is the first definition that appears after putting “colon definition” into Google: a punctuation mark ( used to precede a list of items, a quotation, or an expansion or EXPLANATION. Yes, a colon after the word “sign” means an explanation is to DIRECTLY follow WITHIN the confines of the SENTENCE. The explanation is obvious. The explanation of the “sign” (which by context MUST be miraculous) is a virgin mother. There is NO OTHER possibility allowed for by the logic of the syntax! All DNC can do is play the “Alice in Wonderland” card. Thus, DNC goes on about explaining the sign as predicting the child being male or whatever other absurd straw he can grasp at. Total Fail.

At this point I will quote the version of 7:14 that DNC provided and we will see that it is radically different. Isaiah 7:14 – "Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his NAME Emanuel." There are at least two points to comment on here.

The first point to note is this: The colon has been changed into a semi-colon therefore creating a purposefully obfuscated translation. That said, the logic of the syntax still boxes DNC in – there’s no way out. The syntax only allows for two options as to what the “sign” indicates. Either: a) the sign is that the child will be male (huh?); or b) the sign is that the child will be named Emanuel (huh?). Either option is a TOTAL DISASTER for DNC as neither are miraculous. Total and Catastrophic Fail.

The second point to note about DNC’s translation is also of interest. It is the fact that this Judaic translation is saying that the “almah” is ALREADY WITH CHILD (ie, post-conception). Of course, the Christian translation – and everyone I looked at – translated it with some sense of “will conceive” (ie, pre-conception) This is VITAL. Both versions can’t be right. One side is right, and the other is caught red-handed in a GROSS PERVERSION of scripture. So who is right?

The answer to this question is surprisingly easy to get at. Let’s look at what 7:14 said BEFORE Christianity, BEFORE there was any debate between Christianity and Judaism, BEFORE there was any need to pervert the text. Ergo, let’s look at the Septuagint. The Septuagint translates “almah” as parthenos – VIRGIN – and a virgin, by definition, can’t have already conceived. Thus we see that the Judaic Masoretic text is caught red-handed in distorting holy scripture to suit it’s own less than holy purposes. Yes, the Jewish Septuagint proves that the Jewish Masoretic text a FRAUD. Another Total Fail for DNC.

Now let’s observe how DNC rolls out the agit-prop and moonshine. Here are DNC’s words on this: “Isaiah did not use the Hebrew word for virgin regardless of your claims and utterly terrible translations. It never crossed the mind of any of the players in this scene. Only when Matthew blundered and misquoted Isaiah did this circus begin. Not at that time and not now with anyone with an ounce of Hebrew knowledge.”

Apparently DNC conveniently forgot about the 70 Jewish Scholars who put the Septuagint together at Alexandria. They all translated it as parthenos/virgin and Mathew, a first century Jew, read Isaiah as talking about a virgin birth. It’s the Masoretic text and the Judaic Ministry of Disinformation that misquoted Isaiah, not the Septuagint, Mathew or the Christians. That’s the historical truth of the situation. Total and Catastrophic Fail.

The rest of what DNC wrote was simply a trainwreck of blather and doesn’t require lengthy responses.

On the Immanuel/Emanuel issue I will – again – direct the interested reader to a site that explains better than I could:
https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=933&article=1400

DNC then totally loses it when he claims the titles/names referenced in Isaiah 9:6-8 are referring to God, not “the child” (except Prince of Peace). Read it for yourself and decide for yourself.

Then DNC goes back to his potty idea that “the sign” of 7:14 was great power Assyria knocking over the petty kingdoms Aram and Ephraim. First, we have already shown that that is canceled by the syntax of 7:14; second, the idea is idiotic – there is nothing miraculous about it; and third, if God had sent the Angel of the Lord to wipe out the camps of Aram and Ephraim, then the Scriptures would have told us. No, we have to depend on DNC’s personal, gnostic visions to understand this. Total Fail.

Let’s clarify this. A sign is a signal: it signals an action to come. A Stop Sign signals that you should stop at the upcoming intersection (this is the action). So what is going on in Isaiah 7? Briefly, it is this: Aram and Ephraim are threatening Judah and intend to overthrow (and presumably exterminate) the House of David. YHWH – out of deference to the House of David – wants to save Judah in spite of King Ahaz’s apostasy: his turning to the cult of Baal and his re-institution of the abomination of child sacrifice. YHWH is sending a sign NOT to Ahaz but to the House of David (see v.13). The sign – a virgin birth – is to comfort them (the House of David) and give them hope that YHWH hasn’t abandoned them. The action comes later: The deliverance of Judah from Aram and Ephraim. The deliverance (by way of Assyria acting as an instrument of YHWH) is NOT the sign, it’s the action. So much for that.

Then DNC totally misrepresents my position on Isaiah 7-12 and the question of who “the child” is. I clearly say that Hezekiah MIGHT be the object, but then I point to the problem with that: Hezekiah didn’t reign over a Messianic Age of any sort. (DNC frequently resorts to these types of straw-man arguments so he can pretend like he won a big point. Total desperation. Total Fail.)

Needless to say, the Messiah didn’t arrive anywhere between Ahaz and the end of Judah. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that Isaiah is looking into the future. And Jesus is the only one who fits the bill. Where is this “Moshiach” of Rabbinical Judaism? Answer: Nowhere to be found. And curses on anyone who might try to guess (as per the demands of the Talmud and the psychopathic nutcase Rambam).

Finally, DNC resorts to his ever-favorite last-ditch “go-to” argument: he plays the “anti-semite” card. Maybe he should re-read the story about the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. It might prove instructive.

In summary, we see that my points left DNC – and others – highly triggered. The Judaic cult can’t withstand criticism. This is because it is a fragile house of cards. Just pull out one card and the whole house falls – fast. In defense against rational criticism the Judaic cult has to resort to absurd and preposterous explanations (see above); and when those fail, they put up the last-ditch firewall: “Anti-Semitism!” Ixne. Judaism is a heretical cult manufactured at the Yavne school. It’s as false as Simon bar Kockba – the False Messiah of early Rabbinic Judaism. It’s as false as Shabbatai Zevi – the False Messiah of Kabbalist Judaism. It’s as false as Rabbi Schneerson – the False Messiah of Chabadnik Judaism. There is only one that is true. And Christ Jesus IS the ONE. Christianity is Forever.

JX Amaro:
Note: My attempt to put a colon in parenthesis to make a point clear came out as a "Happy Face." LOL. Sorry about that. Hopefully the point is clear nonetheless.

DontNeedChrist:
Amalek: “For the most part, this is just too dumb to respond to.”

Yet you respond with endless paragraphs of christian propaganda. Must not be that dumb to devote so much time replying to.

Amalek: “Oh yay, DNC can read Hebrew. It really doesn’t matter.”

Really? Doesn’t matter what language the original texts were conceived in? What matters is translation according to you. What is the translation based on? The original. Tell me how, in your scary universe, a translation is more accurate than the original? Oh yes…the diabolical Jews changed the original. Meanwhile you play the telephone game claiming the end of the line is more accurate than the beginning. So absurd.

Amalek: “If anything, it puts him in a disadvantage as he is reading the Hebrew of the DOCTORED Masoretic text.”

You have yet to show any concrete evidence of this. Muslims make the same claim that Jews altered their text. Everyone else is right and the Jews are corrupt because they “doctor” their scriptures to cover their tracks. Think we haven’t heard this pap before? Do you not have anything original in your arsenal? SHOW PROOF!

Amalek: “Here, again, is a demonstration that this point isn’t some “conspiracy theory” that I cooked up in my own mind, but a point of serious, academic scholarship.”

You then go on to quote a CHRISTIAN WEBSITE gotquestions.org. So it cannot be a “conspiracy theory” because you found a christian website that agrees with your christian POV. Amazing. Let’s look at your source:

GOTQUESTIONS.ORG
Mission Statement of Got Questions Ministries:
"Got Questions Ministries seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually related questions through an internet presence."

Nothing here but the christian agenda. More christian conspiracy theories.

Amalek: “And here is another source – a Jewish scholar.”

https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/psalm-22-they-pierced-and-the-septuagint/
ONE DARING JEW.ORG
Calls himself “Bography.”
Here is a snippet from his self-description:
“I am a Jew. I live in South Africa. My parents immigrated to South Africa from the Russian Empire when they were children in the early 1900s. I converted to Roman Catholicism at university. I'm now of the Reformed Christian faith.”

So your source is an apostate, messianic Jew who drank the Kool-Aid and spreads the christian POV regarding Hebrew scripture much like yourself. This is your Jewish scholar? Really? Yet again, just a tiny bit of research exposes your agenda. This guy might as well be the Pope himself. What a joke.

Amalek: “Then DNC goes into his usual word game moonshine. Why it’s “crushed” he says!”

I didn’t say it’s exclusively crushed, I said some commentators claim it means crushed. And you have yet to answer the question. Does the Hebrew word(s) in question mean pierced or like a lion? It cannot be both yet you are combining them. If it means pierced then it’s not like a lion. If it means like a lion it cannot be pierced. So what difference does it make what a lion can do if the word has nothing to do with a lion as you claim? Make up your mind. Answer the question!

Amalek: “On the Immanuel/Emanuel issue I will – again – direct the interested reader to a site that explains better than I could.”

APOLOGETICSPRESS.ORG
Our History
In the late 1970s, there was a need to make available more scripturally sound and scientifically accurate materials in the field of Christian apologetics. The idea for Apologetics Press was born—an idea that soon became a reality.

Yet again, another CHRISTIAN source. Have yet to see anything remotely Jewish from your internet research. You seem to forget we are discussing HEBREW scripture.

Amalek: “DNC then totally loses it when he claims the titles/names referenced in Isaiah 9:6-8 are referring to God, not “the child” (except Prince of Peace). Read it for yourself and decide for yourself."

Yes. Read it for yourself. Choose the original Hebrew text or a christian “version.” The original text clearly identifies the first three names applying to G-d. The prince of peace refers to the child. Fit’s perfectly. You can't deal with it.

Amalek: “Then DNC goes back to his potty idea that “the sign” of 7:14 was great power Assyria knocking over the petty kingdoms Aram and Ephraim.”

Petty kingdoms. LOL. If they were so petty why was Ahaz so concerned? Why did G-d bother to send Isaiah to put him at ease? According to your logic Ahaz should have been confident he would handle these two “petty” kingdoms but the narrative says otherwise. The miraculousness of this story is Isaiah’s prophecy of the time frame it will take for these two kingdoms to fall. I challenge you to not only predict when a war will start but also who will win and how long it will last. Go for it. You belittle Isaiah as a Prophet of G-d.

I’m not going to waste time rehashing the Emanuel issue. My points are clear. Reread them and get educated or cite another dozen christian websites. Your choice. HOWEVER, yet again you have failed to address the question which has been asked more than once…HOW MANY VIRGIN BIRTHS are we discussing here? Was there a virgin birth in Ahaz’s day AND another one 700 years later? Who was this virgin in Ahaz’s day? Who was Emanuel? Answer the questions!

Amalek: “I clearly say that Hezekiah MIGHT be the object, but then I point to the problem with that: Hezekiah didn’t reign over a Messianic Age of any sort.”

Nobody claimed he reigned over a messianic age. I certainly didn’t. Show me where I stated that. His reign was peaceful unlike his father’s. If there was any messianic era in history that would mean the messiah had arrived. Ain’t happened.

Amalek: “Needless to say, the Messiah didn’t arrive anywhere between Ahaz and the end of Judah. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that Isaiah is looking into the future. And Jesus is the only one who fits the bill.”

Now you build an argument on a non-existent issue. I never said anything about a messianic era. YOU DID. There is NOTHING messianic about Isaiah 7. NOTHING. You create the dots, then connect them. Doesn’t work that way.

Amalek: “Where is this “Moshiach” of Rabbinical Judaism? Answer: Nowhere to be found.”

Where is this second coming? Nowhere to be found.

Here’s the deal. There have been countless false messiahs that have come and gone and each time the Jews realized that guy wasn’t the one, they abandoned the idea realizing he was false. What did christianity do when jesus failed to accomplish even one bullet point of the messianic agenda? They couldn’t face the truth of his failed mission and dreamed up a second coming and have been promising that for over 2,000 years. At least the Jews knew when to let go of something patently and obviously false.

Amalek: “Finally, DNC resorts to his ever-favorite last-ditch “go-to” argument: he plays the “anti-semite” card.”

If it walks like a duck…

Amalek: “In summary, we see that my points left DNC – and others – highly triggered. The Judaic cult can’t withstand criticism.”

Not triggered. Just presenting the Jewish POV regarding their own holy scriptures and calling you out for what you are. You seem to be the one that can’t handle each and every answer we have to your bogus claims. Oh, and as I close out this post, I have to laugh at your diatribe about colons and semi colons. Those are only found in translations. No such thing as a semi colon in biblical Hebrew. Your rant is about nothingness as usual. There’s no there there!

JX Amaro:
Yawn. Though the exposure of the "Jewish POV" as a perversion is already complete, let's just add one more cherry to the top!

DNC: "Petty kingdoms. LOL. If they were so petty why was Ahaz so concerned?"

OK, so according to DNC, Aram and Ephraim are NOT "petty kingdoms."

Let's see what Scripture says: Isaiah 7:4 - "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."

Yes, Scripture refers to Aram and Ephraim as "two smoldering STUBS of firewood." Gee, that sounds like YHWH thinks Aram and Ephraim are pathetic and petty little kingdoms! Wow! Yet another victory!

As for why Ahaz was afraid, that's easy. What? The "Jewish POV" can't figure it out? OK, here's the answer: Ahaz was a faithless coward! Duhh.

SMH. The more DNC tries, the more he fails and the more he embarrasses the very "Jewish POV" he claims to defend. LOL.

DontNeedChrist:

How many virgin births were there?

If Psalm 22 reads "pierced" and not "like a lion," why do you equate piercing with lions? It either means one or the other.

Answer the questions.