The following are two which I found on the net and copied and pasted here.

Probably the most famous of all prophecies is the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus. As we shall soon see, this is not a prophecy of a virgin birth, not a prophecy about Jesus and probably not a prophecy at all. When examined in the context of the surrounding chapters of this book, this verse looks more like a discussion of an upcoming event in the author's life.

The verse thought to be a prophecy appears at Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

Before you accuse me of fudging the verse by replacing virgin with "young woman" I assure you that I pulled this out of the most accurate translation of the Bible that there is, the Revised Standard Version. That this is the correct word used here can be seen from comparing how the word translated as "young woman" is translated in other places.

The Hebrew word is ALMAH (al-mah) and it is used 7 times in the Bible. Strictly speaking, it means young woman but depending on the Bible that you are using, it is translated as virgin, maiden and damsel, as well. There is another Hebrew word which is specifically translated as virgin. It is BETHULAH (be-too-lah) and it appears in the Bible 50 times. 38 times it is translated as virgin while the other 12 are spread out over the words maid and maiden. As you can see, there is some question if this word is properly translated.

Beyond the issue of translation is the problem of how the alleged prophecy sits within the verses and chapters around it. Here is some background behind the verse at Isaiah 7:14:

In the first verse of the chapter, we are given the historical context. It is the time of King Ahaz of Judah. It is not a good time for the kingdom as the two nations of Israel and Assyria are marching towards Judah to do battle. At verse three, we are told that the Lord says to Isaiah that he should go to meet King Ahaz and tell him to go and meet the other two kings. Isaiah is told to tell Ahaz that there is nothing to fear from the two kings as they will be defeated and destroyed.
In verse 11, the Lord tells Ahaz to ask him for a sign that these things would come to pass. Ahaz refuses, stating that he will not put the Lord to the test. In response to this, the Lord says that the sign would be given anyway, and that a young woman would bear a child and it would be named Immanuel.

If this were the end of the prophecy and a new subject was started, we might suppose that this is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus, even though Jesus' name is not used. Immanuel does mean "god is with us" but that does not constitute that this would be Jesus. There is more to the prophecy, however, as we see in the two verses directly following 7:14:

15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
We can see from these two subsequent verses that the whole purpose of the prophecy is that a child would be born in Ahaz's time that would be a sign that the two attacking countries would be deserted. Would a birth some 700 years later (when Jesus was born) have been any kind of sign to King Ahaz? No, of course not. He was long dead before Jesus was born.

Finally, we see that in the very next chapter of Isaiah there is a birth. We know that this is the prophecied child to be born simply based on the following two verses from Isaiah 8:

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz
4 for before the child knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
While we do not know the significance of the name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz, we do know that it can not be linked up with Jesus' name or Immanuel. We do see, however, know that this is the child prophecied in Isaiah 7:14 as verse 4 here makes the same claim as the verses following 7:14.

Conclusion

We see above that there are numerous problems with this being a prophecy of Jesus. The first and foremost is the translation problem. We see that Isaiah was familiar with the term BETHULAH and used it when he wanted to convey a woman's virginity. That he did not employ it at 7:14 seems to indicate that this is not what he meant for this prophecy. In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.

Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Prophecy busted!!

Our next prophecy that I will bust also comes to us from the book of Matthew. In chapter 2:1-6 we are told that some wise men came to Jerusalem to find the child who would be known as the King of the Jews. King Herod heard of this and was troubled as he did not want to lose his kingdom. He brought together all of his chief priests and scribes and asked them to tell him where the Christ would be born. Their response from verses 5 & 6:

5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
6 'And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.'"
This alleged prophecy of Jesus comes from the Jewish book of Micah. At chapter 5 verse 2 it reads:

But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
This seems to be a prediction that someone would come from Bethlehem and rule over Israel. Can we say that this is true of Jesus? While some may say that he did, they are speaking in a metaphorical way. He was never officially crowned nor named a ruler. The closest that he came was being mocked as the King of the Jews.

Again, if we put the verse into context with the verses surrounding it, we will see that this is not descriptive of who or what Jesus was supposed to represent. Micah 5:1-6:

1 Now you are walled about with a wall; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike upon the cheek the ruler of Israel.
2 But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel.
4 And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.
5 And this shall be peace, when the Assyrian comes into our land and treads upon our soil, that we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men;
6 they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our border.
Reading this block of verses, we can clearly see that this is descriptive of a military styled ruler more than a messiah. First, we read in verse 4 that as a result of this person's coming the people of Israel would "dwell secure." Anyone familiar with the history of Isarael will know that this is not true. Israel was crushed by the Romans a short forty years after the death of Jesus.

Further, there is talk of the Assyrian coming into the land of Israel and Israel repelling them all of the way back to Assyria where the people led by him from Bethlehem would rule. None of this happened in Jesus' time because there was no country of Assyria left in Jesus' time. Assyria ceased to exist some 600 years before Jesus was born.

Conclusion

Since we can see from the gospels that Jesus was never a ruler over Israel, this does not appear to be a prophecy. Further, we know that Israel has not dwelt secure. If anything, the opposite is true. Lastly, for this to have been a true prophecy, the one coming out of Bethlehem had to have come before Assyria was destroyed in 609 BCE.

All of this combined leads to another:

Prophecy busted.

Food for thought, eh???

In a kid song that Lori likes:

Busted disgusted, the Bible can't be trusted!! LOL



[This message has been edited by Flash (edited January 01, 2000).]

Flash,

Very interestng! Thanks for posting it! Could you also post the webpage address where you found it? Thanks!

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Yes, Flash!

While you continue to play the music for Satan's "happy dance" :eek: - and while Searcher jumps onto the dance floor whenever such music is played :( - if you can find time :rolleyes: - I, too would like to know your sources. :confused:

Truestory,

Lets not froget the fact that the bible was written after the events took place. How hard could it have been to predict something that has all ready passed?

------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

666,

Actually, no "original" manuscripts have come down to us, due to the perishable material upon which they were written and the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the manuscriipts during the Christian persecutions. However, some very ancient "transcriptions" have survived the years.

Truestory,
happy new year to ya. Can you tell us how old these transcriptions are, what language they're written in, what parts of the bible they refer to and how complete they are?
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

Searcher & TS,
Sure...it is also the same source where I found the Bible contradictions...
Enjoy, Searcher ;)
http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagecon.shtml

Flash,

I find it very interesting that the agnostic author of this website, who first "professes ignorance," can then claim to understand "prophecy" which was self-studied during the beginning stages of the author's first year of withdrawal from drugs and alcohol...

ah-ha!
I see are learning to question things regarding authors, TS. Get the hint? ;)

I'm sure she does, and has for years, as have I. Do YOU get the hint??????? Hmmmm...the answer would be a big fat NO to that. Fact is that there is PLENTY of resources out there for you to analyze and ponder, and you ONLY choose the ones who ATTEMPT to poke holes in the Bible. Why don't you try some that actually EXPLAIN the Bible? Wow, what a concept!!!!! You know, I don't believe everything I read. I read, I take the opinion/interpretation into consideration, bump it up against what I KNOW to be true, and then make an educated and honest appraisal of the info. DO YOU??????

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Sure, Flash, I will question the word of such men rather than the Word of God.

TS,
Is that right? Well then good..cause this means you are learning to begin to question the bible then too. That's wonderful. Cause I am sure you realize God did not actually write it. ;)

Ohhhh..I see..so you have read and considered some of the teachings that dubunk
christianity? I didn't realize this.

I have READ numerous books which try to support the bible. Do you not remember my
background?????? Duh! LOL
Soooo the answer would be....... YES. ;)

Flash,

I look to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Although "recorded by men" they were His Words, and it was His divine, pure and true message.

TS,
Those men were also HUMAN. Maybe they got their wires crossed somewhere...hey, it could happen. Not to mention how the bible could of very well been mistranslated... by the time it gets to us.. it is VERY possible it is watered down to the core.

And given all of that, isn't it amazing that the message is still CRYSTAL?

There are ancient writings that document Biblical history. My brother, the atheist, took a class that studied them. He thinks that the Bible is just that...history and not more. But he's pretty convinced that it's accurate historically.

And may I point out that a really, really super huge part of the entire message of the OT was the coming Saviour? Sooooo, you're picking one verse out of the hundreds that prophesize the birth, life, and death of Jesus? Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz are very different names, and the logical reason for that is because they are not the same child. This is what happened...
Isaiah WENT to the prophetess (who was not "the virgin" afore mentioned) and doinked her, and they conceived the big long hyphenated name. Isaiah prophetized the virgin birth of Jesus, but then took it upon himself to do the dirty deed with some prophetess that the Assyrians sent him to because (being man, and not trusting God) they had to insert there own will and we all know where most of that resides in a man now don't we? :D God prophesized the birth of Isaiah's son as well, when he told him to write the hyphenated name on the scroll. Here's where Isaiah's getting his ass chewed if you read on in Chapter 8...

The Lord spoke to me with his strong hand upon me, warning me not to follow the way of this people. He said:
Do not call conspiracy
everything that these people call conspiracy;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread,
and he will be your sanctuary...

When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritualists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to his word they have no light of dawn. Distressed and hungry they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their god. Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness...

And when Jesus is referred to as a king or ruler, he is now, you just don't know it, and he will be in a "governmental" type of way in the millenium.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,
ummm..how do I say this...*thinking*
:rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited January 04, 2000).]

:) Hi Everbody

The oldest version of the Old-T is written in Greek and the oldest version of the New-T is written in Hebrew, correct?
And over the past 2000 years they have been translated many-a-time and have passed through many-a-hand.
:D So doesn't it just eventually boiled down to FAITH!
So this translated really meant this or this translated also meant this or this translated could have meant this.

Now I've been surfing these religious forms for about two weeks and I definately don't know my bible as well as you'all besides I'm a new believer but I was taught that science, technology, and knowledge(NOT education) are some of "his" best tools.


JUST BELIEVE! :cool: :D :cool: :D

------------------
Just got to have faith...
.........in whatever you believe in!!!

[This message has been edited by Whammy (edited January 04, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Whammy (edited January 04, 2000).]

Bonjour,

I think that it is a well known fact, that the Bible in the form it is presently, has reached us by beeing transalated many a times, and, that during this process some of the "original stories" ( not original idea ) where lost.

It is quite obivous that "somebody" (this being Jesus, Boudha, Allah etc. )was amoung us at one point. And again it is obvious that this person came here by whatever means so that we may receive an understanding of our existence on this planet, and, that maybe we may learn on how to live in respect which each other.

On the lather, I think they should forward another messenger to us, because I think we did not quite get this last part of the teachings !

Bottica

TS,
I repeat my question to you.


Originally posted by tablariddim:
Truestory,
happy new year to ya. Can you tell us how old these transcriptions are, what language they're written in, what parts of the bible they refer to and how complete they are?
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

tab'

Well, a belated Happy New Year to you, too! :)

So sorry to have missed your question! :(

Close to 2/3 of the books of the Bible were written before the life of Jesus Christ/God and approximately 1/3 were written after the time of Jesus Christ/God. The three original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek.

Hebrew is a Semetic language which was passed on by Abraham and his descendants. It was the language of the Holy Land until about the 3rd century B.C. when Aramaic became the language. Aramaic was the language used in Palestine during the life of Jesus Christ. The ancient Greek language is not classical Greek as we know it today, but a dialect spread throughout the world at the time of Alexander the Great.

Most of the books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The Book of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees were also written in Greek. Most of the books of the New Testament were written in ancient Greek. Tolbit, Judith, and the Gospel of St. Matthew were written in Aramaic as were portions of Daniel, Ezra, Jermiah and Esther.

Not being a one-language world, many translations have taken place throughout history.

The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, was begun about 250 B.C. and completed about 100 B.C. This translation was made for the Jews of Egypt so that they could read the sacred books in Greek, the only language that most of them understood. This translation was widely used in Palestine and distributed throughout the Greek-speaking people of the Mediterranean during the time of Jesus Christ and during the first century. The Apostles used this translation in their teaching.

Many original manuscripts were written on perishable material and did not survive. Additionally, Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the manuscripts during the Christian persecutions. The oldest partial Hebrew transcript known was written in the 2nd Century. The oldest partial ancient Greek transcript known is from the 2nd Century A.D..

In the early days of the Christian Church, an early translation of books from Greek to Latin was needed because many people in the West could not understand Greek. These translations were done rapidly by many people of varying education. By the second century, there were a number of Latin translations, the most widely circulated being the Old Latin, or Itala. The various hurried Latin translations were considered inaccurate in some instances, however, gathered together, they made up the first Latin Bible. The Latin translation was corrected and revised in the 4th Century A.D.. Several thousand other ancient Greek manuscripts have been found from the 4th and 5th Century after Jesus Christ.

Turestory,

Propaganda I tell you! That is what the bible is. Storys written in th 4th and 5th century after christ can' t be very accurate! Peoples memorys are clearer and less embelished closer to the incident at hand. The further you get from the incident the muddier the memory and the more wildly embelished it is. Espeacialy when it is passed down down by word of moth and translated over and over again.

------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited January 11, 2000).]

666,

By "propaganda" I am taking it that you mean "false" propaganda?

Not so, my friend. Although the translations are not "original" writings, the Bible's written history extends well before the time of Christ and the translations themselves are well documented. This is how we can follow the history of the manuscripts from before the time of Christ.

Like any other book, historical, spiritual, fictional or otherwise, many copies can be printed and it can be translated into many languages without changing the message.

Believe me, unlike other books, God's divine message in this Sacred book was guarded, literally, by people's lives for centuries. Of course, the invention of the printing press helped to disseminate (or propagate... spread, if you will) God's divine mesasge, however, that was by natural means. It in no way changed the message. It simply made the Word of God easier to spread throughout the world.

You might want to ask yourself this... if the writing and the keeping of the Bilbe was a multiple century conspiracy to get people to buy into a false message, then surely, enough time has elapsed to eliminate "perceived" inconsistencies and human objections to the printed Word. If you truly believe the theory of false propaganda to be correct, then surely, you must ask yourself why, do you suppose, wasn't the Bible changed to make it so that it would at least be "perceived" as more "acceptable" in the eyes of those who object? Surely, that would have been easy enough to do!

It is not a matter of the Bible being false propaganda, a multiple century conspiracy or inconsistent with God's message, it is a matter of the Bible being unacceptable to some humans because the true divine message of salvation through Jesus Christ seems inconsistent with the temporal desires of most humans.



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 12, 2000).]

Bonjour...

Truestory....

I beg to difer on your last message. It is not us that is trying to make the bible fit to our needs, it is the bible that was from the start transalated by humans, with humans idea and points of view.

Many parts of the original points/stories were lost in the numerous transalations, and this.... is very easy to see.

The bible is a story, a visual given out for the masses... so that maybe some of us may abide by the story book and beleive.

I am not putting down your beleif, all I am saying is that I do not think that one should only relly on the written words of the bible ......

Bottica

You spend alot of time researching every word of the Bible.. Christ said if you would come to him as a little child he would reveal himself to you. It is our hearts he wants to touch, until you have touched that love there is no description and definitely no doubt that Christ is the Messiah, the one who was given the power over satan and his legions of demonic forces. Dare to ask Christ yourself for the truth, he will come to you and give you the answer.. He is the only way to the Father.. He will be your closest friend, and will reveal his heart to you if you let Him.. The forces that keep you away from him, dont want you to know his love and his power, they have a purpose for you too.. Dont give up.....
In The Name Of Jesus Christ

Bonjour, mon ami, Bottica!

"What" was it that humans were translating from the start?

What "were" the original points?

"Who/what" is it that wants us to abide by the story book?

Bottica--

Forgive me please, as I have no intention of speaking on your behalf. But I thought now a pleasant time to insert myself into this exchange--

* * * * *

Truestory--

Since you're the expert, we might ask you your answers.

Furthermore, I might assert (again, forgive me if I'm wrong here, Bottica) that these very questions you've posed are the actual point.

Neither you nor I, nor Bottica, Flash, Oxygen, Ilgwamh, Searcher, Lori, or any of us actually know the answers to those questions: "individuals" throughout history, acting in various forms of convention, have accidentally erased our link to those answers.

But to give an inkling of a starting point: various stories in the Bible are "borrowed" from other cultures. This, of course, is tough to believe if you are of the opinion that the world started in 4004 BCE with Adam and Eve. But, as I've noted, the story of Noah and the Flood existed for at least a couple of millennia before the Hebrews came on the scene.

Consider the idea of the "Big Bang". You don't have to believe in it in order to work with the example.

Okay ... the Big Bang bangs. BOOM. Big noise. Loud echo. So loud, in fact, that we can still here it today with specialized equipment. Why do we need specialized equipment? Because human beings' inherent specialized equipment is designed to NOT perceive it. CBE is so inherent it's like water. If we heard it, we never would. But it's cycle and amplitude are imprinted on our being, so that our simple physical existence plays out a delicate balancing act--one that can be described mathematically.

But if that echo-signal is built into our selves, our actions will reflect its presence. It manifests itself in human activity and communication. It is part of us. Again, I point to Arthur Dent, Deep Thought, and the Mice. (The mice wanted to dissect Arthur because they believed the "original question" that the computer-Earth was designed to determine would be imprinted in his very existence.)

We see humanity drawing its tales from certain sources. These seem to be common to most humans. Among less removed and sterile religions, water is associated with Mother because it is the stuff of life. Freud did nothing with his theories except put what we already knew inherently into words to be used in the exchange of ideas--the "variations on a theme".

I think the original points probably have something to do with those things that have been present in organic life since its origin on this planet. I think their essence is buried in our stories, and in our actions, and in the physical remnants we leave behind.

In that light, a number of people have tapped that source. Jesus most likely did, by this regard. Mohammed most likely did. In more recent memory, though, I think of Kahil Gibran, Aleister Crowley and--strangely--Ray Bradbury (there's more to those words than Martians and creepy fungi). It's probably also true that access to that source is limited, and occurs in fits. One person "attains"--as Crowley described it--and several others will rush the breach, so to speak.

But that's all speculation. And I think the vagaries of such questions are their inherent treasures.

ciao for now
--Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

tiassa,

Thank you for your interesting theories. Please keep in mind that one of the great minds you mentioned was that of God, the omniscient one, Jesus Christ.

So Bottica,

What say ye, friend?

Tiassa -

We seem to have similar tastes - what do you think of Robert Heinlien's work? Have you ever read "Stranger in a Strange Land"? The unabridged version is very, very good.

Bonjour,

First I would like to thank Tiassa, your "two bit" is vey much what I beleive ...

As for Truestory,.... the way I look at it, somebody at different points in the history of this planet came here to teach. Give him, or her, the name that you wish. The transalation where done from written events that happen in those days.
I do not put down the bible, or any "holy" books, I am just saying that I really think that we should take some of it with a grain of salt, and understand when and where they were written....

Bottica

Hello again, Bottica!

Unlike grains of salt, Jesus Christ (the Word of God), God's message and God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ are unique!

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 21, 2000).]