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
Yes, Flash! While you continue to play the music for Satan's "happy dance" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - and while Searcher jumps onto the dance floor whenever such music is played Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - if you can find time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - I, too would like to know your sources. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Searcher & TS, Sure...it is also the same source where I found the Bible contradictions... Enjoy, Searcher Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [This message has been edited by Flash (edited January 04, 2000).]
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ 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
