Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:I have never been a fan of the whole "dual prophecy" view myself.
That it is an option is correct since prophecies tended to have more than one interpretation and most, if not all, were a combination of the "current situation in specific" and the "future situation in general".

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I have never been a fan of the whole "dual prophecy" view myself.
That it is an option is correct since prophecies tended to have more than one interpretation and most, if not all, were a combination of the "current situation in specific" and the "future situation in general".

Paul,

Like I told Dr. q, it seems like a possibility. He asked questions, I tried to find answers. I'm also open to the possibility that I may be wrong. But someone has to show me. Simply calling my answer "nonsense", and dismissing it out of hand, isn't going to show me that I may be wrong.

b) Isaiah 7:1–17:24

1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.
4 Say to him, “Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smouldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.
5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying,
6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.”
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“It will not take place, it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.”
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”’ (NIV)
The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural form of “you” in the original Hebrew of v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who was present, v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would be destroyed (vv. 15–17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated by the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew—atah אתה) and the house of David as a whole (indicated by the plural form—lachem לכם). Some anti-Christians, starting with the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimhi,25 have failed to understand this and misinterpreted the child Immanuel as a sign to Ahaz, possibly Ahaz’s godly son Hezekiah.

The word for virgin here is עלמה (‘almāh). Some liberals26 and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means ‘young woman’, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young woman’s bearing a son should be a sign—it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates ‘almāh as παρθένος (parthenos), the normal word for virgin.27 Later Jews, such as Trypho,28 Justin Martyr’s (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi29 (11th cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that ‘almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos.30

However, even Rashi admitted that ‘almāh could mean ‘virgin’ in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. In the KJV, the word is translated ‘virgin’ in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), ‘maid’ in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and ‘damsels’ in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of ‘almāh in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage). Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, בתולה (betûlāh), “emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).”31 betûlāh is qualified by a statement “neither had any man known her” in Gen. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to `almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of betûlah is used of a married woman.32 The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of ‘almah in Is. 7:14 as ‘virgin’, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal.33

The background of the prophecy
When the kingdom of Judah was threatened by a confederation of enemies from the north, King Ahaz was terrified. God sent the prophet Isaiah to calm the king. The prophet declared that the evil forces would not prevail. Ahaz was encouraged to “ask for a sign” documenting this word of consolation, but the stubborn king refused.

Isaiah then directed his attention to the “house of David.” He promised a much greater “sign,” namely “the virgin” would conceive and bear a son, whose name, Immanuel, would signify “God is with us.” The time-frame that it would take for the Immanuel-child to reach the age of accountability was used as a chronological measurement. Before that time-span would expire, Judah’s current threat would dissipate (which reality came to pass).

More importantly, however, was the fact that a much greater deliverance was needed in Israel, and such would be provided by the actual arrival of Immanuel — who is Jesus Christ.

A “Sign”
This prophesied event is designated as a “sign.” The term “sign” is a point of controversy. While the word itself does not demand a “miracle” on a strictly etymological basis, a word’s meaning is determined by more than etymology alone. General usage and context (both immediate and remote) must be factored in.

The immediate context does suggest a miracle. The king had been challenged to ask for a “sign,” either “in the depth, or in the height above” (11). This indicates something phenomenal. Ahaz refused the proffered “sign,” claiming that such would “tempt” Jehovah (again hinting of the supernatural).

Additionally, Matthew’s inspired interpretation of the passage clearly establishes the miraculous nature of the prediction (Mt. 1:22-23). There is no evidence at all that there was a miraculous birth to a virgin in the days of Isaiah.

A virgin
The Hebrew word rendered “virgin” is almah. It is the only biblical word that truly signifies a virgin. Prof. William Beck, who researched this matter with great precision, declared:

I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin (1967, 6)
Robert **** Wilson, the incomparable Hebrew scholar who was proficient in forty-five biblically-related languages, declared that almah “never meant ‘young married woman,’” and that the presumption of common law is that every almah is virtuous, unless she can be proved not to be (1926, 316).

Even the Jewish scholar, Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, conceded that recent archaeological evidence confirms that almah means “virgin” (1953, 106).

The notion that almah merely signifies a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D (Justin Martyr, 67).

RickD wrote:Paul, Link please.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Paul, Link please.

http://creation.com/the-virginal-concep ... christ#714

Must have deleted it when I was formating.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Sister Theresa of Calcutta never heard the call of God for 70 + years... her faith was not shaken and her continued journey saved hundreds of thousand of lives and brought even more to death's door step close to and in union with God.

Q22 wrote:
This makes perfect sense to me and how I view the world. She was being honest in those letters. That has to be difficult for a believer to reconcile. It didn't rattle me at all when the pastor of my church was kicked out after his wife filed a restraining order...or when the pastor of my in-laws church went to jail for child porn. Terrible people do terrible things. Hard to make this stuff mesh when you think God's in control of putting certain people into positions of authority.

That has to be difficult for a believer to reconcile

Terrible people do terrible things.

Hard to make this stuff mesh when you think God's in control of putting certain people into positions of authority.

The following quote is from this websiteTektonics on Thomas Paine Limk

Arguing by Outrage was one of Paine's minor staples as well. He didn't use this one as often as some do today, but he did commit a common circular fallacy we find in this regard:

o God is good and just (as I define good and just).
o The atrocities described in the Bible are not good or just (by my estimation).
o God would not do anything that is what I consider to be not good or just.
o Therefore, the God of the Bible is obviously false.

Using Paine's own "logic", then, I can conclude the following:
1. At is contained something that Paine didn't write, "Age of Reason" therefore was not written by Paine.
2. "Age of Reason" is therefore a forgery.
3. It being a forgery, it can be dismissed.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Terrible people do terrible things.

questioner22 wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Terrible people do terrible things.

If you are refering to your examples... by all means yes, and they can be forgiven if truly repentant. Lumping Sister Theresa in the same sentence...
:

The tie-in here was not 'terrible people', it's 'things that are hard to reconcile for a believer'. If you don't see that there's a big problem with someone who spent a life in service to the Church and God not hearing him or feeling his presence...

Again, a problem for the believer, not me.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Are you kidding? It is fulfilled bible prophecy that the Jews would reject their messiah until the last days and this is fulfilled bible prophecy that you try to use as evidence? You're probably not a Jew but if you want to act like one then here

The tie-in here was not 'terrible people', it's 'things that are hard to reconcile for a non- believer'.

Again, a problem for the believer, not me