Questions regarding the bible being "inaccurate"

[John_Hiner]

• Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.”
• Isa 7:13 And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
• Isa 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 Immanu-el.
• Isa 7:15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
• Isa 7:16 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.
• Isa 7:17 The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that E’phraim departed from Judah–the king of Assyria."

Isaiah was not predicting an event 700 years in the future -what possible use would that have been to a king of Judah in the eighth century, facing the political problems of the eighth century? . . .

If the meaning of Isaiah 7.14 in its original context is ignored, the rest of the oracle of which it is a part becomes incoherent rubbish: there were no Assyrians, & no threat from Damascus, at the birth of Christ. To rip verses out of their setting is is no way to interpret the texts - how is it respectful to the meaning of Scripture, if the Christological application in the NT, of a text taken from the OT, is made to crush the meaning out of the OT text in its original setting ?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Gottle of Geer:

I am interested in your several points. However, I will have to address them a bit at a time, if I am to work my way through them.

I will give time to replying to and asking about each of the several points; I would like to start with a comment and then a question regarding the portion of your post that I have quoted above.

You ask “what possible use would that have been to a king of Judah in the eighth century, facing the political problems of the eighth century?”

Based on the lines that you summarized, it occurs to me that the “possible use” would be to reassure the king of Judah that his line and his kingdom would outlast the daunting enemies that he faced. Read in this context, the references to “the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted,” amounts to a prediction that the enemies of Judah will pass away, while “your people and . . . your father’s house” will be enjoying good days.

This does not seem useless to a king seeking reassurance and support for the moral of a beleaguered people, whose hearts “shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.” When read with one’s view narrowed on Ahaz alone, verses 14-17 seem perfectly consistent with the reassurances God was giving in verses 4-8, though the later prediction is much more expansive than mere assurance of victory in the particular engagement.

In this same direction, it seems that your comment, “there were no Assyrians, & no threat from Damascus, at the birth of Christ,” amounts to a confirmation that the text of the “sign” was fulfilled in the respect that it specified that the immediate enemies would pass away before the “sign” was realized.

So, to my ear none of this seems contrary either to understanding the text as it must have sounded to Ahaz, or as it was fulfilled in Jesus’ virgin birth.

That said, I am lead to ask you: What significant meaning do you see in the text, when read strictly in light of Ahaz’s situation, which you recommend to us as important to understanding the “meaning” of Scripture? Is there some subtlety in your reading of the “historical meaning” of the text which helps us in the practice of Religion now?

I am not clear on what you believe is being lost, by reading the text in light of Christ, in whom we are interested directly, rather than focusing on Ahaz, who bears some but not overwhelming interest in himself.

Your patience and help will be appreciated.

I will send additional responses within the next few days, as I can draft them.

Thank you for your stimulating comments.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[Pax]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the alma/bethulah controversy read the contents of the following link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah#Definitions_and_etymology

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…how is it respectful to the meaning of Scripture, if the Christological application in the NT, of a text taken from the OT, is made to crush the meaning out of the OT text in its original setting?
This is the sort of vandalism Fundamentalism commits…

Your opinion on the prophets seems to be in direct conflict with Christ’s own words on the subject:

Luke 18
31 Then Jesus took unto him the twelve, and said to them: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be accomplished which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of man.

Luke 24
25 Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken.

Luke 24
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.

Luke 24
44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Gottle of Geer:

This is my second response to your posts of last week. You wrote, in part, quoting my previous post:

On the other hand, one should be cautious in supposing that St. Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah could be mistaken.

Is that being said ?

I am not sure that I follow this question. It seems clear to me that the suggestion inherent in the dispute over the translation of Isaiah 7:14 is a dispute about whether St. Matthew was correct to apply that verse to the virgin conception of Christ.

St. Matthew writes: “Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:18-23 ((Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.))

This is a clear application of the prophecy to the virgin, but not unmarried, conception of Christ. So, when one writes of Isaiah, “Isaiah was not predicting an event 700 years in the future,” or, as had been said earlier in the thread, that “Isaiah 7.14 is not talking about the Incarnation, it’s talking about the political situation of Isaiah’s own time, & how King Ahaz of Judah should respond to it,” one disputes St. Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah.

Similarly, when the original poster’s friend said, “These [errors in the biblical text] including the word “Virgin”. He said that in the program they explained that the word was not actually virgin and was a gross mistranslation in regard to reference to Mary,” this was a denial of St. Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah and its application to the conception of Christ – by a virgin, who was not an “unmarried girl.” Pax’s link is helpful in gaining some perspective on the depth to which the “translation dispute” is an attack on the authority of St. Matthews’ Gospel and the virgin conception itself:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah#Definitions_and_etymology

I think I see your point to the effect that Isaiah may or may not have know to what the phrase referred when he said it to King Ahaz; however, since Isaiah was acting as a “prophet,” or spokesman for God, his personal understanding is not decisive, and perhaps not even relevant, to the question of whether the word spoken meant what St. Matthew tells us explicitly that it meant.

If one is considering Isaiah’s personal experience of the prophesy, then one may be in doubt about what he understood or did not understand as the intent of the saying. However, if one is considering the reliability of the Scriptures as the word of God, this issue of Isaiah’s understanding is at best a sidelight. After all, St. Matthew’s claim is that he is interpreting what “the Lord spoke by the prophet,” not what the prophet understood to have been meant by the prophecy.

I hope this clarifies my claim that St. Matthew’s interpretation was being doubted. If I have missed a subtlety in your point that affects this understanding of the matter, please take some pain to explain it to me, as I am interested to understand the point correctly.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner