DavidDavid said:
http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm
http://www.bible.org/netbible/
Here are 2 websites to christian bibles that translate Isiaih 7:14 as young woman, not virgin. Atleast these christians know what the hebrew word Almah means, this is strong evidence to support the fact that this prophecy is no prophecy at all. Please any objections on this.
Heres the definition for "Virgin"
'almah. (Heb)
virgin, young woman
of marriageable age
maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
Do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament out of context?
Consider the context of the very first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament. Mary the mother of Jesus is pregnant, and the marriage has not yet been consummated. The situation demands an explanation, so Mary tells Joseph the truth. What is the truth? According to scripture, "thy Word is truth" (John 17:17). Is the truth easy for Joseph (or anyone) to accept? No! Neither Joseph, nor you, nor I would have believed Mary. The context demands that we not believe her. Only the most gullible, blinded by love, man would have bought such a fantastic story. Yet it was the truth. As with Peter (Matt. 16:17), so with Joseph, so with you and so with me, a supernatural revelation is required to convince one of the truth. "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matt. 1:20-21)
We come now to the first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament. "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us" (vs 23). Was this scripture really written about Christ as Matthew says it was? Is that the context in which we find it?
Let us check the context. Today's method of scriptural interpretation teaches that the examination of the context is the primary rule for understanding the Word of God. This verse (Matt. 1:17) is quoted from Isa. 7:14. It certainly does not follow today's commonly accepted rules for scriptural interpretation. The context shows that this statement is addressed to king Ahaz, the king of Judah.
To the natural undiscerning eye, there is nothing here to connect this to the birth of Christ. Ahaz was concerned about the conspiracy by the northern kingdom of Israel under king Pekah with Rezin the king of Syria against Ahaz. What possible sign would the birth of the Messiah some 480 years later be to Ahaz? The need (the context) was an immediate urgent concern.
Yet Matthew, without explanation or apology, applies this verse to the virgin birth of Christ. The second chapter of Matthew also contains prophecies which appear to be taken completely out of context. It tells of the wise men coming from the east to Jerusalem searching for "the king of the Jews" (Matt. 2:2). Herod, after inquiring of the chief priests and scribes, tells the wise men that the prophets say the messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. "And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also" (Matt. 2:8).
The wise men find Christ, worship him, present him with presents, "and being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way" (Matt. 2:12). After the wise men depart, "the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream saying, Arise, take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt and be you there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him" (vs. 13).
Now we come to our next out-of-context prophecy; notice: "And when he arose he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,
Out of Egypt have I called my son" (vs. 14 and 15). This was a quote from Hosea 11:1 which reads: "When Israel was a small child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt."
In context, Hosea is simply saying that as Israel was being called out of Egypt, they were in the process of departing from God: "they sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven images" (vs 2). Still Matthew once again, without explanation, applies this verse to Christ's return from Egypt. Surely we would wonder WHY DOES MATTHEW NOT EXPLAIN HIMSELF?
Let us continue with this "totally out of context" and "you can go anywhere with that" application of scripture. An even greater violence to the rules of exegesis is contained in the very next verses: "Then Herod, when he saw he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had diligently enquired of the wise men" (vs 16). Notice what Matthew says next: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying, In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not" (vs 17 and 18).
Now Ramah, as Matthew very well knew, is nowhere near Bethlehem. It is not even in Judah, but is in Ephraim. Bethlehem is south and west of Jerusalem, and Ramah is many miles away, north and east of Jerusalem.
There are many more that could be sited but for now I gotta go.
