In the knowledge of Saints
Chapter 16


Hebrew/ Judaism/Mosaic/Messianic

I Just don’t know where this chapter will lead, but one thing is certain, I am being persuaded to write, so here’s a question put to the Jewish Rabbi Tovia Singer, which has arisen from the insistence of the Trinity/Oneness churches to ignore the corrections given them by those who know the Hebrew language.
One of the methods you used in your tape series to refute missionary claims is to point out the context of the prophecy. For example, you point out that the seventh chapter of Isaiah cannot be a prophecy about Jesus’ virgin birth because it suggests that the prophecy was to have been fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime, some 700 years before Jesus.
Still, maybe this is a “double prophecy,” a prophecy about a boy to be born in the days of Ahaz and also a prophecy to the birth of Jesus. The context is only for the first application of this double prophecy. Rabbi, do you have any comments?
When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the messiah or a virgin birth, they frequently argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a “dual prophecy.”
In order to fully grasp the massive theological problem missionaries are seeking to escape with using this response, let’s begin by exploring the traumatic circumstance that is unfolding in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. This event is completely inconsistent with Matthew’s application of these passages to his virgin-birth story.
As mentioned earlier, the word “virgin “does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word, however, does not mean “a virgin.” It simple means “the young woman, “with no implication of sexual purity. Most modern Christian Bibles1
have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”


Matthew, however, not only changed the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה to apply this verse from the Jewish Scriptures to the virgin birth, he also completely ripped Isaiah 7:14 out of context and utilize it to support his infancy narrative of Jesus.
In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you,
Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned.”


It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later.
If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfilment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment.2


This notion of a dual prophecy was contrived in order to conceal a stunning theological problem – the seventh chapter of Isaiah does not support Matthew’s virgin birth story. Matthew’s claim that Mary was untouched by a man when she conceived Jesus in unsupported by the Book of Isaiah.
The seventh chapter of Isaiah describes, in great detail, a contemporaneous, traumatic civil war which occurred 2,700 years ago, not the birth of a messiah many centuries later. Simply put, the Book of Matthew ripped Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context. Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the Hebrew word almah can only mean a “virgin,” and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive during Ahaz’s lifetime? Were there two virgin births?
In other words, if Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled on two occasions, who was the first virgin to deliver a baby boy during the lifetime of Isaiah, in about 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries zealously insist that the word almah can only mean a “virgin.” Are they then suggesting that Mary was not the only virgin in history to conceive and give birth to a son?
Furthermore, if missionaries argue that the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, how do the verses that follow, Isaiah 7:15-16, apply to Jesus where the prophet continues to discuss this lad? The following passages state,
Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; 16 for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.
(Isaiah 7:15-16)
If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.


Very truly yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer.

Once again it can be seen that the Rabbi is blaming Matthew for the erroneous translation/interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, yet on having read some other of his writings I see that he blames the Trinity churches, in a diplomatic way, and once again I state that I have not been given to be diplomatic, rather to state it the way it is.
At this point I must say that it is very difficult to clarify many points of difference in the translations/interpretations owing to the difference between the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek to English Septuagint, because it has become clear to me that those who presented the Greek to English Septuagint, are correct in their letter of introduction, in that much of that which is written is of dubious authenticity. This saddens me a great deal, as I had at one time thought that I had found something quite authentic in this copy of the Septuagint, yet this in itself shows and proves that God is teaching me, and for those who follow my progression in the writings of this whole website, they may come to notice.
However I shall write that which is found in understandings in context of each of the writings of both the Hebrew scriptures presented by Judaism, and that presented by Gentiles.
One point which will make good the understanding about Isaiah 7:14 in the Hebrew original is that of the significance of the age of the male born and the relationship to him eating cream and honey, or butter and honey: The boy will only eat cream and honey when he is old enough to reject evil for the good, and before he does so, the two kings will have been dealt with, so what’s the time frame?
The boy is to be born, and yet before he is old enough to chose good or evil the two offending Kings were assassinated, and both at the same time, it seems this could be a bit of a time frame of some years to a frightened nation, what does 2 Kings 15-16 say, Well here we have the explanation of why the time frame in relationship with the boys age, and the Death of the two troublesome kings, as it did not matter as grave concern in relationship to the safety of Jerusalem under Ahaz, because verse 5 of Chapter 16 tells us that Pekah and Rezin besieged Jerusalem, but could not overcome it, and remember that God told Ahaz In Isaiah 7: 3-4, to fear not, in this we see why Jerusalem was not taken at that time. It appears that the assassination of the two warring Kings was to take some time yet though, and for some time Ahaz and Jerusalem lived in fear of Pekah and Rezin.
After the death of Pekah and Rezin and also the abandonment of their land, the remaining people ate cream and honey, milk from the cows God prophesied of, and wild honey from the bees which God hissed for, then this is at the time of the prophesied boy’s adulthood .



The use of the Name Emmanuel which means in Hebrew “our rock with us” Is not used in context as a Messiah, its use is as Gods sign through the Boy, indicating that God will protect Jerusalem and Ahaz at those particular times, and has no bearing on Yeshua personally, or in deed.
Well now, if we stopped right here with this supposed prophecy being of Yeshua to come, I have no longer a doubt, my reserved decision is no longer reserved: This is not a Prophesy of a future Messiah, and it is not intended as a duel prophecy! To tell you the truth, I to stand corrected, at a point of time not so long ago I would have taken Isaiah 7:14-16 to be an account of the Messiah to come, but with the guidance and inspiration from God I have gained an Understanding which will enable me to build on future Knowledge and Understandings of it from the teachings of God, and the understandings I have been receiving for some time now, have built me up to these understandings...... But look! See, I am taught, and I teach, and I accept Correction from God, and it is that which makes me teachable, and willing to learn. Where do all those top ranking Trinity type church leaders and founders stand? I know for a fact that they feel above being corrected.
There has been a man made difficulty in writing a correct interpretation of that written in the Greek to English translation of the Septuagint, this comes from added words, and the use of commas, and full stops to change the meaning of that written, so given that problem I had best address it separately if for no other reason than to put it to rest, however there seems to be another good reason, that is to allow a conviction of the Knowledge and understandings of Isaiah 7:14-16

Isaiah 7:14-16 the Greek to English translation:

Verse 14 of course has the word “Virgin” where it should be “Young woman”, and the words “shall conceive in the womb” are seen as a necessary addition, added in to suit the virgin conception/birth doctrine of man. And now verse 15, a play of words and with the use of well appointed commas and full stops used to alter and confuse the prophecy in writing it this way “Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows either to prefer evil, or choose the good.” V16 “ For before the child shall know good or evil, he refuses evil, to choose the good.”
So now, the best way to deal with this is to compare with the Jewish held scripture below which is in context with all related authentic scripture on the matter, looking at the Cream or butter and honey verse, the boy will eat it when he knows to reject bad and choose good, (as he becomes older). The Greek to English has it that the boy will eat before he knows to prefer good over evil!
Now look at the Jewish scripture below, and see it fits in context of the whole prophecy, and the very reason it was prophesied, (that the Kings who were so much trouble were to be dealt with before the boy was to be eating cream and honey!) And now try and figure out what happened in the Greek/English version, why did they miss this vital statement out, and replace it with a go nowhere in context statement in v 16.... Only that it may chance to be seen to allude to something Christ like!
The Jewish held scripture to compare is below.


The Jewish held scripture of Isaiah 7: 14+:

Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned.”...... End Quote.
Isaiah 7:14-16 the fact is: there is no virgin woman giving birth, it is a false doctrine of the Trinity!
It is not a prophecy which deals with Yeshua or any Messiah.
It is not a dual Prophecy dealing with the boy of the time, and including any future Messiah.
The Boy to be born is not party to any activity of a Messiah, he is a sign in a time frame, and not indeed.
It is over and done, the Prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 has long ago been fulfilled, it matters not to us.

The Greek to English Septuagint has more words added and clear signs of attempt to alter its meaning in Isaiah 7:14. Its presenters acknowledge that Constantine’s church altered it.

Is it the intelligence of those who profess knowledge and understanding, which has been undermined by one who was (slow at school in his younger years!)? You haven’t worked it out, because you won’t seek God and receive correction in your apostate state? And neither will God give until you repent.... Your missionaries you have spread around the world, financed by money you have collected from those you have convinced of your erroneous doctrine born of wanton ignorance of the real facts, missionaries who spread your message, which is tantamount to an orchestrated litany of lies, to the unsuspecting peoples of the world. Yes I know it’s up to them to examine every spirit that it be of God, but you have purposefully taken on what you teach, wilfully and determined, yet, you could by accepting correction, adjusting your teachings, and humble your hearts, bow your heads, and become useful to the eternal profit of mankind.
Even so, Prophesy says that you will be what you are, and I will be what God will make of me, therefore in doing my given job, will send out the message alert and teach those who will realise, those who are not just luke warm, those who really do seek God in spirit and accurate knowledge.
God says: “Come out of her my people, least ye fellowship with her sins, and partake of her plagues”
In context, and over all understanding ,God tells me: It does not matter what you consider Isaiah 7:14 to mean, the only understanding we need is of the word “alma”, and to know that it is not used as “Virgin”, and that is the crux of the matter, therefore, having the understanding that the Hebrew word “alma” is misused, or a malicious attempt to adulterate the scriptures of God, is paramount to


the understanding of something tantamount to a shambolic church, which has come from its misguided founders, and backed by an orchestrated litany of lies; remember, it’s the Devil who is dressed as the Angel of light, he’s at war, and strategically his best attack and defence position is in the church........ Men can come out of there, the Devil can’t.
Exposed as an evil church, still not seeking repentance for its apostate state, revealed by the fact that they have the option to repent, in the proof given for all to see, and here is that proof: “Alma” is used to describe the opposite of virgin, as in, “an adulterous married young woman”, whereas the natural choice of Hebrew word to describe a “virgin” is “Betulah” which means just that, sexual purity; comparatively, the key word being “Parked” If I made the statement: “ I parked my car”, would you expect it to be understood that I said: I crashed my car? And also, by people of ulterior motive extended out to: I crashed my car and wrote it off? Then extended out to: I crashed my car, and wrote it off, killing my son? Come on! All I did was parked my car in the car park lot!.... Well then, “The young woman is with child” in the same light then becomes: She is a virgin! She had a virgin Conception, her husband who was not her husband, didn’t cause the conception even though God said he did! But they were married! So he was going to divorce her! They had to hurry to a manger because the woman was about to give birth! But they need not have worried about it because she had a virgin Birth! She had a son and called him Yeshua, and Jesus, because his mother forgot about the actual name Emmanuel, so no one bothered about that. And so the Orchestration goes on, and a fortune has been made out of it, and many people have been tortured and murdered out of this orchestration; I don’t wonder at all why God is angry with people..... Come on out of there!
It is clear that Isaiah would have used the word Betulah in 7:14 if he meant virgin, he needed no other word.
We don’t need Isaiah 7:14 to be considered in the seek for knowledge on the matter of Jesus’ conception and birth, it is void of the matter, yet the Gospel account says that Mary did give birth, and no other descriptive account of the birth has been given, just simply that they needed to find a place quickly, because the birth was close, alluding to labour pains which indicates a natural birth.
We don’t need Isaiah 7:14 and mans controversy of it, because it is not actually relevant to other than those who have used it erroneously, and for ulterior motives.
What we do have which makes any other explanation of the conception/birth of Jesus to be manmade lies, is the testimony of God through Moses, and God said to Moses in Deuteronomy 18: 15 and 18-19 “I will raise up to them a Prophet of their brethren, like thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them as I shall command him.” “And whatever man shall not hearken to what-so ever words that Prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance on him.”
And in another place we read about Jesus, that he was above Moses, and for a while a little lower than the Angels.
So, there it is! What more would one need to discern the truth of the matter, clearly Jesus is just a man Like Moses, a man one of Moses brethren, in fact one of Moses brethren, a Jew in fact when he was born, God has made it clear that Jesus is a man and God speaks through him, Jesus (Yeshua ) as


God says is a prophet! There is clearly no indication at all of any virgin conception/birth, alluding to Jesus being part of a Trinity of God, and any indication that Jesus is part of God as being God is nonexistent in any authentic scriptures. Who needs Isaiah 7:14 and the manmade controversies?
Forget about it, because it’s all in the mind of men with ulterior motives, and concentrate on that which is clear and irrefutable, even as evil refutes it.
In the Septuagint, Greek to English translations, In 2 Kings, and then in 2 Samuel in other Bibles, is a testimony in the form of a prophesy given to Nathan for King David, which tells David that futuristically from his seed issue from his loins will come the Messiah.

“Tzadik yesod olam”- A righteous man is the foundation of a world. Who then is a righteous man? In context it is Yeshua (Jesus). And what man represented the start of another world of time? Yes, Yeshua, his coming to be, and at age about 30years old at the official start of Yeshua’s Ministry, and after having been tested and trialed another time by the Devil, Yeshua having overcome the trial, his obedience to God starts another world of time, his obedience creating the foundation.
Then at the time of the Crucifixion of Yeshua, his burial, and his having been raised from the dead, this righteous man, by his obedience to God, which allowed God to start another world of time, he is the foundation stone which came to be for Yeshua by his obedience, and created by God for Yeshua in his obedience, is called the latter days.
Then his return to this planet starts another foundation of another world, the last days. What is the official office of this man Yeshua? Messiah! What did God tell Moses? God said Yeshua will be one of Moses brethren, one of the people of Moses, and God told Moses that Yeshua will be a servant to God, and a prophet, describing how that will work, God said “...... And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them as I shall command him.” And all this happened, the reward for that mans obedience is that he has authority over all flesh, and that authority is God guided, Yeshua is obedient to God which enables God to Guide him through the office of Authority, and the Saints will be guided by Yeshua who being King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Is the head Saint.
God is the saviour, worked through a man of natural conception/birth, and from the seed issue from the loins of Joseph, who is the lineage of King David, being the clear Prophecy given him in his time, David who is of the lineage of Abraham, who also knew.
God is the actual saviour because he created the idea of working through the man to give mankind his last chance to be saved, God works through the man Yeshua as saviour to us, we in turn come to be saved by the immortal man who has the authority from God to be the Messiah.
God has given to work through a righteous man Yeshua, and Saints, the work of bringing to an end the Evil Governance of the people Political and Religious, by the Orchestrated litany of lies created by men, they have created in their adulterating/ perverting God’s word, those of the Babylon churches, these men who won’t listen to God, who want to control themselves, and trying to take control from God, and also those of Idol worship.


God has given the troubles of man, to man, someone to be seen, and this because man has throughout the history of all the worlds of times proven to God that Man has great difficulty being obedient to someone he can’t see; In perspective: Man’s lack of Faith in God, because of mans unwillingness to be obedient to God in the way God requires it of us.

Therefore, those who Yeshua and the Saints can’t sort out are lost, the “Sheep from the Goats”
Yeshua and the Saints with him, and also those who are alive on the planet today’s times included, are all at work now!

Trinity collapses:

Based on the scriptures of God and his testimony, and after having taken out those words which contradict the authentic words of God, that is any words which cause confusion to the overall context of any part of the scriptures we have been presented with, then having done that, then the contradiction causing the confusion disappears, and logical harmonic balance takes place, the truth then being: There is nothing written in God’s word that suggests a virgin conception or birth of the man Jesus.

There is much written of authentic writings which clearly demonstrates our need to know that Jesus was conceived and born naturally.

There is much written which clearly indicates that God intended us to believe that Jesus is not of the essence of God.

Without the virgin conception/birth doctrine, the Trinity, and Jesus is God churches collapse, therefore without the altering of the scriptures there is no support, those churches therefore stand or fall on the understanding of one word “Alma” this word according to Jewish held scriptures, is the authentic word used by God through Moses, and they uphold that Alma cannot be used to mean virgin, and this is well backed up by the authentic scriptures in context: This therefore reveals that the scripture has been altered to accommodate a false doctrine.

The very foundation of the Roman Catholic church and all those daughter churches of her, the mainstream, is the Trinity doctrine, born of the decree of Constantine, Emperor of Rome, his decree that Jesus is of the essence of God, and that derived from that decree of the “Oneness” doctrine being that Jesus is God: The foundation is sand.

Some Christian Bibles have in recent years altered the scripture of Isaiah 7:14 and corrected it, bringing the word "Alma" to it's correct meaning of "Young woman", but I notice that they are at a loss to know what to do with the related  erroneous  scripture/gospels, and have not made the corrections. how then can they uphold the teachings of the Trinity, given they have no scriptural evidence for it, other than they contradict themselves by Matthews referral back to Isaiah 7:14  translating Alma to mean Virgin, and here this also requires correction. By an only partial correction, they have added further confusion, and God says that there is no confusion in his congregation.(Note: proof today, that men do alter the scriptures, in this case to correct some part).

It matters not if during the time of Constantine others were confusing the issue of authenticity, the facts are shown in the records of history, and Constantine and his church and consequent churches has to shoulder the responsibility for upholding his decree.
The book of Revelations/Apocalypse has account of the destiny of the churches involved.

Click here to go to chapter 17