Almost as dry too. It's easier to read, as you can at least read at your own pace. I think maybe he thinks he shall be heard for his much speaking.

Poor Dan here is attempting to put human limitations on God. What's worse, since he can only comprehend what he's been taught about the supposed correct methods of Bible interpretation (my words not his), he limits himself strictly to the accepted methods of Bible interpretation (use a very deep, scholarly sounding voice when saying that). It's just too bad many of today's "scholarly" methods of Bible interpretation are not God's methods, but those created by man. And anything man touches is corrupt (it's evolution in action folks). The emphasis on the extra-Biblical historical data is a definite flaw in Dan's teachings I've heard on SermonAudio as well as in this post so far. People who reject the Bible as perfectly preserved and accurate often tend to accept other data (like Bible commentators or Church fathers or secular historians) as fact, or at least give them more weight than the Bible. Even Dan, as a God denying, Bible rejecting, heretic has no problem using Bible commentators as a valid source for the time frame in which Isaiah was writing, then rejecting the prophetical application of the verse (in other words picking and choosing what he wants to believe). This is the unfortunate plight of the Laodicean church age we live in. Bible rejectors from the pulpit beget Bible rejectors in the pews (beget more Bible rejectors from the pulpit....and on and on it goes).

Daniel (not to be confused with the Dan in this thread) answered and said, Blessed be the name of God forever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

Dan, since you may never get to the point at the rate you are going, could you try to (briefly) tell us who is the son born to the virgin in Isaiah 7:14?