Was the Hebrew Bible mistranslated?

[Oldschool Flip]

I thought we were debating whether or not the Hebrew Bible was mistranslated and the accuracy of the texts, not whether or not they were written.

Okay start with "almah" in Hebrew meaning "young woman or maiden". Then in Greek it was translated to "parthenos" which means "virgin". Of course now in English when they refer to Mary (Jesus mother) she's "virgin" Mary and not "young woman or maiden" Mary. I think we should start with this. Now remember don't make analogies. Translate word for word and don't try to decipher what you think may have happened.

hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el- in Hebrew

Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin:  bethulah.  If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?

 The KJV in Isaiah 7:14 uses the English word “virgin” which is translated from the Greek Septuagint. In the Hebrew, the word “‘almah” (al-maw’ H5959 in Gesenius’) states “a young woman, a maiden, a youthful spouse recently married. The idea of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys.”

In addition, the word “shall” is NOT in Hebrew. The addition of this word would seem to make this a matter that would happen at some distant time. The English word “conceive” comes from the Hebrew word “hareh” (H2030. Haw-reh’ in Strong’s) is from H2029 which is “harah” (haw-raw’). It is a primary root meaning, “to be pregnant.” Thus, the young woman in question was not to become pregnant but she was already pregnant.

[MCWAY]

were knowledge ends.religion begins.

Before you start spouting about knowledge ending, brush up on your spelling and punctuation.

[OzmO]

Before you start spouting about knowledge ending, brush up on your spelling and punctuation.

Where knowledge begins.grammar ends?   

[MCWAY]

Okay start with "almah" in Hebrew meaning "young woman or maiden". Then in Greek it was translated to "parthenos" which means "virgin". Of course now in English when they refer to Mary (Jesus mother) she's "virgin" Mary and not "young woman or maiden" Mary. I think we should start with this. Now remember don't make analogies. Translate word for word and don't try to decipher what you think may have happened.

hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el- in Hebrew

Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin:  bethulah.  If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?

 The KJV in Isaiah 7:14 uses the English word “virgin” which is translated from the Greek Septuagint. In the Hebrew, the word “‘almah” (al-maw’ H5959 in Gesenius’) states “a young woman, a maiden, a youthful spouse recently married. The idea of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys.”

In addition, the word “shall” is NOT in Hebrew. The addition of this word would seem to make this a matter that would happen at some distant time. The English word “conceive” comes from the Hebrew word “hareh” (H2030. Haw-reh’ in Strong’s) is from H2029 which is “harah” (haw-raw’). It is a primary root meaning, “to be pregnant.” Thus, the young woman in question was not to become pregnant but she was already pregnant.

What you keep forgetting, Flip, is the context of the verses, regarding Mary. Even if you use the argument with the word, "almah", meaning "young woman or maiden", the rest of the passage says that Mary had not been with a man (Luke 1:34), as is often the case when that word is used in other verses, with regards to the women involved.

Plus, according to Strong's definition (used on "Blueletterbible.org), the word, "almah", means:

1) virgin, young woman

   a) of marriageable age

   b) maid or newly married

Furthermore....."There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac."  - R. Laird Harris, et al. "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament", p. 672.

[Oldschool Flip]

What you keep forgetting, Flip, is the context of the verses, regarding Mary. Even if you use the argument with the word, "almah", meaning "young woman or maiden", the rest of the passage says that Mary had not been with a man (Luke 1:34), as is often the case when that word is used in other verses, with regards to the women involved.

Plus, according to Strong's definition (used on "Blueletterbible.org), the word, "almah", means:

1) virgin, young woman

   a) of marriageable age

   b) maid or newly married

Furthermore....."There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac."  - R. Laird Harris, et al. "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament", p. 672.

So if being a "virgin" is of the utmost importance then "bethulah" SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED, so there was no confusion. Don't analyze it. If it meant "virgin" then bethulah is the word for it.

[big L dawg]

Before you start spouting about knowledge ending, brush up on your spelling and punctuation.

typical Christian.

[MCWAY]

So if being a "virgin" is of the utmost importance then "bethulah" SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED, so there was no confusion. Don't analyze it. If it meant "virgin" then bethulah is the word for it.

Who exactly made this rule that "bethulah" should have been used, especially if BOTH WORDS have similar meaning? Besides, there's no confusion about the issue (except a false one, made by skeptics, trying to make the argument for such). The surrounding context tells of a woman who has not had sex with a man, per Mary's words in Luke 1:34.

Last time I checked, a young woman/maiden who has not had sex with a man was also called a virgin. You're splitting hairs when such is not necessary.

[Oldschool Flip]

Who exactly made this rule that "bethulah" should have been used, especially if BOTH WORDS have similar meaning? Besides, there's no confusion about the issue (except a false one, made by skeptics, trying to make the argument for such). The surrounding context tells of a woman who has not had sex with a man, per Mary's words in Luke 1:34.

Last time I checked, a young woman/maiden who has not had sex with a man was also called a virgin. You're splitting hairs when such is not necessary.

Please. If "virgin" is the reason of this miraculous birth, then it should have been iterated with a CAPITAL B for bethulah. Young woman and virgin aren't similar since a young woman could lose her virginity and "still be a young woman". Don't make analogies. If the virginity of Mary was of big importance then the Hebrew word for virgin SHOULD have been used by all the gospels and NOT the Greek word "parthenos" just by assumption.

That's like me saying, "The New England Patriots won the big game" and someone making the ASSUMPTION that it was the Superbowl, when it could have just been the AFC championship I was talking about. Now if I said "The Patriots won the AFC championship" there would be NO CONFUSION.

[MCWAY]

Please. If "virgin" is the reason of this miraculous birth, then it should have been iterated with a CAPITAL B for bethulah. Young woman and virgin aren't similar since a young woman could lose her virginity and "still be a young woman". Don't make analogies. If the virginity of Mary was of big importance then the Hebrew word for virgin SHOULD have been used by all the gospels and NOT the Greek word "parthenos" just by assumption.

I'm not making analogies. The definition is right there, in black and white. I posted it earlier. But, in case you missed it:

From Strong's definition, "almah", means:

1) virgin, young woman

   a) of marriageable age

   b) maid or newly married



The only confusion is on YOUR part, trying to make the argument that Mary was NOT a virgin. It doesn't matter if either word was used, since BOTH WORDS ("bethulah" and "almah") mean "virgin". As stated from the Harris quote, Rebekah (Isaac's wife) is described using the word, "almah", and it clearly states that she had not been with a man, just as it does with regards to Mary.

I don't know where you got this mandate that "bethulah" MUST be used, when referring to a virgin. But, it's not historically or Scripturally supported.

That's like me saying, "The New England Patriots won the big game" and someone making the ASSUMPTION that it was the Superbowl, when it could have just been the AFC championship I was talking about. Now if I said "The Patriots won the AFC championship" there would be NO CONFUSION.

If I said that the "The New England Patriots (or, my more preferred example, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers  )  won the big game....AND WALKED AWAY WITH THE LOMBARDI TROPHY", there would be NO confusion, either.

There's only one "big game" in which you walk away with the Lombardi trophy, and it ain't the NFC/AFC championship. It's the SUPER BOWL!!

Replace "big game" with "almah" and "Lombardi trophy" with Mary's words, "I have not known a man"; and all this alleged confusion clears up. Notwithstanding that young women (particularly those engaged to be married) were assumed to be virgins in the first place, young women who hadn't been with a man had a certain name attached to them......VIRGINS!!!

[Oldschool Flip]

I'm not making analogies. The definition is right there, in black and white. I posted it earlier. But, in case you missed it:

From Strong's definition, "almah", means:

1) virgin, young woman

   a) of marriageable age

   b) maid or newly married



The only confusion is on YOUR part, trying to make the argument that Mary was NOT a virgin. It doesn't matter if either word was used, since BOTH WORDS ("bethulah" and "almah") mean "virgin". As stated from the Harris quote, Rebekah (Isaac's wife) is described using the word, "almah", and it clearly states that she had not been with a man, just as it does with regards to Mary.

Lol, yeah black in white by Dr. Strong's references. Not sold here. This is with ASSUMPTION that a young woman, maiden is a "virgin" when the case could be she is not. And it's not stated that she was "virgin", but again a maiden or young woman ready for marraige.

ha‘almah, a feminine noun with a definite article, "the young woman." This noun has traditionally been translated as "virgin," but research reveals that more likely it means "a young woman of marriageable age" (that is, old enough to bear a child) without any specific indication of whether or not she is a virgin. This is reflected in most modern translations.

I don't know where you got this mandate that "bethulah" MUST be used, when referring to a virgin. But, it's not historically or Scripturally supported.

If I said that the "The New England Patriots (or, my more preferred example, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers  )  won the big game....AND WALKED AWAY WITH THE LOMBARDI TROPHY", there would be NO confusion, either.

There's only one "big game" in which you walk away with the Lombardi trophy, and it ain't the NFC/AFC championship. It's the SUPER BOWL!!

Replace "big game" with "almah" and "Lombardi trophy" with Mary's words, "I have not known a man"; and all this alleged confusion clears up. Notwithstanding that young women (particularly those engaged to be married) were assumed to be virgins in the first place, young women who hadn't been with a man had a certain name attached to them......VIRGINS!!!

Problem again with what you are saying is that it isn't supported in Hebrew Bible. Translations in KJV are wrong. It's taken in context from when the translations from Greek first made the mistake. Whether you want to admit it or not, if the Hebrew word for virgin ( and almah doesn't mean virgin if you look it up under a other true translations and not assumptive ones) there would be NO CONFUSION.

In the Hebrew texts the word almah is used seven times, always simply in the sense of a young female, and is rendered "damsel" once, "maid" twice, and "virgin" four times. The word bethulah occurs fifty times, rendered "maid" seven times, "maiden" eight times, and "virgin" thirty-five times. All fifty times it has the technical sense of virginity. For example, Rebekah was a "bethulah, neither had any man known her" (Gen. xxiv, 16). "He shall take a wife in her virginity [bethulah]. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or a harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin [bethulah]" (Lev. xxi, 13, 14). "If a damsel [naarah] that is a virgin [bethulah] be betrothed," etc. (Deut. xxii, 23). If a husband find his new wife "not a maid [bethulah]," then on his complaint her parents must "bring forth the tokens of the virginity [bethulah] of the maid [naarah]" (Deut. xxii, 14, 15). Jephthah's daughter, doomed to be a living sacrifice to Yahveh, asked time to "bewail my virginity [bethulah]" (Judges xi, 37, 38). These instances suffice to make clear the correctness of the definitions: "Bethulah conveys the idea of virginity, of a young unmarried woman; almah is used simply of a young woman of marriageable age"
(New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 939); and they show the befuddled folly of all the labored fictions invented by Matthew, Luke, and the dogma-forgers to make out the wife of Joseph the carpenter a perpetual virgin-mother of Jesus and half a dozen other offspring. Isaiah's ha-almah need not have been, and the term did not signify that she was, strictly a virgin. Again "the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely." The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates. (Wheless)

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/christianity_protestant/45355/299846

[MCWAY]

Lol, yeah black in white by Dr. Strong's references. Not sold here. This is with ASSUMPTION that a young woman, maiden is a "virgin" when the case could be she is not. And it's not stated that she was "virgin", but again a maiden or young woman ready for marraige.

ha‘almah, a feminine noun with a definite article, "the young woman." This noun has traditionally been translated as "virgin," but research reveals that more likely it means "a young woman of marriageable age" (that is, old enough to bear a child) without any specific indication of whether or not she is a virgin. This is reflected in most modern translations.
Problem again with what you are saying is that it isn't supported in Hebrew Bible. Translations in KJV are wrong. It's taken in context from when the translations from Greek first made the mistake. Whether you want to admit it or not, if the Hebrew word for virgin ( and almah doesn't mean virgin if you look it up under a other true translations and not assumptive ones) there would be NO CONFUSION.

You can use the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, or any other version and the result is the same. The words, regarding Mary, has her saying that she (at the point where she is told she will conceive Jesus Christ) had not been with a man.

That, in laymen's terms, is what we call a virgin. Why you keep ignoring that part, where Mary states that she had never been with a man, I'd love to know. If there were any doubt as to whether "almah" means "virgin" or simply "young woman" in Luke 1, those words clear that up.

And, as Harris states, that same word is used to describe Isaac's future-bride, Rebekah.

In the Hebrew texts the word almah is used seven times, always simply in the sense of a young female, and is rendered "damsel" once, "maid" twice, and "virgin" four times. The word bethulah occurs fifty times, rendered "maid" seven times, "maiden" eight times, and "virgin" thirty-five times. All fifty times it has the technical sense of virginity. For example, Rebekah was a "bethulah, neither had any man known her" (Gen. xxiv, 16). "He shall take a wife in her virginity [bethulah]. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or a harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin [bethulah]" (Lev. xxi, 13, 14). "If a damsel [naarah] that is a virgin [bethulah] be betrothed," etc. (Deut. xxii, 23). If a husband find his new wife "not a maid [bethulah]," then on his complaint her parents must "bring forth the tokens of the virginity [bethulah] of the maid [naarah]" (Deut. xxii, 14, 15). Jephthah's daughter, doomed to be a living sacrifice to Yahveh, asked time to "bewail my virginity [bethulah]" (Judges xi, 37, 38). These instances suffice to make clear the correctness of the definitions: "Bethulah conveys the idea of virginity, of a young unmarried woman; almah is used simply of a young woman of marriageable age"
(New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 939); and they show the befuddled folly of all the labored fictions invented by Matthew, Luke, and the dogma-forgers to make out the wife of Joseph the carpenter a perpetual virgin-mother of Jesus and half a dozen other offspring. Isaiah's ha-almah need not have been, and the term did not signify that she was, strictly a virgin. Again "the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely." The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates. (Wheless)

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/christianity_protestant/45355/299846

Matthew and Luke DO NOT make Mary out to be a perpetual virgin; none of the Gospels do. This was discussed on another thread here. In fact, Matthew mentioned the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ in his Gospel.

Matt. 13:55-56, Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Matthew 1:24-25, Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Where is this perpetual virginity, mentioned by the Gospel authors? Those verse (in Matthew) simply indicate that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. Then (after waiting through Mary's purification time, of course), they do the "be fruitful and multiply" thing, resulting in those other offspring.

[Oldschool Flip]

You can use the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, or any other version and the result is the same. The words, regarding Mary, has her saying that she (at the point where she is told she will conceive Jesus Christ) had not been with a man.

That, in laymen's terms, is what we call a virgin. Why you keep ignoring that part, where Mary states that she had never been with a man, I'd love to know. If there were any doubt as to whether "almah" means "virgin" or simply "young woman" in Luke 1, those words clear that up.

And, as Harris states, that same word is used to describe Isaac's future-bride, Rebekah.

All your above versions are translated from the Greek word "parthenos". So the point is moot. And ignoring Mary's statement she had never been with man? Lol, the Hebrew Bible DOESN'T state it and it was this prophecy from which the whole Messiah was conjured up. The Old Testament precedes the New Testament and this proves my point of appeasing the masses to make sure they keep people believing.

Matthew and Luke DO NOT make Mary out to be a perpetual virgin; none of the Gospels do. This was discussed on another thread here. In fact, Matthew mentioned the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ in his Gospel.

Matt. 13:55-56, Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Matthew 1:24-25, Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Where is this perpetual virginity, mentioned by the Gospel authors? Those verse (in Matthew) simply indicate that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. Then (after waiting through Mary's purification time, of course), they do the "be fruitful and multiply" thing, resulting in those other offspring.

Lol, point is they should have.

[MCWAY]

All your above versions are translated from the Greek word "parthenos". So the point is moot. And ignoring Mary's statement she had never been with man? Lol, the Hebrew Bible DOESN'T state it and it was this prophecy from which the whole Messiah was conjured up. The Old Testament precedes the New Testament and this proves my point of appeasing the masses to make sure they keep people believing.

Hence the reason that Genesis through Malachi is called the "OLD TESTAMENT". The words of Mary clarify counter your earlier claim that Mary was NOT a virgin, when she had Jesus. The Tanakh (Old Testament) isn't going to have the words of Mary in it, because the last book (Malachi) was written at least two centuries (I think) before Christ's birth.

The masses weren't looking for Jesus to be born in the manner in which He was, or that He'd live the life that He'd live. In fact, that's often the point made, when studying the life of Jesus. Though He fulfilled OT prophecy, He did so in a manner that was anything but "appeasing" to the masses.

Lol, point is they should have.

Says who? They can use either word. And the surrounding context clearly points out Mary's virginity prior to her conception and during her pregnancy with Jesus. Again, where are the claims of Mary's alleged perpetual virginity in the Gospels?

[Oldschool Flip]

Hence the reason that Genesis through Malachi is called the "OLD TESTAMENT". The words of Mary clarify counter your earlier claim that Mary was NOT a virgin, when she had Jesus. The Tanakh (Old Testament) isn't going to have the words of Mary in it, because the last book (Malachi) was written at least two centuries (I think) before Christ's birth.

How about she made up the story so she could get married and not be stoned to death? Or that whomever wrote it, since it WAS written after he died, that this was added? Hebrew Bible made the prophecy. Just like Nostradamus followers, you can MAKE anything event sound like it's prophetic if you make up a good story. My point stands. If the prophecy would have said bethulah, then your point is valid. At this point it's not because anything after the Old Testament can be "adjusted" to fit prophecy.

The masses weren't looking for Jesus to be born in the manner in which He was, or that He'd live the life that He'd live. In fact, that's often the point made, when studying the life of Jesus. Though He fulfilled OT prophecy, He did so in a manner that was anything but "appeasing" to the masses.

In fact if it was a regular birth, it would just seem like this was just another story. So add the appeal of "magic birth" and now you have the Messiah. And of course I'm not talking the appeasing of the masses from the time of his life. I'm talking after his death and up till now. Make it sound supernatural and more will follow. There's proof of that today. Go to Sedona AZ sometime and speak to the people there about how magical it is. They are totally convinced it's a vortex.

Says who? They can use either word. And the surrounding context clearly points out Mary's virginity prior to her conception and during her pregnancy with Jesus. Again, where are the claims of Mary's alleged perpetual virginity in the Gospels?

Lol, I'm not going to argue her perpetual virginity since it's mentioned she had other children. I'm arguing whether the translation from Hebrew stated she WAS a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Hebrew Bible prophecy DOESN'T STATE THAT. It was a translation error from the Greeks. That's the argument here. And unlike your Lombardi Trophy statement, the Hebrew Bible never gave scripture that the Messiah's birth mother would be a virgin. It never says she would not know man or say it. You are going upon an assumption rather than what is written. This is story telling.
The facts are that the Hebrew Bible states in Isiah 7:14 that a pregnant woman is about to give birth and is to be named Immanuel. That's it.

http://www.crivoice.org/isa7-14.html

BTW, shouldn't you be at church?

[Naked4Jesus]

If this is true, which I believe it is, then Christians have it all wrong about Jesus. This is another reason to not believe the Christian Bible is not accurate and was doctored to appease the masses.

http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.com/

Of course it's been mistranslated.     

Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know," a textual criticism of Biblical manuscript tampering by Bart Ehrman, Professor or Religious Studies of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

[MCWAY]

How about she made up the story so she could get married and not be stoned to death? Or that whomever wrote it, since it WAS written after he died, that this was added? Hebrew Bible made the prophecy. Just like Nostradamus followers, you can MAKE anything event sound like it's prophetic if you make up a good story. My point stands. If the prophecy would have said bethulah, then your point is valid. At this point it's not because anything after the Old Testament can be "adjusted" to fit prophecy.

My point remains valid. Either word can be used, especially when the surrounding text mentions that the woman in question had not been with a man. Again, this so-called mandate that bethulah MUST be used has no support.

Joseph was making plans to divorce Mary, instead of having her brought up on charges of adultery. He was told, how and why Mary was pregnant and cancelled his plan.

In fact if it was a regular birth, it would just seem like this was just another story. So add the appeal of "magic birth" and now you have the Messiah. And of course I'm not talking the appeasing of the masses from the time of his life. I'm talking after his death and up till now. Make it sound supernatural and more will follow. There's proof of that today. Go to Sedona AZ sometime and speak to the people there about how magical it is. They are totally convinced it's a vortex.

Lol, I'm not going to argue her perpetual virginity since it's mentioned she had other children. I'm arguing whether the translation from Hebrew stated she WAS a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Hebrew Bible prophecy DOESN'T STATE THAT. It was a translation error from the Greeks. That's the argument here. And unlike your Lombardi Trophy statement, the Hebrew Bible never gave scripture that the Messiah's birth mother would be a virgin. It never says she would not know man or say it. You are going upon an assumption rather than what is written. This is story telling.
The facts are that the Hebrew Bible states in Isiah 7:14 that a pregnant woman is about to give birth and is to be named Immanuel. That's it.

http://www.crivoice.org/isa7-14.html

No, it doesn't. Once again, the word, "almah" can be used for the term, "virgin", as has been shown (multiple times) in Gen. 24:4. This argument undercuts your take even more. One of the reasons that many Hebrews DID NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah is that they thoughtHe was conceived illegitimately. No way did the Jewish people think the Messiah would be born in such a fashion. They expected His birth to be a pure one. Guess where they got such an expectation? THE OLD TESTAMENT/TANAKH.

The translation virgin (alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is bethulah.' Of the nine occurrences of 'alma' those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the "alamoth" contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, 'alma' is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, 'so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'. -J. Alec. Motyer, "The Prophecy of Isaiah"

Some say that if Isaiah had really wanted to denote virginity he would have used bethulah which primarily denotes virginity. However, bethulah was used of widows and others who had experienced coitus. Furthermore, a bethulah can be a woman of any age, making the word difficult to qualify as a specific sign. The evidence supports both the traditional translation of “virgin” and the modern translation of “young woman,” but each must be qualified. The English term “virgin” does not suggest age limitations while the English phrase “young woman” does not suggest virginity. The word almah demands both, and so a more accurate translation would be “young virgin”. - Richard Niessen, "The Virginity of the Almah in Isaiah 7:14"


There is no etymological evidence to support the frequently aired claim that almah can refer to a young married woman or an unmarried woman who has had intercourse. The Hebrew root 'lm suggests quite the opposite view and supports the traditional understanding of "young virgin" as a suitable rendering of the term. - William Brooks, “The Immanuel Prophecy”

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/brooalma.htm#_Toc387811429

BTW, shouldn't you be at church?

What makes you think I haven't already been? 

[Oldschool Flip]

My point remains valid. Either word can be used, especially when the surrounding text mentions that the woman in question had not been with a man. Again, this so-called mandate that bethulah MUST be used has no support.

Joseph was making plans to divorce Mary, instead of having her brought up on charges of adultery. He was told, how and why Mary was pregnant and cancelled his plan.

Round and round about analogies. This is how religion (any) appeases like I said. Make it sound like whatever happened in the New Testament was prophecy. There is more support that it's mistranslated than not my friend. You must agree that Judaism is the root of Christianity. If God's own religion was Judaism, why would it be changed? Think about it.....God is all knowing, omnipotent, yet when Jesus arrives and dies, the Gentiles abandon God's true religion and follow Jesus? Makes perfect sense especially when God is Jesus' father. 

No, it doesn't. Once again, the word, "almah" can be used for the term, "virgin", as has been shown (multiple times) in Gen. 24:4. This argument undercuts your take even more. One of the reasons that many Hebrews DID NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah is that they thoughtHe was conceived illegitimately. No way did the Jewish people think the Messiah would be born in such a fashion. They expected His birth to be a pure one. Guess where they got such an expectation? THE OLD TESTAMENT/TANAKH.

Which is the book of God. Are you disputing that the New Testament overides the Old Testament then? If you do, then like I said above, God's religion of Judaism has been displaced by Christianity which was "created" by the Gentiles. Which is why that translations have been doctored from the Old Testament to "fit" the New Testament. I would think that Hebrews would know their own book much better than the Greeks or Romans would.

What makes you think I haven't already been? 

I thought that the Sabbath day was to be kept holy and you should be just praising God with other Christians all day. Usually that's how hard core Christians do it since glory to God isn't a waste of the day.....unless you aren't hard core.

[MCWAY]

Round and round about analogies. This is how religion (any) appeases like I said. Make it sound like whatever happened in the New Testament was prophecy. There is more support that it's mistranslated than not my friend. You must agree that Judaism is the root of Christianity. If God's own religion was Judaism, why would it be changed? Think about it.....God is all knowing, omnipotent, yet when Jesus arrives and dies, the Gentiles abandon God's true religion and follow Jesus? Makes perfect sense especially when God is Jesus' father. 

No, they didn't. In fact, Paul emphasized the exact opposite. He also states that the Law (from the OT) points to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's death paid the penalty for sin. As Paul states, what the Law could not do, Christ's sacrifice can do and has done. But, Paul makes it clear that the commandments were still to be kept in Romans 6.

Jesus said Himself that He came NOT to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He instructed His disciples to keep the Commandments. So, there is no abandoning God's true religion to follow Jesus. Christ made it clear that the two were intertwined.

The reason you don't need a priest, to whom you confess your sins, is because Jesus Christ is the ULTIMATE intercessor. The reason you don't have to haul a cow on an altar and sacrifice it is because the SUPREME sacrifice for sin DIED on the cross and resurrected.


There's no "round and round about analogies". If, as you repeatedly claim, Mary's virginity (or lack thereof) made no difference with regards to the OT prophecy, Joseph would have had NO CAUSE to try and divorce Mary. Simply put, illegitimate children were NOT viewed favorably in Jewish society. Earlier you made a brief reference to Jepthah. He was disowned by his family (particularly his brothers), because, unlike his brothers, his mother was a prostitute and he was conceived out of wedlock. In fact, he didn't received any inheritance when his father died.

Which is the book of God. Are you disputing that the New Testament overides the Old Testament then? If you do, then like I said above, God's religion of Judaism has been displaced by Christianity which was "created" by the Gentiles. Which is why that translations have been doctored from the Old Testament to "fit" the New Testament. I would think that Hebrews would know their own book much better than the Greeks or Romans would.

Both the Old and New Testament comprise the Bible; so there's no displacement involved. Your earlier claims of doctoring still go unsupported. As I said earlier (and with which you just, perhaps unknowingly, concurred), per the prophecy(ies) of the Old Testament, the Hebrews were expecting their Messiah to be of a PURE BIRTH. That's one of the reasons they didn't believe Jesus to be the Messiah (they thought He was conceived out of wedlock). So, this whole issue of the word, "almah", negating the necessity for virginity doesn't work.

And, last time I checked, the disciples were Hebrew, Paul was Hebrew, and the lion's share of the 1st-century Chrisitans were Hebrew.

I thought that the Sabbath day was to be kept holy and you should be just praising God with other Christians all day. Usually that's how hard core Christians do it since glory to God isn't a waste of the day.....unless you aren't hard core.

Again, what makes you think I wasn't doing that? I wasn't aware that a post on a forum consume and entire 24-hour period.

[Oldschool Flip]

No, they didn't. In fact, Paul emphasized the exact opposite. He also states that the Law (from the OT) points to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's death paid the penalty for sin. As Paul states, what the Law could not do, Christ's sacrifice can do and has done. But, Paul makes it clear that the commandments were still to be kept in Romans 6.

Ahem, Paul was a missionary disciple to the Gentiles, whom are blamed for starting the translation issues.

Jesus said Himself that He came NOT to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He instructed His disciples to keep the Commandments. So, there is no abandoning God's true religion to follow Jesus. Christ made it clear that the two were intertwined.

The reason you don't need a priest, to whom you confess your sins, is because Jesus Christ is the ULTIMATE intercessor. The reason you don't have to haul a cow on an altar and sacrifice it is because the SUPREME sacrifice for sin DIED on the cross and resurrected.

This would be fine IF, and a strong IF Jesus is the Messiah, but that's not the view from Judaism and the Hebrew Bible.

There's no "round and round about analogies". If, as you repeatedly claim, Mary's virginity (or lack thereof) made no difference with regards to the OT prophecy, Joseph would have had NO CAUSE to try and divorce Mary. Simply put, illegitimate children were NOT viewed favorably in Jewish society. Earlier you made a brief reference to Jepthah. He was disowned by his family (particularly his brothers), because, unlike his brothers, his mother was a prostitute and he was conceived out of wedlock. In fact, he didn't received any inheritance when his father died.

Here's the translation word for word from the Hebrew Bible:

14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm

Now there's no "virgin" in there, and why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel like it says in the prophecy? Why was he named Jesus? Sounds like a it isn't.

Both the Old and New Testament comprise the Bible; so there's no displacement involved.

Hard italics on the Christian Bible, not Hebrew Bible.

Your earlier claims of doctoring still go unsupported. As I said earlier (and with which you just, perhaps unknowingly, concurred), per the prophecy(ies) of the Old Testament, the Hebrews were expecting their Messiah to be of a PURE BIRTH. That's one of the reasons they didn't believe Jesus to be the Messiah (they thought He was conceived out of wedlock). So, this whole issue of the word, "almah", negating the necessity for virginity doesn't work.

Unsupported? Not according to Judaism and Islam Bibles. There is no proof that Mary was a virgin. It is "hearsay" from people. She wasn't examined and given a stamp of approval like they can do now with obgyn's. Without this story, Christianity is a fairytale.

And, last time I checked, the disciples were Hebrew, Paul was Hebrew, and the lion's share of the 1st-century Chrisitans were Hebrew.

That's fine, but what their accordances to the gospel may not be what was really the truth since the gospels were written based on just testimony. Are we to believe 4 people gospels who could have been copied amongst each other?

Again, what makes you think I wasn't been doing that? I wasn't aware that a post on a forum consume and entire 24-hour period.

At least you're "trying" to spread the word. You must have a computer at your church then and jump onto getbig.

[Oldschool Flip]

bump

[loco]

bump

Bump for what?  MCWAY already gave you an answer.

[Oldschool Flip]

Bump for what?  MCWAY already gave you an answer.

Man you need glasses or something. There's post before my bump that's not answered.

[MCWAY]

Man you need glasses or something. There's post before my bump that's not answered.

I thought that I posted a response to this a few days ago. But, I guess my post didn’t register, because the site was acting up. But, to reiterate:

Ahem, Paul was a missionary disciple to the Gentiles, whom are blamed for starting the translation issues.

Paul didn’t just minister to the Gentiles. He spoke with Jewish people as well, as he was supposed to do. He worked with Jesus’ disciples, who were told to “Go ye therefore and teach all nations”.

This would be fine IF, and a strong IF Jesus is the Messiah, but that's not the view from Judaism and the Hebrew Bible.

Here's the translation word for word from the Hebrew Bible:

14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm

Now there's no "virgin" in there, and why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel like it says in the prophecy? Why was he named Jesus? Sounds like a it isn't.

Once again, the word is “almah” and, as has been discussed, the word can mean “virgin”. Per the references from Niessen and Brooks, the correct translation would be “young virgin”. There’s nothing in the surrounding context to suggest anything else. Again, one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted was because many THOUGHT He was conceived illegitimately. And, given the prophetic nature of the Messiah’s appearance, there is NO WAY the Hebrews would depict a Messiah, conceived out of wedlock.

If all it took was a “young woman” to fulfill the prophecy, anyone could have named his child Immanuel and claimed to be the Messiah. The circumstances of the Messiah’s birth had to be unique and out of the ordinary. There’s also the little matter of why (in a patriarchal society) the emphasis is more on the mother's connection with the Messiah than that the father. The Messiah’s birth was to be a SIGN FROM THE LORD. A mere young woman (especially a unmarried non-virgin) would hardly be part and parcel of a supernatural tip-off to the Messiah’s arrival.

Plus, you forget that the prophetess, Anna, and Simeon from the Gospel of Luke, confirming that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah. Then, there's the little matter of the wise men, who travelled to see the promised Messiah, as well as Herod, who was so worried about Jesus being the Messiah, that he ordered the massacre of boys ages 2 and under, to destroy Jesus.

Hard italics on the Christian Bible, not Hebrew Bible.Unsupported? Not according to Judaism and Islam Bibles. There is no proof that Mary was a virgin. It is "hearsay" from people. She wasn't examined and given a stamp of approval like they can do now with obgyn's. Without this story, Christianity is a fairytale.

The test for virginity was done, BEFORE the bethroment/engagement period started. However, it is some time after this that Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy and plans to dismiss Mary privately (which would mean that Mary was a virgin, when the dowry was paid and the bethroement period began). However, Joseph cancelled his plan, knowing that Mary was pregnant and he was not the biological father. And, there is only one reason why he does this.

That's fine, but what their accordances to the gospel may not be what was really the truth since the gospels were written based on just testimony. Are we to believe 4 people gospels who could have been copied amongst each other?

Then, demonstrate that such was not the case. Until you can do that, the Gospels get the benefit of the doubt.

[Oldschool Flip]

Paul didn’t just minister to the Gentiles. He spoke with Jewish people as well, as he was supposed to do. He worked with Jesus’ disciples, who were told to “Go ye therefore and teach all nations”.


I know that. And, as predicted in the OT and reiterated in the NT, Jesus was rejected by His own people, As John writes in his Gospel “He came unto his own and his own received Him not”.

Thanks for getting back. There's still the mystery of why the Jewish have not received him. According to Christianity he came, but not to Judaism which is the root of Christianity.

The test for virginity was done, BEFORE the bethroment/engagement period started. However, it is some time after this that Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy and plans to dismiss Mary privately. However, Joseph cancelled his plan, knowing that Mary was pregnant and he was not the biological father. And, there is only one reason why he does this.

What was the test to prove it?

If that the case, then the Messiah hasn’t arrived yet. But for some strange reason, I don’t see that many Jewish people, slapping cows on the altar, every time they commit sin. As a Christian, I’m glad that’s the case. All of that protein and I couldn’t eat a single ounce of it.

Lol, old customs change I guess.

Once again, the word is “almah” and, as has been discussed, the word can mean “virgin”. Per the references from Niessen and Brooks, the correct translation would be “young virgin”. There’s nothing in the surrounding context to suggest anything else. Again, one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted was because many THOUGHT He was conceived illegitimately. And, given the prophetic nature of the Messiah’s appearance, there is NO WAY the Hebrews would depict a Messiah, conceived out of wedlock.

So on the flip side, wouldn't it make sense then to make sure the conception was "miraculous"?

If all it took was a “young woman” to fulfill the prophecy, anyone could have named his child Immanuel and claimed to be the Messiah.

Bingo! That's my point.

The circumstances of the Messiah’s birth had to be unique and out of the ordinary. There’s also the little matter of why (in a patriarchal society) the emphasis is more on the mother's connection with the Messiah than that the father. The Messiah’s birth was to be a SIGN FROM THE LORD. A mere young woman (especially a unmarried non-virgin) would hardly be part and parcel of a supernatural tip-off to the Messiah’s arrival.

Since science knows that there can't be conception without a sperm and egg uniting, the whole story has to sound spectacular or there is no merit to the birth.

Plus, you forget that the prophetess, Anna, and Simeon from the Gospel of Luke, confirming that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah. Then, there's the little matter of the wise men, who travelled to see the promised Messiah, as well as Herod, who was so worried about Jesus being the Messiah, that he ordered the massacre of boys ages 2 and under, to destroy Jesus.

Prophecies were rampant back in those days. All kings and people of power "hired" them. These "seers" were just following up on stories they've read prior.

The test for virginity was done, BEFORE the bethroment/engagement period started. However, it is some time after this that Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy and plans to dismiss Mary privately (which would mean that Mary was a virgin, when the dowry was paid and the bethroement period began). However, Joseph cancelled his plan, knowing that Mary was pregnant and he was not the biological father. And, there is only one reason why he does this.

Get back to me on the test.

Then, demonstrate that such was not the case. Until you can do that, the Gospels get the benefit of the doubt.

Less than a hundred years ago a mighty ship sank. Witnesses were saying the ship broke in two, while others didn't. It wasn't until 85 years later when they were able to see the wreck that they found out the truth. Witness testimony is good, but science and evidence beats it.

[MCWAY]

Thanks for getting back. There's still the mystery of why the Jewish have not received him. According to Christianity he came, but not to Judaism which is the root of Christianity.

That's not a mystery at all. The Hebrews wanted the Messiah to free them from Roman oppression. I believe I mentioned that, when I used a statement from Biblical scholar, Dr. Richard Hornsley about the other guys who claimed to be the Messiah and were going to free Israel, only to have the Romans "dispatch the troops and brought their heads back on a pole. And all of their followers, as far as we know, simply dispersed".

What was the test to prove it?

I think that's mentioned in the book of Leviticus. The point, of course, is that Mary's virginity was confirmed BEFORE Joseph paid the dowry for the marriage. That's why, he makes plans to divorce her, when he finds out she's pregnant. He thinks she's commit adultery. None of this would have been necessary, had she been impregnanted PRIOR to their engagement.

So on the flip side, wouldn't it make sense then to make sure the conception was "miraculous"?

And, how do you get much more miraculous than a virgin girl, conceiving Jesus Christ, with no sexual contact (directly or indirectly)?

Bingo! That's my point. Since science knows that there can't be conception without a sperm and egg uniting, the whole story has to sound spectacular or there is no merit to the birth.

That's my point, too. This prophecy doens't lend itself to any run-of-the-mill conception.

Prophecies were rampant back in those days. All kings and people of power "hired" them. These "seers" were just following up on stories they've read prior.

Anna and Simeon, no doubt, read the passage of the Tanakh/OT and from that and the circumstances of Jesus' birth, they knew that He was the Messiah. Neither were hired by any king. In fact, the king in question, tried to have Jesus put to death, about two years after His birth.

That means that even he knew of what the prophecies told of the Messiah. But, he thought Jesus was coming after his throne.

Get back to me on the test.

Correction, it's found in Deut. 22:

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.


This shows that virginity was verified, prior to the marriage. If a guy claim that his wife was not a virgin (disgracing her name), all the parents had to do was show the tokens of virginity to the priests, proving that the deal was legit, when their daughter married this guy. Then, the accuser got beat down and fined 100 shekels and had to keep his wife FOR LIFE, because he trashed her good name.

Less than a hundred years ago a mighty ship sank. Witnesses were saying the ship broke in two, while others didn't. It wasn't until 85 years later when they were able to see the wreck that they found out the truth. Witness testimony is good, but science and evidence beats it.

Science and evidence is just as reliable (or unreliable) as witness testimony, as evidence can be hidden or planted and scientific research, subject to bias and corruption.

That's not to say that such happened in this case. But, your "faith" in science is nearly as devout as a Christian's faith in God.

Plus, science (like witness testimony) is limited to one's senses (even if those are amplified by instruments). If something goes beyond those senses, it is beyond science.