Question about Isaiah 7:14

If Isaiah was written by only one author you might have a good point. Yet it is believed by a number of scholars that Isaiah was authored by no less that three authors, and this would account for the changes in both style and vocabulary. And even if you could make the arguement that Jesus was not born of a Virgin, which would be impossible to prove, it would still not explain how He fulfilled the other 300 prophecies of the Old Testament. Nor would it explain how most of His followers would agree to die the most horrible deaths to support an obvious lie. Anyone of them could of escaped death, if they would of stepped forward and simply said it was all a lie. Also, if the Bible was simply a Book of fiction, why are all of it's end time prophecies coming to pass today?

 

IMHO herein lies a point of great interest and importance, Daniel Herring ~
I accept that a "christ" or "Khrst" as expressed by the Egyptians factually exists throughout all of creation and within each and every person as what I describe as "The Divine Living Principle". Such "principle" knows no boundaries, dogma's, nor religion, but shines equally "upon good and evil alike", and gives to all whenever asked. and, like the sun, it is capable only of giving and sustaining life.
I also accept that xtianity has usurped the meaning of the Khrst to inferr it belonged to one man and one man only ~ the supposed jesus who became "god made flesh" accidently by the inventions of Roman Emperor Constantine's Nicean Creed. It is because of this lie that there has been no peace in the world since xtianity took hold, because truth is being subverted by adherance, continuance, and devotion to, the lie.
And lies are promulgated by which deific entity?

 

My point is: the author is biased.

Isn't that the least biased interpretation of the passage you have ever heard?

Not really. God can teach you the truth. Anyway, the 'mistranslations' are caused by God.

 

No. Probably billions of reasons for each 'mistranslation'.

No.

 

It would be impossible for the Bible to be majorially mistranslated or altered from its general truth due to the vass number of original texts that we have today and match up with our Bible.

 

"Vast Number" ~ meaning more than one???

 

The difference between the followers of Jesus, and recent followers of other faiths who were also loyal unto death is the fact, that the followers of Jesus were there with Him, the actually saw Him worked the mircles. They were eye witnesses to the events described. It is one thing to believe in something, it is another thing to believe, and to of actually seen. If you spent three years with Christ, you would know first hand if the mircles were true or faked. That's why it would be doubtful, that all of these men would of went to their death, knowing it was all faked. Some people will die believeing their faith is true, these men went to their death, knowing it was true for they were all eye witnesses.

 

There were so many "eye-witnesses" that not one appears in the entire NT story of the fabrication of jesus other than "now a certain man."

 

Hi all, Firstly, you should all know exactly where I'm coming from so I don't get grouped in with others. Many will find they disagree with me, but I back up everything I believe from scripture. I am a bonafide Christian because I'm Spirit-filled (I received the Holy Spirit by praying for it and when I received I knew I had it because I began to speak in a language I had never learned before).

I'd be more than happy to discuss any questions you have with scripture. I'm still learning, so I sure won't have all the answers, but I bet I could go and get some answers and bring them back, if you'd like. I believe in an infalliable God that doesn't make mistakes and that can preserve His message of salvation through centuries of abuse and attempted manipulation. Man is not perfect, but God is. I believe in the entire Bible as the infalliable word of God.

I'm sorry I didn't read all the way through this thread so I may have missed a couple points. I wanted to respond to the original one and I'll probably come back and post on the other points a bit later.

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

So this is the verse in question. Virgin is taken from the Hebrew word
al-maw'. This is what my concordence had to say about that word:

This is the same word that is used in the following verse:

Genesis 24:43 "Behold, I stand up by the well of water,
and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher, to drink"

I wanted to point out that the preceeding verse is talking about a servent that was sent by Abraham to find his son, Isaac, a wife. He wanted to find someone pure, as was the custom and a requirement back then. That verse is him recounting the story. This next verse is about that same woman, Rebekah, when the servent actually first saw her. I want to compare the words that are used in the two verses:

Gen 24:16 "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up."

Damsel is nah-ar-aw', in Hebrew.

Virgin here is beth-oo-law', in Hebrew.

Therefore both beth-oo-law' and al-maw' mean virgin, as it is in their definition. If the author wanted to refer to a regular damsel, maid and/or woman, he could have chosen nah-ar-aw' or any other of the Hebrew words they have which don't include the 'virgin' connotation within them.

Once again, many will not agree. I'm only here to share my personal experience and show others what the truth is from scripture. I have no intention of being disrespectful to anyone. I believe in treating eveyone fairly and with love as is commanded of me to do. I won't agree with the practices of many, but that's no reason to be disrespectful or mean. For example, I do not agree with homosexuality, but I have friends that are homosexual. No, I do not believe they are saved according to the Bible (many people aren't, though), but I'm not spouting off every other day that they're going to hell. I'm not here to force people to change, I'm only telling them they can and how if they want to.

Sound good?

 

Fulmah excellent reference - Thanks

 

Actually you could just as easily use these same two passages to prove the opposite point;

In Gen. 24:16 the authors speaking in narrative, disclosing information only he and the reader---not Abrahams servant-- would have ie, that she is a beth-oo-law, a virgin. this isn't something the servant would know by looking at her thus it's neccasary for the author to state it.

In Gen: 24: 43 we have the servant explaining to Rebekah's family how he had interpreted Rebekah's response as a sign from God that she was the maiden he was sent to find and in this--
Genesis 24:43 "Behold, I stand up by the well of water,
and it shall come to pass, that when the (almah) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher, to drink"
--he uses almah to discribe a woman he knows nothing about. It would make much more sense for him to say "when the young woman cometh" in that he would be able to tell she was a young woman by looking at her than to say "when the virgin cometh" which would be something he could only surmise by looking at her.

In other words it would make much more sense in this instance to translate almah as "young woman' than "virgin".

almah does indeed imply virginity but you can't ascribe "virgin" as a literal translation.

In any case why would the same author use both almah and bethoolaw to say the same thing in the same chapter if they both mean virgin exclusively?

 

NaykidApe,

In the entire context of the Rebekah story, it's known that they are looking for a virgin, someone pure, to be the wife of Issac. Notice in the same verse where she is called a damsel (verse 16) , it is also specifically mentioned that she is a virgin.

If the author, writing of the servent's encounter in verse 16, did not know that she was a virgin, then there's no reason to use those two Hebrew words only to signify that she was a damsel.

The author, whoever you want to say it was, was writing from a 3rd person, omniscient (or however you spell it) point of view. He already knows she's a virgin. Verse 43, it's him recounting the story, in which it's already known she's a virgin by himself and the others. There's no reason to use damsel at that point because it's obvious that if he's found someone, she's a virgin (because those were the instructions in the first place).

I'm saying that "virgin" is part of their connotation. Why, if you did not mean that to be in the connotation, would you not choose another word for woman?

The concept of Mary being a virgin is also something that is supported by other scripture, namely, the New Testament. To reject part of the Bible, yet accept another part is pretty useless if we're going to be discussing scripture in a Christian forum. This is because the basis of Christianity rests upon the fact that there is an infalliable God who is true to His promises and has enough power to preserve His instructions no matter what man might try and foul up. Man is far from perfect, but God is perfection.

There have been many translations of the Bible and it's been through many human hands, but God is quite capable of keeping His core message of salvation intact. I have also had a personal experience with God that completely lines up with His word. If you want to check out more of what I'm about, I posted heaps of verses in the other thread, "Is Religion Good?"

Oh, something else I thought of. Anyone here well versed in Catholic doctrine? I could do some research but I don't know it off-hand. I believe the term "Virgin Birth" is a Catholic creation actually referring to MARY's birth, and not Jesus'. That is actually not biblically supported.

 

That's exactly my point; when it's specifically mentioned the author uses bethoolaw.

Almah does indeed denote the probability of virginity, but it's an incidental.

I never said the author didn't know, I said the servant wouldn't be able to tell by looking at her that she was, yet he still refers to her as the "almah".

Granted, as I've said, it could be surmised that she was a virgin, especially after she identified herself by making the right response, but the servent is in fact relating a conversation he had with god before she even showed up.

No, it's him quoting the servent. And the servent, you'll remember, is speeking in past tense.

Actually I would think it would be the other way around; there's no reason to use virgin after the point at which he'd found her because at that point it would be a given.

but again, neither interpretation applies anyway because the servent is relating something that happened before she even showed up.

Who says the author didn't intend for it to be part of the connotation? the issue is; is virginity one of the usual aspects of a woman refered to as "almah", or is "virgin" actually the literal translation (and only possible meaning) of almah.

What I'm saying, again, is that it would be fair to assume that an "almah" was a virgin, but it's an implied aspect--an incidental--not a specific, literal translation.

We're discussing how one part of the bible relates to another part. It's really not about rejecting or accepting anything; right now we're just trying to establish the meaning of what was said.

We're not debating whether or not Mary was a virgin persay, we're just trying to establish whether or not Isaiah 7:14 qualifies as a prophecy of that event.

One thing nobody's brought up yet is that judiac scholars of certain sects considerred it a legitemte practice to ascribe a double fullfillment to each of the prophecies; one to be fullfilled within the lifetime of the prophet himself and another, on a larger scale, to be fullfilled at a later time.

With that in mind the ambiquity of the term "almah" would actually serve this double purpose; it could be seen as having been fullfilled in Isaiah's time in a the less miraculous, mundane way, and later ascribed to the birth of Jesus by the author of Matthew in a strictly miraculous way.

If you believe the author of Matthew was actually the tax collector turned apostle mentioned in the gospels then it would make sense that this is exactlty what he was doing; as a tax collector he would almost certainly have to have been a member of the pharisitical sect of the Jews, who were known to have read and interpreted prophecy this way.

What you're describing is the basis for some people's definition of christianity.
If it's part of the policy of your specific sect of christianity to follow this definition (and thereby disqualify a vast horde of people who also consider themselves christian) that's none of my business.

To me christanity is just an interesting subject to study.

 

Okay, I'll try and sum up my poin one last time and if it's missed, then I'm letting it go: everyone in the context of the story from which I posted those verses, KNEW that they were looking for a virgin to marry Isaac. The biblical book, itself, was written after the fact. Every single mention of the possible wife after Abraham's original instructions to the servent can, therefore, mean virgin. The verse in which the woman was refered to as damsel she was also refered to as virgin. The other verses, there was no clarification made because the word that was used meant maiden as well as virgin and/or just virgin. So, in Isaiah 7:14, if the author had wanted to indicate solely that she was a maiden, then he could have used the word for damsel or any other without the virgin connotation. But since he didn't, the virgin meaning of the word can be safely administered.

On the other point, about Christians... I am giving the Biblical definition of what a Christian is, not some abstract idea that society has. If someone professes to be Christian, then they are believers in Christ, as per the definition of the word. The word for "believe" in the Greek of the New Testament means to trust in, to rely on, to adhere to. So, ultimately, one who does not align oneself with the instructions of Christ (a good summary is in Acts 2:38, by Peter, who was given authority by Jesus), then that person is not a Christian.

The definition of a Christian is very specific. Check out my other post in the thread "Is Religion Good?" and I go into detail about this process of being a true Christian.

 

*Watches everything I said go flying over comforted's head*.

Bye point! Have a nice trip!