Isaiah 7 has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever

[beameup]

Bs"d

So the translators of the LXX knew very well what "almah" means; "young woman". So why does it state in Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"?

:mock:Most likely Christian corruption.

Why do the Talmudic rabbis discredit the Septuagint?
Because the LXX correctly reflects the meaning of the
paleo-Hebrew that the esteemed rabbis referred to when
translating the Tanakh into the Koine Greek 3C BCE.

Of course, I've clearly exposed the treachery of Talmudic rabbi Singer by showing that "bethulah" was not "the ONLY Hebrew word for VIRGIN" by showing that in Genesis 24, Rebakah was described as "bethulah" and then qualified by "she had never known a man", clearly showing that "bethulah" did not even exclusively convey "virginity" in paleo-Hebrew in Genesis 24.

 

[Elia]

Why do the Talmudic rabbis discredit the Septuagint?
Because the LXX correctly reflects the meaning of the
paleo-Hebrew that the esteemed rabbis referred to when
translating the Tanakh into the Koine Greek 3C BCE.

Bs"d

It is not the rabbi's who discredit the LXX, is the RC church which admits that they corrupted it:

Here are a few excerpts from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, here to be found:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ from the entry "Septuagint" which show the reliability of the LXX:

The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).

On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in.

The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text.

Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint.

So the Catholics openly admit they corrupted the LXX.


"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[Elia]

Bs"d

You seem to think that, because the LXX now says "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, there always was written there "virgin".

I explained before that the LXX is corrupted by the RC church. I explained before that the LXX translates the word "almah" with "young woman".

Oh yes, yet another :mock: "old-wives-tale" brought to you by the corrupt Talmudic "rabbis".

Bs"d

No, that is not an "old wives tale", that is the pure undiluted truth, a truth that everybody can check out for himself.

These are the facts:

Of the seven times that the word "almah" appears in the Tanach, the LXX translates is four times as "young woman", one time as "youth", and only two times as "virgin", one of those two times being Isaiah 7:14.

So the translators of the LXX knew very well what "almah" means; "young woman". So why does it state in Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"?

Most likely Christian corruption.

I suggest that next time before you scream something, you check it out, than you don't look so much like a big mouthed ignoramus.


"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[beameup]

Bs"d

It is not the rabbi's who discredit the LXX, is the RC church which admits that they corrupted it:

The truth is, is that it was the Talmudic rabbis in the 3rd century A.D. that did the corrupting of the text of the LXX Septuagint. The Talmudic rabbis were trying everything possible to discredit any possible Messianic passages that hinted at Yeshua of Nazareth. As well, the Talmudic rabbis were desperately trying to rewrite Judaism because they had lost their "holy land" and lost their Temple. It was all a massive cover-up to hide the truth, and they've been busy at a cover-up for 2,000 years now.

Their "problem" came when older "unmolested" copies of the Septuagint were found.

 

[Elia]

The truth is, is that it was the Talmudic rabbis in the 3rd century A.D. that did the corrupting of the text of the LXX Septuagint.

Bs"d

What is your proof for that assumption?

Here is the proof that the RC church admits that they themselves messed up the LXX:

Here are a few excerpts from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, here to be found:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ from the entry "Septuagint" which show the reliability of the LXX:

The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).

On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in.

The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text.

Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint.

So the Catholics openly admit they corrupted the LXX.

"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[Elia]

The truth is, is that it was the Talmudic rabbis in the 3rd century A.D. that did the corrupting of the text of the LXX Septuagint.

What is your proof for that assumption?

Bs"d

And then only silence remained.

Beameup is screaming lies, and when asked to bring some proof there is nothing but silence.


"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[Elia]

Bs"d

The word translated in Christian Bible translations with "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, is "almah".

The word "almah" appears 7 times in the Tanach.

If we look at that word "almah" in 18 different English translations, then we get a grand total of 126 translations of "almah". (18 x 7)

We see then, that ALL these 18 translations translate "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin".

But that leaves us then with 126 - 18 = 108 cases where these translations translate "almah".

And how do they translate it in these other places?

In these other places we see the intriguing fact that it is only 28 times translated as "virgin", the rest of the time, 80 times out of a 108 times, it is translated like "girl", "young woman", or something like that, and not like "virgin".

Isn't that strange?? In Isaiah 7:14 there is consensus about the fact that it means "virgin", but in the rest of the Tanach in the vast majority of cases it is translated as "girl", "young woman", or something like that, and not as "virgin".

Again we see here that the Christian Bible translations are corrupted in order to mislead the poor Christians who cannot read Hebrew.

Here are all the instances in which these 18 translations translate the word "almah", for your convenience stacked in a table: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/almahbibletranslations

"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[beameup]

Bs"d

What is your proof for that assumption? (re:LXX)
**bloviating edited out**

We have copies of the LXX to compare. Come on now, be honest, you have been "hiding" any possible reference to Yeshua of Nazareth from 70 A.D. until present day. You "bend over backwards" to discredit your own Scriptures by corrupting them in order to hide the past beliefs of Judaism. From the obvious attempts of the "Vowel Points" to the obvious Jewish corruption of the Septuagint, and the "fairy-tales" created in the Talmud, you have been busy "covering up" your own Hebrew past and deceiving yourself.

 

[Elia]

We have copies of the LXX to compare.

Bs"d

So according to you the Rabbi's corrupted the LXX, and the proof is that you have copies to compare.

Did the rabbis write in those copies that they corrupted the LXX??

Why don't you just admit that you are lying and screaming again, without the slightest proof?

Here is the proof that the Catholics corrupted the LXX:

Here are a few excerpts from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, here to be found:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ from the entry "Septuagint" which show the reliability of the LXX:

The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).
.....................
On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in.
...............
The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text.
...................
Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint.

So the Catholics openly admit they corrupted the LXX.


"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[Elia]

Bs"d

As the Catholics themselves admit, they corrupted the LXX.

And Isaiah 7 does not speak about a virgin who gets pregnant, it does not speak about the messiah, it is one of the many Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah whatsoever, which are ripped out of context by Christianity and/or the NT, and then presented as: "Fulfilled messianic prophecies", which they are obviously not.

And that is of course deceit, plain and simple.

 

[Elia]

Bs"d

Here we can see how Christian Bible translations translate the word "almah", what appears 7 times in the Hebrew Bible:



What we see here is that ALL of them translate "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin, but for the rest of the 108 times the word "almah" is translated in these 18 translations, it is only 20 times translated as "virgin", the rest of the time, 88 times out of a 108 times, it is translated like "girl", "young woman", or something like that.

It is only that translating it in the right way in Isaiah 7:14 does not fit the Christian agenda, and therefore the translation there is corrupted in order to be able to push the Christian messiah in.

But the fact is that in the whole Tanach no virgin birth is to be found.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Bs"d

Here we can see how Christian Bible translations translate the word "almah", what appears 7 times in the Hebrew Bible:

View attachment 6560

What we see here is that ALL of them translate "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin, but for the rest of the 108 times the word "almah" is translated in these 18 translations, it is only 20 times translated as "virgin", the rest of the time, 88 times out of a 108 times, it is translated like "girl", "young woman", or something like that.

Why is that a problem?

It is only that translating it in the right way in Isaiah 7:14 does not fit the Christian agenda,

Sounds like a conspiriacy theory to me.

and therefore the translation there is corrupted in order to be able to push the Christian messiah in.

Answer me this:

Is there any significance about a non-virgin woman (ie, a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man) becoming pregnant and bearing a son?

Happens all the time, yes?

So why even mention the word that can be translated as virgin?

Would you agree or disagree that words have a sphere of meaning, especially in ancient Hebrew, which is not as large of a language (in terms of how many words exist in the language) as English?

Genesis 24:43 (NOT verse 44, by the way, your chart is wrong), was not the idea that Isaac would marry a woman who was pure, a virgin, a maiden?

Exodus 2:8, was not Moses' sister a virgin (and thus, also a maiden), being only around 7 years older than him, him being a baby at the time?

Psalm 68:25, maiden is appropriate, as far as I'm aware.

Proverbs 30:19, Why is virgin not appropriate for this verse? Is not Agur (the one who uttered the words in this chapter) not speaking about the marriage bed?

Song of Solomon 1:3, If a woman was married (and thus likely not a virgin), would she be included in what the Shulamite girl said, when speaking about the one she loves (verse 7)? Not to get too deep into the weeds on this one, but for context, is not Solomon trying to woo the Shulamite girl, who doesn't love him, but rather loves King David?

Song of Solomon 6:8, With that many women in his harem, do you really think that Solomon would have been able to make women out of all of them?

But the fact is that in the whole Tanach no virgin birth is to be found.

The fact of the matter is that, in Isaiah 7:14, translating the word as "virgin" is appropriate, and the verse only makes sense if it is. A virgin giving birth is FAR more unique than a non-virgin giving birth.

 

[Elia]

Why is that a problem?

Bs"d

It is not a problem, it is a very important proof that the Bible translators know very well what "almah" means, and that is not "virgin". Besides Isaiah 7:14 they translate it more than 4 out of 5 times not as virgin, but as girl, maid, young women, or something like that.

And that is the right translation, because alma does not mean virgin.

Sounds like a conspiriacy theory to me.

It's a simple fact that "young woman" does not fit Christianity.

Answer me this:

Is there any significance about a non-virgin woman (ie, a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man) becoming pregnant and bearing a son?

Happens all the time, yes?

Yes.

So why even mention the word that can be translated as virgin?

What word are you talking about? The word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 can NOT be translated as "virgin".

Would you agree or disagree that words have a sphere of meaning, especially in ancient Hebrew, which is not as large of a language (in terms of how many words exist in the language) as English?

Genesis 24:43 (NOT verse 44, by the way, your chart is wrong), was not the idea that Isaac would marry a woman who was pure, a virgin, a maiden?

I have no idea. The idea is not mentioned.

Exodus 2:8, was not Moses' sister a virgin (and thus, also a maiden), being only around 7 years older than him, him being a baby at the time?

Psalm 68:25, maiden is appropriate, as far as I'm aware.

Proverbs 30:19, Why is virgin not appropriate for this verse? Is not Agur (the one who uttered the words in this chapter) not speaking about the marriage bed?

Proverbs 30:

18 "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:


19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden.


20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'


An eagle in the sky doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A snake on a rock doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A ship on the sea doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A man who has his way with a maiden (in the Hebrew "almah") doesn't leave a trail of what he has done.
A man with a virgin does leave a trail, namely the fact that the hymen has been torn, so here is not spoken about a virgin.

"This is the way of an adulteress: She eats (eating here means having forbidden sexual relations) and wipes her mouth (mouth here is an euphimism for the female sexual organ) and says, 'I've done nothing wrong." because no trail is left, and nobody can prove anything anymore.

But it should be clear to everybody that here the "almah" is not a virgin.

Song of Solomon 1:3, If a woman was married (and thus likely not a virgin), would she be included in what the Shulamite girl said, when speaking about the one she loves (verse 7)? Not to get too deep into the weeds on this one, but for context, is not Solomon trying to woo the Shulamite girl, who doesn't love him, but rather loves King David?

Song of Solomon 6:8, With that many women in his harem, do you really think that Solomon would have been able to make women out of all of them?



The fact of the matter is that, in Isaiah 7:14, translating the word as "virgin" is appropriate, and the verse only makes sense if it is. A virgin giving birth is FAR more unique than a non-virgin giving birth.

And how would the people being able to ascertain that the pregnant woman is a virgin? Did they come to look between her legs to see whether or not the hymen was still intact?

It is obvious that that is not a sign.

The sign was what God said to king Achaz: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

We see here in Isaiah 7, that king Achaz, the king of Judah, is afraid of two neighboring kings.
It is important to know that after the death of king Solomo the kingdom of Israel split up into two parts; into the kingdom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom om Judah was made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a part of the Levites. The kingdom of Israel was made up of the other ten tribes. Achaz was king over Judah, and in this prophecy the king of Israel is Pekah, the son of Remaliah. And Pekah had made a covenant with the king of Syria, called Resin, to attack together the kingdom of Judah.
This news caused king Achaz considerable stress, because he had a dark suspicion that things could very well turn out not so very rosy for him.

Therefore God sent Isaiah to Achaz, in order to tell him that things would work out just fine for him. God tells Achaz that he will give him a sign. Here is the sign: "14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and she called his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

God says that before the child of the young woman who is pregnant will grow up, the land of the two kings, Resin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel, will be deserted, that is devoid of people. Those two nations will be led into exile.

So the sign is the fact that before the young boy Immanuel will grow up, the lands of the enemies of king Achaz will be deserted. That sign is given to king Achaz, who lived about 700 years before JC.

And the Bible tells us that that sign has been fulfilled.

So God gave a sign to Achaz.

In the days of Achaz.

About 700 years before JC.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is not a problem, it is a very important proof that the Bible translators know very well what "almah" means, and that is not "virgin". Besides Isaiah 7:14 they translate it more than 4 out of 5 times not as virgin, but as girl, maid, young women, or something like that.

And that is the right translation, because alma does not mean virgin.

Except that it does, as I just showed you.

It's a simple fact that "young woman" does not fit Christianity.

Sure it does.

Mary was a young woman, was she not?

She was a virgin, was she not?

Yes.

Now answer the first question: Why make such a prophecy? Women have children all the time. What's so special about the one in Isaiah?

What word are you talking about? The word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 can NOT be translated as "virgin".

Yes, it can, and is.

H5959 - ʿalmâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H5959 - עַלְמָה ʻalmâh, al-maw'; feminine of ; a lass (as veiled or private):—damsel, maid, virgin.

www.blueletterbible.org

I have no idea. The idea is not mentioned.

Was Rebekah a girl of marriagable age?
Was she a virgin?
Did not God have a very long time between Abraham telling his servant about the conditions for finding a woman for Isaac to marry, and when those conditions were met, in order to make it so that the girl whom God wanted Isaac to marry would be the one to fulfill those conditions?

Proverbs 30:
18 "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:
19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden.

20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'


An eagle in the sky doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A snake on a rock doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A ship on the sea doesn't leave a trail which can be followed.

A man who has his way with a maiden (in the Hebrew "almah") doesn't leave a trail of what he has done.
A man with a virgin does leave a trail, namely the fact that the hymen has been torn, so here is not spoken about a virgin.

Fair point. However, wooing a woman doesn't leave a trail... "the way of a man with a virgin/maiden" leads to the marriage bed, no?

"This is the way of an adulteress: She eats (eating here means having forbidden sexual relations) and wipes her mouth (mouth here is an euphimism for the female sexual organ) and says, 'I've done nothing wrong." because no trail is left, and nobody can prove anything anymore.

But it should be clear to everybody that here the "almah" is not a virgin.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And Matthew 1:23 (which quotes Isaiah 7:14) uses "parthenos," the greek word for, you guessed it, "virgin."

And how would the people being able to ascertain that the pregnant woman is a virgin? Did they come to look between her legs to see whether or not the hymen was still intact?

They would present their bedding. If it had blood on it (from the hymen breaking), she was clearly a virgin prior to having sex. If there was no blood, then she was not a virgin.

I recommend reading Matthew 1:18-25.

It is obvious that that is not a sign.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The sign was what God said to king Achaz: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

Look, I'm not denying that what was said in Isaiah wasn't to King Achaz.

I'm saying that it was a prophecy, contained within those words, of the Messiah.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

So you're calling the authors of the New Testament liars?

 

[Elia]

Except that it does, as I just showed you.

Bs"d

Show me a Hebrew-English dictionary where "almah" is translated as "virgin".

Sure it does.

Then why is the word almah not correctly translated in Isaiah 7 as "young women", and why in the majority of other places is it correct translated as young women or maid?

Now answer the first question: Why make such a prophecy? Women have children all the time. What's so special about the one in Isaiah?

I answered that already, but I'll do it again:

And how would the people being able to ascertain that the pregnant woman is a virgin? Did they come to look between her legs to see whether or not the hymen was still intact?

It is obvious that that is not a sign.

The sign was what God said to king Achaz: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

We see here in Isaiah 7, that king Achaz, the king of Judah, is afraid of two neighboring kings.
It is important to know that after the death of king Solomo the kingdom of Israel split up into two parts; into the kingdom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom om Judah was made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a part of the Levites. The kingdom of Israel was made up of the other ten tribes. Achaz was king over Judah, and in this prophecy the king of Israel is Pekah, the son of Remaliah. And Pekah had made a covenant with the king of Syria, called Resin, to attack together the kingdom of Judah.
This news caused king Achaz considerable stress, because he had a dark suspicion that things could very well turn out not so very rosy for him.

Therefore God sent Isaiah to Achaz, in order to tell him that things would work out just fine for him. God tells Achaz that he will give him a sign. Here is the sign: "14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and she called his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

God says that before the child of the young woman who is pregnant will grow up, the land of the two kings, Resin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel, will be deserted, that is devoid of people. Those two nations will be led into exile.

So the sign is the fact that before the young boy Immanuel will grow up, the lands of the enemies of king Achaz will be deserted. That sign is given to king Achaz, who lived about 700 years before JC.

And the Bible tells us that that sign has been fulfilled.

So God gave a sign to Achaz.

In the days of Achaz.

About 700 years before JC.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

Yes, it can, and is.

It is, but that is wrong. It is a corruption of the translations.

Was Rebekah a girl of marriagable age?
Was she a virgin?
Did not God have a very long time between Abraham telling his servant about the conditions for finding a woman for Isaac to marry,

Did he say anywhere she had to be a virgin?

Fair point. However, wooing a woman doesn't leave a trail... "the way of a man with a virgin/maiden" leads to the marriage bed, no?

We are not talking about wooing here, we are talking about intercourse.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Then explain how somebody can ascertain that a certain woman is a virgin. Do they check out her private parts, or do they have to believe her on her word?

And Matthew 1:23 (which quotes Isaiah 7:14) uses "parthenos," the greek word for, you guessed it, "virgin."

The Hebrew word for virgin is not almah, it is betulah.

You claim that 'almah' does mean virgin. The word "almah' means 'young woman', 'girl', and that is how even the modern Christian Bible translators translate it. Even the 400 year old King James translation translates 'almah' as 'maid' or 'damsel', except for Isaiah 7:14, because the translation has to fit the Christian religion.


'Almah' is the female form of the Hebrew word 'elem', that means 'young man'. Both words are made up of the three letter root ayin, lamed, mem (a-l-m), and the female form has a hee (h) added which makes it female. The female form of young man is young woman. It does not indicate anything about the woman being a virgin whatsoever.


When the Bible wants to indicate a woman who is a virgin, then the Bible uses the word 'Betulah'. A Jewish high priest may only marry a virgin woman, Leviticus 21:13-14; "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or one divorced or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people."


Here both times where the word 'virgin' is used, the Bible uses the word 'betulah'.


Deuteronomy 22:13-21 speaks about a man marrying a virgin, and complaining that he didn't find the tokens of virginity in her. Then the parents will take the sheet with the bloodstains and show it to the judges of the city, and they will fine the man that made that false accusation. Also in this story the Hebrew word for virgin is 'betulah', and not 'almah'. When there is spoken about the 'signs of virginity', the Hebrew word 'betuliem' is used. 'Betuliem' is the plural of 'betulah'.


Nowhere where the Bible wants to denote virginity is the word 'almah' used.

They would present their bedding. If it had blood on it (from the hymen breaking), she was clearly a virgin prior to having sex. If there was no blood, then she was not a virgin.

That has nothing to do with our case, because you claim a virgin birth, so no bloody sheets to show. And where the Bible speaks about that, in Deut 22, there it uses the word "betulah", and not "almah".

Look, I'm not denying that what was said in Isaiah wasn't to King Achaz.

I'm saying that it was a prophecy, contained within those words, of the Messiah.

So what you do is when God gives a sign to king Achaz, you rip that out of context, mistranslate it, and then claim that it is a messianic prophecy, bound to be fulfilled 700 years later.

But saying it doesn't make it so. It is a sign for king Achaz, a sign that has been fulfilled for king Achaz, 700 years before your messiah, and there is no indication whatsoever that it is also supposed to speak about the messiah, and about a virgin birth, to be fulfilled 700 years later.
It just isn't there.

And saying it just doesn't make it so.

So you're calling the authors of the New Testament liars?

Just read this: https://sites.google.com/view/ntprophecies/home and then draw your own conclusions.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Bs"d

Show me a Hebrew-English dictionary where "almah" is translated as "virgin".

I gave you one already.

Then why is the word almah not correctly translated in Isaiah 7 as "young women", and why in the majority of other places is it correct translated as young women or maid?

Because the immediate context, "young woman" would make sense. But in the greater context of the Bible, "virgin" makes sense. And since almah means BOTH, it was used.

I answered that already...

No, actually, you didn't.

You answered the second question I asked.

Here is the question again. It is a yes or no answer:

Is there any significance about a non-virgin woman (ie, a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man) becoming pregnant and bearing a son? Yes or no.

It is, but that is wrong. It is a corruption of the translations.

Because you say so?

Did he say anywhere she had to be a virgin?

The word means a woman of marriagable age.

In ancient cultures, women generally remained pure until they were married. Unless they were sluts, and then no one looking for a wife would want them.

Then explain how somebody can ascertain that a certain woman is a virgin. Do they check out her private parts, or do they have to believe her on her word?

Answered already in my previous post.

The Hebrew word for virgin is not almah, it is betulah.

Betulah is "virginity"

Almah is "virgin, young woman, maiden."

You claim that 'almah' does mean virgin. The word "almah' means 'young woman', 'girl',

Which are generally synonymous with "virgin."

I suggest that the only reason you're opposed to it meaning virgin is that if it DOES mean that, then your entire argument goes out the window.

and that is how even the modern Christian Bible translators translate it.

Because that's what it means.

Even the 400 year old King James translation translates 'almah' as 'maid' or 'damsel', except for Isaiah 7:14, because the translation has to fit the Christian religion.

The words are interchangeable.

'Almah' is the female form of the Hebrew word 'elem', that means 'young man'.

I would fathom that elem has the connotation of a young man who has never had sex....

IOW, a virgin.

Both words are made up of the three letter root ayin, lamed, mem (a-l-m), and the female form has a hee (h) added which makes it female. The female form of young man is young woman. It does not indicate anything about the woman being a virgin whatsoever.

Supra.

When the Bible wants to indicate a woman who is a virgin, then the Bible uses the word 'Betulah'. A Jewish high priest may only marry a virgin woman, Leviticus 21:13-14; "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or one divorced or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people."


Here both times where the word 'virgin' is used, the Bible uses the word 'betulah'.

So?

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 speaks about a man marrying a virgin, and complaining that he didn't find the tokens of virginity in her. Then the parents will take the sheet with the bloodstains and show it to the judges of the city, and they will fine the man that made that false accusation. Also in this story the Hebrew word for virgin is 'betulah', and not 'almah'. When there is spoken about the 'signs of virginity', the Hebrew word 'betuliem' is used. 'Betuliem' is the plural of 'betulah'.

So?

Nowhere where the Bible wants to denote virginity is the word 'almah' used.

So are you saying that Rebekah was not a virgin?

That Miriam (Moses' older sister) was not a virgin?

That the Shulamite girl was not a virgin?

That has nothing to do with our case, because you claim a virgin birth, so no bloody sheets to show. And where the Bible speaks about that, in Deut 22, there it uses the word "betulah", and not "almah".

It has everything to do with the case. The Bible is ONE book.

So what you do is when God gives a sign to king Achaz, you rip that out of context, mistranslate it, and then claim that it is a messianic prophecy, bound to be fulfilled 700 years later.

Ok, let's correct something here:

The fact remains, regardless of who Isaiah was talking about: Matthew used the prophecy to refer to Jesus, and in doing so, called him "Immanuel" (that is, "God with us").

Not the translators, not the Catholic church.

Matthew.

If you have an issue with that, then there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise, because Matthew is the one whom you have a problem with.

He is the one who used "parthenos," which does and can only, in fact, mean "virgin".

If you care to read it, this is an article that specifically deals with your complaints.

Is Jesus Really the Virgin-Born Child in Isaiah 7?

Isaiah’s prophecy of a virgin-born child seems more complicated in its original context. Is it really about Jesus?

www.thegospelcoalition.org

But saying it doesn't make it so. It is a sign for king Achaz, a sign that has been fulfilled for king Achaz, 700 years before your messiah, and there is no indication whatsoever that it is also supposed to speak about the messiah, and about a virgin birth, to be fulfilled 700 years later.
It just isn't there.

And saying it just doesn't make it so.

Supra.

Just read this: https://sites.google.com/view/ntprophecies/home and then draw your own conclusions.

Once more, this is a place for discussion, not a place to post your own articles.

 

[Elia]

Bs"d

Here is how google translate translates virgin: https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=iw&text=virgin&op=translate

It says betulah, and not almah.

Here is how it translates almah: https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=עלמה&op=translate

The main translation is "what" which should be ignored. Under that it says: "maiden, damsel, young woman, maid, lass".

No virgin to be found.



In this dictionary https://doitinhebrew.com/Translate/default.aspx?kb=US+US&l1=en&l2=iw when I type in virgin, it gives me betulah.

When I type in there "almah", it says young woman, maiden.

No virgin to be found.


This one https://www.morfix.co.il/עלמה gives me "maiden, miss" for "almah". No virgin to be found.

For the english word virgin it gives me "betulah".



This one https://dictionary.reverso.net/hebrew-english/עלמה/forced gives for "virgin" "betulah".

For "almah" it says "lady, miss, damsel"

I have a paper dictionary here, and it says "damsel, young women, miss".

I can go on like this, but the results will not change.


Just one more Christian online interlinear: https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa7.pdf

Where the KJV on the side says "virgin", the interlinear translation says "damsel".

Somebody who keeps on insisting that "almah" means "virgin", is trying to deceive himself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

google translate

Well there's your first problem. Google Translate is good for casual use, but it's not always accurate, and DEFINITELY shouldn't be used for translating ancient Hebrew.

Somebody who keeps on insisting that "almah" means "virgin", is trying to deceive himself.

The fact remains: Matthew quoted the passage in Greek, and used the word that does, in fact, mean "virgin," and did so when talking about Mary the mother of Jesus, and called Him "Immanuel."

 

[Elia]

Well there's your first problem. Google Translate is good for casual use, but it's not always accurate, and DEFINITELY shouldn't be used for translating ancient Hebrew.

Bs"d

Be that as it may, I brought also dictionaries, which say the same. And there are many more dictionaries you can check, and they will all say the same.

The fact remains: Matthew quoted the passage in Greek, and used the word that does, in fact, mean "virgin," and did so when talking about Mary the mother of Jesus, and called Him "Immanuel."

So Matthew goes wrong because he quotes a wrong translation.