Isaiah 7:14 - Virgin or Young Woman?

[Panayioti]

This is a common mistake in these debates!

Actually, had Isaiah used the word: betulah, a controversy could still be asserted, as the etymology or the ancient and historical use of this word also poses problems, and has referred to "young women" who may or may not have been virgins.

Again, Matthew knew of no qubbling over this verse, because there was none. Matthew has apllied this verse to an actual Woman: Mary, who was a virgin.

Try checking an additional source! Professor William Beck:

“I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin”.

(“What Does Almah Mean,” The Lutheran News, April 3, 1967, p. 6).

But again, Matthew was applying the verse to a specific Virgin, and her name was Mary, and Jesus was Virgin born!

I thought I explained why Dinah was called a virgin after her Rape. Please read my response carefully and you will discover what I said. This is also the same with Homer, which another posting also explained it.

Finally, what I said before is now coming out on the posts. Its Matthew's belief not 20/20 hinsight from us today that matters. What did Matthew Believe? Matthew believed Parthenos meant Virgin. Is is also safe to assume that many, if not all, jews during Matthews time believed this and associated this verse with a miraculus occurrence. You really don't need anymore examination into this.

Finally, the virgin birth, according to the Gosples, refers to Jesus Christ NOT Elias (Elijah). Sorry, can't agree on that one.

Peter

[Sacrificial Ram]

I thought I explained why Dinah was called a virgin after her Rape. Please read my response carefully and you will discover what I said. This is also the same with Homer, which another posting also explained it.

Finally, what I said before is now coming out on the posts. Its Matthew's belief not 20/20 hinsight from us today that matters. What did Matthew Believe? Matthew believed Parthenos meant Virgin. Is is also safe to assume that many, if not all, jews during Matthews time believed this and associated this verse with a miraculus occurrence. You really don't need anymore examination into this.

Finally, the virgin birth, according to the Gosples, refers to Jesus Christ NOT Elias (Elijah). Sorry, can't agree on that one.

Peter

No, it doesn't.. because Matthew was obviously working out of the greek, was written in Greek, and was unfamilar with a lot of the Hebrew traditions,
such as the use of doublets.

The Jews used the Hebrew. Almah, despite the christian claims to the contrary, means 'maiden', and is used in erotic settings , such as in the song of solomon. Therefore, Matthew's belief means nothing to the Jewish community.

[Menachem]

This is fuzzy canard if there ever was one. Matthew was applying the verse to Mary, the young woman who was a virgin. Matthew new of no such controversy, because there was none, and he was quoting from the Greek Septuagint translated 150 years before Jesus was born, and many more years before Matthew cited this verse.

Matthew wasn't speaking of a random "young women", and he didn't "interpret" or translate Isaiah 7:14, from Hebrew to Greek. Matthew, was not trying to fit Jesus' life into a traditional mold, but rather turned to Scripture to explain what had taken place in the event of the virgin birth.

The Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint was published or released around 150 B.C., so on what grounds can you question Matthew's motives or fluency in Hebrew?

"The apostle Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 and affirms that the prophecy is “fulfilled” in the virginal conception of Mary. Moreover, both Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to explain precisely the significance of the term “virgin” (Grk. parthenos).

Parthenos is found fifteen times in the New Testament. It never denotes a “young married woman,” but refers to a sexually pure person.

Richbee the term Parthenos was used for Dinah after she was raped by shechem in Genesis 34:2-4 explain that if it means exclusivly "virgin"

[Menachem]

This is a common mistake in these debates!

Actually, had Isaiah used the word: betulah, a controversy could still be asserted, as the etymology or the ancient and historical use of this word also poses problems, and has referred to "young women" who may or may not have been virgins.

Again, Matthew knew of no qubbling over this verse, because there was none. Matthew has apllied this verse to an actual Woman: Mary, who was a virgin.

Try checking an additional source! Professor William Beck:

“I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin”.

(“What Does Almah Mean,” The Lutheran News, April 3, 1967, p. 6).

But again, Matthew was applying the verse to a specific Virgin, and her name was Mary, and Jesus was Virgin born!

this guy is easily refutable with one verse. Proverbs 30:19. The way of a vulture in the sky; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman.
20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says, I have done nothing wrong.


the good ol' Almah here is an adulterous woman who has sex with everyone and then wipes it away and says "It wasn't me". to make a short Paraphrase of what is going on here.

Professor Beck didnt really look very hard....lol

[Menachem]

First, as with the reference to Dina in Genesis the very reason the word Parthenos is used to describe her After the rape is to demonstatrate the severity of the act performed on her which her brothers later avenged. (although as an aside they did fall in love later on so I never realy liked her brothers killing him and his people, but I understand the shame that was caused back in those times).

LOL...but that isnt what the text says. She was called a virgin after being raped its as simple as that.. You can sit there and explain until your blue in the face that it was denoting the severity...blah, blah, blah.... and it still does not change what the text is rendering and how it is used.

The word "Almah" is easily defendable as meaning only "young woman" Missionaries try to spin this and play on this and that just to make themselves look silly.

In hebrew we have different words with different meanings. The Term Na'arah means "little girl" the term Almah means "young woman" and the term Betulah means "virgin." Its as simple as that. There are Ala'mot(young women) that can be and are Betulot(virgins). A pregnant woman is definately not a betulah(virgin).

Shalom,

[kofh2u]

No, it doesn't.. because Matthew was obviously working out of the greek, was written in Greek, and was unfamilar with a lot of the Hebrew traditions,
such as the use of doublets.

The Jews used the Hebrew. Almah, despite the christian claims to the contrary, means 'maiden', and is used in erotic settings , such as in the song of solomon. Therefore, Matthew's belief means nothing to the Jewish community.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says it this way,

"'Almah" does not mean "virgin" (as given in A. V. and other versions; the only word meaning this is "betulah"), but "a young woman sexually mature," whether married or unmarried; the article "ha-" of "ha-'almah" is the generic article."


However wrong Christian are about almah meaning virgin, and uniformed almah means "a sexually mature young woman who was unmarried," Mary's confession after the crucifixion does not depend upon induendo of word connotations.

We are told directly that Mary had not been sexually active, but she was pregnant.
Impossible!

Unless Jesus turns out to be Elijah, who was miraculously returning:

Elijah was an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring, according to (Yal?u? Reubeni, Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color], 9a, ed. Amsterdam):

[Richbee]

The Jewish Encyclopedia says it this way,

"'Almah" does not mean "virgin" (as given in A. V. and other versions; the only word meaning this is "betulah"), but "a young woman sexually mature," whether married or unmarried; the article "ha-" of "ha-'almah" is the generic article."

Consider the source!

Betulah is yet again another word with a varied evolution of usage through time.

Unless Jesus turns out to be Elijah,

Actually, John the Baptist was like Elijah, but sorry, no reincarnation here or a return of the same person.

[Richbee]

this guy is easily refutable with one verse. Proverbs 30:19. The way of a vulture in the sky; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman.
20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says, I have done nothing wrong.


the good ol' Almah here is an adulterous woman who has sex with everyone and then wipes it away and says "It wasn't me". to make a short Paraphrase of what is going on here.

Professor Beck didnt really look very hard....lol

Who in this verse is referred to? That is, what is the Woman's name?

Matthew is referring to a nice Jewish woman, named, Mary, who was a Virgin, and gave birth to Jesus. Matthew applied the verse Isaiah 7:14 to what took place. Little did he know, some would waste thousands of hours over the Greek translation, since none existed at that time!

The reason the miracle of the Virgin Birth is attacked, is very simple, if Jesus was not Virgin born, then Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. How else could the Son of God come into the World, but by a miracle?!

[Richbee]

Richbee the term Parthenos was used for Dinah after she was raped by shechem in Genesis 34:2-4 explain that if it means exclusivly "virgin"

Many ancient words have evolved in their usage over time.

In any case, the Greek word parthenos is used 15 times in the NT, and this refers to a sexually pure person. Both Luke and Matthew go out of their way to desribe Mary, so one word does not deserve all this broohah and all this wasted time, in thread after thread on multiple forums.

And where did all this nonsense originate from?

Jewish Babylonian Talmud charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera.

Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:

“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera”.

In another example, Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera. (Note the recycled lie and the original source)

[Panayioti]

Many ancient words have evolved in their usage over time.

In any case, the Greek word parthenos is used 15 times in the NT, and this refers to a sexually pure person. Both Luke and Matthew go out of their way to desribe Mary, so one word does not deserve all this broohah and all this wasted time, in thread after thread on multiple forums.

And where did all this nonsense originate from?

Jewish Babylonian Talmud charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera.

Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:

“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera”.

In another example, Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera. (Note the recycled lie and the original source)

First, Matthew is Jewish working within Jewish tradition. Jesus Christ was Jewish and working within Jewish tradition. So double this and that mean nothing to me. Matthew's belief is what mattered. Further, St. Matthew's Gospel is the most Jewish of the Gospels aimed specifically at Jews. Therefore, Matthew was putting forward a belief that was present in his jewish community when he associated Isaiah 7:14, from the Septuagint, to the jews of his time. Translation and double whatevers have nothing to do with it.

Second, as with Dina I am LOL at you because its Hamor who is calling her a virgin, but you assume on your part that his son, Shekem, told his father that he raped her. In Hamor's mind she was still a virgin if Shekem did not tell him of the Rape. Further, before this Dina is called a virgin because that is what she was before the Rape. Calling Dina a virgin is a descriptive title that is common in ancient works whether Biblical or not as a form of description and you know that. If you don't, then you do now.

Finally, YOU CANNOT CHANGE GREEK! Parthenos means virgin. Its meant Virgin to the Septuagint translators of Isaiah and it meant Virgin to Matthew. Both translators and Matthew were Jewish and believed in the virgin birth of the Messiah.

Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. People have spent much time and energy to distort the most simple truth of Scripture behind things such as doublets of Hebrew words and sentence structure this and that. Fine, have at it, but it does not chage the fact that Matthew as a Jew Speaking to other Jews through his Gospel was putting forward a belief that was not foriegn to the Jews of his time.

Translation theories mean nothing compared to this simple fact as expressed in Matthews belief.

Peter

[Conductor42]

Well, I realize this is an oversimplification and I am comparing apples to oranges, but, since Homer has already been introduced into the conversation, would you read him as you would a dictionary?

I didn't even know about the Homer issue until this thread, so it isn't in the article. That being said, I'd really have to read the passage in his book in full context before I make any judgement.

( My word! I couldn't agree with you more concerning the apologetics/ counter-apologetics.)

Well, you may be being as unbiased as you can but can you avoid 20 centuries of Rabbinic mindset?

That doesn't apply here. I am a former Karaite (yes, they still exist. No, Anan ben David had nothing to do with Karaite Judaism!). When it comes to Rabbinic theology, I am still quite the am ha'aretz (uneducated person), and am very tainted by formerly anti-rabbinic thinking methods. But if I was more influenced by Rabbinic thinking, it'd be 23 centuries - earliest evidence of "Rabbinic" Judaism dates to then.

And a Westernized version at that?

You've got me there. But we all suffer there.

Consider that Isaiah would have been writing with a Mosaic mindset. He was a 6th century BC Hebrew, one of the faithful, a prophet no less and he would not be writing this particular passage in isolation but in context with his larger message.

I know. The context is an issue I will deal with in a 2nd article. I'm not combining them into one because of how... um... anylytically (sp?) I attack the meaning of the word, and the length of the articles. I don't want to overwhelm any person with information.

Let me ask you this: what is your purpose in pursuing this question?

I am building a site that is in part Counter-Apologetic. But I have an extreme distaste for how these areas have been handled in the past (by both sides). Right now I'm working on the articles on Isaiah 7:14, as well as a refutation of the Muslim claim that Mohammed is mentioned in the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon in your bible).

[Conductor42]

The Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint was published or released around 150 B.C., so on what grounds can you question Matthew's motives or fluency in Hebrew?

Assuming parthenos means virgin, and only that, I can do so on the grounds that the Jewish translators of the LXX only translated the Torah.

[Conductor42]

You have no evidence to disprove Matthew's description of Mary.

Mary is not the issue of this thread. As the thread starter, I would ask that this thread be kept to criticism of my article and not issues irrelevant to the OP. Emotional topics not related to this issue neither prove your case to me nor do they help me to revise the article to increase it's accuracy.

[Conductor42]

This is a common mistake in these debates!

Actually, had Isaiah used the word: betulah, a controversy could still be asserted, as the etymology or the ancient and historical use of this word also poses problems, and has referred to "young women" who may or may not have been virgins.

Please post an example

Again, Matthew knew of no qubbling over this verse, because there was none. Matthew has apllied this verse to an actual Woman: Mary, who was a virgin.

That is an assumption on your part that is irrelevant to the OP. Please stick to the OP.

Try checking an additional source! Professor William Beck:

“I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin”.

(“What Does Almah Mean,” The Lutheran News, April 3, 1967, p. 6).

I can find other scholars who say the exact opposite. For the record, read Proverbs 30:19

[Conductor42]

I would again request that people stick to the OP, everyone. Ranting about something else will not cause me to consider your input (or ranting, period). Thanks to my Christian Cousins who have given helpful input so far.